City Council Minutes Page 1 of 29 February 9, 2026
*
City of Lafayette
City Council Minutes
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall February 9, 2026 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 6:00 p.m.
As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may participate virtually. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. Unless required by the Brown Act, City Council/Board meetings will continue despite technical difficulties for participants using the teleconferencing (Zoom) option. To participate virtually in the City of Lafayette’s public meetings and provide public comment, please follow these steps:
1. Watch or Listen: Meetings are broadcast on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel:
http://bit.ly/LoveLafayetteYouTube.
2. Submit Comments Before the Meeting: Members of the public can provide public comment by sending an e-mail to [email protected] for City Council meetings no later than noon the day of the meeting. Those e-mails will be distributed to City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney, and will be posted as part of the public record.
3. Live Remote Public Comments: Technology permitting, members of the public may submit live public comment via Zoom conferencing by using the link below. You must download the Zoom app or software. Zoom meetings can be accessed by telephone, computer, or smart device. When the Mayor invites public comment for the item on which you would like to comment, please use the "raise hand" feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone only) to alert staff you have a public comment to provide. Each speaker is allowed three (3) minutes to speak.
4. At the time and date of the meeting, please click this URL to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89008805648?pwd=ODQxRGxzaGNHSWVITUVFalFuUHBIZz09 Passcode: 426199 Or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128
Webinar ID: 890 0880 5648 Passcode: 426199
City Council Minutes Page 2 of 29 February 9, 2026
1. CALL TO ORDER – 6:00 P.M.
Mayor Anduri the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Anduri, Vice Mayor McCormick; Councilmembers Candell, Cervantes, and Wotherspoon
Absent: None
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Assistant City Manager; Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Nichole Zittel, Associate Planner; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. Disclosure and/or Take Action on Remote Participation due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances Pursuant to AB 2449 (Gov. Code section 54953(f).)
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Mayor Anduri proposed moving Items 17 and 18 ahead of Item 15. Councilmember Wotherspoon will be recusing herself so she can leave beforehand.
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 ITEMS ON THE CLOSED SESSION – 6:00 P.M. – None.
6. CLOSED SESSION
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
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION – 7:04 p.m.
Mayor Anduri announced there was no reportable action taken in Closed Session.
7. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – 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 29 February 9, 2026
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For items not on the agenda)
LISA DISBROW, Moms for Liberty and Patriots of Contra Costa, spoke of her dismay of comments made by Richmond Mayor Eduardo Martinez regarding anti-Semitic.
10. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa gave the following update:
• The Lafayette Senior Services Commission is partnering with the Police Department to offer CHP’s Age Well Drive Smart class on Thursday, February 26th from 10 a.m. to 12 noon at the Community Center. Sign-ups can be done on the City’s website.
• After many years of planning, the Lafayette Town Center Pathway and BART Station Improvement Project will begin on February 23rd. Portions of the parking lot on the south side of BART will close starting February 23rd and the project is expected to last several months. It will result in a bike station at the southern entrance to BART, providing secure parking for 80 bicycles, a pedestrian plaza and turn-around, and public art. There will be some inconveniences but the end result will be a welcoming addition to Lafayette, provide a safe and secure way for people to exit the south side of the BART station, and walk along an ADA-compliant pedestrian and bike pathway to downtown Lafayette.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
11. PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Anduri provided introductory and background comments, stating Lafayette’s Mission Statement calls out its commitment to lifelong learning and, through the City’s Public Art Committee and its 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, these civic values will be strengthened 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 second presentation. Kathy Bowles of the Park Theater Trust Board, will talk about renovation of the Park Theater and the contribution it will make not to the vibrancy of the downtown, but also to the vibrancy of their arts community A. Kathy Bowles, Board Member, Park Theater Trust
Lafayette Civic Values: Lifelong Learning and the Arts
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Kathy Bowles, President of the Park Theater Trust, thanked the City Council and community partners for their longstanding commitment to arts, culture, and lifelong learning. She highlighted the Park Theater’s historic role as a cultural cornerstone since its opening in 1941 and outlined the Trust’s efforts to restore and revitalize the long-closed cinema.
In 2021, the all-volunteer nonprofit purchased the property with the goal of preserving its historic architecture and marquee. The organization is nearing its $15 million fundraising goal to transform the single-screen theater into a sustainable two-screen cinema featuring expanded lobby space, a community venue, commercial kitchen, rooftop terrace with solar panels, and professional operation by Cinema SF Bay.
City Council Minutes Page 4 of 29 February 9, 2026
Ms. Bowles emphasized the architectural significance of the building, designed by William B. David in the Streamline Moderne style, and the rare 1941 nouveau glass marquee. Restoration efforts will preserve and replicate key historic elements while modernizing the facility with improved acoustics, HVAC, and updated amenities.
She concluded by expressing confidence that the restored Park Theater will serve as a cultural catalyst for the broader community and requested continued support for the project.
Mayor Anduri thanked Ms. Bowles for all of the work done since 2019 for the Park Theater and asked for any questions.
Councilmember Cervantes inquired about the project timeline. Ms. Bowles responded that the target opening date is early 2027. She noted delays over the holidays and during the permitting process but acknowledged the City, County, and utility partners for advancing the project. Construction is expected to take approximately 14 months, with efforts underway to potentially shorten that timeframe.
Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers thanked Ms. Bowles for her presentation. Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
B. Chief James Williams
Introduction of Officers Daniel Harper and Hunter Barreuther; Youth Services Officer Tanner Blank; and 2025 Lafayette PD Officer of the Year, Detective Michael Polen Recommendation: Receive and file.
Police Chief James Williams introduced Officers Daniel Harper and Hunter Barreauther, Youth Services Officer Tanner Blank, and the 2025 Officer of the Year, Detective Michael Polen. He then showcased each officers’ background, work experience, education and hobbies. He then recognized Police Department staff, officers, and their 2025 Officer of the Year, Detective Michael Polen.
Chief Williams then provided an overview of Detective Polen’s accomplishments, work under heavy caseloads, said he possesses a rare passion for criminal investigation and offender accountability, and described Detective Polen’s work in actively locating and arresting suspects, personally making arrests across 7 counties in California, including one as far as Orange County. He spoke of his demeanor, missionfocused attitude, enthusiasm, all of which exceed expectations, and his contributions have significantly enhanced investigative outcomes for the Lafayette Police Department and surrounding agencies. He is highly valuable whose work ethic, leadership and integrity reflect the highest standards of the Office of the Sheriff. He asked everybody to join him in welcoming and recognizing Detective Michael Polen, 2025 Lafayette PD Officer of the Year.
A round of applause followed, and Detective Polen provided brief remarks and thanked the City Council, Chief Williams and officers.
Councilmembers recognized the work of Detective Polen at the Art & Wine Festival where he captured an offender, thanked him and all officers for their work serving Lafayette, and voiced appreciation of being able to have a department of such high quality.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
City Council Minutes Page 5 of 29 February 9, 2026
12. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Anduri asked if Councilmembers or member of the public wished to remove any items, and there were no requests and no public comments.
A. City Council Minutes
January 26, 2026
Recommendation: Approve.
B. Lifting the suspension of approvals of special events at Lafayette Plaza and City-owned Parking Lots
Recommendation: Lift the suspension on the approval of special events in Lafayette Plaza and City-owned parking lots.
C. Declare equipment described as surplus property
Recommendation: Declare that the equipment described is surplus property and donate or sell as appropriate.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/McCormick) to adopt Consent Calendar Items A, B, and C. Roll Call Vote:
5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
13. OLD BUSINESS – None.
14. STAFF REPORTS
A. Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager and Heather Ward, Management Analyst Food Trucks Activity in Downtown Lafayette
Recommendation: Discuss and provide direction to staff.
Management Analyst Heather Ward provided the staff report and overview of the food truck activity and whether the Council should consider whether an ordinance or parking restrictions would be appropriate to regulate food truck activity in the downtown core. Staff developed a survey and spoke with each food truck operator. Three trucks are currently operating in the downtown commercial district and she described how long they have been in operation, stating staff provided notice to each operator on tonight’s meeting agenda and staff report.
Ms. Ward then provided an overview of City and County regulations of food truck operations and enforcement actions noting two tickets have been issued to one of the food trucks for failure to pay a parking meter but both tickets have been paid. Code enforcement staff have responded to multiple complaints involving food vendors placing tables, chairs, signage, and other objects within the public right-of-way on sidewalks. Vendors have generally been compliant when contacted by code enforcement and instructed to remove items; however, staff has observed repeated occurrences of the same violations. No complaints have been received related to noise or garbage from the food trucks.
She then presented information on sales tax which was not addressed in the staff report, stating the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration provides clear guidance to mobile food vendors on reporting and paying sales tax. It outlines that mobile food vendors are required to register for a seller’s permit and report sales tax based on the location where each sale occurs. If vendors fail to report or accurately report, they may be subject to an audit by CDTFA.
City Council Minutes Page 6 of 29 February 9, 2026
In summary, staff provides an initial review of food truck operations in Lafayette bounded by the nature of the Chamber of Commerce’s request, and she is available to answer questions and take direction to further elaborate and evaluate this issue.
Vice Mayor McCormick inquired about the status of food truck health certificates, and Ms. Ward confirmed that none currently hold valid 2026 permits. While some operators have indicated their applications are pending, enforcement authority rests with the County. Staff has contacted the County for confirmation but has not yet received a response. A complaint has been submitted through the County’s Environmental Health portal, and staff will continue to follow up.
Vice Mayor McCormick also asked whether food trucks are paying local and state sales taxes. Staff explained that vendors are required to do so, though the City does not have direct access to verify compliance. The City may formally request limited seller’s permit registration information from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), but state law prohibits access to tax returns, sales data, or audit records. Staff noted that some cities have implemented mobile vendor permit systems requiring vendors to self-certify tax compliance. Although Lafayette does not have a business license tax, vendors are still obligated to self-report and remit applicable taxes.
Councilmember Candell asked if any of their neighboring cities have any ordinances for food trucks. Ms.
Ward said yes; Concord, Martinez, and others have them or have been exploring them but for the purposes of this staff report, she did not elaborate on that information in the staff report.
Councilmember Cervantes asked if similar issues have surfaced in other cities, and Ms. Ward said she has not done a deep exploration into that issues. She thinks some cities have restricted food trucks in certain locations in response to complaints or concerns from businesses.
Councilmember Wotherspoon asked about a coffee pickup truck and trailer she has occasionally seen in town and whether the reported list of three food trucks was based on a recent survey. Ms. Ward explained that the former coffee truck operator sold the business in November, and the new operator has not returned to the area. Staff’s report therefore focused on the three food trucks currently operating more regularly.
She also contacted the Cousins Lobster truck, which operates in Lafayette approximately once per quarter, and did not include it in the report due to its infrequent presence downtown.
Councilmember Wotherspoon further inquired whether certain trucks, such as those seen in the Round Up parking lot, were invited to operate there. Ms. Ward noted she has observed food trucks at locations including in front of Trader Joe’s and stated that some trucks have been invited to participate in community events, such as AARD Sundays in the Oakbridge parking lot and other City-sponsored events. This issue was not addressed in the Chamber of Commerce letter, but staff can provide additional clarification. Historically, food trucks have also been invited to participate in special events such as National Night Out.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
SONIA NAWABI, owner of 360 Gourmet Burritos and Oasis Café, said that after operating for 20 years, her sales have dropped about 35% over the past 6–8 months due to multiple food trucks parking near Trader Joe’s all day. Because her fast-casual restaurant relies heavily on the lunch rush—making up 70–75% of her business—the presence of three food trucks operating most days has significantly hurt her sales. She raised concerns about fairness, noting her overhead costs and that the trucks do not feed parking meters, and asked the City Council to take action.
City Council Minutes Page 7 of 29 February 9, 2026
Councilmember Cervantes discussed the decline and number of hours food trucks operate with her, and she emphasized that while the economy is struggling overall, the increasing number of food trucks and their hours of operation is a major factor affecting her and potentially other nearby restaurants.
NICO TZIKAS, owner of Rancho Cantina, said he and his wife bought the restaurant two years ago and understands how difficult it is to operate a small business after going through the SBA loan process. While he supports other local restaurants, he believes having a Mexican food truck directly across from his Mexican restaurant takes away business and reflects poor judgment. With slim profit margins of 5–15%, even small daily losses add up and may force staffing cuts, reduced hours, or menu changes. He expressed concern that the number of food trucks could grow unchecked, undermining the significant investment he has made in marketing and community support, and emphasized his desire to continue operating and giving back in Lafayette.
MARIA GASTELUMENDI said the presence of food trucks is harming small businesses and also undermining community and environmental efforts in Lafayette. Speaking as a resident and volunteer, she noted that food trucks conflict with sustainability goals by increasing pollution, idling for long hours despite the city’s idle-free policy, and generating emissions and noise. She expressed frustration that the City has not responded to complaints or enforced existing regulations, including limits on how long food trucks may stay. She urged the City Council to take action, support local restaurants, and uphold environmental and health standards the community relies on.
GIA ESQUIVEL, creator of La Bikina Mexican Cuisine, said she started the food truck at age 17 to support her college education and emphasized that her business follows City rules by paying parking meters, maintaining cleanliness, and operating limited hours from Wednesday to Saturday, 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. She stated that she does not intend to compete with local restaurants and apologized if food trucks have negatively affected them, noting her truck serves customers seeking quick service rather than sit-down dining. In response to Council questions, she confirmed the business operates under her father’s name due to her being a minor, that they pay sales tax to Lafayette, has a seller’s permit, sets up before 11 a.m. but only serves during stated hours, and has all required permits, including an up-to-date 2026 County Health permit.
SHEILA TOLBERT, Concord resident, said she is a strong supporter of food trucks in Lafayette. She knows Hummus Bodega in San Francisco when she lived in San Francisco and loves them. She expressed strong support for food trucks in Lafayette, saying they attracted her to the city and helped her discover local restaurants and businesses. Living in Concord, she was introduced also to food trucks through well-known vendors and special community events in Lafayette and drawing on experiences from larger cities and her small hometown in Oklahoma, food trucks promote culture, inclusivity, and economic vitality, and cautioned that cities should carefully consider the long-term impact before discouraging or denying businesses that can help communities grow.
NATALIE BENN, a lifelong Lafayette resident, shared her strong support for Hummus Bodega. She described her deep roots in the community, noting that her father established multiple local businesses after arriving in the 1960s, and emphasized her pride in being part of Lafayette’s Jewish community.
Drawing on her professional experience in the food and event planning industry, she expressed appreciation for the convenience and value that food vendors bring to residents with busy schedules.
City Council Minutes Page 8 of 29 February 9, 2026
Ms. Benn highlighted that Hummus Bodega is the only kosher food option in the broader area, making it uniquely important to the local Jewish community. While a small kosher market recently opened in Lafayette, it offers limited products and no ready-to-eat hot meals. Without Hummus Bodega, residents must travel to Oakland, San Francisco, or the South Bay for kosher dining options. She stated that the truck has helped meet a longstanding need, supports keeping business local, and fosters a sense of inclusion and community pride. She expressed concern that losing the truck would alienate a significant population and urged that it be allowed to continue operating.
Councilmember Candell noted that the Council received numerous letters in support of Hummus Bodega and confirmed it is currently located near Trader Joe’s alongside other food trucks. She asked whether the truck could viably operate in another location, such as closer to Golden Gate Way, or whether its current location is particularly important.
Ms. Benn responded that she could not speak on behalf of the operator regarding an ideal location. She noted the truck had previously operated near the kosher market on Golden Gate Way but had limited visibility and access there. She described the Mt. Diablo Boulevard area near Wells Fargo and Trader Joe’s as the central hub of activity in Lafayette, offering greater exposure. She also commented that parking near the smaller strip can be challenging due to parallel parking constraints. While she personally finds the current location accessible, she believes community members would continue to support the truck wherever it operates, provided it remains in the area with adequate parking and accessibility.
LISA DISBROW expressed support for the food trucks, emphasizing that Lafayette is known throughout the Bay Area for its dining scene and community events such as the Taste of Lafayette. She referenced the City’s longstanding slogans—“Diversity is our strength,” “All are welcome,” and “Love Lafayette”— and stated that the food trucks reflect those values by contributing to diversity and inclusion within the local business community.
She noted the growing demand for mobile services of all kinds, attributing it to increasingly busy lifestyles.
Food trucks, she said, provide a convenient and often more affordable dining option compared to traditional restaurants, which can be cost-prohibitive for some families and students. She added that they offer a practical solution for quick, accessible meals, particularly for families managing school and sports schedules. Drawing on her experience as the daughter of a small business owner, she acknowledged that competition is inherent in business, as seen among local gas stations, grocery stores, and restaurants. She urged the Council to recognize food trucks as part of Lafayette’s economic diversity and to support their continued presence in the community.
BRIAN PARSONS, representing Vibrant Lafayette, stated that while the organization supports protecting existing small businesses, it also sees a need to attract new and dynamic offerings that bring energy and foot traffic to downtown. He expressed that Lafayette currently lacks initiatives specifically focused on drawing new activity and revenue to the area. While acknowledging the Chamber of Commerce’s role in supporting its members, he emphasized the importance of creating pathways for emerging businesses— such as food trucks—to establish themselves locally and become long-term contributors to the community.
City Council Minutes Page 9 of 29 February 9, 2026
Mr. Parsons voiced support for concepts like Hummus Bodega, citing unmet needs such as the lack of kosher dining options in the area. He suggested the City explore data-driven strategies to identify business gaps and recruit complementary enterprises. Vibrant Lafayette would like to see the creation of a program, commission, economic development forum, or partnership with the Chamber to better support entrepreneurs and small businesses seeking to operate in Lafayette. He also noted that the group has been in discussions with Curbline about potential food truck pop-ups in La Fiesta Square and expressed a desire to collaborate on solutions that both introduce exciting new businesses and increase traffic for existing merchants.
LAURA MAGU, owner of Rev Bistro and a Chamber of Commerce Board member, shared her perspective as a longtime restaurant owner and entrepreneur in Lafayette. While expressing admiration for the young food truck operator and support for the presence of a kosher food truck, she raised broader concerns about the cumulative impact of multiple food trucks operating downtown. She emphasized the significant financial obligations faced by brick-and-mortar restaurants, including monthly rents ranging from $20,000 to $30,000, along with other operating expenses. She questioned what would occur if the number of food trucks increased to four, six, or even ten along the downtown corridor, suggesting that storefront businesses could be placed at a competitive disadvantage if trucks are able to operate with fewer overhead costs and limited regulation.
She urged the Council to focus on establishing a fair and consistent policy for downtown operations rather than evaluating individual food trucks and suggested exploring designated locations or other regulatory solutions to ensure an equitable framework that supports the overall health and sustainability of Lafayette’s downtown business community.
Vice Mayor McCormick said he has been working with the Chamber of Commerce on this topic for six to nine months and would offer some comments based on his research and findings. It is difficult and unusual to put true regulations around food trucks. You cannot say someone cannot park a food truck somewhere, as they are a legally operating business in California. As a City, they cannot prefer one kind of business over another. He is not a legal expert, but it can be difficult to impose regulations. What he thinks is important is that the City should ensure whatever laws are followed that exist. It is important food trucks have a health permit and pay tax. He knows how expensive it is to own and operate a restaurant in town and the food trucks have certain advantages and certain disadvantages. In looking at regulations, there is not much the City can do around food trucks and their locations.
Councilmember Candell said she thinks the question is whether the Council wants to look at these things.
She is definitely in favor of learning more about it and she would like to know what the City can or cannot do and understand their limits if there are limits. This would also help educate the public, as well. So, she is in favor of looking into this more if there is the ability by staff to do that.
Councilmember Cervantes expressed that he currently has more questions than answers regarding the issue. He voiced concern for local brick-and-mortar businesses, acknowledging the significant financial pressures they face, including high rents and fixed operating costs. He noted that reported sales declines of 30% to 35% are substantial and could threaten the viability of existing restaurants. He cautioned that the City would not want to see an increase in vacant storefronts due to an inability to compete.
City Council Minutes Page 10 of 29 February 9, 2026
While there are presently three primary food trucks operating downtown, Councilmember Cervantes raised concerns about the potential impact if that number were to grow significantly. He questioned whether there may be a tipping point at which the presence of additional trucks could affect the overall vitality of local restaurants.
He also expressed interest in learning how other cities are addressing similar issues, emphasizing that Lafayette is not alone in facing these challenges. While he is mindful of the complexities of regulation and does not necessarily favor overly burdensome measures, he would like to better understand the range of policy options and approaches that other communities have implemented to inform the City’s decisionmaking.
Vice Mayor McCormick noted that the Town of Moraga is approximately one year ahead of Lafayette in addressing food truck regulation, having identified it as a 2025 Council priority. He explained that Moraga’s planning department has prepared a staff report outlining regulatory options, including a review of approaches used by surrounding cities. He expects Moraga’s Council to consider and provide direction on those recommendations in the coming weeks.
He suggested that Lafayette monitor Moraga’s process and outcomes as a potential resource. He emphasized that much of the issue centers on enforcing existing regulations, which already require food trucks to maintain valid health permits, park legally, pay meters, and comply with cleanliness standards.
Once Moraga finalizes its feedback, he believes Lafayette could use that information to help evaluate its own regulatory options.
Councilmember Wotherspoon said she would support staff coming back with an analysis, including what Moraga has found out. She would be interested in what options there are for having a clustered site option, if that is something they are able to do. Then, if so, what would be some location options as well.
Vice Mayor McCormick said Orinda has this. They have a food truck night on Thursdays where they are all clustered around the library. This is what they said could happen by limiting a day and they actually seek out bringing food trucks to that area to have people come. So, they do not restrict it, but they just do it as an event by inviting food trucks there for residents.
Councilmember Wotherspoon said she was thinking of more formal options and set ups she has seen in Portland, Oregon and also in Hawaii where they are often in parking lots who are there every day and all day long. It is the equivalent of a brick-and-mortar. It is unique and customized for food trucks.
Mayor Anduri acknowledged recent media coverage of Central Valley cities dedicating vacant lots to food trucks but noted that Lafayette’s situation is different. He emphasized that this is the Council’s first discussion on the topic and no immediate decisions are expected. He suggested that staff be directed to return with follow-up information, with the primary goal of ensuring food trucks operate on a level playing field with brick-and-mortar restaurants by complying with existing regulations.
He recommended that staff verify that all food trucks hold valid health permits and ensure they are paying Lafayette sales tax, including providing operators with the State’s mobile food truck sales tax guide and coordinating with the State as needed. Mayor Anduri also suggested researching how other cities, such as Moraga, Concord, and Martinez, regulate food trucks and involving the City Attorney to clarify legal parameters and potential actions.
City Council Minutes Page 11 of 29 February 9, 2026
Vice Mayor McCormick added that staff should compile and communicate a clear list of operational rules for food trucks, including meter payment and cleanliness standards, in response to complaints. Mayor Anduri agreed, noting that code enforcement visits could help ensure compliance, but also cautioned that enforcement requires City resources and staff time.
Councilmember Wotherspoon expressed concern about reports that food trucks sometimes block or obstruct the public right-of-way, noting that while tables or signs may be moved when requested, the issue can recur. She asked what ordinances exist to ensure sidewalks remain clear for pedestrians.
Ms. Ward responded that she would need to consult with the code enforcement officer. She noted that there is a specific ordinance regarding signage—prohibiting A-frame signs—but the current sidewalk restriction ordinance is located under grading regulations, making it difficult to enforce in relation to food trucks. She suggested that the ordinance could potentially be revised or relocated to better address sidewalk obstructions, but indicated that would require guidance from the City Attorney.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian confirmed that nothing can encroach on the sidewalks, so if that was what the Council wanted to do, code enforcement can continue to regulate that because it must be accessible to pedestrians and for ADA purposes.
Councilmember Wotherspoon added that their Transportation Manager is currently wrapping up a parking study and she would love to know how the findings or recommendations in that study might potentially impact food truck’s use of the parking spaces in the right-of-way.
Mayor Anduri confirmed staff had direction to proceed with the level playing field items, bring it back to the Council with more information to think about what to do, if anything, going forward. He thanked everybody for their comments on the item.
17. COUNCIL / COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Mayor Anduri reported that on February 3rd they held their first Welcome Event for Newcomers in Lafayette, spearheaded by the Lafayette Juniors who did a great job organizing it in collaboration with the City and Lafayette Library and Learning Center Foundation and many other participating organizations including the Chamber of Commerce and Lafayette Rotary. The next event will be on Thursday, July 30th.
Councilmember Cervantes provided an update on wildfire preparedness, Lafayette’s top priority. He recognized Andy Comly for his leadership in a Contra Costa Office of Emergency Services tabletop exercise involving 19 cities, noting Lafayette is well-represented and well-prepared. He reported that the City’s Emergency Operations Plan is currently being updated. Firewise representative Stephanie Bontemps shared that Lafayette now has at least 35 Firewise communities, nearing 40, reflecting significant progress.
Councilmember Cervantes also reported on the East Bay Wildfire Working Group meeting hosted by Senator Grayson, where $314 million in wildfire-related funding was discussed, along with additional but smaller Prop 4 funds. Senator Grayson is prioritizing projects and sponsoring SB 959, which would create a “Red Flag Day” policy allowing closures during high fire risk without loss of state funding.
City Council Minutes Page 12 of 29 February 9, 2026
He concluded with reflections from a recent trip to Washington, D.C., where he attended a family member’s promotion ceremony at the National War College. Drawing parallels between military leadership and public service, he emphasized the shared oath taken by public officials and military officers to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.
Vice Mayor McCormick reported that he and Councilmember Wotherspoon attended the annual Recycle Smart Board retreat, where they discussed plans for the coming year. He highlighted Lafayette’s strong commitment to sustainability, including efforts to increase food scrap collection in green bins. He also shared updates from his role on the MCE Board, noting that discussions are underway to reduce energy rates beginning in May to provide customer relief. He emphasized that approximately 90% of Lafayette residents are MCE customers.
Councilmember Wotherspoon reported that the TransCirc Commission received a strong presentation from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) on the Lamorinda and Countywide Smart Signals program. She suggested inviting CCTA to present to the City Council to provide further information on the program and its anticipated benefits.
She also requested a future agenda item to follow up on Vice Mayor McCormick’s prior remarks regarding e-bikes, recommended a comprehensive update on related City and staff activities, including the regional task force initiated by Danville, in which Andy Comly participates; local police department experiences; relevant state legislative efforts; and East Bay Regional Park District considerations regarding trails under its jurisdiction.
18. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Requestsfrom Steve Poling, Lafayette DEIB Committee; Brad Crane, Sustainable Lafayette; Sara Regan, ExecutiveDirector, Lafayette Chamber of Commerce; Eric Shawn, Principal, Acalanes High School; Matt Pease, Rotary Club of Lafayette; for upcoming events in 2026.
1. Request from Lafayette DEIB Committee, Acalanes High School, and the Acalanes Parent Club Campus Culture Committee to use Lafayette Plaza on Saturday, April 11, 2026, to include amplified sound, music, and food. The Lafayette DEIB, Acalanes High School, and Acalanes Parents’ Club will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closures and No Parking areas as described in Resolution 2026-15 Exhibit A.
2. Request from Sustainable Lafayette to use Lafayette Plaza on Sunday, April 26, 2026 for Earth Day Festival from 8:00am to 4:00pm. Sustainable Lafayette will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closures and No Parking areas as described in Resolution 2026-15 Exhibit B.
3. Request from the Chamber of Commerce to use Lafayette Plaza on Tuesday, May 19 from 4:00pm -8:30pm for the annual Taste of Lafayette. The Chamber will secure an ABC daily liquor license and provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured.
The Chamber will work in cooperation and coordination with the police and public works departments, and the City’s will assist in publicizing the event in Vistas, Roundup and the Parks and Recreation newsletter. Street closure and No Parking areas as described in Resolution 2026-15 Exhibit C.
City Council Minutes Page 13 of 29 February 9, 2026
4. Request from Eric Shawn, Principal of Acalanes High School, to use Lafayette Plaza Thursday, May 21, 2026 from 2:00pm to 5:30pm for the Acalanes Senior Rally end-of-year celebration honoring the Class of 2026. Acalanes High School District will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closure and No Parking areas as described in Resolution 2026-15 Exhibit D.
5. Request from the Chamber of Commerce to use Lafayette Plaza for the “Rock the Plaza” summer concert series on Friday evenings, June 5 and June 12 from 4:00-10:00pm and Friday, June 26 for the Lamorinda Arts Council’s annual Lamorinda Idol performances. The Chamber will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured and work in cooperation and coordination with the Police and Public Works departments.
Street closure and No Parking areas described in Resolution 2026-15 Exhibit E.
6. Request from the Chamber of Commerce for the annual Lafayette Art & Wine Festival from 7:00pm Friday, September 18 until 10:00pm Sunday, September 21. Permission to continue the banner program on the medium light poles, cooperation and coordination with the Police and Public Works departments, and the City’s assistance in publicizing the event in Vistas, Roundup and the Parks and Recreation newsletter. The Chamber will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closure and No Parking areas described in Resolution 2026-15 Exhibit F.
7. Request from the Chamber of Commerce for the annual Res Run for Education on Sunday, October 18 from 6:00-11:00am. Assistance and cooperation and coordination with the Police and Public Works departments, the City’s assistance in publicizing the event in the Vistas, Roundup and the Parks and Recreation newsletter. The Chamber will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closure and No Parking areas described in Resolution 2026-15 Exhibit G.
8. Request from the Chamber of Commerce to use Lafayette Plaza on Friday, October 30 for the annual Trick-or-Treat Street from 4:00- 6:00pm. The Chamber will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closure and No Parking areas described in Resolution 2026-15 Exhibit H.
9. Request from the Chamber of Commerce to use Lafayette Plaza on Friday, December 4 from 4:00-6:00pm for the annual “It’s a Wonderful Life” in Lafayette Holiday Celebration. A Holiday Tree will go up in the Plaza on until January 1, 2027. The Chamber will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closure and No Parking areas described in Resolution 2026-15 Exhibit I.
10. Request from the Rotary Club of Lafayette to use Plaza on Saturday, April 4, 2026 from 9:30- 11:00am for the annual Candy Scramble. The Rotary Club will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closure and No Parking areas described in Resolution 2026-15 Exhibit J.
Recommendation: Approve these special events and adopt Resolution 2026-15 for the special event street closures and no parking areas.
City Council Minutes Page 14 of 29 February 9, 2026
Mayor Anduri said Item 1 has been withdrawn and the Resolution being amended to state it has been “withdrawn” and Exhibit A will be deleted. He asked if there were any questions, and there were none.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/McCormick) to withdraw Item 19.A.1 and approve the remaining special events and adopted Resolution 2026-15 with Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J for the special event street closures and no parking areas. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
BREAK
Mayor Anduri called for a 5-minute break at 9:52 p.m. and reconvened the regular meeting at approximately 9:57 p.m.
15. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Nichole Zittel, Associate Planner APPEAL BY MICHAEL HOFFMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF: V14-24, LLR04-24 Robinson Family Trust (Owner), LR-5 Zoning 19 Springhill Lane and 20 Springhill Lane:
Request for a lot line revision to adjust the lot line between 19 & 20 Springhill Lane, and a variance to allow a 120 sq. ft. garden shed to be located 25-ft. from the northern property line. APNs 231- 060-014 and 231-050-005.
Recommendation: Review the project, conduct a public hearing, find the project exempt from CEQA, and adopt Resolution 2026-12 denying the appeal in part and approving the lot line adjustment subject to conditions and denying the variance.
Recused: Councilmember Wotherspoon recused herself from participating in the matter because she is family friends with the appellant, and she left the meeting.
Associate Planner Nichole Zittel gave the staff report, background, and comprehensive overview of the appeal by Michael Hoffman of the Planning Commission’s approval of a variance and lot line revision application at 19 and 20 Springhill Lane. Staff recommends the Council review the project, hold the public hearing, find the project exempt from CEQA, and adopt Resolution 2026-12 denying the appeal in part and approving the lot line adjustment subject to conditions and denying the variance.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked and confirmed the Planning Commission approved the lot line adjustment and approved the variance, and staff’s recommendation is to deny the appeal, continue to approve the lot line adjustment, but reverse the PC’s decision and deny the variance.
Councilmember Cervantes asked and confirmed one consideration is the lot line adjustment and the other is the variance of the shed relative to the other property.
Councilmember Candell asked what is in the current barn and asked what is its current function now. Ms.
Zittel said she would let the applicant further elaborate on that, but there is a dwelling unit in the upstairs and downstairs is used for storage. It functions as a residence.
Councilmember Candell said she saw there were significant changes to the design of the gate from the original DRC approval in 2022. She asked if there is supposed to be a variance for that, as well because 6- foot fences are standard.
City Council Minutes Page 15 of 29 February 9, 2026
Planning and Building Director Greg Wolff said often times one will see these on a ranch which is a bar on two posts. The plans show that this structure is 51 feet from the property line so it would meet or exceed the setback and is the gate area where vehicles drive in.
Councilmember Candell said, hypothetically, if the applicants agree to try and rezone the initial parcel down to match the other neighbors’ houses and not to have the LR5 zoning but have more of what is on Springhill Lane, she asked if that gets them out of both variances for the shed and for the ADU.
Mr. Wolff said staff has not received an application for rezoning so they have not done the complete analysis. However, if it were to be rezoned to the R20 which the rest of the street is, 19 Springhill is outlined in green and it is the anomaly on the street with respect to zoning. The prior residence which was demolished was consistent with the development pattern on the rest of the street and not with what the underlying zoning is in red. Were it to be rezoned to R20 (yellow on the map), he believes the two structures subject of tonight’s meeting would meet the requirements of that R20 zoning.
Councilmember Candell asked if this has ever been done for a property after construction has occurred in Lafayette.
Mr. Wolff said he does not know that the timing of it is relative to construction happening is at issue. The issue the Council would consider at any point in time, with the Planning Commission first and then the Council, is whether the proposed zoning makes sense and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the area and that it would not be spot zoning it. So, really there is broad discretion and deference given to a community to zone its land appropriately and he thinks on the face of it, the fact that the prior house was consistent with the development pattern on the street of R20 suggests it might be an appropriate rezoning to make. But, that has not come before the City.
Councilmember Cervantes said there are several emails received that referenced a commercial enterprise involving a wine-tasting room and so on at the site. He wanted to understand if that is the case as planned.
Mr. Wolff said he would ask the applicant to speak to that as well. The applicant applied for a change to an interior space in the existing tunnel for a private residential wine-tasting room and that was a point of discussion during that public hearing, and the applicant has been explicit in their application and intention it is a private residential tasting room. There are many in the community the City have approved previously often in the basement because it is good for wine storage, and that was approved by the DRC.
Councilmember Cervantes confirmed therefore, there is no commercial enterprise here and it is a private activity in someone’s house.
Vice Mayor McCormick said he is a little intrigued by the situation where there are two things the Council is being asked to approve; one part of the appeal and deny the other. He asked why these are linked such that they are in one thing. He asked why they would appeal approval of a variance. He asked for the reason why staff is saying the Council should deny something that was approved by the PC. Normally, the Council is being asked to affirm something.
City Council Minutes Page 16 of 29 February 9, 2026
Mr. Wolff said this is generally the case. Staff has been consistent throughout with respect to the variance; that in their review of it, they are not able to make the findings of special circumstance which would allow the grant of the variance. Staff does not make the decision on the variance so staff is making a recommendation to the hearing body. First it was the Planning Commission and staff recommended denial. The Planning Commission in its deliberations determined it could make the finding that there were special circumstance, and those are articulated in the resolution. Staff maintains their initial recommendation throughout and, again, the Council in its deliberations could make a finding that staff is recommending against. He believes in the grand scheme of things, more often than not, hearing bodies agree with staff’s recommendations but it is by no means universal.
Councilmember Cervantes said in following that question thread, with respect to the variance as a setback required, given the LR5 zoning which is 50 feet, every other parcel along Springhill Lane is zoned R20. It is a different setback requirement. Mr. Wolff said for a side yard it would be 15 foot minimum.
Councilmember Cervantes said if that 19 Springhill Lane was zoned like the other parcels, it would be a 15-foot setback. The shed is at 25 feet so it would conform. It is just because it is zoned LR5 it is 50 feet.
Mr. Wolff confirmed.
Mayor Anduri called upon the applicant.
Pete Doctor, owner, said he and his wife Amanda have owned property on Springhill Lane for 18 years and their goal from the start has been to create a nice quiet respite for their family which they hope will soon include guest visits from their first grand-daughter due in April. This is not a commercial or public function for 19 or 20 Springhill Lane. They wanted their home to reflect the design aesthetic and history of Lafayette while also enhancing the safety of the turn-around. He thinks this re-design and rebuild of 19 Springhill, which is an extension of that project, is in keeping with this goal. To avoid further redundancy, he invited Mark Becker, the project designer to speak.
Mark Becker, project designer, said he has been working on this project for a very long time, said he would prefer to look at these individually as well. First, the lot line adjustment is straight-forward. What they are trying to do is enlarge the parcel to the 5-acre minimum it is designated but also the 440 square foot home they built there was approved based on the location relative to the original house. After they were fully permitted and well along their way and fully framed it was brought to staff’s attention that this is a setback problem where a 50-foot setback was needed. So, they are stuck with this project they already had approved. They have gone through the full process and have done everything “by the books” and so he came up with the idea to correct the situation by re-aligning the lot lines and categorizing the 440 square foot building as an ADU, thus requiring only a 4-foot side yard setback whereas they are 33 feet or so from the side property line.
What this does is it cleans up the lot size, addresses a later found non-conformity, the barn is 1,000 square foot single family home with all amenities, with the storage area below which is a garage and workshop, and so this can function as a primary residence. This is how they have achieved that and feels like it corrects all issues and cleans that up.
City Council Minutes Page 17 of 29 February 9, 2026
Regarding the potting shed, they approached staff with this and he asked staff to display the diagram showing the potting shed. He pointed to the hatched area below the yellow area and said that was approved on their grading plan by staff. It was closer to the street and closer to their neighbor. At that time, Jeff Adams wrote a letter of support saying he had no problem with their shed being built in that location. They later decided to push the shed further back and, because it is only 120 square feet and under 12 feet, it does not require a building permit. So, they worked with staff again and staff suggested talking with the neighbor. If the neighbor writes a letter of support staff could support this. They received another letter of support from the neighbor; however, they decided to add a toilet and sink, so they needed a building permit. They went back to staff and many other things occurred with their other neighbor across the way and staff said a variance was needed. So, they were naïve in following the protocol and now they are stuck with this shed that they could have built elsewhere.
He sort of disagrees with staff’s opinion but it is important to note that they did not support it at the Planning Commission level either. He read, “The Government Code Section 65906 states: A variance may be granted where special circumstances applicable to the property deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.” The catch phrase is under the same zoning classification. This references comparisons to properties under the same zoning classification. He believes the intent of that standard is “equitable treatment of similarly situated properties.” In physical and functional terms, this property was literally indistinguishable before they tore the house down from other properties in the street. So, he feels the strict application of the ordinance in this unique circumstance deprives them of the privileges enjoyed by all other neighbors in the immediate setting. Every other property on the cul-de-sac has 10- 15-foot side yard setbacks. They have sheds and some sheds are right on the property line. Some are 5 feet from the property line, and they are 25 feet from the property line.
The other item is that roughly 35% of their property is dedicated to setbacks, easements, and 12% of that 35% is a cul-de-sac that they donated to the street. Their property line is in the middle of the street. There was a big problem on this street with fire trucks and Amazon deliveries. They pulled everything back to create a proper cul-de-sac so all delivery trucks can turn around. They then repaved the entire street all the way to Springhill because of all of the construction the neighbors had to endure during this process over the last year and one half.
Finally, there is another photo that he asked be displayed which puts everything into perspective. He pointed to the first photo, stating this is the shed. Their neighbor across the street, Carey Shermer and the neighbor next door, Jeff Adams, who is the only one who would be affected by the setback has written three letters of support. He does not want to see this torn down and moved. He likes it the way it is, as well as Carey Shermer. Neither of them want to see this rebuilt. He then pointed to the second photo showing what was there before in the same location which was the garage. Their structure is behind the left corner of the garage. The garage was further and closer to the street roughly the same distance from Jeff Adams’ property.
He then pointed to the third photo, stating this is the other portion of the house that they tore down, and photo four shows the 440 square foot home they built in place of it. Finally, the fifth photo sums it up.
The Council can see in that photo all of the original house and pool. He has outlined in red the ADU and the potting shed. So, they are significantly less footprint, are roughly exactly where the old house was, and he feels the lot line adjustment corrects an administrative issue which is supported by staff. The variance addresses a unique site hardship created by zoning isolation and physical constraints.
City Council Minutes Page 18 of 29 February 9, 2026
Mayor Anduri referred to the 440 square foot ADU and he asked how many feet is that from the property line. Mr. Becker replied it is 33 feet and this is how it is built. They are seeing the corner of the old house which was about 37 or 38 feet.
Mayor Anduri asked if the ADU originally approved for a different location. Mr. Becker said yes; what happened was that they went to the DRC. It was further away. They decided to reroute the driveway to create a garden area. They went back to staff. They reviewed the whole project. They approved it administratively and they went through the full process. They received grading permits, building permits, and they elected to not take it to the DRC. It was staff’s discretion and they told them what they could and could not do, and they followed their recommendations.
Lastly, Mr. Becker concluded his presentation and said he was available for questions.
Vice Mayor McCormick said the shed is being called a potting shed. In his own mind, he thinks a potting shed would be a simple structure, but this has plumbing, toilet, a sink, and electricity so it is like a tiny house with building permits. Mr. Becker said he got the building permit because they put electrical and plumbing in it. But regardless, even if he did not need a building permit, it came to light after the fact even though he got neighborhood support. Once he went for the building permit, then he was not sure the rules changed but things got a little fuzzier.
Councilmember Cervantes said the shed is within the 50-foot setback which is part of the LR5 zoning so this is the issue. Mr. Becker confirmed and said when they had presented it, they were told that because it was in the rough location of the old house, if they got neighborhood support in a letter, staff would sign off on that location.
Councilmember Cervantes said he can see where, given the zoning, they are doing a lot line adjustment to make it 5 acres but if the parcel were down-zoned to R20 which is what the rest of the homes on that street are, all these issues go away. Mr. Becker said he would assume, but this is the path that was presented to them and the path they have been on for the last 6 months. It was late in the game, and they were asked to go for a rezone. They went through the entire process with the Planning Commission and Design Review Commission, so it is a lot more work and it seems like a unique situation. With variance guidelines, the question is the intent.
Councilmember Cervantes said in looking at one of the graphics, the existing home’s garage was in the 50-foot setback, and Mr. Becker confirmed both sides of the house were, but the whole thing was nonconforming because of it being an LR5 lot amongst LR20 lots.
Councilmember Cervantes asked if there is any commercial wine-tasting facility proposed or in use. Mr.
Becker confirmed it is a private residence and this is all it ever was and what it is intended to be. It is their sanctuary on the weekends or whenever they can get there.
Councilmember Candell asked when the home/ADU complete construction. Mr. Becker said he could not say exactly, but he thinks it has been 8 or 9 months when they got the final sign-off on it.
Councilmember Candell said the original plan in 2022 had the 50-foot setbacks for the house and everything else. She asked why this was changed down to 33, stating Mr. Becker mentioned the cul-desac change, but she asked if that was the biggest reason why.
City Council Minutes Page 19 of 29 February 9, 2026
Mr. Becker said the road change was the only reason why. They shifted the road and were operating under the guise that they could build roughly where the old house was, and they went through it with staff and walked through the whole process with them. They also had a lot of other things approved that they did not build. They had a lagoon approved, a water wheel approved, and others. So, they made some adjustments but they stayed in the spirit of what was going on. It is also important to note that the previous structure was two stories and this is now one story. It was 50% larger, and yes, they scooted it a bit this way but also lowered its visual impact.
Councilmember Candell referred to the sketch, stating there was a project plan in the proposal in 2024 when he moved things. The one in 2022 had the old house overlay in it, but the ones in 2024 did not show where the old house was. So, this is the first time she is seeing this overlay on the old house. She asked why there was a reason that did not happen on the 2024 drawings. Mr. Becker said no, he thinks it was just an update. They were just showing a revision to the grading plan so there is no reason he could think of.
Councilmember Candell said there were a couple of letters that came in through a Public Records Act request. There was an email from Mr. Becker to the Doctors on July 9, 2024 outlining a strategy for moving forward on the property. It said, “You did shift the house location 16 feet closer to the neighbors,” which was done. And in quotes you say, “variance for the setback as needed.” So, on July 9, 2024, Mr. Becker realized they needed a variance for the home from this letter. So, she asked why does Mr. Becker think that was not pursued. She asked why does he think the fact that he did move it, and people knew that you thought you needed a variance, and then it did not go through the DRC to get the variance. She asked why that happened.
Mr. Becker said he did not know what Councilmember Candell was talking about. He does not know whether they were talking about the potting shed or house, and Councilmember Candell said it is the house or ADU. Mr. Becker said he has no idea to be honest. Maybe staff suggested that maybe he might need a variance. They may have suggested he is where the old house is and does not need a variance, but he cannot comment on this and would have to dig deeper into that. This has been heavily gone through, but he is not aware there is anything more. They shifted things to accommodate a new driveway approach to get it further away to create a potting shed. They went to staff with what they wanted to do, took care of what they asked them to do and they did it. If staff said you need to get a variance, they would have gone for a variance. If staff said they need to go to the Planning Commission they would. His job is to respond to whatever any City wants him to do.
Councilmember Candell said in that same letter, you realized that if you wanted to be qualified as an ADU, the maximum height is 16 feet and the current building is at 20 feet. Mr. Becker disagreed and said it is at 17 feet and the maximum height is 17 feet. The original building was 20 feet tall and that was approved and was never meant to be an ADU. He thinks what she is talking about are things that were brought to the attention long after this was approved and after this was under construction.
City Council Minutes Page 20 of 29 February 9, 2026
Councilmember Candell said the Council has no record of that. It was all done by staff. Mr. Becker said it is starting to come back to him a bit and he is trying to add clarity. After the neighbor or appellant brought up issues even after the story poles were up for four months, they were fully permitted and well along their way with the building framed, all utilities in place, and this was brought to their attention by staff.
Then, they starting talking and they asked what did they do. The City approved this and they asked what are some solutions. This is when they started talking about variances. The original house was 20 feet tall.
Because they shrunk the house, which is 16’10” and under the 17’ height, he asked how to correct the situation which is why they are going for a lot line adjustment. If they get the lot line adjustment, their setbacks are only four feet and they meet all of the other criteria and it seemed like that was the best path forward.
Councilmember Cervantes said he looked all of this up on Zillow, originally, when this old house was there, the access to 20 Springhill Lane was through that road. Mr. Becker confirmed it was adjacent to the appellant’s property and the big gate was at the back corner of his property. They repurposed the gate to the other location.
Councilmember Cervantes said this was part of the design plan here. This has no bearing on what is before the Council right now, but he wanted to understand it. The road, in effect, got relocated away from the adjacent owner’s property line to around it and moved it away. Mr. Becker said this created more space and vegetation. The whole purpose was to create a better approach to the property and create as much open space as they could. So, they are only 660 square feet of structure on 3 acres right now, so there is quite a bit of open space.
Mayor Anduri called on the appellant.
Michael Hoffman, Appellant, said he lives at the end of Springhill Lane with his wife and two children and raised his family there. This is not a weekend retreat and where they live. This is not a private amusement park where they have tunnels and exploding dynamite and rides and have the Pixar gang over. This is where they live. In April 2024, he submitted a detailed complaint to the Zoning Administrator to enforce the laws. He buried it. He called Mr. Becker and told him they needed to get together on this one. The Superior Court has already looked at their complaint and said if this is true, he is liable for fraud. For him to come forward to the Council is a blatant conflict of interest. The City Attorney knows it and everybody here knows it, yet he continues to influence this Council and the Planning Commission. He needs to remove himself from this process.
The DRC Resolution allowing this project was clear—only a single-family home could be built and not an ADU and it had to be 60 feet away from the property line. No one could build a structure inside those setbacks without a lawful variance and not even a little garden shed. Mr. Wolff could never ever approve that variance because the code states only the Planning Commission could approve such a variance. The City’s lot line laws which is before the Council right now is pretty simple. No one can play games with lot lines to evade those prior conditions they just talked about. He would have been happy to talk about all of these holistic issues if Mr. Wolff had brought their complaint to the Planning Commission which was his job to do. There was a zoning violation and he is the Zoning Administrator, and it is his job to enforce the rules and not to collude with these people on how to break the law.
City Council Minutes Page 21 of 29 February 9, 2026
He asked what the official staff report say about all of these issues the Council has been talking about— nothing. There is nothing in here about the history, nothing in there about the DRC resolution, nothing about the conditions for approval. The staff report does not even mention Section 2408D which says. “There can be no violation of the prior conditions of approval.” So, when we hear these issues about compliance and non-conformities, he asked where is that in Section 2408D. It does not exist because it is irrelevant to this process and the Council’s considerations.
He asked if the report tells the Council how the structure was moved so far inside—no. He asked if it shows the actual drawing that was submitted and stamped and not this red pen display of what the Council just saw, but the actual drawing itself—no. He asked if the report mentions the fraud suit against Mr. Wolff—no. He asked if it mentions how the staff spent 18 months meeting in private with these homeowners to come up with ways to slide this across—no, it does not. In fact, Mayor Anduri asked some questions about this in November 2024 and Ms. Ward had actually submitted a request for him to inquire.
He said Mayor Anduri asked a basic question—what is this about? Staff wrote behind his back and to themselves, “I think they modified the project to dodge the variance.” This is what staff is talking about behind the Council’s backs—“dodging the variance.” He would be happy to distribute this which came out in a public records request. So, from their perspective, the lot line change cannot be made under the City’s own rules. It cannot be made and it is barred because of the DRC resolution. They cannot play games with the lot line to do that.
The Council has a bigger problem on their hands which is, the Zoning Administrator and his staff have lost their way. The Council needs to investigate them because otherwise, what are they really doing here. The Council should announce to everybody in Lafayette that they submitted a project for approval and don’t worry about it. They do not have a tunnel in there, don’t worry about it. They do not have this big giant train bridge up there, don’t worry about it. You don’t have a 15-foot archway in the plan, don’t worry about, you can meet in secret with the staff. They will slide it across and then when they get caught, they will help the owners get away with it. He asked the Council to tell every developer in town, every contractor, every tycoon, this is how you get away with things in Lafayette. This is a bigger problem for the Council.
They heard some questions about the anomaly of the LR5; the zoning question the Council was asking about. One-quarter of the City’s LR5 properties are one acre or less. If they look at the map, there are lots like this all over the City. This house was built in 1941 and subdivided from there, so chances are a condition for these subdivisions was to keep it zoned in this rural way. Trying to re-engineer this right now at a lot line hearing, well, wouldn’t it all go away if they rezoned this. This is not before the Council, and it is inappropriate to consider that right now.
Similarly, there was a question about why didn’t the applicant get a variance. Mr. Wolff told them they cannot get a variance. He said he heard that from the City Attorney, so they know they cannot get a variance. They know they would have to live with this setback, so they are coming up with games and trying to slide it past the Council. Whatever the outcome is for those other matters is not relevant here.
They cannot meet the conditions for the lot line, and the staff report acknowledges this.
City Council Minutes Page 22 of 29 February 9, 2026
He concluded and invited questions with one fact—at every turn, people minimize the impact on his family but he knows some Councilmembers have driven out there. They raised the dirt moving hundreds of cubic yards of dirt for this house to not be on the spot where a corner of their prior neighbor’s home but to elevate it, move it in their face, plant a row of redwood trees right on the property line, and this is nothing like the prior home to try to minimize that. The evasion about why they did that—they moved thousands of cubic yards of dirt to move the hillside out to build this illegal train that now everybody must look at on the hill. So, to try to minimize it and say they decided to make a driveway there—that is not what happened. They slid this past and said, oh, we are just making a quiet little cottage 60 feet away and then after the fact, did all of this behind closed doors, back room, and now he has been fighting this uphill since April of 2024.
He thanked the Council for listening and he would be happy to answer any questions of Councilmembers.
Councilmember Cervantes said Mr. Hoffman mentioned the DRC regulations cannot be changed. Mr.
Hoffman said no, the DRC resolution sets the conditions for construction. If someone wants to go back and instead of having this house 60 feet away, they are going to move it 30 feet away and inside the setback. That cannot be done over the counter. No one ever made that change. The DRC never amended that resolution. The conditions for this development have never been changed as far as where the location of the structure is; that it needs to be a single-family home and not an ADU, and this has never been changes. Mr. Wolff does not have authority to do that and he knows that.
Councilmember Candell inquired about the approval process for tunnels and railroads in the City, referencing landscaping plans submitted to the Design Review Commission in 2022.
Mr. Wolff explained that the tunnel was evaluated by staff in consultation with legal counsel. Because it is located far from neighboring properties and involved only excavation, it was treated similarly to a basement, which would not trigger visual impact concerns under design review or a hillside development permit. The removal of excavated material was also evaluated under this framework. He noted that the electric hobby train on the site has existed for 10–15 years, with the original track laid during the construction of the original project and barn. The tunnel in question is an existing structure, located further from neighboring properties than the original. As an electric hobby train, not a full-sized steam train, it is considered an appurtenance for the residents of the property.
Mr. Hoffman said he has seen 6,000 pages of City records and there is no basement appearing in any material.
Mayor Anduri said the appellant mentioned that the house is 16’10” and this is measured from the bottom of the building to the top of the building. He asked if staff is aware of any movement of earth that changed the absolute height of the building. Mr. Wolff said he thinks there was both cut and fill that the DRC approved that was altered, revised multiple times as the project went into construction, and they continued to make some design changes, including making the residence one story instead of two stories, making it smaller, and so it is his understanding that the overall site grading did occur specific to this location, directly beneath the ADU he does not know, but he can look at what the plans show.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
City Council Minutes Page 23 of 29 February 9, 2026
DEBBIE LINDES, a neighbor of the amusement park–style structure at 19–20 Springhill Lane, focused her comments on the legal issues surrounding the lot line dispute. She argued that the City cannot legitimately approve a lot line adjustment under Lafayette Municipal Code Section 62408(d) because doing so would violate the conditions imposed by Resolution 2022-19. That resolution, she noted, required the demolished house to be replaced with a single-family home set 60 feet from the property line—a condition reinforced throughout the staff report and considered reasonable.
Ms. Lindes stated that the applicants, with City staff involvement, moved the structure 27 feet closer to her property without a variance or amendment, in violation of both the resolution and City zoning laws.
She asserted that Section 62408 is meant to prevent developers from manipulating lot lines to evade compliance with development conditions, and that the lot line adjustment being requested is an attempt to retroactively legitimize illegal actions. She urged the Council to investigate thoroughly why this application was presented and to avoid treating it as a simple administrative fix.
She also addressed the structure’s scale, noting that it rises 9½ feet above the driveway level and 17 feet above the ground overall, making it visually enormous, hideous, and obtrusive. She emphasized that the visual impact cannot be fully appreciated from photographs and would require the Council to visit her driveway to understand the effect.
JACOB BLOCK, a resident of Springhill Valley, expressed strong concerns about the City and Planning Commission’s handling of a local development. While he did not want to intervene in the dispute between the Hoffman and Lindes families and the Doctors, he asserted that the neighborhood has been failed by the City’s process. He described repeated issues with damage to the road and asphalt in front of his property caused by prolonged staging of dump trucks for the project. Despite documenting the damage and sending photos, he was told the wear was “normal” and that repairing the asphalt was his responsibility, raising safety concerns for children walking to school.
Mr. Block argued that a commercial development has been allowed in a residential neighborhood in a manner that he views as ill-advised and potentially fraudulent. He emphasized the importance of preserving community cohesion and ensuring fairness for all neighbors involved. He called on the Council to investigate what went wrong, clarify responsibility, and find a resolution that maintains the neighborhood’s character and spirit. He stressed that understanding how and why the situation occurred is critical, noting the community’s value as a beautiful, close-knit area behind Briones.
Councilmember Candell said she believes the City’s Public Works Department came over and cleaned up all of the asphalt. Mr. Block said they did after much needling.
Councilmember Candell said she knows Springhill Lane looks like it has been repaved, and Mr. Block said the cracks remain but at this point it is hard to determine whether or not that is normal wear and tear or whether it was caused by commercial construction equipment.
City Council Minutes Page 24 of 29 February 9, 2026
MARISSA SILVA said she tried to comment at a DRC meeting a couple of months ago and was not able to unmute herself which was her technology issue, but she appreciates what Mr. Block just said, what the Lindes and Hoffman family has said. This is so awful in this community that this family has to have a train station next to them. Nobody will buy that house or move nearby and if the Doctors want to do that as their vacation home, she does not understand why the rest of Springhill Lane has to be subject to that. It is terrible and the way this has occurred with the Planning Department just like everybody before her has said, there is definite shadiness here and it needs to be investigated. She feels so sad for her neighbors that have to deal with this.
Mayor Anduri called on the appellant for up to 5 minutes for a rebuttal.
REBUTTAL – APPELLANT
Michael Hoffman, Appellant, urged the Council to stay focused on the lot line issue. He thinks the Council is looking a little farther ahead on this rezoning question and wouldn’t that make everything “go away.” They have discussed this for over a year and one half and have not brought it up. So, this implies to him they are not so optimistic that this is going to happen because of the zoning that other LR5 properties around the city as well as probably the history of that property.
There is all kind of misdirection from the applicants about subjects that have nothing to do with this lot line issue. They are talking about the cul-de-sac and actually it is too small for the county diameter there, so this is not compliant. But, they could sit here and trade jabs about how this is a fire hazard because they do not maintain the weeds there and he must call the County three times to get them to mow it down. Now they are running trains and who knows what kind of sparks will happen there. They are always trying to minimize this train and he does not see anyone on staff listening to the clang clanging and the bell and the planned sound effects for this tunnel.
The point is, on the lot line criteria, the Council cannot make the findings and must send it back to the drawing board and that is all there is to it on this appeal.
Mayor Anduri called on the applicant for up to 5 minutes for a rebuttal.
Mark Becker, applicant, said he has been in this business for almost 50 years. His 50-year anniversary will be next year and started when he was 14 and has designed projects all over the State. He takes great pride in what he does and takes great pride in this project. This is an incredibly light footprint. If you have seen anything developed in Lafayette, there is nothing with as light a footprint as this. This amusement park statement could not be anything further from the truth. This is an electric mine train that makes less noise than Mr. Hoffman’s lawnmower.
This train has been there for 15 years. He purchased his property 6 years ago, knowing there was a train right in his backyard. He has never made a comment or complaint because the train is barely used. This is Mr. Doctor’s sanctuary and this is what he has decided to do. He is a train enthusiast and he is allowed to do so. Nothing shady happened here. They have been through multiple public processes dating back to 18 years. They have done everything straight up with the City. Everything asked of them they have done.
City Council Minutes Page 25 of 29 February 9, 2026
They have been completely forthright and he actually takes great issue with people attacking City staff.
Staff has been incredible to work with and under very difficult situations, and he finds them to be very professional and he is offended to hear people attack them in such a manner when he feels they have worked very hard, have been very firm with them in bringing forth issues and it is up to them to try and figure out what they are trying to do.
He also takes great issue with false statements. The building was never 60 feet from the side property line. It was 60 feet from the front property line in the middle of the street. It was never 27 feet from their side property. It moved to 17 feet. These are false statements. There are a number of false statements and false accusations. He begged the Council to stay focused on the task at hand which is to look at the lot line adjustment and if it meets the criteria. This corrects a situation that is an unfortunate situation. If he started with a blank slate and was told all of these things he would have done a lot line adjustment first. They worked with what was given to him and what was approved at the time. Now that it has been turned upside down, they are trying to make the best sense of it.
He appreciates the Council listening tonight, is sorry it is a divisive issue, and he finds this to be an incredibly beautiful and aesthetic project, and Mr. Adams will attest to it who lives right next door. Mr.
Shermer, even though they did not like the construction, states the same. He just had a tour with two different neighbors down Springhill Lane over another project they are doing, and his number one comment was, “I can’t believe you have such a minimal footprint on such a large piece of land. This is beautiful.”
Vice Mayor McCormick said a couple of times they heard public testimony that the Council should not address the lot line adjustment because improper things have happened beforehand or because conditions were in the DRC resolution in 2022 that are different. He asked for comments from staff on these statements.
Mr. Wolff said he will respond and invited the City Attorney to add anything or correct him if he is not accurate. The matter of the location of the house and its approval in the change described to the Council and the public is the subject of one of two lawsuits that Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Lindes have filed; one against the City and one against him personally. He believes the court will adjudicate that. Regarding the lot line revision, he does not believe the code stipulates that they cannot make their property larger and bring it into compliance with the minimum lot area which is not at all relevant to the location of the house, the process by which the structure was located. He does not think the code is intended to say, you cannot take a process or lot line revision and use it to remedy a non-conformity. He thinks the intention is to do exactly that and to have conformity through the lot line revision. The result of the lot line revision would be bringing the characteristics of the site, the area, and setbacks into compliance, setting aside the garden shed.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked if the City Attorney concurs with this; adjusting a lot line to bring the project into conformity is valid and appropriate. City Attorney Mala Subramanian said it is and under the Government Code for lot line adjustments, the Council needs to find it is in compliance with the General Plan, zoning, and building code, and that is what this is doing—bringing the property into compliance both with the size of the lot and in addition, allowing the setback for the ADU to be in compliance.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked if whatever happened with the DRC in 2022 is not relevant. City Attorney Subramanian said this is at least addressing the setback concept which is the most relevant piece for the lot line adjustment.
City Council Minutes Page 26 of 29 February 9, 2026
Councilmember Cervantes asked and confirmed the Council has the legal ability to change the lot line in conformance with State law.
Councilmember Candell asked how often has the City done this in a situation like this after construction is done. Mr. Wolff said he believes the City has approved lot line revisions in the City that bring matters into conformity or make existing conditions better if not fully compliant, but while he cannot say it is frequent, he does not have a number as there are only a few lot line revisions a year at most.
Councilmember Cervantes disclosed that he has talked with both parties on different matters relating to Firewise and he communicated with Mr. Doctor about the road improvement he did on Springhill Lane after the work was done. He asked the City Attorney if that created a conflict of interest and was told he did not have to recuse himself.
There is a lot of discussion about the whole process approving this site which is the subject of litigation and this is not within the four corners of what the Council needs to be talking about today. It is the lot line adjustment and the variance.
Mayor Anduri said what he would like to do is that unless there are general comments is to start first with the variance and then go to the lot line adjustment.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked what is the implication if the Council follows staff’s recommendation and deny the variance of an existing building. He asked if the owners would have to physically move the building. Mr. Wolff said they discussed earlier the potential for a rezone so they could consider that. They could demolish the structure outright which others have done when they have not gotten approval for something they built from the City, or it could be relocated to a conforming location.
Councilmember Cervantes said they could seek to do a rezone because if it is an R20 lot, it conforms with respect to the setback, or move the shed or tear it down and he asked if those are the three options if the variance is not approved. Mr. Wolff said yes, and there is no guarantee that the rezone would be approved, but just like they are pursuing a variance, they have the right to pursue a rezoning and submit that to the City for consideration.
Councilmember Candell said with regard to the variance for the shed, she put a lot of stock into what the neighbors think and whether they are okay with the fault of where the location is. She thinks in this case, she can grant the variance for the shed and not have to move the shed.
Mayor Anduri said they do have to have a legal basis and findings for granting the variance.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked staff if their contention is there is nothing particularly unique about the property because the shed or structure can be moved further on the property and still maintain its use.
Mr. Wolff said this is their assessment—there are conforming locations that could accommodate the structure and it is not a deprivation of reasonable use and enjoyment that other properties are allowed.
There are constraints on development such as hillsides and existing vegetation. So, they could not just build it anywhere, but staff’s assessment is there are places on the property where that use could be located which would be conforming to the setbacks which only this property are subject to on this street.
City Council Minutes Page 27 of 29 February 9, 2026
Mayor Anduri asked if what Mr. Wolff is saying is there are not special circumstances on the property that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under the same zoning. So, you can grant a variance if the applicant can show it is not getting special privileges that other properties with the same zoning are getting and, because of circumstances related to their property, and there are not such circumstances here because there are other places on the property where the building could be built.
Mr. Wolff said that is staff’s position and this is what they recommended to the Planning Commission because this is not an objective standard or numerical factor. It is subjective to be able to make or not make those findings. It is a matter of interpretation of what those characteristics about the property and what the special circumstances might be, and the Planning Commission was able to make those findings and articulate it. He thinks staff and the Planning Commission have different opinions on that, but that is well within their purview to disagree with staff’s assessment.
Mayor Anduri said if the Council were to approve this with no special circumstances here behind it, he asked what kind of precedent are they setting for future variance requests.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said it would be nice to have some distinction as to why the Council finds the rationale is met because it is a finding under State law and the City’s code, as well. It would be very helpful if the Council wanted to approve the variance, which again has been noted several times, staff has continually recommended against that because they could not find special circumstances particularly because it is not identical zoning. So, the Council has to look at it as the LR5 zoning and not that all the neighbors have smaller setbacks because that is a different zoning of R20.
Mayor Anduri said to be clear, the Council cannot find that the building is a very attractive building and does not detract from the neighborhood, and therefore does not see any problem with it. He asked if this is not a reason for granting the variance. Ms. Subramanian said correct--that is not the finding for the variance.
Councilmember Cervantes added that if this was an R20 lot, he would approve this in a heartbeat. The immediate neighbor does not object to it and the Council would not have to approve it. The concern he has is just the way the statute is written, “enjoyment of other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification” so if it is an LR5, this does not work. If it is an R20, it works which is why he asked the question before.
Vice Mayor McCormick said this is kind of his view as well. It makes sense with the neighborhood, but he thinks it is a zoning problem.
Councilmember Cervantes said aesthetically, he would look at it and say, this is really handsome. There is a lot he likes, but looks at the statute and does not see how he would feel comfortable making that finding.
Vice Mayor McCormick agreed and said he does not either.
Councilmember Candell said her question is the resolution that the Planning Commission passed in December 2025 they made those findings and have descriptions in there. She asked if those were legally sufficient in order to grant the variance.
City Council Minutes Page 28 of 29 February 9, 2026
City Attorney Subramanian said they continue to recommend a denial of the variance because they do not think it can be defended with the findings. The real problem is the under-identical zoning classification and there are no special circumstances here. If the Council would like to use the findings of the Planning Commission the Council can do so, but staff continues to recommend a denial of the variance.
Mayor Anduri said he thinks they have no alternative other than grant the appeal on the variance which is denying the variance. He understands how they got here, the different steps the applicant described, but unfortunately it does not change what the Council must decide on. He asked if they agree with the variance, and Councilmembers agreed. He asked to then move onto the lot line adjustment.
Councilmember Cervantes said he has no problem with the lot line adjustment. There is a 3-acre parcel next to it and a 28-acre parcel all one ownership interest, and they are really linked. To get to 20 Springhill Lane you have to go to 19 Springhill Lane and it is like moving a line around. Per counsel, the Council has the legal ability to do this so he thinks they are trying to fix something that is one of the many LR5’s that do not quite fit and this is a case where you can make it work. He would think the logical thing to do would be to change it to an R20 and he voiced his support for the lot line adjustment.
Vice Mayor McCormick said given what counsel said, the same person owns two pieces of property and if they want to make an adjustment between the two pieces they own that does not run afoul of the city’s zoning, and he thinks they should be able to do it and it would be incorrect not to allow them to do it.
Councilmember Candell said she will have to dissent on this one. She looks at this not so much as a “can we do this” but as “do we think we should do this.” Her answer is a definite “no.” Her reason is that in that 2022 application, everybody knew it was 50 feet. The location was 50 feet and they signed everything and it was multiple times.
Then, to see the internal and external emails that they have very little visibility on except for the emails and all of a sudden say, “Oh, we need a variance” and they chose not to get one, that strikes her as not doing the right thing at the right time. She thinks it should have gone back to the Planning Commission for a variance at that time and it did not. Does that make it right? No, it doesn’t make it right. So, she cannot make the finding that the lot line adjustment was already an approved condition and everybody knew it. This is the part she has a hard time with and it was not fixed when it was supposed to be fixed.
This is why she cannot do this. Does that mean there aren’t other ways that the applicant can make this whole? She thinks there are, but she cannot do it in this situation under this set of circumstances.
Vice Mayor McCormick said the City Attorney said it is allowed and you can adjust your lot line to bring it into conformance.
Councilmember Candell said she understands that but everybody knew it was out of conformance and they did it anyway, and they take advantage of State law that has the 4-foot setbacks, and it makes her sad honestly. It is an unfortunate situation for the applicants, neighbors, and everybody here now. She does not think the right way is a trick and this one feels like a trick.
Mayor Anduri said you can look at it as the practical outcome, as the findings they have to make and he thinks the Council can make the findings. He thinks they should proceed with the lot line adjustment and does not know how they turn it down. It would be difficult to justify not turning it down so he can make the findings and support the resolution.
City Council Minutes Page 29 of 29 February 9, 2026
He said there is one resolution that does two things and they have a 4-0 vote on one of them and a 3-1 vote on the other. He asked how should they proceed.
Ms. Subramanian said she would not recommend breaking up the resolutions. She thinks they can note it for the record, but the vote on the resolution could still be 3-1, but the minutes would reflect Councilmember Candell’s comments about the variance.
Mayor Anduri asked if anyone had any changes they would like to make to the resolution, and there were none. He then asked for a motion for adoption of the resolution 2026-12.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Cervantes/McCormick) to find the project exempt from CEQA, and adopted Resolution 2026-12 denying the appeal in part and approving the lot line adjustment, subject to conditions, and denying the variance. Roll Call Vote: 3-1-1 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, and Cervantes; Noes: Candell; Recused Wotherspoon).
19. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT – None.
20. ADJOURNMENT – 10:24 p.m.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Carl Anduri, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk