City Council Meeting Page 1 of 29 June 22, 2026
*
City of Lafayette
City Council Minutes
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall June 22, 2026 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 7:00 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 Meeting Page 2 of 29 June 22, 2026
1. CALL TO ORDER – 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Anduri called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Anduri, Vice Mayor McCormick; Councilmember Candell, and Cervantes
Absent: Councilmember Wotherspoon
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Jonathan Katayanagi, Parks and Recreation Director; Mike Moran, Engineering and Public Works Director; Dana Poplin, Human Resources Analyst; Patrick Golier, Transportation Program Manager; Scott Ditfurth, BBK Lawyer; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. Disclosure and/or Take Action on Remote Participation due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances Pursuant to AB 2449 (Gov. Code section 54953(f).)
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Candell) to adopt the agenda. Roll Call Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell and Cervantes; Noes: None; Absent: Wotherspoon).
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Anduri led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For items not on the agenda)
MARIO DIPRISCO ceded his time to Rob Lavoie.
ROB LAVOIE spoke about proceedings starting with prayer, read a short excerpt into the record, and asked the Council to consider a time of prayer at the 250th anniversary celebration.
7. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa gave the following report:
• From the Police Department:
• Chief Williams and Emergency Services Coordinator Andy Comly participated in a multiagency tabletop exercise which was hosted by the City of Orinda. The scenario was a wildfire that starts in Orinda and then spreads into Lafayette and Moraga. The discussion focused on how they could all work together to address such an event. Attendees included all Orinda staff and Chiefs from all Lamorinda cities, MOFD, Contra Costa Office of Emergency Services and the Community Warning System (CWS) staff.
• From the Public Art Committee:
• There are three new exhibits that have been installed for the summer season under the title, “Points of Reference-Three Perspectives on Lafayette’s Past.” It is being presented by the Lafayette Historical Society and the Public Art Committee.
City Council Meeting Page 3 of 29 June 22, 2026
• As part of Lafayette’s observance of America’s 250th Anniversary, in the Don Tatzin Community Hall Gallery, watercolors by John Finger reflect on the legacy of General Lafayette.
While the homework center gallery features 1950’s aerial photographs of our City, with familiar landmarks highlighted.
• In the Library Lobby display case, artifacts of the Saklan people honor the region’s earliest inhabitants and the deeper history of this place. There are flyers at the back of the room and on the Council’s dais.
• Lafayette is celebrating America’s 250th birthday and the Marquis De Lafayette’s role in American independence. Celebrations will be held on Thursday, July 2nd from 4-6 p.m. There will be a film screening on General Lafayette, the lost hero. More details can be found on the City’s website.
• From the Planning Department:
• Lafayette, along with Orinda and Moraga, have selected RRM Design Group to design a collection of pre-approved ADU plans for public use. Residents should be on the lookout for feedback opportunities in the coming months. Once they have permit-ready, pre-approved ADU plans, they will be made available to the public at no cost to local property owners. They estimate this project to be completed in early Spring of 2027.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
8. PRESENTATIONS
A. Tracy Robinson, Assistant City Manager
Introduce Assistant Engineer Michael Wong; Engineering Intern Ben Lei; and Julia Comly, Administrative Intern
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Assistant City Manager Tracy Robinson introduced three new employees: Assistant Engineer Michael Wong; Engineering Intern Ben Lei; and Administrative Intern Julia Comly. She provided an overview of their education, experience, and hobbies.
Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers welcomed Mr. Wong, Mr. Lei, and Ms. Comly, and new employees provided brief remarks and voiced their excitement in working with the City of Lafayette.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Anduri asked if the Council or the public wished to remove any items, and there were no requests or public comments.
A. June 8, 2026 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve.
B. Resolution 2026-42 Re-Appointing members to Banner Advisory Committee, Capital Project Assessment Committee, Creeks Committee, Crime Prevention Commission, Emergency Preparedness Commission, Environmental Task Force, Parks, Trails and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, Public Art Committee, Senior Services Commission, Transportation and Circulation Commission
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-42.
City Council Meeting Page 4 of 29 June 22, 2026
C. Settlement Agreement between Bruce and Carolyn Osterman and the City of Lafayette Regarding Litigation associated with Signage
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the Settlement Agreement to settle Bruce S. Osterman, et al. v. City of Lafayette, et al, in Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No.
N26-0603.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Candell) to approve Consent Calendar Items A, B and C. Roll Call Vote:
4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell and Cervantes; Noes: None; Absent: Wotherspoon).
10. OLD BUSINESS – None.
11. STAFF REPORTS
A. Patrick Golier, Transportation Program Manager
Downtown Lafayette Parking Management Study –Year 1 Implementation Work Plan and Budget Authorization Request
Recommendation:1. Receive the proposed Year 1 Downtown Parking Management Implementation Program. 2. Provide feedback on the proposed Year 1 implementation priorities and work program. 3. Authorize a Year 1 implementation budget for Fiscal Year 2026/27 of $53,000 from the General Fund for consultant services associated with the Downtown Parking Management Study implementation program. 4. Direct staff to return with future implementation recommendations and any associated funding requests as Year 1 activities are completed and evaluated.
Transportation Program Manager Patrick Golier presented the Year 1 implementation work plan and budget request for the Downtown Lafayette Parking Management Study. The Council had previously directed staff to return with a detailed implementation plan and funding proposal. Staff is requesting authorization of a $53,000 consultant services budget for FY 2026/27 to support the first year of implementation.
The study concluded that downtown Lafayette does not face an overall parking shortage; however, challenges stem from employee parking demand, uneven use of existing parking resources, difficulty locating available spaces, and the fragmented nature of the parking system.
To address these issues, the study recommends a phased implementation approach focused first on improving management of existing parking resources before considering more complex or capitalintensive solutions. The broader Phase I program is expected to be implemented over three years.
The proposed Year 1 work plan includes five foundational initiatives: development of a comprehensive parking inventory and database, creation of a parking performance monitoring program, employee parking coordination efforts, improvements to public parking information, and an assessment of parking identity and wayfinding needs.
A key component of the first-year effort is expanding the existing parking inventory to include private and restricted-access parking resources, providing a more complete understanding of available parking and opportunities to better utilize underused spaces. The parking performance monitoring program will establish an ongoing framework for tracking parking conditions and supporting data-driven decisionmaking. Additional efforts will evaluate employee parking opportunities and improve public access to parking information.
City Council Meeting Page 5 of 29 June 22, 2026
By the end of Year 1, the City is expected to have a comprehensive parking database, a parking monitoring framework, enhanced public information resources, greater insight into employee parking opportunities, and a roadmap for future parking identity and wayfinding improvements.
The implementation strategy emphasizes staff-led delivery, with consultant support focused on specialized technical tasks. No funding is being requested for Years 2 and 3 at this time; future recommendations will be brought back to the Council as Year 1 efforts are completed and evaluated.
Vice Mayor McCormick confirmed that the proposed parking management implementation funding is not included in the current budget. Referring to the $15,000 allocation for developing a parking monitoring methodology and framework, he asked what deliverables the City would receive.
Mr. Golier explained that the funding would establish an ongoing data collection and monitoring program to track parking occupancy, duration of use, and changes in parking behavior over time. The framework would also evaluate the impacts of factors such as meter pricing, metered versus non-metered parking, and future public parking facilities. The objective is to provide reliable data to support informed, longterm parking management decisions.
Vice Mayor McCormick also raised concerns about parking wayfinding and the need for improved signage.
Mr. Golier clarified that the proposed Year 1 effort is limited to evaluating parking identity and wayfinding needs and does not include funding for signage repairs or installation.
Councilmember Cervantes confirmed that, by the end of the three-year implementation period, the City would have access to more detailed and granular parking data. Mr. Golier explained that the effort would provide valuable trend information over time, enabling staff to make more informed, data-driven parking management decisions.
Councilmember Cervantes also requested an estimate of the costs associated with Years 2 and 3 of the implementation program. Mr. Golier stated that if the City proceeds with the proposed Phase I wayfinding and parking identity improvements, including potential signage branding and system enhancements, the total cost over the three-year period would be approximately $120,000, inclusive of the $53,000 funding request currently before the Council.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Vice Mayor McCormick noted that the City has conducted multiple parking studies over the years and expressed support for the proposed recommendation. While he would like a clearer understanding of the parking monitoring methodology and expected outcomes, he looks forward to reviewing the framework and seeing the value it will provide to the City.
Councilmember Candell thanked Mr. Golier for his work on the project, emphasizing the importance of parking to residents, businesses, and the vitality of downtown Lafayette and noting that reliable data is essential to support and justify future parking policy decisions.
City Council Meeting Page 6 of 29 June 22, 2026
Councilmember Cervantes also expressed support for the proposal. Referencing feedback received during the parking study, he noted that some individuals perceived parking to be easier in downtown Walnut Creek. He stated that efforts to better understand existing parking resources and optimize their use represent a positive step forward for the City.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Cervantes/McCormick) to authorize a Year 1 implementation budget for Fiscal Year 2026/27 of $53,000 from the General Fund for consultant services associated with the Downtown Parking Management Study implementation program. 4. Direct staff to return with future implementation recommendations and any associated funding requests as Year 1 activities are completed and evaluated.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell and Cervantes; Noes: None; Absent:
Wotherspoon).
B. Resolution 2026-36 Authorizing Parking Management Changes at City-Owned Parking Lots Located at 3429 Mt. Diablo Boulevard and 3299 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Including One Final Extension and Subsequent Termination of Existing Parking Lease Agreements Recommendations: Adopt Resolution 2026-36 implementing parking management changes at two City-owned parking facilities, consistent with both the 2026 Downtown Parking Management Study and prior City Council direction regarding the use of publicly owned parking resources, including: 1. Authorizing one final six-month extension of the existing employee parking lease arrangements in the City-owned parking lot located at 3429 Mt. Diablo Boulevard through December 31, 2026, after which the lease arrangements would terminate and the lot would transition to longer-term paid public parking; and 2. Converting the City-owned parking lot located at 3299 Mt. Diablo Boulevard from three-hour metered parking to longer-term paid public parking intended to better accommodate employee parking demand.
Transportation Program Manager Patrick Golier presented a coordinated set of parking management changes for two City-owned parking facilities in downtown Lafayette: the Gazebo parking lot at 3429 Mt.
Diablo Boulevard and the City-owned lot at 3299 Mt. Diablo Boulevard adjacent to Ace Hardware. The recommendations implement key findings from the Downtown Parking Management Study and are intended to better align public parking resources with current community needs.
The Gazebo lot contains 37 parking spaces, 24 of which are currently leased to three adjacent businesses for employee parking during weekday business hours. Throughout the parking study process, staff received consistent feedback regarding the need for additional employee parking opportunities downtown while also recognizing the importance of maintaining equitable public access to City-owned parking facilities. Staff concluded that reserving approximately two-thirds of the lot for a small number of businesses is no longer consistent with those objectives.
As a result, staff recommends a final six-month extension of the existing leases through December 31, 2026. Upon expiration, the leases would terminate, and the lot would be converted to long-term paid public parking capable of accommodating all-day parking, including employees working standard eight- to ten-hour shifts. The recommendation is also consistent with previous City Council direction, including actions taken in 2014 and 2016 to phase out private leases in public parking lots.
City Council Meeting Page 7 of 29 June 22, 2026
The second recommendation involves the City-owned parking lot adjacent to Ace Hardware at 3299 Mt.
Diablo Boulevard. The 16-space lot currently operates as metered parking with a three-hour time limit.
Parking study data identified the facility as one of the least-utilized public parking lots downtown, while businesses on the east end of downtown have expressed a need for additional employee parking options.
Staff therefore recommends converting the lot to all-day paid parking to better serve employee parking demand.
Collectively, the proposed changes are intended to improve utilization of existing public parking resources, expand employee parking opportunities, and enhance parking access downtown without increasing the overall parking supply, and staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution 2026-36.
Councilmember Candell sought clarification regarding the proposed parking fee structure, noting that the schedule stated parking would cost $2 per hour for the first two hours, followed by $1 per hour for hours two through four, with a maximum duration of five hours. She questioned whether the intent was for a user to pay $4 after two hours and then an additional $1 per hour thereafter.
Mr. Golier acknowledged that the pricing language could be clearer and indicated that the rate structure would likely transition to an all-day parking rate after the second hour, consistent with existing meter pricing elsewhere in downtown. He stated that staff would revise the wording for clarity.
Councilmember Candell also asked whether the City faced any legal risk in terminating the existing parking lease agreements. Mr. Golier said no, lease agreements do not contain any provisions requiring the City to continue providing these parking spaces. There are provisions in each of the lease agreements allowing either party to terminate the agreement within 60 days’ written notice.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked how the proposed parking changes would be implemented, noting that the parking lot at 949 Moraga Road currently uses a payment kiosk while the lot adjacent to Ace Hardware is equipped with parking meters.
Mr. Golier responded that, based on discussions with Cathy Surges-Moscato, adjustments to the existing parking system at the lot adjacent to Ace Hardware can be made remotely and implemented relatively quickly. He noted that signage would need to be updated to reflect any changes. Regarding the Gazebo parking lot, he explained that there are currently no parking meters at that location. Staff is evaluating alternative payment options, including mobile payment applications and newer parking technologies, and may not install traditional parking meters as part of the transition to paid public parking.
Councilmember Cervantes said he noted that with respect to the Gazebo lot, there were a couple of letters and responses from some of the businesses expressing concerns. He asked if staff has contacted them to talk about what their issues were. Mr. Golier responded that the parking lot will still be available for employees and letters have been mailed to each of the three businesses with offers to have discussions.
Councilmember Cervantes asked for clarification on whether, under the proposed changes, an employer currently leasing spaces would instead have employees use the lot on an open basis for an all-day fee (e.g., $5 per day) rather than through a dedicated lease arrangement. Mr. Golier confirmed that this would be the case.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
City Council Meeting Page 8 of 29 June 22, 2026
KEN KOSICH, 3435 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, stated he purchased the building in 1986 and funded development of the adjacent parking lot, which was originally intended to serve employees of nearby businesses. He said the arrangement has worked well for decades and expressed surprise at the proposed termination of leases, noting he received no prior notice or formal communication. He explained that his lender requires documentation of parking leases to support financing for the property and that he had requested an updated lease agreement. While payments have continued, lease renewals have not been formally executed, and he was subsequently informed the leases would not be renewed. He added that he expected further discussion or outreach from the City but had not received communication or a negotiation process.
He further noted that the parking lot currently functions effectively, with daytime employee parking and evening/weekend use by nearby businesses. There are minimal issues with the current arrangement and he questioned why available spaces appear underutilized while on-street parking demand remains high.
He expressed concern about the legal and operational impact of terminating leases, particularly given existing tenant agreements that require provision of parking. He asked how the City intends to proceed beyond termination of the leases. He also pointed out that the east end of town has different parking dynamics than downtown and suggested that policies should reflect those differences.
Councilmember Cervantes said to clarify, this is the Gazebo lot and he asked how many spaces was Mr.
Kosich currently leasing. Mr. Kosich said he has 15 spaces all tied to leases he has with tenants.
Mayor Anduri asked if Mr. Kosich could share the outer terms of the leases with the tenants. Mr. Kosich said he charges some of his tenants what the City charges him, and some of his leases extend out to about 4 or 5 years.
CHERYL MACDONALD said she supports Ken Kosich’s statements. She and Dawn Eames and others have been talking with the City about this issue for years about Ken Kosich, his leases, and the importance of employee parking being available for them. She questioned what would happen if the City terminated his lease and asked if he would not have available parking in the future for his tenants. More importantly, she thinks the parking he has should be available and leases should not be terminated without further contact with Mr. Kosich.
Vice Mayor McCormick clarified that they are doing this from direction the Council gave in 2014, so there has been a long-standing goal to remove private leases on City-owned lots. Mr. Golier said 2016 was the decision and directive from City Council to terminate the existing leases.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked if the City has private leases on City-owned lots after this or he asked if they have all been converted at this point. Mr. Golier said they have all been terminated.
Vice Mayor McCormick said in the evenings, there are restaurants there and the lot is used by patrons which he confirmed is free in the evening and will continue, and business hours enforced will match what is in place for public metered parking.
Mayor Anduri said he does not see any issue with respect to the Ace parking lot. In terms of Mr. Kosich’s obligations to provide parking, he asked if there are any agreements with the City to provide a certain amount of parking for his office space. Mr. Golier said he is not aware of any obligations or agreement with the City to provide that parking.
City Council Meeting Page 9 of 29 June 22, 2026
Mayor Anduri asked Mr. Kosich to come forward to provide additional response.
Mr. Kosich said the City has recorded an agreement on his property when this was done in 1986. He is not sure the City has done research on that or not. It provides information on the fact he paid to have the parking lot developed, and the City was going to provide parking to him.
Mr. Golier said his understanding is there was an original agreement with Mr. Kosich from 1986, a subsequent agreement dated 1999 that replaced the 1986 agreement and then the 2011 agreement that replaced the 1999 agreement. In those agreements, there are no obligations mentioned.
Mayor Anduri asked Mr. Kosich if the earlier agreement from 1986 recorded against the property. He asked if it is a lease agreement that is recorded. Mr. Kosich said it is a lease agreement that he develop the property and with that was given certain free parking for a number of years, and then it would change into paid parking. The date was November 24, 1986 was when it was signed.
Mr. Golier stated he has a condition of approval from 1984 that he is looking at now that says “Four offsite, off-street parking spaces shall be secured prior to the commencement of use.” Mayor Anduri asked if this is still in effect. Mr. Golier said he spoke with the City Attorney and the Planning Department and this is their understanding of the most up-to-date condition of approval of four spaces.
City Manager Srivatsa said she was not with the City in 1986, and has not seen that agreement. She wished it had been shared with City staff, said staff would be happy to review it and let the Council know how it affects staff’s recommendations.
Vice Mayor McCormick said Mr. Kosich mentioned that he paid for the parking lot to be paved in 1986 and that gave him free use of the parking spaces for a certain amount of time, so the City was paying him back more or less for the improvements he made for the parking spaces. Mr. Kosich confirmed. Vice Mayor McCormick asked at what point was it more transactional and paying for the usage. Mr. Kosich believes it was about 10 years, or about 1996.
Vice Mayor McCormick said 40 years ago, in a mutually beneficial arrangement, Mr. Kosich paid to pave the parking lot for 10 years of free usage. Then, 30 years ago it turned into more of a transactional agreement where he would pay the City a fee and use those spaces. He asked if Mr. Kosich billed his tenants for the parking spaces. Mr. Kosich replied there are a couple of tenants he does bill, but most of the others have it included in the rent.
Vice Mayor McCormick said Mr. Golier mentioned there is a 60-day termination clause and the City is recommending six months of a transition time, so it is more. He asked would it not be the case that if this agreement were to end, Mr. Kosich’s tenants would just pay the City directly for the parking instead of paying through him.
Mr. Kosich said he thinks this is something that can be negotiated and discussed instead of the City just doing it. There has been no communication with him or with Mr. Peacock regarding his leases. He has not received any communications nor has he. Again, this is not downtown parking, but a different area.
City Council Meeting Page 10 of 29 June 22, 2026
Mayor Anduri said he believes all Councilmembers were in favor of moving forward with Ace Hardware, and for this lot, they are asking for staff to look at all available documents that pertain to this, as well as discussions with the land owner, and then bring it back to the Council. So, he asked if it is necessary to bifurcate the action or he asked if staff could wait for the next meeting. Mr. Golier said the Council can bifurcate the two parking lots if it wished.
Mayor Anduri said the resolution, however, would need to be changed and he suggested bringing back a different resolution for the next meeting. When staff is ready to bring back the other parking lot, the Council can discuss this as well.
Vice Mayor McCormick said the City has heard about employee parking and he appreciates the City’s effort to try to get more employee parking for all employers in town, but they need to make sure they have a full understanding of the impacts.
12. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Dana Poplin, Human Resources Analyst
AB2561 Vacancy, Recruitment, and Retention Effort Report Recommendation: Receive and file.
Human Resources Analyst Dana Poplin gave a presentation of the City’s Annual Vacancy, Recruitment & Retention Report pursuant to AB2561 requirements.
The City reported stable staffing levels with 49.10 FTE positions unchanged year-over-year, but increased recruitment activity and stronger applicant interest. Job postings rose to 13 (up 44%), and applications surged to 1,033 (up 70%), with interviews nearly doubling to 89. The City successfully onboarded 7 new regular employees (up from 2 last year), though the average time-to-hire increased to 128 days due to higher volume, complexity, and some paused positions.
Vacancies improved overall, with 4 open positions across 2 departments and an 8.32% vacancy rate, a notable reduction from last year. However, turnover increased to 14.58% and retention declined to 85.11%, partially influenced by retirements and increased backfilling from internal promotions.
Workforce initiatives focused on modernization and retention, including adoption of NeoGov onboarding and training tools, expanded outreach and hybrid interviews, and improved recruitment processes. The City is also enhancing employee engagement through biannual reviews, exit interviews, and plans for more structured feedback systems, recognition programs, and internal communications.
Looking ahead, priorities include streamlining hiring, strengthening onboarding, improving career development pathways, and building a more consistent feedback and engagement framework to support long-term retention and organizational stability.
Councilmember Cervantes pointed to the 70% increase in applications and asked if this is roughly the same amount of openings. Ms. Poplin confirmed and said they definitely had an increase in openings.
Councilmember Cervantes asked what is driving hiring dynamics, including whether federal cutbacks or retirement system differences (CalPERS vs. Lafayette’s benefits) are influencing applications.
City Council Meeting Page 11 of 29 June 22, 2026
Ms. Poplin and Ms. Robinson responded that CalPERS comparison has been less of a barrier this year.
Recruitment is generally strong due to the City’s benefits and workplace culture. However, challenges remain in attracting mid-to-senior level professionals, since many candidates in those roles are already vested in CalPERS and are reluctant to leave near retirement. The City tends to be more successful recruiting entry-level staff and CalPERS retirees, though retiree hires often result in shorter tenures.
Staff described a “barbell effect” in hiring: strong representation at both entry-level and late-career stages, with churn concentrated in mid-career employees (roughly 20-year experience range seeking final career years). On turnover benchmarks, staff noted there is limited comparable data for similarly sized cities, but Lafayette’s rates appear generally within typical ranges based on available public vacancy reports.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked whether the City has target benchmarks for retention and time-to-hire (e.g., reducing retention loss to 10% or cutting hiring time in half). Ms. Poplin responded that their internal goal for hiring efficiency is about 6 weeks from job posting to start date, though real-world timelines are often longer due to candidates providing standard notice periods (typically around one month).
He also asked whether AB2561 reporting is intended for state oversight or internal improvement. Ms.
Robinson clarified that the report is not submitted to the state, but is shared with labor bargaining units to support negotiations and transparency. Staff added that some vacancies were intentionally held open, which affects and slightly inflates the reported time-to-hire metrics.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers. Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers thanked Ms. Poplin for her presentation.
B. Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager and Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director Resolution 2026-40 Adopting the Proposed Budget/Workplan; Appropriating Revenue and Expenses; Confirming the City’s Investment Policy; Determining the Appropriate Limit for Fiscal Year 2026-27; Determining Fees for All City Services and Authorizing Transfers and Expenditures Including the 2026 Capital Improvement Program and Related CEQA Findings.
Recommendation: Discuss and Adopt Resolution 2026-40 as amended.
Assistant City Manager Tracy Robinson provided follow-up information on prior budget discussion items, including:
• $350,000 for a Parks Master Plan Needs Assessment
• $100,000 for an ADA Transition Plan
• Up to $250,000 from Measure H funds for wildfire prevention, mitigation, and fire safety projects • A $25,000 funding request for All Ages Recreation Downtown (Grace Dixon) • Consideration of restoring two crossing guard positions at First & Monroe and Reliez & Springhill She noted these items were previously discussed by Council, additional information was provided in the staff report, and she was available for questions.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked for clarification on how the emergency preparedness funding request would translate into actual projects.
City Council Meeting Page 12 of 29 June 22, 2026
Assistant City Manager Tracy Robinson explained that staff compiled a broad list of potential wildfire and emergency preparedness projects with estimated costs, aligned with Council priorities. The proposal is to allocate up to a set amount of Measure H funds, then have the Emergency Preparedness Commission review and prioritize which projects are most feasible within a 1–2 year timeframe.
No funds would be spent until the Commission returns with a detailed spending plan for Council approval.
Some projects may also depend on securing grants, with Measure H funds serving as a fallback source if needed. The proposed funding amount was intentionally flexible and not tied to specific pre-selected projects.
Vice Mayor McCormick indicated he was comfortable with this clarified approach.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
SARA REGAN, Executive Director of the Lafayette Chamber of Commerce, thanked the City for its continued partnership and updated agreement supporting Chamber-led community events.
She highlighted that rising costs for public safety, security, and operations make the City’s commitment to covering police and public works services essential to sustaining successful events. She emphasized the strong economic impact of events like the Art & Wine Festival and Res Run, which generate significant local spending, sales tax revenue, and funding for schools, nonprofits, and community programs.
Ms. Regan noted that the Chamber and City share a long-standing collaborative relationship that extends beyond formal agreements, including active volunteer involvement by City staff and leadership at community events.
She concluded by expressing appreciation on behalf of the Chamber’s Board, members, and volunteers, and reaffirmed commitment to continuing the partnership to support local businesses, economic vitality, and community quality of life in Lafayette.
MATT PEASE, Past President of the Chamber of Commerce, emphasized the strong partnership between the Chamber and the City and how their work supports shared economic goals.
He noted the Chamber helps reduce City workload by supporting business development functions, participating in advisory and policy-related groups, and helping educate local businesses on issues such as sales tax use and downtown mobility planning. This support helps businesses succeed, which in turn generates local sales tax revenue that funds City services.
He also highlighted Chamber events beyond the Art & Wine Festival—such as Taste of Lafayette—that draw visitors, support local businesses, and showcase the downtown economy. Additionally, the Chamber organizes affinity groups that connect business owners to share best practices and strengthen the local business community.
Overall, he described the partnership as a collaborative effort that advances economic vitality and shared City–business goals.
City Council Meeting Page 13 of 29 June 22, 2026
JEREMY STEEL expressed support for the City–Chamber partnership, noting that major community events bring tens of thousands of visitors to Lafayette, many of whom return and become repeat customers for local businesses.
He shared his long-term perspective as a business owner and Chamber Board member, emphasizing the strong and enduring collaboration between the City and Chamber. He concluded by thanking the City and expressing optimism about continuing to work together to support a strong, healthy, and vibrant Lafayette.
The Mayor and Council members expressed strong support for the Lafayette Chamber of Commerce and its partnership with the City.
The Mayor highlighted a new positive budget arrangement with the Chamber and praised its growth, strong membership, and expanding regional reach, calling it one of the strongest Chambers in the county and possibly the state.
Councilmember Cervantes emphasized the importance of a vibrant business community to Lafayette’s success, praising Chamber-led initiatives such as Taste of Lafayette, business networking groups, and support for entrepreneurs through affinity groups. He described these efforts as key to strengthening local businesses and community connections.
Vice Mayor McCormick also praised the Chamber’s role in shaping Lafayette’s identity, noting that new residents consistently cite both quality schools and a strong downtown/business community as reasons for moving to the city. He credited the Chamber as a major contributor to that strength and encouraged continued collaboration.
The Council then revisited remaining budget items noting prior support for the Parks Master Plan Needs Assessment ($350K) and ADA Transition Plan ($100K).
For emergency preparedness funding (up to $250K Measure H), the Mayor proposed sending the issue to the Emergency Preparedness Commission to prioritize projects and return with recommendations.
Councilmembers supported the approach, emphasizing flexibility and awaiting potential State funding decisions before final allocations.
Item updates included confirmation that other items would return later as needed, with no new updates on one request noted by staff.
For crossing guards (Item 5), the Council agreed to restore funding for two locations—First & Monroe and Reliez & Springhill—at approximately $42K total. Councilmembers broadly supported reinstating the positions for safety reasons while noting the importance of periodically reassessing costs, limiting it to one year, and exploring longer-term funding solutions.
A brief discussion arose over its funding source. While Measure H was suggested, the Mayor preferred using the General Fund for this one-year restoration since it is not a core City obligation. Councilmembers agreed.
The Council then confirmed there was no further discussion on investment policy or appropriations limits and proceeded toward adopting the resolution.
City Council Meeting Page 14 of 29 June 22, 2026
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Candell) to adopt Resolution 2026-40 with the understanding that the attached budget will include $350,000 for the Master Plan, $100,000 for the ADA Transition Plan, $53,000 for the first year of parking and $42,000 for crossing guards. Roll Call Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell and Cervantes; Noes: None; Absent: Wotherspoon).
Ms. Srivatsa commended Tracy Robinson, noting she has been preparing the City’s budget for more than two decades and is a master at it. Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers thanked Ms. Robinson for her continued efforts.
C. Jeanne Eiseberg, Contract Planner
Appeal of Planning Commission’s approval of: MS511-25 O’BRIEN LAND CO., LLC (APPLICANT/OWNER): Request for Minor Subdivision (Parcel Map) related to a previously approved entitlement for a Land Use Permit (L03-11), Hillside Development Permit, Design Review Permit, Grading Permit and Tree Permit to construct 14 buildings, including 315 apartments, a clubhouse, leasing office, and related site improvements at 3233 Deer Hill Road (APN 232-150-027).
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2026-43 upholding the Planning Commission decision approving the parcel map.
Planning Director Greg Wolff said appearing remotely this evening is Contract Planner Jeanne Eiseberg who will present the staff report and Robert Hodil, outside legal counsel acting as the City Attorney for this item.
Contract Planner Jeanne Eisenberg presented an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a minor subdivision (parcel map) for the Terraces of Lafayette project. The original project was approved in August 2020 for 315 apartments under APO zoning and analyzed in a CEQA Environmental Impact Report, which treated the site as a single consolidated parcel. The current proposal would merge 10 existing parcels into one, with no changes to the approved project design, conditions of approval, or environmental mitigation measures.
Staff also provided an update on permits: the applicant has submitted four building permits, with only the initial grading permit issued so far; mass grading, retaining walls, and vertical building permits remain pending.
Public comments were mixed—some supporting the appeal due to concerns about parcel configuration, noticing, zoning, and project impacts, while others supported upholding the approval, citing housing needs, consistency with the Housing Accountability Act, and concerns about delay.
Staff recommended the Council conduct a de novo hearing and adopt a resolution approving the minor subdivision and parcel merger, consistent with prior approvals.
Councilmember Candell asked what “holds” on the project’s permits mean.
Mr. Wolff explained that the project is subject to 56 Conditions of Approval (COAs) and CEQA mitigation measures tied to its 2020 approval. These conditions require the applicant to meet specific requirements before permits can be fully issued or released.
City Council Meeting Page 15 of 29 June 22, 2026
Examples include environmental requirements such as bat and migratory bird surveys prior to tree removal, as well as other safeguards ensuring the project is built exactly as approved. Any changes to the approved plans must go through City review and approval before proceeding.
Permits remain on hold until all applicable conditions and mitigation measures are satisfied, after which staff can release them for construction.
Councilmember Candell asked how long permit “holds” last and when they expire.
Mr. Wolff explained the original project approval included a one-year entitlement term with a one-year extension, which was granted. The applicant timely acted on the entitlement, thereby vesting the approval.
He clarified that Conditions of Approval (COAs) do not expire—permits remain on hold until all required conditions and mitigation measures are satisfied.
Regarding construction permits shown in 2025, Mr. Wolff explained these are County-issued building permits, which are typically valid for 180 days but remain active as long as inspections occur and progress is made. They do not expire if work is continuously progressing.
Councilmember Candell confirmed understanding that the permits remain active until completion as long as work continues, and Mr. Wolff confirmed that was correct.
Mayor Anduri said this is a de novo hearing. He asked the applicant to make a presentation.
Applicant attorney Bryan Wenter stated the applicant supports staff’s presentation and is available for questions, but had no updates on the status of resolving permit “holds,” noting it was not directly relevant to the parcel consolidation appeal.
Councilmember Candell asked for clarification on “Phase 1” construction described in the staff report. Mr.
Wolff explained that Phase 1 refers to initial site preparation work, not vertical building construction. This included limited grading, improving site drainage, removing asphalt, and permitted tree removal. The work was completed under an issued permit and passed inspection.
He clarified that the majority of construction—particularly the 14 residential buildings—remains pending and requires additional approvals and satisfaction of Conditions of Approval at the County level.
Mr. Wolff also noted grading work is seasonally restricted (generally April–October), and most major construction typically avoids the wet season due to regulatory constraints.
In response to Councilmember Candell, he confirmed that Phase 1 work is preparatory in nature, but still part of the necessary sequence leading toward eventual full project construction.
Mayor Anduri asked if there were questions specifically for Mr. Wenter.
City Council Meeting Page 16 of 29 June 22, 2026
Councilmember Cervantes noted he was not on the Council in 2020 but understood the Terraces of Lafayette as a long-evolving project originally conceived as apartments, consistent with earlier plans dating back over a decade. He contrasted it with nearby higher-end condominium projects and confirmed the Terraces remains an apartment development with approximately 20% affordable housing.
Applicant attorney Bryan Wenter confirmed the project has consistently been an apartment proposal, including after a prior alternative proposal was halted by referendum action in 2018. The current approved project remains an apartment project with required affordable housing components.
Councilmember Cervantes asked whether the project used density bonus provisions similar to other developments with lower affordability percentages. Mr. Wenter responded that the project has already utilized applicable State density bonus law, including at least one waiver or reduction in development standards approved during the 2020 entitlement process.
Mayor Anduri said his understanding is that Rob Hodil of the Coblentz law firm is Acting City Attorney for this project and confirmed he was available to answer questions. Based upon the staff report made and on public comments received he asked whether all necessary public notice for tonight’s hearing has been carried out.
Rob Hodil, Acting City Attorney, replied, yes. His understanding is everything needed to have been done within ten (10) days of the hearing was done at the correct time. This has been documented in the supplemental staff report that went out today.
Mayor Anduri asked if the entitlements and permits for the project that were approved in 2020 still in full force and effect.
Mr. Hodil replied, yes. The COAs for the use permit that was obtained back in 2020, COA #3 required that a grading permit or a building permit be obtained before the expiration of the permit and also provided for consistency with the City’s LMC provided for the ability for an extension of one year to the conditional one-year term. So that extension was requested, was approved, and a grading permit was issued within that second year, the year during which the extension applied. The issuance of that grading permit essentially kept the term of the use permit and entitlements approved in 2020 alive through the present day.
Mayor Anduri said his third question is was there a legal need to consolidate the 10 parcels into one parcel prior to the 2011 application being deemed complete.
Mr. Hodil said no, there is no legal need to do that. What is legally required for an application to be deemed complete is to provide all materials and the complete form needed by the City that are required for the particular entitlements being sought and being applied for at that time. For example, the use permit for this project there is no requirement that you also submit in order for a use permit application to be deemed complete. There is no requirement that you also submit everything you would need for any subdivision map act approval you may also ultimately need for the project.
So, the application was deemed complete based upon all of the materials required for the application for those entitlements that went through the process in 2020 and were deemed complete as far back as 2011 to proceed. It is actually fairly common for a subdivision map act approvals, such as tentative maps, parcel maps, etc. to follow subsequently and sometimes quite some time after initial project approvals.
City Council Meeting Page 17 of 29 June 22, 2026
Mayor Anduri confirmed that Mr. Hodil is saying it is common practice for developers to obtain their land use and other permits before they file to consolidate the parcels. Mr. Hodil said that is true or before they file to actually subdivide the parcels as may be necessary to proceed with the development. For various reasons for various land use entitlements there is no requirement that somebody who wants to develop a property apply for and get approval of all entitlements necessary at the same time. Some of them trail and these are things like design review and subdivision map act approvals that come later in the process for many projects.
Councilmember Cervantes said he gathers with respect to this approval in 2011 there was one assessor parcel number of ten ghost parcels, but one 315-unit apartment complex and various buildings. The parcel count he is saying is not really material in the approval of this project. He asked if this is correct.
Mr. Hodil said it was not material to the applications for which were deemed complete in 2011 and the approvals granted in 2020. Ultimately, to develop that project they need to consolidate those ten parcels into one parcel which is why they are bringing that forward now. But, in order to obtain the other approvals at that time, it was not necessary that they concurrently process a parcel map or discuss the parcelization in detail at that time.
Vice Mayor McCormick said in reiterating that, this means if this gets approved, the merging of the ghost parcel and the main parcel does not affect any other aspect of the project. Mr. Hodil said yes, this is correct. The approvals of the project before assumed that this would be developed as one parcel. This parcel map, once approved, would be consistent with what was approved before and the environmental review under CEQA for the project through the EIR and then the Addendum approved in 2020 also assumed this would be development of a single parcel. So, everything is consistent with those approvals if this parcel map decision by the Planning Commission is upheld tonight.
Councilmember Candell said in understanding how development typically runs through and some of the legal rulings that govern that, one is that Avco Community Developers and this says you cannot let the developers keep going on with these things unless they have actually started building something. It is not a bright line from what she understands but that is basically what developers use in order to say, “oh, you have to keep my entitlements because I did some substantial building.” She asked what can they point to here that helps define that line for them. Of the Phase 1 work, she asked what was in there that satisfies that for the City legally.
Mr. Hodil said under the Avco case law, you need to obtain permits such as grading and building permits in order to vest a right if you do not have a development agreement or vesting tentative map or some other instrument that freezes your zoning for a long period of time. You basically have to have valid permits and be continuing to work towards developing your project and it is not a completely bright line as to what is or what is not. He would also say that here, you also have some layers of protections under the HAA that also work to freeze the zoning to some extent as well. So, that is a layer that did not apply in the Avco case and it does not apply to all projects.
Councilmember Candell said this was her second question—how does the HAA affect this because she did not see anything in there about building projects and expiring permits and deadlines. It was only about the approvals and how they were limited in how they don’t approve it, and this one was approved. So, she does not know why the HAA still stands because the Council already approved the project. She asked how does it go past the approval.
City Council Meeting Page 18 of 29 June 22, 2026
Mr. Hodil said this is another approval that would continue to be subject to the HAA because there was an application that was deemed complete in the past that basically triggered the application of the HAA to this project. It otherwise meets all the criteria, including the 20% affordable housing.
Councilmember Candell said, however, that does not explain how it extends to as it gets built where the HAA plays.
Mr. Hodil said if the project needs additional permits and those permits that were deemed complete that triggered protections of the HAA to remain valid, then those additional approvals that are needed also need to be consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations that applied at the time the original application was deemed complete to the HAA.
Councilmember Candell said in their COAs they have many things called out that need to be done before issuing a grading permit. Clearly, they still have holds on them and that grading permit in the COAs is different than the grading permit they got because the City would not have issued that grading permit because they had not satisfied all of their COAs. So, she asked how to help the Council understand how the COAs work when it is so clearly states they have to satisfy so many of those things in order to get the grading permit.
Mr. Wolff said his review of the COAs relative to a grading permit stipulate it is prior to issuance of a mass grading permit for the bulk of the site work; not for any grading permit or building permit to demolish a building or do minimal work that is not the mass grading for the overall project. There is a distinction so the COAs relative to the mass grading permit did not apply to the Phase 1 submittal that they submitted for and received and conducted the work.
Councilmember Candell asked if staff is saying that those COAs, even though in there it implies the mass grading. She said Mr. Wolff is saying this other little grading kept their permits alive. Mr. Wolff said they did not apply for their mass grading permits. They have now applied, but he believes the submittal date was not 2022 but 2025.
Mr. Hodil said COA #3 which is the one that triggers the use permit remaining in effect beyond the initial two years including the extension term is just a grading permit. It does not specify or qualify that it needs to be a mass grading permit in order to keep the use permit alive. It can be a grading or building permit.
Mayor Anduri asked if there were any final questions from the Council.
Councilmember Cervantes asked the developer, stating it was asked by the Planning Commission but it is helpful to ask it here which is that it is now June 22, 2026. This project was approved in 2020, and now they are coming up with this lot consolidation. The question is why now versus in 2020. It would have been simpler to have done it back then perhaps than now.
City Council Meeting Page 19 of 29 June 22, 2026
Bryan Wenter stated the applicant could have as a matter of law applied for a minor subdivision map at the time the use permit was approved. That is possible as Mr. Hodil said. It is routinely the case that those types of approvals happen later. In this case, the reason that approval was not sought at the time the use permit was being processed and when it was ultimately approved was because the applicant did not own the property. There was a different land owner and a developer, and often times land owners do not want the status quo to be changed until their property is sold, and that was the case in this instance. Once the applicant acquired the property in 2024, the applicant was in the position to then apply for the subdivision map consolidating the parcels.
Councilmember Cervantes said he was not on the Council when this was approved, but was on the GPAC.
The Terraces was one of the opportunity sites as part of the City’s Housing Element. At 315 units, it is about 15% of the City’s RHNA requirement. So, he would think if the Terraces does not happen then he would think that eats into their buffer. It does not eliminate the buffer but it would take a chunk out of it.
He asked if he had the no net loss provisions with respect to housing law and asked if he was looking at this the right way.
Mr. Wolff said yes, correct. Were the Terraces not to move forward and if it is not built, the City cannot count those units towards housing production either in their annual progress report which is where they report out construction, permits issued, applications made and units occupied. So, they could not count them towards their 2,114-unit RHNA allocation and that allocation is broken down to 4 income categories.
It would reduce the overall projected numbers when staff had to submit to HCD and demonstrate there is adequate land zoned at appropriate densities to achieve the 2,114 units. And they have knowing that not every project builds to the same projected size or in the same projected income breakdown, they do have a buffer. This one project would not eliminate the buffer in any one category but it would substantially reduce it and it would be at 315 unit deficit the City would need to make up for towards the 2,114 overall units.
Councilmember Candell said their Housing Action Coalition lawsuit settlement plan where they were going to be upzoning would make up for that and be more than enough to cover them if they got close on their buffer.
Mr. Wolff said the HAC settlement requires the City to consider upzoning around or up to 120 acres. In so doing there would be additional capacity garnered from that. He recalled the numbers and that action would make it about even to the projected numbers currently. So, it would roughly work out between the two.
Councilmember Cervantes said he did not think they had the faith-based organizations in that count so he was not sure where this all settles out, but his question or comment was more along the lines that it is a divot in the housing plan the City has.
Mr. Wolff said yes, regardless of which calculation you are doing, this would no longer be available to the bottom line.
Mayor Anduri suggested taking a break before opening the public comment period, noting it was 9:08 p.m.
BREAK
City Council Meeting Page 20 of 29 June 22, 2026
Mayor Anduri called for a 5-minute break at 9:08 p.m. and, thereafter, reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period. He announced that all Councilmembers have read all materials that have been submitted by the public.
LIBBY HENRY ceded her time to Eliot Hudson.
ELIOT HUDSON asserted that the applicant misrepresented the project site in the 2011 application by treating ten separate parcels as a single parcel. He argued that, if properly disclosed, City staff would have required parcel consolidation before accepting a valid development application under the Housing Accountability Act. He maintained that the project was therefore not legally buildable at the time and remains noncompliant.
He further contended that this framing allowed the project to proceed without proper scrutiny and may have benefited the developer by avoiding potential rezoning that could have resulted in lower-density restrictions. He referenced prior community and City concerns about the development’s scale and impact on the site.
He urged the Council to deny the application, stating that approval would set an unfavorable precedent regarding accuracy in development submissions, and noted that any dispute could be addressed through the courts.
JENIFER PAUL stated she had submitted three letters on the item and raised concerns about both noticing and substance. She questioned whether the hearing should proceed, citing what she described as inadequate public notice. She reported that posted notices were small, difficult to read from the roadway, and not placed in clearly accessible locations, and she also asserted that required agency notifications (e.g., utilities, streets, schools) may not have been properly completed. She requested the hearing be postponed until proper noticing requirements were satisfied.
Turning to the merits, she argued that the project improperly assumes a single legal parcel despite the site consisting of multiple parcels. She maintained that parcel consolidation is a legal prerequisite for development and that applications and environmental review should not have proceeded without it. She further stated that the 2011 title report identified the multi-parcel condition, yet the project was processed as a single lot and the environmental review was based on that assumption.
She also argued that the staff report’s reliance on a single assessor’s parcel number does not resolve the underlying legal issue, and characterized the reasoning supporting approval as circular. She concluded that the Council should deny the parcel map because, in her view, the required legal findings cannot be made.
JANET THOMAS stated she lives near the intersection of Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill Road and plans to remain in her home. While acknowledging concerns about traffic and construction impacts, she expressed support for the Planning Commission and staff’s unanimous recommendation to proceed with the Terraces project.
City Council Meeting Page 21 of 29 June 22, 2026
She emphasized housing affordability as her primary concern, noting that she and her husband built a onebedroom ADU so their son could afford to live in Lafayette. She argued that apartment housing is a more attainable option than homeownership in California and described the project as addressing “missing middle” housing needs, including a commitment that 20% of units would be designated for lower-income residents. She concluded by expressing hope that future residents will be welcomed into the community.
JEREMY LEVIN noted he has been commenting on the Terraces project for about six years, observing that it has been repeatedly reviewed by the City during that time. He acknowledged broader City progress on housing policy, including rezoning for higher density and advancement of other housing projects such as Oak Hill and 949 Moraga, describing these as signs of leadership and momentum.
He framed the Terraces as consistent with the City’s goals of expanding housing options, improving affordability, and supporting residents across different income levels and life stages. He stated that the project reflects the need for a more predictable and forward-looking development process.
He concluded that the project should be viewed as a routine approval at this stage and encouraged the Council to move it forward, expressing support for the anticipated residents and the project’s potential community benefits.
MAX HENINGER stated that Inclusive Lafayette submitted a letter on the project and noted that Council had heard from outside counsel that the project is protected under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). He said that, based on his professional experience in housing development, parcel map approvals can occur late in the entitlement process—even after building permits have been submitted—and characterized the current request as routine.
He echoed prior comments supporting approval and emphasized the project’s potential to provide housing for approximately 315 families. He contrasted this with what he described as negative external perceptions of the project, stating that the process should now move forward constructively.
He concluded by urging the Council to approve the project, framing it as consistent with the City’s Housing Element and broader housing goals.
BRAD ROSENTHAL said he wanted to reiterate one of the speaker’s comments from earlier. He lives in the neighborhood across the street from Pleasant Hill Road and he is texting six other people right now and only one of them was notified about the meeting. No one saw the signs that were posted about the meeting and it would have been nice to get more notice on this and the neighborhood would have known and there could have been more public engagement.
LYNN MACMICHAEL said she is grateful for this meeting and said it is not a minute too soon to approve this project and to move forward with the vision they have or many of them have for the future of Lafayette.
She just wanted to echo what Janet Thomas and Jeremy Levin have said so far. She thanked the Council for their patience and time in hearing residents’ comments.
LINDA RIEBEL ceded her time to Colin Eliot.
City Council Meeting Page 22 of 29 June 22, 2026
COLIN ELIOT reported reviewing Council correspondence and raised concerns regarding the current validity of permits associated with the Terraces project. He explained that his review was prompted by questions about whether the land use permit had expired due to prolonged site inactivity, leading him to examine related grading and demolition permits.
He argued that the existing permit appears to cover only demolition and preliminary site preparation work, rather than substantive grading or construction activities tied specifically to the proposed development. He further contended that the permitted work is not exclusive to the current project and could potentially apply to other future uses of the site, raising concerns about its relevance to project compliance requirements.
Mr. Eliot asserted that required permits have lapsed and that no extensions were sought by the applicant, which he believes places the project outside required regulatory timelines. He recommended that the Council treat the matter as a legal issue requiring additional review, noting uncertainty in applicable case law and requesting a continuance to allow further legal analysis by all parties.
He concluded that, in his assessment, the land use permit has expired and should be considered invalid.
ROB LAVOIE said everybody is saying they are looking forward to affordable apartments, but just because somebody builds an apartment does not mean it is affordable. If you have ADUs with single rooms right now going for $2600/month, you can imagine what a three-bedroom, brand new apartment will cost with a view of Mt. Diablo.
In terms of concerns that were brought up tonight, clearly the proper notice is lacking. Putting up a sign on a weed patch where nobody walks and saying that is a public, prominent place is really deceptive. The issues Mr. Eliot brought up are complex, legal development issues and he would encourage the Council to table this item tonight and bring it back when there is a full Council and after people have had a chance to analyze these concerns.
MIKE GRIFFITHS expressed agreement with concerns raised by Colin Eliot and Eliot Hudson, stating that the application was never properly completed and should not have been approved. He asserted that the permit has been invalid since 2011 and remains so, arguing that both the City and developer now face either restarting the process with a new application or reconsidering the current zoning to pursue a different housing configuration that he believes would be more feasible and financially advantageous.
He then raised broader safety and liability concerns related to wildfire risk and evacuation modeling. Citing recent fire events, including the Camp Fire, he questioned evacuation assumptions provided through city consultant software, specifically referencing estimated evacuation times that he believes could indicate significant delays. He suggested that, under certain modeled conditions, a large portion of residents could be at risk and raised concerns about potential legal and financial liability for the City and Council if prior warnings are not adequately considered.
He also referenced a past fire incident near the Lafayette Tennis Club, describing its impact on traffic and emergency mobility, and connected this to concerns about evacuation feasibility for the proposed development. Additionally, he highlighted issues related to school transportation logistics during an emergency, stating that buses staged at Acalanes High School could be unable to reach students due to traffic and fire conditions driven by prevailing winds.
City Council Meeting Page 23 of 29 June 22, 2026
He concluded by emphasizing perceived risks to public safety and potential exposure of the City and Council to legal consequences stemming from approval of the project under these conditions.
DONN WALKLET, a resident of the Glen neighborhood, supported concerns previously raised by Eliot Hudson and others, and referenced prior email correspondence with Councilmember Candell regarding wildfire risk in the Lamorinda area.
He stated that, in his view as a wildfire defense expert, the proposed project has not adequately addressed wildfire hazards associated with increased population density and additional traffic on already congested evacuation routes, particularly Mt. Diablo and Deer Hill Roads. He argued that the project fails to include meaningful mitigation measures to address these added traffic and evacuation pressures.
Mr. Walklet noted that since the project’s 2020 approval, several major wildfires in California—including the January 2025 Los Angeles fires—demonstrate evolving and heightened wildfire risk conditions that he believes should be more thoroughly considered in project approvals. He emphasized that public safety, particularly evacuation feasibility, is the City’s primary responsibility and suggested that prior assumptions about traffic evacuation may have been insufficiently reviewed.
He cautioned against proceeding with further approvals for the project until wildfire mitigation is comprehensively studied and implemented. He recommended a broader strategic review of wildfire risk, including updated state and county-level planning efforts and consideration of available mitigation strategies, before allowing the project to move forward.
Rebuttal – Applicant
Bryan Wenter, speaking on behalf of the applicant, responded to concerns raised during the hearing regarding project compliance, legal authority, and procedural history.
He stated that questions about the applicant’s efforts to meet conditions of approval could be addressed by the project representatives, and then turned to legal arguments raised about vested rights, clarifying that the Avco case (1976) concerns common-law vested rights and predates the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). He argued that vested rights under Avco are not being asserted in this matter and are irrelevant to the Council’s current decision, which he said is governed by the HAA.
Mr. Wenter addressed claims regarding subdivision map requirements, stating there was no legal obligation for the applicant to file a subdivision map at the time of the original use permit application. He explained that such filings are routine for various project purposes, including consolidation of parcels, and asserted that in this case the applicant could not file earlier because it did not own the property at the time. He further argued that even if such a filing had been made earlier, it would have been deemed complete under the Permit Streamlining Act in 2011, and would not have altered the project’s procedural status.
He contended that the issue before the Council is limited to the appeal of the consolidation, not a reconsideration of the project’s merits or environmental review. He stated that the project has already undergone extensive environmental analysis through an EIR and subsequent addendum, both reviewed by the City and its consultants, and argued that no new environmental impacts result from parcel consolidation.
City Council Meeting Page 24 of 29 June 22, 2026
Mr. Wenter emphasized that the project remains protected under the Housing Accountability Act as it was in 2020, and can only be denied if the City makes specific findings of adverse public health or safety impacts supported by a preponderance of evidence. He argued that no such evidence exists in the record and that public comments offered were speculative and insufficient under legal standards.
He concluded by urging the Council to deny the appeal and allow the project to proceed without further delay, asserting that additional hearings would be unnecessary.
Councilmember Candell questioned whether the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) effectively requires the City to maintain project approvals indefinitely, noting that in recent years some HAA-covered projects had lost approvals due to lack of progress. She asked why this project should be treated differently and whether the statute allows approvals to remain valid without clear time limits.
In response, Bryan Wenter stated that the issue is not about indefinite approval periods but about compliance with applicable City rules and statutory protections under the HAA. He noted that the project has already obtained a grading permit and was not required to secure a mass grading permit, and argued that these approvals have preserved the project’s entitlement status, as previously confirmed by City staff.
He further referenced the Subdivision Map Act, explaining that it provides mechanisms for extending map approvals, including up to six-year extensions, which he said reflects legislative recognition that development timelines can be lengthy due to economic and procedural factors. Wenter emphasized that such extensions are routine and part of established planning law.
He concluded that the applicant has been actively and continuously working to advance the project since its approval, asserting that there has been no abandonment, delay, or lack of diligence in pursuing implementation.
Mayor Anduri said he asked Mr. Hodil three questions earlier in the evening and he would like to ask Mr.
Hodil if his answer to any one of those questions would change or has changed based upon what he has heard since he asked the questions either from the applicant, the public, or questions from the Council.
Mr. Hodil said his answers remain the same and nothing he has heard has changed any of the opinions he gave previously.
Councilmember Cervantes said the topic of litigation came up here wherein when they put out a hypothetical and approve the appeal, and the developer feels they have damages, then presumably would seek restitution through the courts. Under the HAA or any other statute that might apply here, he asked if the City liable for damages and he asked what is the scope if they get into litigation.
Mr. Hodil said under the HAA, if there was litigation brought by the applicant and the City were to lose, the applicant would recover attorney fees. Those could be somewhere in the million to $1.5 million range or so if it goes just to trial court, and potentially another million or so if there is an appeal, which is often the case.
So, this is probably the minimum amount of financial damage to the City that could occur from that.
City Council Meeting Page 25 of 29 June 22, 2026
The court may also order compliance with the HAA and give the City a 60-day period to comply. If the City fails to meet that 60-day requirement, then there is a minimum fine of $10,000 per housing unit that applies under the HAA. For 315 units, this would be about $3.15 million. If there also has been a finding of bad faith, the minimum fine is 5 times that amount, or over $15 million. There may also be potential remedies for damages or other relief against the City under other laws as well beyond the HAA, as it is not necessarily the exclusive remedy that a developer has if a court finds an application was improperly denied. But, this is certainly a route he would expect the applicant to take in the event of a project denial were they to decide it is worth litigating.
Councilmember Candell said the Council is not denying the project. It has been approved. She still is very confused about how project approvals lapse all the time and what does she point to in order to tell the residents who are asking her as how the City is keeping this alive with no end in sight. She asked how do they justify to residents the process that is in place where they do have project approvals that are denied and then this one goes on forever. The City wants to get this built and she does not think that is the issue here. It got approved and they want to get housing built. She asked if the City will let this go on forever and how do they get to the point where the City is achieving its goals and it is not going on forever. She asked what is the process.
Mr. Hodil said that is part of the process—compliance with conditions of approval and, in order to keep the use permit alive they needed to obtain a grading permit which has been done. To keep the project alive, the parcels need to be configured in a way that allows the project to be constructed as designed and approved which would be part of what is before the Council this evening. In order to avoid abandoning the project, the applicant would need to keep moving forward with the project. There is some case law about when a project becomes abandoned once an applicant has pulled permits and has done everything that one would typically need to do under the Avco rule and that is usually quite some time of 10 to 20 years down the line.
It has been a little while since he looked at that body of case law and it is something that rarely happens.
But, there is nothing close to what would trigger a court to determine that this project has been abandoned has happened here. He thinks the fact that they are trying to process this parcel map to keep the project moving forward would be a fact that would counter against any type of abandonment having happened.
Councilmember Candell said she is not talking about abandonment. She is talking about the clear case where they had here in Lafayette where Madison Park must have taken permits out to demolish that entire property and their approval still lapsed. This is what she feels has happened here. It is hard for her to justify where they have literally seen nothing go on there and where they have had a similar project that did some demolition just like some was done for this project and their approval still lapsed. She asked how can they can get accountability or a process here where we are confirming they really are moving forward. She asked if it is just because they are interested in keeping it alive because they are not showing the City or doing anything. She asked how they get the loop going where they are seeing movement forward so it does not fall into this other category where that other project fell. It is just inconsistent and she is not seeing how the City is managing this transparently and openly. If they are giving them extensions on special notice, she asked what is the process to do that and to keep this going. She just does not see a consistent and transparent process in Lafayette for managing this project moving forward and she would love for someone to point this to her. It is just inconsistent with other projects they have had here.
Mr. Hodil said he is not familiar with the details of that other particular project, but here, the applicant has obtained a grading permit which was necessary under the third condition of approval to keep the term of the use permit alive.
City Council Meeting Page 26 of 29 June 22, 2026
Councilmember Candell said she thinks that is a point of contention. People assume a grading permit is the grading permit for the project and not a grading permit for the demolition of part of a project they had to do anyway. It is preparation and totally irrelevant to the project. So, this is another thing people have been pointing out. That was not the grading or the building permit and the COA says a grading permit or building permit that is relevant to the project. This one is not. She is just trying to figure out the process.
Mr. Hodil said he will speak to what he knows as to what they have done to move forward, which is to pull a grading permit and they have applied for and started processing other grading and building permits as has been mentioned in the staff report or at least in the supplemental staff report, and they have done the work that was required under the grading permit they pulled and are continuing to process this entitlement which is something needed for the project to go forward. Those are the facts as far as he is aware of them in terms of what they have done to keep this moving forward which continues to be efforts on several of those fronts.
Mayor Anduri asked if the Madison Park entitlements expire. Mr. Wolff said no, not to his knowledge.
Councilmember Candell said she thinks this is why they pulled their project and asked for clarification.
Mayor Anduri said this is not the issue for this evening, but he has a different view as to whether the City has a transparent process for this. The times they have known applications have lapsed is where basically nothing has happened on the site. They know there are times like the Samantha Townhouses for example came to the Council and asked for a renewal if they did not do anything on the site. So, he asked if the City Manager was aware of a project.
City Manager Srivatsa said perhaps the Council was thinking of the project across from the library on Mt.
Diablo. Mr. Wolff said the entitlements for the Miramar project did expire but they pulled their permits and made no efforts to exercise their approval.
Vice Mayor McCormick said Madison Park sold the property to someone else with entitlements, and Ms.
Srivatsa added that staff had heard the property was on the market.
Mayor Anduri returned to Council deliberation. This is a de novo hearing. They have the resolution before the Council. He is prepared to consider the resolution and go through and make sure they look at the conditions and what they need to conclude in order to make the findings. If anyone would like to consider the other issues that have been raised this evening, the Council can discuss them.
He noted that there was a question regarding notice and the second is the issue they have been discussing about whether the approvals have lapsed. It appears to him that even if they have lapsed, this is still before the Council, to combine the parcels. This does not go away. The third issue is whether there was an issue because the application was not complete in 2011 and therefore the Council should not have moved forward. He thinks they have received a pretty definite answer on that from Mr. Hodil that this was not an issue.
Council discussion focused on whether the Council should proceed with approving a resolution related to parcel consolidation, and whether underlying concerns about project validity and permitting status were within the scope of the decision.
City Council Meeting Page 27 of 29 June 22, 2026
It was noted that questions regarding notice, potential permit expiration, and the original 2011 application completeness were raised. Vice Mayor McCormick stated that issues outside the scope of the resolution had already been addressed.
Councilmember Cervantes agreed, emphasizing that the key legal question regarding the 2011 approval’s validity was not part of the current decision and stating that he believed the City had followed proper noticing procedures. He also reiterated that the project had been approved six years earlier and expressed that the Council was not reconsidering that approval. He cautioned against actions that could be interpreted as indirectly overturning prior approvals, citing concern about potential legal exposure. He emphasized focusing on whether the required findings for the current action could be made under applicable standards.
Councilmember Candell disagreed, expressing continued concern about transparency, procedural consistency, and how long-term development approvals are tracked and maintained. While acknowledging the project’s prior approval status, she stated she could not support the findings due to unresolved questions about whether the project had been appropriately advanced and whether City processes were sufficiently transparent. She also suggested the appeal highlighted a broader need for improved public communication about project status and permitting processes.
Other Councilmembers acknowledged the value of improving public access to project information, including updating the City’s project webpage to reflect current status rather than outdated construction information, and agreed that greater transparency going forward would be beneficial.
Mayor Anduri summarized that staff had prepared the resolution and asked whether any Councilmember believed specific required findings could not be made.
Councilmember Cervantes indicated support for the findings, while Councilmember Candell stated she could not support them. The Mayor indicated he was prepared to proceed with a motion and expressed openness to future discussion on improving transparency and tracking of development projects.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Cervantes/McCormick) to adopt Resolution 2026-43 upholding the Planning Commission decision approving the parcel map. Roll Call Vote: 3-1-1 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick and Cervantes; Noes: Candell; Absent: Wotherspoon).
13. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT – None.
Mayor Anduri recommended moving up Items 14.B and C and Item 15.A ahead of Item 14.A.
14. COUNCIL / COMMISSION REPORTS
B. Mayor Anduri and Councilmember Wotherspoon
Resolution 2026-44 Appointing two members to the Parks, Trails and Recreation Commission Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-44.
Mayor Anduri said he and Councilmember Wotherspoon interviewed three candidates; two were members who completed their most recent 6 years on the Commission—Carol Singer and Alison Hill, and the third candidate who was very strong. They are recommending Alison Hill and Carol Singer be reappointed to the PTR Commission.
City Council Meeting Page 28 of 29 June 22, 2026
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Cervantes) to adopt Resolution 2026-44 appointing Alison Hill and Carol Singer to the Parks, Trails and Recreation Commission. Roll Call Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell and Cervantes; Noes: None; Absent: Wotherspoon).
C. Mayor Anduri and Councilmember Candell
Resolution 2026-45 Appointing two members to the Public Art Committee Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-45
Mayor Anduri said he and Councilmember Candell interviewed three candidates for two openings on the Public Art Committee. They are recommending this evening that the Council appoint Dana Anderson and Jennifer Lothrigel Fairbanks to the two openings.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to adopt Resolution 2026-45 appointing Dana Anderson and Jennifer Lothrigel Fairbanks to the Public Art Committee. Roll Call Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell and Cervantes; Noes: None; Absent: Wotherspoon).
15. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letter from Michael Melewicz resigning from the Emergency Preparedness Commission Recommendation: Accept the resignation and thank Michael Melewicz for 13 years of volunteer service.
Councilmember Cervantes stated he had a conversation recently with Dr. Melewicz and appreciated his service on the Emergency Preparedness Commission of 13 years. He is a doctor and made the observation that it is really important to know each other, to help each other, which summarized how you do grass roots emergency preparedness. He appreciated all of his involvement with the Commission and the City will go through the process of interviews, but 13 years of service is very much appreciated.
Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers recognized and thanked Dr. Melewicz’s for his 13 years of service.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Candell) to accept the resignation and thank Michael Melewicz for 13 years of volunteer service. Roll Call Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell and Cervantes; Noes:
None; Absent: Wotherspoon).
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Mayor Anduri noted that they moved the State of the City Address and the Council Appreciation from the 29th, as he discovered only two Councilmembers would be there. This is an opportunity to show appreciation to people like Dr. Melewicz who have served. He hopes he will be present on July 20th so he can receive the City and Council’s appreciation to Commissioners who continue to serve as well as those who left during the last year.
Vice Mayor McCormick said he will be unable to attend that meeting but he added his thanks to all volunteers.
City Council Meeting Page 29 of 29 June 22, 2026
Councilmember Cervantes gave the following report:
• He met with EBRPD Director Linda Deschambault and new General Manager Max Korten to discuss wildfire safety initiatives and opportunities for greater coordination with East Bay Regional Park District. The conversation included engaging emergency preparedness staff and exploring a presentation to the community, recognizing the District’s significant role in Lafayette’s surrounding area;
• He and Councilmember Candell participated in a Firewise inspection with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District as part of a community renewal process. Two additional neighborhood groups are also pursuing renewal, reflecting continued grassroots support for Firewise efforts. • He and Councilmember Candell also attended Legislative Day in Sacramento, where they met with legislative representatives, insurance officials, and emergency preparedness staff. Discussions focused on raising awareness of Lafayette’s priorities, including wildfire safety, evacuation planning, and e-bike-related issues.
Councilmember Candell gave the following report:
• After careful consideration and discussions with her family, she has decided not to seek reelection to the Council this year. She leaves confident that the current Council will continue to serve the community effectively and diligently. While she plans to remain engaged on important community issues, she is looking forward to spending more time with her first grandchild, who is due in November.
• She attended the General Assembly of ABAG, noting that many of its functions have transitioned to MTC. She also shared information with Councilmembers regarding the upcoming RHNA process. During discussions, former ABAG Chair and Solano County Supervisor David Rabbitt strongly encouraged jurisdictions to explore forming sub-regions. Given Contra Costa County’s unique position, she believes it may be well-suited to become its own sub-region—a view shared by several regional leaders, including Alex Walker-Griffin of Hercules. A meeting with Supervisor Rabbitt is scheduled to further discuss the concept.
Mayor Anduri said there will be plenty of opportunity to celebrate and thank Councilmember Candell for her 8 years of service and understands the reasons.
16. ADJOURNMENT – 10:33 p.m.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Carl Anduri, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk