City Council Meeting Page 1 of 31 August 10, 2026
*
City of Lafayette
City Council and
Successor Agency Minutes
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall August 10, 2026 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 6:15 p.m.
As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may participate virtually. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. Unless required by the Brown Act, City Council/Board meetings will continue despite technical difficulties for participants using the teleconferencing (Zoom) option. To participate virtually in the City of Lafayette’s public meetings and provide public comment, please follow these steps:
1. Watch or Listen: Meetings are broadcast on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel:
http://bit.ly/LoveLafayetteYouTube.
2. Submit Comments Before the Meeting: Members of the public can provide public comment by sending an e-mail to [email protected] for City Council meetings no later than noon the day of the meeting. Those e-mails will be distributed to City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney, and will be posted as part of the public record.
3. Live Remote Public Comments: Technology permitting, members of the public may submit live public comment via Zoom conferencing by using the link below. You must download the Zoom app or software. Zoom meetings can be accessed by telephone, computer, or smart device. When the Mayor invites public comment for the item on which you would like to comment, please use the "raise hand" feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone only) to alert staff you have a public comment to provide. Each speaker is allowed three (3) minutes to speak.
4. At the time and date of the meeting, please click this URL to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89008805648?pwd=ODQxRGxzaGNHSWVITUVFalFuUHBIZz09 Passcode: 426199 Or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128
Webinar ID: 890 0880 5648 Passcode: 426199
City Council Meeting Page 2 of 31 August 10, 2026
-
1. CALL TO ORDER – 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Anduri called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Anduri, Vice Mayor McCormick; Councilmember Candell, Cervantes and Wotherspoon
Absent: None
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Assistant City Manager; Patrick Golier, Transportation Program Manager; Tim Przybyla, Finance Manager; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney, Scott Ditfurth, BBK Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. Disclosure and/or Take Action on Remote Participation due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances Pursuant to AB 2449 (Gov. Code section 54953(f).)
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Wotherspoon/Candell) to adopt the agenda. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
5. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Gov. Code section 54956.8) Property: 986 and 990 Moraga Road, Lafayette, CA Agency Negotiators: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Assistant City Manager; Joe Kuvetakis, Partner, John Cumbelich & Associates Negotiating Parties: John Richman, Buyer Under Negotiations: Price and terms of payment B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
Gov. Code section 54956.9(d)(1)
Brian J. Vesce, et al. v. City of Lafayette
Contra Costa Superior Court, Case No. MSC20-01130
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
DAN MULLER, counsel for the Save the Dips group, stated that he is following up on his July 13 comments and recent correspondence from his client representative, Colby Powell. He explained that he has represented Save the Dips and communicated with counsel for the Vesces regarding this matter for approximately four to five years, with the goal of finding an efficient resolution. His primary request is that, if the City proceeds with the proposed settlement with the Vesces, the settlement agreement should require the Vesces to dismiss the entire action against all parties, including Save the Dips, rather than dismissing only the claims against the City. He expressed concern that the current settlement language could create a loophole whereby the Vesces dismiss their claims against the City but continue pursuing claims against Save the Dips or other parties.
City Council Meeting Page 3 of 31 August 10, 2026
He noted that the Vesces have recently indicated to members of his client group that they may be willing to maintain the current status quo, but their counsel has been noncommittal or “hedging” regarding a full dismissal. Accordingly, he requested that the settlement agreement expressly provide for dismissal of the entire action, including all claims involving Save the Dips, to eliminate any potential for further litigation or an adverse outcome after the City is dismissed from the case.
Councilmember Cervantes questioned clarification on Mr. Muller’s statements and the Vesces “hedging.” Mr. Muller said yes; he asked the Vesce’s attorney as to whether they will be dismissing the case as to his clients as well as the City, and he has said, “unless you divulge all the names of your clients which could be thousands of people, he will not talk with him any further as he is not authorized.” Mr. Muller said this does not give him confidence in dealing with this in a way that resolves everything peacefully. So, this is his concern.
Councilmember Candell asked Mr. Muller to clarify exactly what the Vesces have been saying to residents in the Glen.
Mr. Muller said his understanding is the Vesces have said they are tired of all of this—they are willing to let the status quo be as it is with people walking through as they have historically for decades. They do not want anything further recorded against their property that might encumber it. So, they are willing to leave the status quo be, and Mr. Muller said his clients are also willing to leave the status quo be. They are just afraid somebody will do something interesting. At least dozens of his clients in the Glen have been saying this is what the Vesces have represented to them—that they are willing to let the status quo be as soon as they get the conditions resolved with the City. So, they would like to put an end to this litigation.
Mayor Anduri adjourned the meeting to Closed Session and thereafter, returned to the regular meeting.
He announced that no reportable action had been taken in Closed Session.
RECONVENE FROM CLOSED SESSION – 7:07 p.m.
6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Anduri led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
7. 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.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For items not on the agenda).
City Council Meeting Page 4 of 31 August 10, 2026
Lana Wahedi and Clara Brennan, Girl Scouts completing their Silver Award, presented on domestic violence and teen dating violence. Their project focuses on increasing community awareness, educating young people about the warning signs and impacts of abuse, and improving access to resources for survivors. Through their research, they identified a need for a more comprehensive resource list for organizations assisting individuals experiencing domestic violence, including the Lamorinda Care Collective. As part of their project, they developed a resource guide and emphasized that education and awareness are critical tools for preventing future violence.
They discussed the prevalence and various forms of domestic violence, including physical, sexual, emotional, economic, digital, and psychological abuse. They explained that domestic violence involves patterns of behavior intended to establish or maintain power and control and can have significant longterm effects on victims, children, families, and the broader community. They also highlighted statistics regarding domestic and teen dating violence, noting that significant numbers of adults and teenagers experience physical, sexual, psychological, or digital abuse. They emphasized that many young people are not adequately educated about dating violence or equipped to recognize unhealthy or abusive relationships. Both presenters expressed concern that young people may enter relationships without sufficient knowledge of warning signs, available resources, or the potential consequences of abuse.
Lana and Clara encouraged community leaders to make education and prevention of domestic and teen dating violence a greater priority. They recommended that individuals support those experiencing abuse by listening, communicating that the abuse is not their fault, and connecting them with appropriate resources. They also encouraged community members to volunteer or donate to organizations that support survivors, including the Lamorinda Care Collective and STAND. For individuals facing immediate danger, they advised contacting 9-1-1 when appropriate.
They encouraged community members to educate themselves about domestic violence, including how to recognize warning signs and prevent abuse, and to share that knowledge with others, particularly youth, to help prevent violence from continuing into future generations. Lastly, they respectfully asked the City Council to support community awareness efforts by displaying domestic violence awareness posters throughout the City during October, National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and promoting teen dating violence awareness during February. They also requested that information about domestic and teen dating violence be shared through available community media platforms, including Greet Lafayette and other local outreach channels. Finally, they encouraged the City to connect with organizations such as STAND to identify additional ways the City can support community members experiencing domestic violence.
Councilmembers thanked Lana and Clara for their presentation, recognized the importance of raising awareness of this important issue, and for bringing the Council action items they can take up.
9. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa gave the following report:
• From the Parks, Trails and Recreation Department:
• Summer Camp is officially in the books. It has been a busy summer with more than 3,800 camp enrollments with Camp Awesome, connecting over 300 campers to afternoon adventures, ranging from Robotics to Cooking to Archery and Pickleball, and even Video Game Design.
• Fall programs are off to a flying start with 500 enrollments in the first 24 hours.
City Council Meeting Page 5 of 31 August 10, 2026
• Staff had just one day between the 10 week Summer Camp and the start of school to transform their Community Center Campus for afterschool care. Daily care will be offered as usual at the Community Center but also at Lafayette Elementary School and new to the daycare arena, they will be offering it at Burton Valley, as well. • From the Engineering and Public Works Department:
• Work continues on 28 residential streets. If you want to know the status of the paving project on your street, please sign up for the Friday paving updates by visiting the City’s website.
PG&E and EBMUD are also working in the downtown on Moraga Road and Brook Street and, with school back in session, the work hours have been shortened to 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. • From Public Art:
• There is a new way to explore art in Lafayette. The Committee has launched the public art walking tour guide which takes you on a half mile journey through our downtown, highlighting the art that makes our community so special. • For younger explorers, they also have a public art scavenger hunt and details can be found on the City’s website.
• From the Police Department:
• A big thank-you to all who joined them for National Night Out last week. The evening brought residents, police, firefighters, and City staff for conversation, community and even a drone demonstration.
• Looking ahead, Lamorinda CERT has its basic training beginning September 15th at the Lafayette Community Center. It is a great opportunity to learn how to be better prepared for an extended outage or emergency and how to support your community during a disaster. More can be learned at Lamorinda CERT.
• On Wednesday, August 12th, the Lafayette, Orinda, and Danville PD will be conducting a coordinated patrol saturation in Lafayette from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. which means they will be out in the streets enforcing the laws. She asked people to slow down, stay alert, and follow the rules of the road.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
10. PRESENTATIONS
A. Lori Larks; Donna Arganbright; Sharon Tama; Mark Coffey; and Jennifer Granat Lamorinda Arts Alliance Lafayette Civic Values: Lifelong Learning and the Arts Recommendation: Receive and file.
Mayor Anduri provided introductory and background comments, stating Lafayette’s Mission Statement calls out its commitment to lifelong learning, promotes the arts, or both. This is to strengthen Lafayette’s two core civic values—the first is the City’s commitment to lifelong learning and the second is the City’s goal of embedding the arts in their civic life and in the fabric of their community, making visual and performing arts part of their surroundings in everyday lives.
City Council Meeting Page 6 of 31 August 10, 2026
This year, they have heard from 7 organizations that promote these civic values, and today this meeting’s featured organization is the Lamorinda Arts Alliance (LAA). Its purpose is to promote and increase knowledge, appreciation, and practice of the arts and to enhance the cultural development of Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda and the surrounding communities. Today, they will hear from its President, Lori Larks and Board Members Donna Argenbright, Sharon Tama, Mark Coffey and Jennifer Granat. He noted Donna’s ceramics are currently displayed in the Library.
Lori Larks, President, LAA, thanked the speakers for their previous Girl Scout presentation, noting she is a former County Child Protective Services Manager and Adult Protective Services Manager and is now retired. She is new to the Alliance and was asked by Donna Argenbright who Shepard’d this group for over 15 years, who she introduced.
Board Member Donna Argenbright repeated statements by Mayor Anduri and noted her new exhibit in the Library embody figurative works and clay and paint, along with paintings. For 15 years, she served as President of the LAA, always had a very supportive and capable Board. This past year, she turned over the reins to Lori Larks who is now serving as President.
Currently, Ms. Argenbright said she serves as a Board Member at-large and acts in an advisory capacity and support where needed. Regarding the history of the Alliance, 32 years ago in 1994, a group of artists from Lamorinda who wanted to promote the arts in the area and give artists a chance to exhibit their work, joined together to form the. It is a non-profit organization that seeks to foster a better appreciation and understanding of art within the community. They have artists from Lamorinda, the wider Contra Costa area, the East Bay and San Francisco, and there are several opportunities throughout the year to exhibit and sell their work.
At the time the Alliance was founded, there were two cooperative art galleries formed with encouragement and support of LAA—the Lafayette Art Gallery and the Moraga Art Gallery. The former closed, but the Moraga Art Gallery is located in the Rheem Shopping Center and is vibrant and on-going with many former Lafayette Art Gallery members now showing there. It continues to be a cooperative and they all must pitch in and do the work to make it successful.
The LAA has become an important part of the culture of the Lamorinda East Bay through their newsletter, exhibits, and their educational events, and she presented pamphlets to share with the Council and staff.
She introduced Sharon Tama, Vice President of Education, who will describe what LAA does for outreach.
Sharon Tama, Vice President of the LAA, said she is an artist in the area and is privileged to serve as Vice President of Outreach and Education for the LAA. They take art education at any age to be a crucial element of individual growth and the expansion of horizons. In her role as educator, she has enabled members of three different Brownie Troops qualify for and earn their painting badges. The girls were exposed to a slice of art history and learned about composition, technique, paint mixing and the color wheel. Additionally, she served as docent as she guided a Brownie Troop through an art exhibit of works by LAA member artists in the Orinda Library Art Gallery.
As a component of art education, we established an on-line library of informational and illustrative videos for LAA members on various topics such as matting and framing artwork, using social media to showcase art, enhancing and extracting the human figure and the vast world of medium products for artists.
City Council Meeting Page 7 of 31 August 10, 2026
Her main role is to expose LAA members at large of any age to the various museums, galleries and special exhibit opportunities available to them in the greater Bay area. They have toured to Conservation Department of SF Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), visited many local museum exhibits and have traveled beyond their local art gallery treasures to museums such as the UC Davis Art Museum, the DeRosa Center for Art in Napa, and most recently, the beautiful Hess Persson Art Gallery at the Hess Winery in Napa.
They have also been introduced to the wonderful public art in downtown Walnut Creek as they walk the City streets led by a Bedford Art Gallery docent.
Their next field trip opportunity is in September and it will be a unique tour of the Conservation Lab of the Oakland Museum of Art. They are fortunate to live in a community that not only values art in all its forms but promotes it in numerous ways. Therein lies the special function of education and outreach within the realm of LAA. She then introduced Mark Coffey, a talented and dedicated member of their Board.
Mark Coffey, Board Member at Large, said he is in charge of special projects which is generally graphic work. He prepares many promotional items with brochures and postcards for shows. He has been a member of LAA for over 12 years and for several of those years served as Editor of their news magazine.
He creates digital artwork using computer, various software programs and specialized graphic devices.
In its on-going commitment to serve not only its members but the community in general, LAA is sponsoring the annual Lamorinda Arts Council High School Visual Art Competition. This competition encourages students in the Orinda, Lafayette and Moraga high schools to submit their artwork to show at the Orinda Library. The categories are 2-D including painting, drawing, print making and mixed media; 3-D including ceramics, sculpture, jewelry and construction; photography including traditional film as well as digital photography and digital art including artwork produced and manipulated on a computer platform and then printed.
LAA is proud to provide the funding for the monetary awards in the digital art category. Their members also volunteer as judges for all categories of the competition. He has been a judge for several years and every year he has been impressed with the quality and skill shown by students’ art.
In addition to the LAC competition, he and other LAA members have participated in the Lafayette Partners in Education Project (LPIE). It is a project-based competition featuring 15 categories designed to showcase student talent. He has served as a judge of the digital competition category and particularly likes the format of the competition because it specifically asks the judges to critique and comment on the artwork and whose comments are conveyed back to the students. Several LAA members also led workshops with student groups to convey their knowledge and support of the arts.
LAA is always looking for opportunities to serve their community as a whole and particularly to promote the arts in their educational community. They invite anyone who may have suggestions on how they might additionally serve their community to convey those and let them know their suggestions. He then introduced Jennifer Granat.
City Council Meeting Page 8 of 31 August 10, 2026
Jennifer Granat said she serves as Editor of the LAA bi-monthly newsletter. She was recruited by Mr.
Coffey and she is still using his template. She is also the general art news liaison. As such, she keeps their members and subscribers informed about the many cultural opportunities they offer. As an artist, she paints with pastels, acrylics, oils, and watercolors. She also sculpts, play music, write plays, songs, poetry, fiction and prose. She uses all of her artistic abilities to keep the soul of art alive in their publications. A key part of her tole is connecting artists with exhibition opportunities throughout the year by sharing calls for art. This serves to keep members deeply engaged as they exhibit, teach, travel, and participate in other art-related activities locally, regionally and beyond. There is never a shortage of exciting content to share.
Over the years, they have built strong relationships with galleries and other Bay Area arts organizations.
Thus, their newsletter highlights a wide range of opportunities that have sprung from those relationships including fun museum tours, classes, studio visits, on-line learning and collaborations with partners such as the Lamorinda Arts Council. Each issue also celebrates their member’s achievements, often in their own words, showcasing awards and recognitions received across the arts community. When events of interest come up between newsletter publications, she sends out short e-blasts. Together, their newsletter, targeted e-blasts, art exhibits and coordinated events serve to connect artists, patrons, and organizations creating a vibrant cultural network. These efforts directly support the Lamorinda Arts Alliance Commission to promote a diverse community of artists, foster meaningful connections, and encourage greater public engagement with the arts in Lafayette, Orinda, and the neighboring communities.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed there were no Council questions, and opened the public comment period. There were no speakers. He and Councilmembers thanked LAA members for their presentation.
B. Tracy Robinson, Assistant City Manager Introduction - Parker Stone, Construction Inspector
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Assistant City Manager Tracy Robinson introduced Parker Stone, the City’s new Construction Inspector.
She provided background on Mr. Stone’s previous experience, education, and hobbies.
Construction Inspector Parker Stone provided brief remarks and thanked the Council for the opportunity, noted his children have participated in Lafayette sports and his family loves the community.
Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers welcomed Mr. Stone to the City.
11. 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. City Council Minutes
1. July 13, 2026 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve.
2. July 16, 2026 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve.
3. July 20, 2026 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve.
City Council Meeting Page 9 of 31 August 10, 2026
B. Quarterly Financial Report – 4
th Quarter, Fiscal Year 25/26
Recommendation: Receive and file.
C. Resolution 2026-47 Amending the Day and Time of Regular Meetings of the Emergency Preparedness Commission
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-47.
D. Consider and approve the City of Lafayette’s response to the 2025-26 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Report, “MCE Marin Clean Energy: A Series of Missteps Highlight Need for Governance Changes,” addressing Findings 4-5 and Recommendations 5-6.
Recommendation: Approve the City of Lafayette’s response to the 2025-26 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Report, “MCE Marin Clean Energy: A Series of Missteps Highlight Need for Governance Changes,” addressing Findings 4-5 and Recommendations 5-6.
E. Resolution 2026-46 Authorizing the City Manager to submit an application for One Bay Area Grant (OBAG-4) funding for the Lafayette Aqueduct Pathway – Brown Avenue to Pleasant Hill Road Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-46.
F. Final Acceptance of Construction Contract for the Lafayette Restriping Project – No. 014-9749 Recommendation: Accept the construction contract with Central Striping Service, Inc. as complete and authorize staff to file a Notice of Completion and authorize release of retention for Project No. 014-9749.
G. Award of Construction Contract for Mt. Diablo Boulevard and Hampton Road Crossing – Project No. 014-9775
Recommendation: 1) Award a construction contract to Franco Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $165,189 for the Mt. Diablo Boulevard and Hampton Road Crossing Project No. 014-9775. 2) Authorize release of $50,000 from Fund -14 balance to cover the project shortfall.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Wotherspoon) to approve Consent Calendar Items A, B, C, D, E, F and G. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
12. OLD BUSINESS
A. Patrick Golier, Transportation Program Manager
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 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-36 Authorizing Parking Management Changes at CityOwned 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.
Transportation Program Manager Patrick Golier gave the staff report and overview of the item, stating it is a follow-up to the June 22nd discussion regarding the proposed parking management changes at the Cityowned Gazebo Parking Lot and the City-owned Parking Lot adjacent to Ace Hardware. Staff and the City Attorney have located and reviewed the complete history of the agreements associated with the property as well as the historic planning approvals.
City Council Meeting Page 10 of 31 August 10, 2026
Records show that the original 1986 agreement was entered into in exchange for improvements constructed by the property owner to the Gazebo parking lot, including paving and related site improvements. In exchange, the agreement provided for 22 parking spaces under a rent-free lease with renewal options. In 1999, the parties voluntarily entered into a new agreement that expressly terminated the 1986 agreement and established a new lease arrangement with different terms, including monthly rent and a provision allowing any party to terminate the agreement upon 60 days’ written notice.
In 2011, the parties entered into the current lease arrangement which likewise provides for termination upon 60 days’ written notice. That agreement expired in 2014 and has continued on a month-to-month basis under the same terms and conditions.
Based on staff’s review of the historical agreements and the City Attorney’s review of those documents, staff believes the current lease relationship is governed by the 2011 agreement. Accordingly, staff’s recommendation remains unchanged.
Following the final lease extension through December 31st, the Gazebo lot would transition from reserved parking serving three private businesses to longer term paid public parking available to employees, customers and visitors. The intent is to make this City-owned parking resource available more broadly with a particular emphasis on accommodating all day employee parking. Staff intends to monitor utilization after implementation and adjust pricing or operational practices as needed with the goal of making all-day parking affordable for employees while maintaining enough availability that employees can reasonably expect to find a space.
The proposed changes at the Gazebo and Ace Hardware lots are one of a broader effort to expand and better distribute parking opportunities throughout downtown. Since the June meeting, BART has announced that parking within the south lot of the Lafayette station will be available to downtown employees while commuter parking capacity remains available. Together with the changes proposed tonight, this would provide longer term employee parking opportunities at the BART south lot on the west side of downtown, the Gazebo lot in central downtown and a City-owned lot adjacent to Ace Hardware on the east side. These public parking opportunities also complement the existing employee permit parking program which provides employee parking and participating private lots. Staff will continue working with the Chamber of Commerce and Park Smart so these various resources function as a more coordinated network of employee parking opportunities throughout the downtown.
Lastly, the overall approach described in the staff report is consistent with long-standing City Council direction regarding publicly owned parking. In 2014, the Council directed development of a program to phase out private leases and publicly owned parking lots and, in 2016, approved implementation of that policy.
The recommendation before the Council tonight implements that prior direction while also advancing the recommendations of the 2026 Downtown Parking Management Study. Staff therefore recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 2026-36 and he was available for questions.
Councilmember Candell referred to Mr. Golier’s comments about BART parking and asked whether parking could be for employee parking on the south lot. Later, it was indicated parking on the south lot is now open to anybody, including employees. Mr. Golier said he put BART in contact with the Chamber of Commerce who is promoting the employee parking among some businesses in that part of the downtown.
City Council Meeting Page 11 of 31 August 10, 2026
Councilmember Candell asked if there is the ability to create enforcement so it is just for employees. Mr.
Golier said he does not believe so. BART will still manage the south lot and not the City.
Vice Mayor McCormick said to confirm, what the City is doing is all-day parking and no one is keeping a roster of employees or where employers must register employees. The expectation is that whoever is parking at 8 or 9 a.m. is probably an all-day employee. He noted the public can park there in the afternoon if there is a space available. Mr. Golier confirmed, said the meters will allow up to 8 hours, noted BART will continue to manage its parking lot with payment through a BART app, and there will be some areas where you scan a QR code and pay that way.
Councilmember Wotherspoon asked and confirmed the parking would be daily and not monthly with a permit system. Mr. Golier added that he will be working with pricing after the Resolution is determined. In the last staff report he proposed $5/all day.
Councilmember Wotherspoon asked if the price is the same on Happy Valley and Oak Hill Road under the freeway. Mr. Golier said those are without meters right now and the Police Department is intending to install the same types of meters on those as well at the same time.
Councilmember Wotherspoon asked if Park Smart would manage the City lots. Mr. Golier said no; Park Smart has an existing employee parking program through private lots.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed Mr. Golier received the letter today from Mr. Bowie and asked if he wished to comment on it. Mr. Golier referred to whether or not the spaces can be credited. He believes they would need to apply for a parking variance through the Planning Department.
City Attorney Subramanian said this is not before the Council today and it would be a separate action that would need to go through the Planning Department to request if any modifications would be needed to previous conditions of approval.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
MATT PEASE, representing the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, said they have been working with Mr. Golier on the parking study for a while and realize there is a balancing act between enough parking in the right place with the right turnover. One part of that has been employee parking. Many members have been concerned about being able to find parking near their business. This is particularly important for the restaurants and bars given their workers get out late at night and they do not want to be walking a long distance to go to different parking locations. The idea of having employee parking spread throughout the City is very important so it is located near businesses. They do not want to have to pay meters every couple of hours. So, the idea of being able to pay once and be there for their entire shift is very important so this is a step in the right direction. They think the Gazebo is a good fill-in location for where parking is available.
The BART parking lot will be great because it is located near many of the restaurants. So, they are pleased and supportive of the changes being proposed for the Gazebo parking lot.
City Council Meeting Page 12 of 31 August 10, 2026
KEN KOSICH said he owns and in 1986 he made an agreement with the City Council at that time, negotiated and agreed upon, with him paying to have that parking lot developed into parking so his building would qualify to have adequate parking which is required by the City so he can lease out the space and have his tenants with parking. The City made an agreement and commitment to him that this parking was there. He is not sure he would have spent the money if he knew the City Council or the City would make changes and take things like that away from him. In addition, he is disappointed in the City because through this whole discussion, not one time has anybody from the City called him and said they will change this and take his lease, ask what they can do to help, can they negotiate or do something. He has leases in place he must provide parking for and he asked what he will do with his leases if the City takes away parking. This puts him in a terrible position.
There are two restaurants in their area which are not heavy waitress-type restaurants. He knows they have a lot of parking on their property and they share the parking in the evening time with both of the restaurants so that is not an issue. Regarding employee parking, employees are not going to pay for parking if they do not have to, especially at the Gazebo parking lot because there is parking right on the street that is basically free. That area is not monitored on a regular basis and they monitor the parking lot themselves. If there is somebody in there that is not supposed to be there or parking overnight for several nights, they all the police and they come and take care of it. The parking lot currently has had several vacant spaces for 6-8 years and he knows people have asked to lease it but for some reason the City would not lease it to them, so he does not know why there is an issue.
The City will also change the parking lot and put meters on it, but not adding any spaces. This makes it more difficult for employees to park there because two of the businesses have the major part of it and he pays for those spaces for an employee. If he tells them he lost it and they will have to go on the street and park, they might leave their job. He also sent a letter with several of his concerns and again, the agreement is a longstanding one and it is his understanding that this is something that stayed with the building.
Councilmember Candell said Mr. Kosich says he has leases that people have signed leasing his property that say they have a parking space. Mr. Kosich said yes, he gives them spaces when they lease from him and it is written into his lease agreements.
Mayor Anduri asked if any of the facts in the staff report are incorrect about the history of the parking lot and lease agreements. Mr. Kosich said the lease agreements were all discussed, rearranged, they changed pricing and this is when the different leases came up. At one time, they negotiated what the price was and they were at $25 but ended up at $40. They are all assigned, and it could have been his fault that he did not push to have them continued. The City did not push to renew the lease or do anything.
Mayor Anduri said the staff report indicates that the last lease agreement was terminable by either party without any reason at any time. He asked if this is not correct. Mr. Kosich said it is written in there and it was not his understanding that they would lose parking spaces, so he does not understand why he and the City could not negotiate. If you have parking spaces, he asked why his building cannot be allowed so many parking spaces from the new one. They will pay for the parking spaces, and they are not arguing that. It is losing the parking spaces in an area which does not have a parking problem. People downtown here are not going to park in the Gazebo parking lot and walk over.
City Council Meeting Page 13 of 31 August 10, 2026
Councilmember Cervantes said the prior agreement was 2011, expired in 2014 and it had the termination features built in. After the last Council meeting, he asked if he approached the City to re-negotiate a lease.
Mr. Kosich said he wrote the City to ask if they could hold a meeting to discuss this. His thought was maybe they could discuss it before it came before the Council to come to an agreement. He thought somebody would contact him, but he did not receive a response from the City to hold a meeting.
KYLE PEACOCK, CEO of Peacock Construction, said they are at 3421 Golden Gate Way across the street from Mr. Kosich. He is also part owner of 3421 Golden Gate Way. They have been operating at the property since 1984, have leased spaces at the lot for many years. His two concerns which he outlined in his letter are: 1) if it is parking meters, it is a public lot. It is not an employee lot. The City has a parking study that states the City needs more long-term employee parking yet a lot is opening up to everyone and if that is the case, it is a public lot. They do need long-term employee parking and this is a struggle for their company even with the amount of spaces they lease in the lot. 2) Since it is reducing guaranteed parking spaces they have, now they will have to apply for a parking variance. He asked what is the guarantee that the parking variance will get passed. It sounds like a one-off thing at the whim of the Planning Department. If the City is going to take this away, he asked why can’t they just eliminate the parking variance issue. This would make it a lot easier to operate and they would have more certainty when they do plan a building renovation or building owners trying to put new tenants in. He appreciates the Council’s consideration of these issues.
Councilmember Cervantes said the staff report talks about the agreement with Mr. Kosich. He asked if Mr.
Peacock has leased parking spaces from the City also. Mr. Peacock confirmed they have 7 spaces. They have asked multiple times and stopped asking in 2020 about leasing more spaces, and they were told no; the City was not going to lease them any more spaces. He guessed there are empty spaces in the lot, but they could use more spaces in the Gazebo lot.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked how much does Mr. Peacock pay now monthly for a spot. Mr. Peacock said he believes it is $40/month per spot. Vice Mayor McCormick said Mr. Peacock could pay this for his tenants going forward. Mr. Peacock said as Mr. Kosich said, none of their employees would pay for that parking on their own. They will park on the street or find somewhere to pay. So, his company would be paying for that or reimbursing them in some form or another.
Councilmember Candell asked if 7 spots are out of the total 21 that are leased or she asked if that is in addition to the 21 spaces Mr. Kosich has. Mr. Peacock said those are separate from the 21 spots. Mr. Golier said there are 24 spaces currently being paid for between three companies in total.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked and confirmed that all three companies are month to month parking.
Mayor Anduri said if the Resolution passes and the Council moves forward with this, he asked if this immediately causes any of the businesses to be out of compliance.
City Attorney Subramanian said this would go into effect at the end of the year, so they would have access to the spaces through the end of 2026 so they can proceed to review and process any applications they may or may not need regarding additional parking spaces or seek additional parking elsewhere.
Mayor Anduri said for existing uses he asked if it would only impact future applications. Ms. Subramanian said if there is an issue, they would need to apply but they would have time because they would have access to these spaces through the end of the year. Alternatively, they could try to seek access to other non-City owned spaces from other property owners.
City Council Meeting Page 14 of 31 August 10, 2026
DAVE BOWIE, Attorney on behalf of Tilden Preparatory School, introduced Dr. Karen Hobbs, owner and principal of the school. He said he filled out the application to speak this evening and when it asked if he was for or against it, he said “other” because they are really an “other” participant in this entire matter.
Tilden Preparatory School is looking to purchase the property at 3435 Mt. Diablo Boulevard. It is very important that it be a CUP for the use. Thankfully, City staff has been wonderful and it looks like they have a permanent recommendation. They expect in a meeting to be held shortly to receive that permit. But, he has a deep concern about the school in the future and what might happen because they have a situation here where City policy is intended to avoid having this long-term private dedicated use to a particular property owner. The problem with that is it means they are subject to parking requirements and uses. It was suggested they would be able to perhaps make an application for a variance if there was a change in use and if parking was required. But, a variance normally turns on the issue of physical circumstances-not something that is not related to physical circumstances. They, as well as many of the other property owners, are faced with a typical situation. These are existing buildings, existing parcels, and they either have or do not have parking, and there is no way to supplement parking on those same sites. So, they need to locate an available parking site.
What struck him as being a fair compromise here is that Mr. Kosich paid monies to improve the lot years ago. The City may have a City policy that suggests it should be changed. This does not appear to be an area where there is a parking problem, especially with BART participating. It now looks as though this is a wonderful situation where parking is not a problem but they do not want to make parking as not a problem be the defining issue of what uses might be able to operate from a particular property. They could have very desirable uses such as Tilden Preparatory School which might be forbidden from actually operating at that location because parking is not a problem, yet they would not be able to point to available parking and they might or might not be able to qualify for a variance at some future time.
What he suggested in his letter is that a credit be given to the Kosich property because it paid for all improvements for the number of spaces it historically occupied. They as the next owner would inherit that credit and they could use that in addressing use and parking issues. He thinks that is a good compromise to deal with the problem that may not really be a problem but they could address it in the future to the extent it might become so. So, they are not for or against it. They understand the policy, do not oppose the policy, but they do need some relief here if they were to go ahead and purchase that property.
Councilmember Candell asked and confirmed Tilden is interested in purchasing the Kosich property and entire building at 3435 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, and the actual CUP will be considered by the PC in another week or so.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked and confirmed it is the same building Mr. Kosich spoke about where Mr.
Bowie’s client is purchasing. The concerns over the current tenants are not that material any longer because Tilden will be the tenant.
Mr. Bowie explained Mr. Kosich has real concerns over the fact that his leases to existing tenants include clauses that obligate him to provide parking and that ability to provide parking may disappear because of the City’s actions. This is a problem that needs to be addressed by somebody. Their issue is a little different— they are potentially making a major investment in Lafayette and parking changes from time to time as uses change. It is a major investment and they cannot add to onsite parking because it is an existing situation.
City Council Meeting Page 15 of 31 August 10, 2026
So the question is—how do they solve parking issues in an economic fashion. The way Mr. Kosich did this is he developed the parking lot for the city’s benefit. This has worked out great for him, but he questioned what they will do. If this was a major area like Walnut Creek, he would not advocate for this. Thanks to the good work done with BART and to the existing circumstances, parking does not appear to be a real problem here. So, you can go beyond the main issue and look at it in a more holistic fashion—how to solve all problems. A problem for him is they might be very constrained in terms of future uses because of parking issues, but the City can help them by giving them credit for the space that Mr. Kosich actually developed.
Then, they have some recourse to meet parking requirements that otherwise is not available. He is very concerned that waivers and variances apply to physical conditions and this is not what they are talking about here. He is suggesting at a City level, the Council could adopt a policy that would help everybody that would make life good for everybody.
Councilmember Candell asked and confirmed Tilden is a private school for kids. Dr. Hobbs noted that they are currently in Walnut Creek and planning to move. When they were planning to move, parking was available and they have gone this far into the process and learned about these changes.
Councilmember Wotherspoon said if Tilden proceeds with purchase of the property she asked if they intend to occupy the entire building. Dr. Hobbs said there is a salon there now which they intend to allow to stay and they have a lease that includes parking. They will mostly operate out of the first and lower floor and will provide bike parking to encourage biking to work and e-bikes can be safe. Many teachers use public transit, but they are making a big investment and if it has 4 parking spaces, she thinks their use will work but if they ever want to sell the building far into the future, it would not have the value with the amount of parking.
Mr. Bowie said for that matter, the school evolves as things go along. He thinks they can currently work within the parking limitations and staff has agreed with that, but that can change as the school develops further. Dr. Hobbs said they would potentially have to limit enrollment if that happened and they are currently trying to get certification as a non-public school which they did in Albany at their other location, which is a huge boon for the community. Their use is likely to go up. They have 7 families in Albany who are waiting to come to Lafayette if they get this certification.
Councilmember Wotherspoon said as a follow-up question from Mr. Kosich, she asked if there is one lease currently which is the salon. Dr. Hobbs said the salon should be leaving by the time they move in.
Councilmember Cervantes said if the school is successful, they will be coming to the City for a parking variance anyway in the future because if you take out the spaces for the salon, there is an even smaller number than he thought they were talking about. It is not a physical change but a change in use.
Mayor Anduri asked if the parking variance an issue for this item tonight, and City Attorney Subramanian confirmed and said it is not on the agenda. To clarify, she said the City has parking standards and rules. If people do not comply with those rules they would either need to seek a variance through the Planning Department or, in this case, they could also obtain parking from other private property owners.
Mayor Anduri asked when is the last time the parking lot was resurfaced and asked if that is the original surface from 1984. Mike Moran, the city’s Director of Engineering and Public Works, responded that he is not aware when the parking lot was last resurfaced.
Mayor Anduri closed the public comment period and returned discussion to the Council.
City Council Meeting Page 16 of 31 August 10, 2026
Vice Mayor McCormick referred to the spots underneath at Oak Hill and asked if the non-metered would be made to be metered for employees and consistent with the BART parking lot. Mr. Golier said he is working with the Police Department about these spots and for Happy Valley, those would be for BART and not necessarily be for employees.
Vice Mayor McCormick said he thinks they should add this to the overall mix because he believes this is quite important and even more spaces than what they were thinking. He voiced support of the measure and thinks the City has been asked to produce more employee parking and it seems they are following the past Council recommendations about not getting into individual leases with individual companies. It is difficult to know whether they are preferring one company over another and this feels like it is fair for who needs it will pay for it and get the parking. He appreciates the fact there are some areas not as impacted as others, but that whole area will grow and they expect it will be more exciting with Tilden there and there will be more demand there which may bring more demand for the barbeque place and all other businesses in that area.
So, he thinks it is good the City is disentangling itself from long-term leases and getting a more equitable way to allocate parking.
Councilmember Cervantes said he is also inclined to support this as well. The parking study that staff went through some months ago indicated that overall within Lafayette there is adequate parking. But, the one issue highlighted was the need to address employee parking and he is happy to see staff is working on that.
The work with BART is terrific and the other alternatives around BART are great, but rationalizing this, to him, it is kind of a hodgepodge. It makes sense to give them something they can work with. He thinks if there is an employer that has a need, there is a process to address that, whether it is Tilden or another entity. His inclination is they want to support businesses and operations in town so the parking variance process should be fair and reasonable, but they have to start with a reasonable template to work from which is what staff has proposed here.
Councilmember Candell asked and confirmed Mr. Golier was the person who decided to reach out to BART for the south lot, and she said that was a great idea. She is sympathetic to the owners of the businesses there and she knows the City required them to do this a part of their conditions of approval. As long as the City did not violate that, which the City Attorney has indicated, she understands it. The good news is that parking is not that busy there and she thinks Golden Gate Way is pretty safe to cross the street there given the number of students coming in and out, so she hopes in the transition, the school will be as successful as they can possibly be and this will not be a problem for them in the future. She voiced support and thinks this is a step in the right direction for all of the employees.
Councilmember Wotherspoon echoed fellow Councilmember comments. She thinks the policy will definitely help employees across the whole City and it will also yield more full occupancy of the spaces when there are more parties getting access to them. She also sympathizes with the property owner, but at this point, she supports staff’s recommendation.
Mayor Anduri asked if the meters will stop at 5 or 6 p.m. Mr. Golier said they would stop when the City’s time limits stop across the City.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Cervantes) to adopt 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. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
City Council Meeting Page 17 of 31 August 10, 2026
B. Mala Subramanian, City Attorney
Settlement Agreement between the City of Lafayette and Brian Vesce and Allyson Vesce regarding litigation associated with 3654 Happy Valley Road
Recommendation: Consideration and Approval of a Settlement Agreement with Brian J. Vesce and Allyson Vesce and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute the Agreement.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said before the Council for consideration is a settlement agreement between the City and the Vesces regarding their property. The prior property owners moved to subdivide the property in 2000. In the approval resolution, the City provided for an access condition that is the heart of the litigation and the settlement agreement. The Vesces acquired the property in 2016 and sued the City in 2020. The concern is, again, the access easement and they claim in their lawsuit that the City claimed a public right-of-way for pedestrians between Happy Valley Road and Glen Road by way of that access condition.
In 2020, staff brought to the Council a similarly situated settlement agreement to avoid litigation costs and to remove the City from the lawsuit. At that time, the public asked the City not to execute the settlement agreement. They wanted to participate in the lawsuit and they asked the City not to enter into the settlement agreement to allow them to participate in the lawsuit. The Council considered those requests and did not enter into the settlement agreement at that time.
In 2024, the public was named as part of the lawsuit and since that time the public has had an opportunity to participate in the lawsuit. Staff is now requesting the Council consider the settlement agreement to allow the City to exit the lawsuit, limit its litigation costs, and this will not have any result for the public in that the public can continue to participate in the lawsuit should it so desire. It can also enter into a separate settlement agreement with the Vesces should the parties agree to do such.
She said she is available to answer any questions, and staff is requesting authorization for the City Manager to execute it.
Mayor Anduri asked if it is correct that the City considered entering into a settlement agreement with the Vesces in December 2020. Ms. Subramanian confirmed.
Mayor Anduri asked why the City did not go ahead and enter into that settlement agreement. Ms.
Subramanian explained that the public at the time wanted to intervene in the lawsuit and allege a public easement. This is something the City cannot argue or obtain for the public. The public would have to make those claims on their own and they did not want the City to settle because they wanted to participate in the lawsuit and make the argument there was a public easement that existed on the Vesces property .So, they requested that the City not enter into the settlement agreement so they could make those claims.
Mayor Anduri said therefore, rather than enter into the settlement agreement, the City decided not to do it because the public asked for an opportunity to intervene into the litigation and become a party to the litigation, and the City did not ask the public to become part of the litigation. Ms. Subramanian confirmed this is correct.
Mayor Anduri asked if it is correct that if the City enters into the settlement agreement that does not have any impact at all on whether or not the Vesces can move for a default judgment against the public. Ms.
Subramanian said yes, this is correct. If the Vesces so choose, they could choose to seek a default judgement against the public for failure to answer.
City Council Meeting Page 18 of 31 August 10, 2026
Mayor Anduri asked if the Vesces could do that tomorrow, and Ms. Subramanian said yes, they could, as well as a month from now in theory, as long as the public continues not to answer.
Mayor Anduri asked if they could do that if the City continued to be a party and did not enter into the settlement agreement. Ms. Subramanian said yes.
Mayor Anduri said then what the City does is irrelevant to what the Vesces do with respect to the public.
Ms. Subramanian confirmed.
Councilmember Cervantes asked to clarify what a default judgement is. Ms. Subramanian introduced Scott Ditfurth from BBK who has handled this litigation for the City and is participating via Zoom.
Scott Ditfurth, BBK Attorney, explained that a default judgement is when a party is named in a lawsuit but elects not to answer that lawsuit or respond to that lawsuit. In this particular situation, the public was named in the lawsuit almost two years ago in November of 2024. They have not yet responded to that lawsuit and one has 30 days after being served with the lawsuit to provide a response. If they do not provide a response, then the plaintiff in that particular action can take a default against that party. In other words, the litigation does not have to go on if the defendant elects not to answer.
In this particular situation, the public has been named for some period of time, but they have not responded to the lawsuit. So, he understands that the public and the plaintiffs have worked out informal arrangements so as not to have a default taken at certain points in time, but at a certain point in time, the Vesces could decide to take a default against the public. That could happen regardless of what the City does. If the City settles its action it could take a default or not. If the City decides not to settle, the Vesces could take a default against the public or not.
The claims by the plaintiff against the Vesces are separate from that of the City in the sense that they are two separate parties. Each party has the ability to respond to a complaint, make its particular arguments or defenses or not. So, the City’s involvement in this particular situation is separate from that of the public, and they worked very carefully to put into the settlement agreement, although legally it would not matter, that nothing contained in the settlement agreement affects the rights of the public to assert any claim or property interest that they may have or want to assert in the litigation. So, the public could if it so desires, participate in the litigation at any time it wants.
Mayor Anduri said he wants to emphasize a point that Mr. Ditfurth made. He believes he said that the matter dispute between the Vesces and the City is different from the matter between the Vesces and the public because he knows some members of the public believe that if the City settles and is out of it, as quoted from an email received, “The public would be burdened by being left to litigate the matter on the City’s behalf.” His understanding is that is not accurate because they would not be litigating any more or less than they would be if the City were in the lawsuit.
City Council Meeting Page 19 of 31 August 10, 2026
Mr. Ditfurth confirmed this is a correct statement. What is being litigated against the City is what the meaning of what the S3 access condition was. In other words, did the City establish an easement on its behalf when it did this subdivision in 2000. That is not what the public believes to be on the Dips area. The public believes there is a public easement for the benefit of the public and not the City. The City can, under all and any circumstances here, only indicate that it has an easement for itself or not. It would never be able to indicate that there is an easement on behalf of another party, i.e., the public. The public believes there is a public easement on that property that should be open to the entirety of the public. So, they can make that argument in this particular case which is separate from what the City would be involved with in this particular litigation.
So, if the City resolves its matters with the Vesces, the public would not be taking on a defense as to whether or not the City had an easement by way of the S3 access condition. This is not something they would or could argue.
Mayor Anduri said his understanding is that the City has no mechanism or ability to force the Vesces to dismiss the litigation against the public. Mr. Ditfurth confirmed and said they are separate parties so the City does not have the ability to force the Vesces to dismiss a separate party in the lawsuit. That would be by way of a resolution or an adjudication of the claim as between the public and the Vesces.
Councilmember Candell said because the public has not put forth an argument in this case and they could get “defaulted” in Mr. Ditfurth’s opinion, she asked what happens to the public’s case.
Mr. Ditfurth said all that the plaintiffs can get is a default judgement by what is set forth in their complaint— the S3 access condition. There would not be any sort of adjudication as to a public easement because that is something the public would be making in their particular argument. Likely what would occur in this case, and he can and am not speaking for the public, but would likely he would assume to be occurring in this case is that the public would answer the complaint and file a cross complaint for the public easement. If they choose not to do that and a default is taken, the only thing a default can be taken on is what is complained of in the complaint as alleged against the public. That only relates to the S3 access condition. So, there would be no foreclosure of the public going forward and any claim they might have against the Vesces if they believe there is some sort of public easement there. But that would be the default that could be attained against the public if they decide not to participate in the lawsuit.
Councilmember Candell noted the Council is receiving letters asking about if they do get defaulted against the public, the public is saying that really hurts any of their future ability to get a public easement. She asked if that is the case or she asked if the default judgement makes any difference if the public does try to seek it later.
Mr. Ditfurth said they have not done that analysis, but in this framework, if you have a very simple breach of contract complaint and the plaintiff sues a defendant and says you owe me $100,000, and that defendant could only get the $100,000 in the default judgment. Here, because the plaintiffs only asked for a clarification of the S3 access condition, the only thing they are allowed to get by way of a default judgement is that judgement from the court. There is no mention in the complaint currently provided of a public access easement for the public, so a default judgment would not be a judgment that would affect any sort of or have a saying as to a public easement—just the S3 access condition.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
City Council Meeting Page 20 of 31 August 10, 2026
MARTHA CLARK said she has been a resident for 33 years and their daughter who is now 40 years old used to walk the Dips to visit friends in Happy Valley. This has been a “community highway” for kids to connect for many years. She has not gone through the details of all discussions the Council has had and all of the legalities. She sat and listened to legal communications about the distinction between a settlement agreement with the City and with the public. She asked if the Council was here for the public and said she does not understand the distinction. It seems like the Council is drawing legal distinctions that are convenient to get out of this and leaving the people who have an issue with this that, by the way, the City fumbled several times over the years. She thinks it is the City’s fault they are in this mess and the City is taking away something pretty precious to the community. So, as a member of the public who has not answered a call from the public, she thinks this is not right.
Mayor Anduri asked Ms. Clark to explain what it is she thinks the Council would be taking away.
Mrs. Clark said she does not think the Council is addressing the real problem There is a prescriptive easement that for many, many years was clear. Along the way and whatever documentation and transactions that have taken place, the City failed to document that.
Mayor Anduri asked the City Attorney if a prescriptive easement would be in favor of the City. Ms.
Subramanian said no, it would not.
Mayor Anduri said he is sorry these are legal details, but this is a legal matter and there is a huge amount of misinformation out there. The City has nothing to do with the prescriptive easement.
Councilmember Candell said to take a kinder tone to this, she believes there is a lot of confusion with the public and she feels it. She hears what Mrs. Clark is saying. They will get through this evening and hopes she understands better at the end of the discussion and the Council will do its best to make a decision.
Mayor Anduri apologized for his tone, but the Council has spent days working on this.
Mrs. Clark said the City has not told the public that it is their responsibility to get this prescriptive easement.
The public does not seem to know that. Mayor Anduri said he believes the public’s lawyer is aware of that, and Ms. Subramanian replied “yes.”
Mrs. Clark apologized but said it is very frustrating for the public as well as for the Council. Mayor Anduri said this is an important passage from the Glen to Happy Valley. They do not want to see this disappear. This is extremely frustrating for every member of the Council and they are trying to do what they can to preserve it, but there is only so much they can do and it is a legal matter. They do not want this passage to go away and would do everything they could to preserve this.
City Council Meeting Page 21 of 31 August 10, 2026
PETER CLARK said he loves Lafayette and he thinks that the Happy Valley Glen and Happy Valley Road should be connected with this cut-through. Kids are not damaging anything and it has gone on for years. In fact, it is his understanding that the reason Happy Valley Glen and Happy Valley proper are in the same homeowners association is because when Happy Valley was constituted, the Dips was the only entrance to Happy Valley Glen; that the incorporation of the whole setup was any lot that was accessed through the corner of Happy Valley Road and Deer Hill Road. So, it has been there a long time. He disagrees a bit about the City’s characterization that his wife is uninformed. He thinks the reason that the City did not get out of the litigation business in the first place is because they put in the S3 condition saying that if they allowed that partition of the lot the path would stay open. He thinks the City has participated in this lawsuit because it was the City saying they want this path. He think it helps the Happy Valley’s case here. He is on the Board of the Happy Valley Improvement Association which thinks they should keep the path open and he begged the Council to do what it can to do that. It seems like bailing out on this is not the right thing.
COLBY POWELL said this case has been going on for a long time. For the first time, however, what is different now is where the place where they could collectively resolve the dispute. He clarified something he heard from the City Attorney that was not accurate—the public never asked to be added to this lawsuit or the complaint. The public never asked to have an opportunity to enter the lawsuit. The public asked the City not to execute the settlement agreement because doing so at the time would terminate access through the Dips. That was the reason and only reason. To use the calendar as an example, that was in 2020. It took until the end of 2024 for the court to finally require that the Vesces add the general public to the dispute. So, nobody asked for that which he is aware of, but it happened and what they are asking for now is for the City to exercise the settlement agreement they posed originally in June.
The settlement agreement said in Item 4 to “Dismiss the action in its entirety.” Instead, that has been changed to say, “Dismiss the City.” Dismissing the action in its entirety allows what has been recently offered by Mr. Vesce which is to leave things status quo, stop the lawsuits, stop the complaint filing, and get this resolved once and for all. By narrowing the scope of the dismissal, the City is forcing the general public to make the decision to litigate, and they are at the doorstep of being able to resolve this amicably and have it be dismissed for all parties, and that is the direction they would like to see it go.
He also heard Mr. Ditfurth’s clarification about the parsing of things and while he understands they are not actually being asked to litigate what the City had previously been doing, by removing themselves, the City is leaving the public as the only entity left to deal with this challenge in this issue. Again, they have the opportunity right now today to settle and resolve this amicably with a dismissal instead of further litigation.
That is the direction the public would like to see this go.
Vice Mayor McDonald asked if the City has the capability or authority to remove the public from this lawsuit.
Ms. Subramanian replied, “no.” The Vesces would need to dismiss the public from the lawsuit.
Councilmember Cervantes said that would have to be the Vesces to agree to that kind of term and the City cannot enforce it unilaterally, and Ms. Subramanian confirmed.
Councilmember Candell asked if the City is allowed to ask to change it and asked if it is possible to have the agreement dismissed for both parties in one agreement. Ms. Subramanian said if the Vesces agreed to that, it is possible.
City Council Meeting Page 22 of 31 August 10, 2026
Mayor Anduri asked Mr. Powell if his attorney asked the Vesces to dismiss the public. Mr. Powell said yes, he did and his understanding is the response from the Vesces attorney was to provide a list of all people that would be represented. As a general public, this is virtually impossible to identify who those people are.
Councilmember Candell asked if this is typically required if you have the public named that they would have to get a list of the public. Mr. Ditfurth said it is not typical or not typical. The only party that is named is anyone making a claim for that. So, he thinks the Vesce’s attorney was asking for whoever is making that claim because the way that the complaint is written is that “any member of the public that has an interest or stated interest.”
So, he thinks that is what the Vesce’s attorney is asking for is that, who are those people that are making the claim, but he does not know for sure. It is not uncommon to ask for that if there is going to be some form of settlement so that you can get signatures and releases and things like that. He does understand Mr. Powell’s comment, and in response to that, depending on the number of people, at a certain point it becomes unwieldy but he does not know what those numbers are in this particular circumstance so he would not be able to speculate as to that.
Mayor Anduri asked if they know whether a representative of the Vesces is participating in this meeting virtually or otherwise. City Clerk said she does not see anyone participating from the Vesces.
BEN DOUGLAS said if there are potentially hundreds of people who would be considered “public” who have an interest here, it is sort of an impossible task to gather a proper list of them. So, that request from the Vesces is impossible. He said Councilmember Candell hit on exactly the point before—while the City does not have the authority to unilaterally force or cause the public to be dismissed, the City does have at this point, and they are asking not to give this up, the leverage to make the Vesces do that and not force this disparate group of citizens and taxpayers who have an interest in this to flounder on their own and be at the mercy of the Vesces and their lawyers who can then seek a default which they could then use to their advantage to ultimately close the path which in the past has clearly been their goal—to have the ability to close the path notwithstanding their assurances. The fact that they are refusing to dismiss the public is tipping their hand as to what they would like to keep their options open to do. So, ultimately, the City represents the public. He understands there is a distinction, but looking out for the public’s interest, the City now has a point of leverage that can say it will agree to dismiss this case but also dismiss the public so that the public’s interests are not unfairly prejudiced. There is no reason for the City not to do that. The Council is holding the cards right now. This is the moment when the Council can look out for the public’s interest.
Mayor Anduri asked Mr. Douglas what he sees as the City’s “leverage.” Mr. Douglas said it is to say the City will not go forward with this settlement unless the public is also dismissed which he sees as leverage because clearly the Vesces would like to have the City dismissed but not have the public dismissed because they know the City is a unified entity that has counsel in place that would resist their desire to get themselves into a legal position where they could cut off this very important access point for the broader community.
The City is one entity. The public is a diffuse group of hundreds of individuals, some of whom are quite aware of what the Vesces have been trying to pull over the last few years and some of which have no idea. Those people are blissfully ignorant of all of this. So, this is the point where the City has a point of leverage and all it needs to do is say, we will enter in the settlement agreement and add a few words to the agreement – “and the public.” That is it. The City can withhold its acquiescence to this settlement until the public is dismissed.
City Council Meeting Page 23 of 31 August 10, 2026
Vice Mayor McCormick said he thinks they have addressed the fact that the Council does not have the power to compel the Vesces. They can express a desire, but if the public was dismissed from the lawsuit, he asked would that stop the Vesces from closing the path at some point in the future. Mr. Douglas said they would have to take additional legal action rather than try to seek a default now. It would mean they would not be able to do it in a sudden backdoor way by rushing to the courthouse, getting a default, and then saying there is no easement and they are closing it off. When they initially bought the property, they closed it off. The only reason they opened it up is because they did not have the proper legal standing to do so and their continued resistance to a settlement gives a lot of people plenty of suspicion is that they will simply bide their time, wait for the City to step out, then seek a default against “the public” and then they will have a free reign to do that.
ERIC PETERSON said he just also wanted to remind the Council of a little bit of history here. The fundamental issue is that the City fumbled the ball on this S3. They made a mess of it. They did not record it properly and as Mr. Douglas pointed out, Mr. Vesce put up a fence and blocked the path. It is not that he did not put up “Do Not Trespass” signs which he did. He went to the point of putting up physical 8x8 posts with fencing. So, people show you what they are going to do. Then, through lawsuits he said his rights have been harmed, so he went out and sued, got a seven-figure settlement and now he has a large war chest to fight the public.
The public does not have the funds to fight him. They have been raising funds which has been difficult and the Council has expressed frustration because they have been working on this for days, but they have been at this for 6 years and they feel defenseless. They need the City to step up and do the right thing. He knows the Council cannot make them do it, but the City can fight them on the public’s behalf and that is what the City should do in order to do the right thing.
Councilmember Candell asked Mr. Peterson if he was one of the people the Council has been hearing lately that the Vesces did reach out to homeowners in the area, and she asked what the Vesces said to him. Mr.
Peterson said they said they do not want any encumbrances on their property. They said they were going to keep it open and it is nice he came over and met with them, but the fact remains he has demonstrated what he ultimately wants to do. He does not want any encumbrances on his property. He felt he was harmed because there was this unexpected encumbrance on his property. He got a settlement for that and was paid for the harm that was done to him and now he is going to “get his cake and eat it too” potentially because he is going to be able to use that “war chest” to fight the public. The City are the only ones that can stand up and do the right thing to make up the error that was done in the past with not correctly recording S3. He asked the City to do the right thing and stand up to it.
Mayor Anduri closed the public comment period and asked if the Council had further questions and there were none.
Councilmember Cervantes asked whether it hurts to ask the Vesces to include the public in the settlement agreement. They can say yes, in which case, the concerns are resolved, and they can say no. If they say no the City has the settlement agreement drafted but the risk to the City is that the Vesces then decide not to enter into the agreement, in which case litigation follows. He is willing to take the risk to reach out to the Vesces and see if they would be willing to modify the settlement agreement because it takes two to settle.
The City cannot do this unilaterally and force them, but as a counter party, they may be willing to consider that.
City Council Meeting Page 24 of 31 August 10, 2026
Councilmember Candell said she thinks it would be absolutely awful if they did not at least try and get an answer for the questions that have been posed to the Council—why can’t they do this. If they do not even try, how can they know they did the right thing. So, she thinks they are compelled as an entity to take that step however their City Attorney says they are supposed to do this and do the right thing. If they do not, she has felt this for many different people that they will blame the Council for not doing their job on this one point by not even asking. It is unfortunate that nobody from the Vesces is here tonight so the Council cannot ask them directly themselves. For her, the best thing to do is to explain to the Vesces that they feel compelled that they need to ask this question and give them some time to make that happen and be transparent with it.
Vice Mayor McCormick said he would be open to that. He understands the frustration because we are talking about the public. They are all the public, have a vested interest, they are the public’s elected representatives, so he hears their pain but thinks there is only so much the City can do. He is willing to support asking the Vesces to include the public. That said, they have a negotiated agreement that has been percolating for 6 years and they also have a responsibility to the taxpayers to get their part wrapped up in whatever manner is possible. If they have to turn over the public in that term then they have to do it. He is willing to do it but they have to resolve this thing quickly because it is in nobody’s best interest to drag this out further. So, he is willing to ask on behalf of everybody.
Councilmember Wotherspoon said she agrees.
Mayor Anduri said he thinks it is fair to say that the outcome that every Councilmember and City staff wants is for the public to be able to use the Dips. It is just so important as a way for kids to get to school without having to go down to Deer Hill Road. It is important for people to be able to get to friends and neighbors easily and, in the last few years, it has become even more important as a possible evacuation route. Having that closed off is really unthinkable. They have not been discussing this among Councilmembers except in public settings but as they have been discussing it in the Closed Sessions, that has been the goal—how can they achieve this because not having that as a point is truly unthinkable. So, he supports this effort. They have been advised by Council in the public session that this path is not without risk and that is all he can say.
He asked if this needs a formal motion to continue the item.
Ms. Subramanian confirmed she has direction to follow-up with the Vesces and staff will be bringing it back to either indicate they are amenable and, if they are amenable, staff would revise the agreement. If they are not amenable, the Council would be considering the same agreement before the Council.
Mayor Anduri suggested that Ms. Subramanian, Mr. Ditfurth and he and Councilmember Candell and he meet.
Councilmember Candell said she thinks it should not be limited to the attorneys talking to their attorney so she asked and confirmed the Council supported she and Mayor Anduri working on this together. Mayor Anduri asked if a special meeting could be called, and Ms. Subramanian suggested not setting a date for it to return. It will need to be agendized for a public meeting and if it can be done sooner, then staff can bring it back.
Mayor Anduri confirmed direction is to move it to a future meeting and that the next scheduled meeting is September 14, 2026, and that the Council could hold a special meeting.
City Council Meeting Page 25 of 31 August 10, 2026
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Candell) to move the item to a future meeting; that the next scheduled regular meeting is September 14, 2026, and that the Council has the ability to hold a special meeting. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
BREAK
Mayor Anduri called for a 5-minute break and thereafter reconvened the regular meeting.
Convene Successor Agency
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Candell) to convene the Successor Agency. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
13. STAFF REPORTS
A. Tim Przybyla, Financial Services Manager and Kenneth L. Dieker, Principal, Del Rio Advisors, LLC Consideration of Resolution SA2026-01 Authorizing Staff to Initiate the Issuance of Refunding Bonds to Refinance Successor Agency Bonds and Engage Necessary Professional Services to Complete the Refunding
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution SA2026-01.
Recusal: Agency member Cervantes said he will have to recuse himself as he still owns stock in one of the underwriting firms that bid on the item. He said he appreciates the Financial Services Manager for bringing the item to the Agency and is pleased to see Kenneth Dieker involved with this. He then left the chambers.
Financial Services Manager Tim Przybyla introduced Ken Dieker, Principal at Del Rio Advisors, LLC.
Ken Dieker, Principal, Del Rio Advisors, LLC, said the Redevelopment Agency was formed in 1974 a few years after incorporation. Over the years, tax increment grew in the project area and allowed the Redevelopment Agency at the time to issue bonds in 2002, 2005 and 2008. Then dissolution came along in 2012 and government took redevelopment away and formed successor agencies. In 2014 and 2015, the City’s Successor Agency refunded those previous bonds for significant savings. There is now 12 years remaining on the existing bonds issued in 2014 and 2015 and they are proposing tonight to refund those bonds, likely the last time since there are only 12 years remaining.
From a technical standpoint, there is $22.9 million of bonds outstanding ranging in interest rates from 3 1/8% to 5%. Right now, the savings are about $1.9 million over the remaining term which equates to about $172,000 a year. He pointed out that this $172,000 a year is spread amongst all the taxing entities that receive money through the RPTTF or the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund. Unfortunately, the City’s share is only 6.13% so the City is only getting about $10,500 under the current market conditions but there is an administrative fee of $50,000 to manage the transaction. They reached out to form a team at Mr.
Przybyla’s request. He included copies of the potential agreements and give a summary of each one of those proposals. The recommendation is to hire Ramirez and Company as a low bid to act as a service underwriter on the transaction, HDL Corn and Cone to act as fiscal consultant. They have prepared a fiscal consultant’s report which is a lot of the primary tables and documents which are part of the official statement the bonds are used to market, and Jones Hall as bond and disclosure counsel.
City Council Meeting Page 26 of 31 August 10, 2026
There is one fee that is non-contingent and everybody else is working contingent. If the transaction does not work, they will pull the plug on it, but the fiscal consultants do not. Their fee is $22,500 plus expenses and he thinks the resolution may have listed this incorrectly. In addition to that, if the transaction does not go forward, the fee is reduced to $17,000 plus expenses. He does not expect the fiscal consultant to have a lot of expenses. These would primarily be travel, meals, etc. They are not being asked to travel to attend the meetings. They will be participating in calls and preparing a report.
He also mentioned that he spoke with Mr. Przybyla, and they would like to set a minimum threshold savings for this. Under current market conditions, the net present values savings are about 6 ½%. The California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (3:11:15) has guidelines as savings in the 3% to 5% threshold are significant. For a redevelopment project like this, he thinks the 5% threshold would be a good number to use. That is about a 25% basis point increase over the rates that are currently in the report. Luckily, over the last few weeks since the report was drafted, the market has stayed pretty solid. There is a little bit of rally in the Muni Market even though treasuries are all over the place with the Iran war and other things going on with oil prices and inflation. They will continue to monitor it, so his recommendation is that if the savings were to drop belowM5% they would simply freeze on the refunding and not move forward until the savings returned back to that number. He concluded and said he was available for questions.
Vice Mayor McCormick said the geo political markets, being what they are, he asked how this would be handled if it looks like they will not get the rates they believe they could get, and it sounds like that would freeze. Mr. Dieker said they can revisit if the savings come back. It could happen one week and that’s how volatile things are, so they will continue to monitor it.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked how long the process takes in the aggregate. Mr. Dieker said they are looking to sell the bonds sometime in November and be done before the end of the year. So, it could happen relatively quickly. He will say it could accelerate a little bit only because DOF has to approve the refunding under the successor agency rules so they have to go back to the Agency with the bond documents which is scheduled for September, then to the County Oversight Board to get their approval, then go to DOF to get their approval. But, it used to take them 60 days to approve it but they are doing it in a few days now because they do not have a lot of refunding coming before them. So, they think they could accelerate this and maybe close as early as October.
Agency member Candell said this will save the Agency but it will cost them. They have 12 years to recoup what it is costing them. Based on the savings they will have, she asked how quickly they actually recoup those costs.
Mr. Dieker said the only potential cost is the $17,000 the Agency would pay if the deal does not move forward. Everything else is already built in. The numbers reflected in this report include paying all those costs. Those are the true savings, so the Agency is not having to recover anything and he will say if the transaction does not go forward, the fiscal consultant’s fee is a recognized obligation payment schedule (ROPS) available item so the Agency could put it on the next ROPS to get reimbursed for those dollars. So it is no risk to the city moving forward and they could benefit from these savings.
Mayor Anduri said Mr. Dieker mentioned the fiscal consultant fee is not correct in the resolution. Mr. Dieker explained the fee is correct but he thinks he wrote it to state “including expenses” but it is $17,000 plus expenses.
City Council Meeting Page 27 of 31 August 10, 2026
Mayor Anduri said in the report, it states, “The fiscal consultant is charging $22,500 plus expenses” and then if it does not go forward it is reduced to $17,000 plus expenses. In the Resolution, it states, “in an amount not to exceed $22,500” and they should add “plus expenses” here.
Mr. Dieker noted again, he does not expect them to incur any expenses or minimal expenses at best.
President Anduri said in the “whereas’s” it states for the fiscal agent “a not to exceed fee of $22,500 including standard expenses” and he confirmed this should state “…plus expenses.” Mr. Dieker confirmed and apologized for this when he drafted the Resolution.
Agency member Wotherspoon thanked Mr. Dieker as she asked the question about the minimum savings threshold and appreciates his response.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Mayor Anduri noted the resolution has the two corrections and suggested a motion.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Wotherspoon) to adopt Resolution SA2026-01, as amended. Roll Call Vote:
4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Wotherspoon; Noes: None; Recused: Cervantes).
Noted as Present: Councilmember Cervantes returned to participate in the remainder of the meeting.
Adjourn Successor Agency
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Candell) to convene the regular City Council meeting. Roll Call Vote:
5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
14. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Councilmember Candell said she would like to make October Violence Prevention Month as suggested by the Silver Scouts.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed the Council has adopted similar proclamations in the past and this item will be agendized.
Vice Mayor McCormick reported that he attended National Night Out and the weather was nice. They also had their part 2 of Hello Lafayette event which he clarified is a big success. He reported out on MCE and said the Consent Calendar item relates to responding to a Grand Jury report from Marin County. Generally speaking, he thought the Grand Jury report was a bit sensationalized but it identified many issues that MCE as a board and organization has discovered. They have 38 cities and counties that collectively, 34 members work together as a board. The board is not as collegial as the Lafayette Council and there are many factions going on. MCE no longer has a CEO and he believes they are on the right direction and also have started a CEO search. He has been asked to chair that ad-hoc committee and he is working on this. He will say that Marin Journal is spending a lot of time talking about MCE but it is much improved over the last 6-12 months and he hopes it continues to get better. They want electricity that is as inexpensive and as green as possible with MCE involved along with PG&E.
City Council Meeting Page 28 of 31 August 10, 2026
Councilmember Cervantes referred to emergency preparedness and said there is a new Emergency Preparedness Guide in the works which will be more concise, with more images, and more to the point. The hope is to get that out in time for the Art and Wine Festival. There have been several Emergency Preparedness Commission individuals involved and thanked Stephanie Bontemps and Jean Follmer for their work on the new presentation of how they can all better protect themselves.
Mayor Anduri reported Hello Lafayette event was a great event, with the room full. They had 30+ newcomers—a mix of younger families. A couple had moved to Lafayette from Pacific Palisades, and many new people from different places. The Lafayette Juniors did a great job of organizing it in collaboration with the City and Library Foundation. They had one debriefing meeting and they were planning on two Hello Lafayette sessions in 2027 on February 1st and July 29th.
A. Mayor Anduri and Vice Mayor McCormick
Resolution 2026-48 Appointing seven members to the Multi-Modal Mobility Advisory Committee Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-48.
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa said staff requested applicants for the Multi-Modal Mobility Advisory Committee (M3 Committee) and received 14 applications. She knows the Vice Mayor and Mayor have interviewed the candidates and will make recommendations. Also, a member for the M3 Committee is a member of the PC/DRC and a member from the TransCirc Commission.
As far as the PC/DRC goes, Chair Anna Radonich expressed interest to serve. She has deep expertise in environment issues and would be a good addition. Unfortunately, there was a last minute lack of quorum last week for the PC so it will go for endorsement in the future. With the TransCirc Commission, the Chair has recommended Mark Dreger who is a project manager with the SF MTA and also has the relevant experience, so those are the two Commission appointments to the M3.
Vice Mayor McCormick said they had 14 applicants interviewed and discussions afterwards over 3 days, 3 in person meetings, one Zoom meeting, and it was a tremendous turnout with highly qualified people. They deliberated significantly to figure out the right mix of the three community members that would add the right lived experience, time in Lafayette and working with each other, and it was not easy. The three being put forward for consideration are: Tom Chastain, Jennifer Riksheim, and Amy Budahn as At-Large Members.
All three have extensive experience in urban design, environmental management, traffic management, and all three are long-time Lafayette residents, think have a good mix and practical side so those are the three they chose.
Councilmember Cervantes said he went through the applications which were great and thinks every commission should have this kind of problem. There are phenomenal backgrounds here.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Cervantes) to adopt Resolution 2026-48 appointing Councilmember representatives Carl Anduri and John McCormick; Planning Commission representative Anna Radonich; Transportation and Circulation Commission representative Mark Dreger; At-Large members Amy Budahn, Tom Chastain and Jennifer Riksheim. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
B. Councilmembers Wotherspoon and Cervantes
City Council Meeting Page 29 of 31 August 10, 2026
Resolution 2026-49 Appointing members to the Youth Commission Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-49 Appointing members to the Youth Commission.
Councilmember Wotherspoon said she and Councilmember Cervantes interviewed 6 students for the Youth Commission which were all exceptional. There was a real interest from all in joining the Youth Commission and undertaking all of the wonderful programs they sponsor.
Councilmember Cervantes said he was very impressed with the students, said hopefully in time some will end up on the Council, and it was a great afternoon of interviews.
Councilmember Wotherspoon requested appointment of Lindsey Foster, Shawn Garrity, Joshua Lockhard, Savanah Martinez, Drew Megbow, and Caiden Parken as commissioners to the Youth Commission.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked if these are seniors or juniors, and Councilmember Wotherspoon said they are a mix and can start as early as 6th or 7th grade.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Wotherspoon) to adopt Resolution 2026-49 appointing members to the Youth Commission. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes:
None).
C. Councilmembers Candell and Cervantes, Legislation Committee Positions on Bills of Local Importance – The Committee recommends that the City Council take the following positions on bills of local importance:
1. SB 1167 (Blakespear): Vehicles: electric bicycles
Recommendation: Support.
Councilmember Candell said the committee met last week, received updates from Casey Elliott and the two discussed were SB 1167 relating to E-Bikes and AB 1370 relating to wildfire mitigation projects. SB 1167 better defines what is or is not an E-bike, limits on power increases, limits of speeds, rules for manufacturers, policing powers, labeling rules and many aspects for new bike sales. It still does not address all of those out there, but is a step in the right direction. Only one group is against this bill but there is support among bike supporters across the state, so this bill should pass, and the recommendation is to support this bill.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked and confirmed this addresses Class I, 2 and 3 designation and is intended to make them clearer.
Councilmember Cervantes noted he looked at the Transportation Assembly Committee report and in Marin County where there is a study underway, 80% of the E-bikes did not fit the definition and they were really like e-motorcycles, so this bill is a step to get there.
Councilmember Wotherspoon said she is very supportive of this bill and hopes the provisions will make it easier for parents to understand what it is they are buying. It is like a truth in labeling bill and very important.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
City Council Meeting Page 30 of 31 August 10, 2026
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Cervantes) to support SB 1167. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
2. AB 1370 (Stern): Covered wildfire mitigation projects: consolidated review Recommendation: Support.
Councilmember Candell said this bill is a bit more controversial in looking at those supporting and opposing it, but it is very important for those in Lamorinda. It provides a fast track for fire mitigation projects that they need to maintain to get through the CEQA approval process. They have to get this every time they go out for the shaded fuel breaks. They heard at one of the Senator Grayson meetings about how tricky it was to navigate the timing. By the time you are allowed to submit to get approvals and get it back, you are almost at the end of the window where you can do the work. So, they really needed to address this and an important bill to support.
Councilmember Cervantes added this seemed like a real no brainer in that expediting the process to create shaded fuel breaks just makes a ton of sense, especially for communities like Lafayette. A Governor’s Executive Order makes it into law, so it has to go through the process.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Cervantes) to support AB 1370. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
3. State and Federal Legislative Update
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Councilmember Candell said the legislature will be in until the end of August, and the same goes for the next item.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
4. City of Lafayette Bill Positions
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment, and there were no speakers.
15. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. League of California Cities
Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference, September 23-25, 2026
Recommendation: Discuss and select the Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference, September 23-25, 2026.
Mayor Anduri noted Councilmember Candell has been the voting delegate for the last two years, and Councilmember Candell said she is not attending this year and they need a backup.
Vice Mayor McCormick and Councilmember Cervantes said they were not planning on attending. City Clerk Robbins noted the deadline is September 1st and the Council does not meet until September 14th.
City Council Meeting Page 31 of 31 August 10, 2026
Councilmember Candell asked if there is a preview of what the delegates will vote on. Ms. Robbins said at 6:45 p.m., she received the resolution packet so she has not reviewed it, but can provide this to the Council tomorrow morning. She would ask to bring the item back in September and Councilmembers can tell delegates what position to take on resolutions, but that does not change the deadline tonight.
Mayor Anduri asked who is the most likely to attend. Councilmember Wotherspoon said she has a conflict between September 25-27 and will be out of town.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Vice Mayor McCormick agreed to be the primary and Councilmember Cervantes as the Alternate.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Anduri) to select Vice Mayor McCormick as Voting Delegate and Councilmember Cervantes as the Alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference, September 23-25, 2026. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
B. E-mail from Sherry Hoover resigning from the Emergency Preparedness Commission Recommendation: Accept resignation and thank Ms. Hoover for 32 years of volunteer service on the Emergency Preparedness Commission.
Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers recognized and thanked Sherry Hoover’s service for 32 years on the Emergency Preparedness Commission. Comments were noted that the Council was struck by an individual that devoted decades of her time to serve the common good. They highlighted her great service to the community and said she will missed.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Wotherspoon/Candell) to accept resignation and thank Ms. Hoover for 32 years of volunteer service on the Emergency Preparedness Commission. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
16. ADJOURNMENT – 9:54 p.m. in thanks to Sherry Hoover.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Carl Anduri, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk