City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll call the meeting to order. All council members are present. On the agenda, I would like to change the order of 14B3 and 14B2, reverse them, discuss this with the assistant city manager who also wants to do that. So, we discuss the assessments before we do the the budget. Uh, are there any other proposed changes to the agenda? If not, can we have a motion for adoption of the agenda as amended? So moved.

Second. Okay. Moved by Council Member Kandell, seconded by Vice Mayor McCormack. All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. It's unanimous. So, we're on to public comment on the close session item. Is there any member of the public who would like to speak on the close session item? Mayor, I have no speakers at this time. Okay. The council will then go into close session and we will return at 700 Yeah.

CJ, we're ready.

All right, it's 7 o'clock. We're back in session. There is no reportable uh outcome from our closed session. Um we're [clears throat] happy to have Troop 224 with us this evening and uh they have graciously agreed to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. United States of Americated ancestral homeland of the Bay Miwok people. The Bay Miwok and neighboring Aloney 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. We are now at public comments. This is an opportunity for any member of the public to address the council on any item that's not on the agenda and within the purview of the council. You will have three minutes.

Mayor Andury, I have two speakers tonight. Kirk Wandi to be followed by Libby Henry.

Hello. Welcome. Thank you. Hello everyone. Um, could you identify yourself?

My name is Kirk Wandi. And do I need to say my address? Okay, I won't do that. Hello all. I know many of you. Um, I'm Kirk Wandi. Uh, I've been a resident of Lafayette for nearly two years now. Uh, moved here with my husband and two children about two years ago, like I said, from San Francisco, but I grew up in Danville, so I am not new to the East Bay. Um, the team with me here tonight, I've got Brian and Hannah with me. Um, and there are a few other members of our team as well, such as Betsy, who has just walked in with her lovely children. Um over the past year we've formed an organization called Vibrant Lafayette um and have been working really hard behind the scenes to um you know just understand the city of Lafayette, what how it ticks the finances and all of that. Um some of you might already be familiar with our mission. I've met with many of you in person. Um but we're grateful to have the opportunity tonight to introduce ourselves and begin a broader dialogue on how we can work together. So, we call ourselves Vibrant Lafayette because our goal is to bring more energy and connection to downtown um and also make it easier to get there. That means increased foot traffic for local businesses, safer walking routes and bike lanes, and thoughtful economic development that fills vacancies and serves today's families. We are all parents in Lafayette's public schools which I think gives us a different vantage point than you may say see in um your typical involvement in city planning. Um many of us families are very busy. We have kids to raise. We have pets. We have sports. We have all the things. But it doesn't mean we don't have an opinion about the town we reside in and its future. Um and so in speaking with a lot of families in town, you know, we hear a lot of things about a desire for increased vitality, a reason

to come downtown and gather. Um you know, public spaces, parks, um just a way to connect and also how we get our kids downtown safely, whether it's walking or biking. Um, so our role and the way we see it today is really to help amplify those voices of young families in Lafayette. So to start, we just like to offer a couple tangible ideas and things we we've been thinking about. Um, come many of us have come from urban areas and I think uh when you spend time in downtown Lafayette, it feels very transactional. You're going down to run an errand and you go home. You're going to dinner and you go home. How do we create a Lafayette where people want to linger, spend time, kids are running around, parents are enjoying socializing together? Um, how can we explore different solutions? And I know there's challenges around, you know, parking uh parking lots and working with private the private owners to possibly block them off from certain points in time where families can come down, enjoy them. Um, really aiming to create more energy down there and a reason for people to stay. Is that my time?

We we have a three minute. Okay. So, thank you very much. Yes. Thank you. All right. Are there questions for the speaker? Right. No questions, but thank you very much for all each of you for getting involved so quickly in our community. We really appreciate it. Next speaker, Libby Henry. welcome.

Hi everybody. Happy New Year. Um looks like we have another year ahead of uh [clears throat] what's going on in Sacramento. And that's mainly why I wanted to just mention to the legislative council part of the council to keep on the lookout and if you can get a letter of opposition into the local government group. Guess who's guess who is chair of that committee now. Um anyway, he has, you know, he barely passed SB79 and he vowed to everything that he amended last year that you guys compromised yourselves with. Well, my opinion, of course. um he is putting back and that's in the form of several bills like SB677 and SB722 and they are both being heard in local government on Wednesday. So if you can get uh a letter of opposition in please do so. Um I mean this this is so ridiculous. uh you know they they want to take our homes, our communities, our land, our property, our coastline. Uh they want to take it over and hand it over to the billionaires that are funding the whole thing. I've had enough. How about you?

Thank you. Okay. Are there questions for the speaker? Okay. Thank you very much. Mayor Anduri, there are no additional speakers at this time. Okay. All right. We're on to um item 10 report from our city manager.

Thank you, mayor, and good evening to all and a very happy new year. Uh here are a few updates from the city departments from parks, trails, and recreation. Tickets are available for the Lafayette Youth Commission's Middle School Tri City Dance. It's the one of the most popular events in Lafayette. It'll be held at the community center on January the 23rd. Families will also want to get their tickets to the Sweetheart Dance on February the 6th, also at the community center. And you can purchase tickets for both dances on the city's website. Uh Jonathan informs the the parks, trails, and recreation director informs me that PTR hosted a group trip to the Warriors versus Kings game and children from the attending families got to visit the court during the national anthem. The public art committee invites the community to the official unveiling of the first mural in the downtown mural program on Monday the 26th at 5:00 p.m. at 3578 Mount Diablo Boulevard. We will be recognizing the artist Rachel Pearls and all others for their support in bringing this vibrant new artwork to our downtown. And finally, uh, a word of caution. We have been made aware of scam emails impersonating city departments and requesting fraudulent payments. These messages look very official. They use city logos, familiar language, and publicly in available information to look authentic, and they demand payment.

But they are not from the city. The city of Lafayette will never request payment by wire transfer or cryptocurrency or gift cards. Legitimate city invoices and payment requests are only sent through the official city email address uh or via the US postal service and staff at the city. We're always available to help you [clears throat] in case you have a doubt. Please call us. When online payments are offered by the city, we we process them through secure platforms such as Square. While this scam is currently targeting applicants to the city planning department, similar tactics are used in other departments as well and in other cities. Just found out that Pleasant Hill has been subject to the scam as well. So, if you're unsure, please call the city officers and we're happy to help you. Thank you.

Okay. Are there questions for the city manager? Is there any public comment? All right. So, we're on to uh our presentations. And our first presentation, um just a a brief introduction. Um, Lafayette's [clears throat] mission statement calls out our commitment to lifelong learning. And through the city's public art committee and its newly expanded focus, the city seeks to embed the arts in our civic life and in the fabric of our community. Uh during the next two years, we'll help strengthen these civic values through presentations at the beginning of the first council meeting of each month by an arts organization or an organization that offers lifelong learning opportunities. So tonight is the very first presentation and Janice Peacock, the chair of our public art committee, will give us an overview of works of public art in Lafayette.

Thank you, Mayor Andury. I'm so happy to be here as an artist myself and a lover of art and a lifelong learner. I am so happy to be kicking off this uh this new um set of presentations. And since I have exactly 10 minutes and I have started my counter, I'm going to get started. This is the Lafayette Public Art Committee. We did not call each other to see if we were wearing red or black that day, but we did uh come out very coordinated on that particular day. Um these are only some of our members. Um, we have actually nine members that are um, Lafayette residents. And what the public art committee does is we are the stewards of art for Lafayette. We are here to promote public art within Lafayette, support artistic and cultural diversity, and enrich Lafayette through programming. So, um, we, um, have a large variety of different kinds of art in our community that belongs to the city of Lafayette. We have an extensive permanent collection of wall art and sculptures just right across uh, in the library and actually we're doing some work on it right now. We were working on it right before coming over. Um, we have temporary exhibitions that we're responsible for and each quarter we have new artists displaying their work here in the Don Hat Tatson community hall in the library in a couple of different locations and also in the town hall theater. Plus, we have sculptures and a mural which I'm going to show you in a minute. Um, and a utility box program if you have seen the wonderful boxes with the vintage uh pictures on them. Um, and we have not just sculptures in the downtown area, but throughout our community. So, we have a lot of different art happening here in our town. For such a small town, frankly, we have a really robust and valuable

collection that I'm very proud uh that we have. Here's our mural. You guys, I'm so happy that we have our first mural in our downtown mural program. It's by Rachel Pearls, who grew up in Lafayette. She's an Oakland artist and um this is on the side of Zara Boutique on down um right there on Mount Diablo. So hopefully everybody has seen it. It's just spectacular. We're uh the public art committee is just really pleased with this first mural. We're working on the second one. And if you are a business owner, a building owner, or you know a building owner, we're looking for our next wall. So, please be in touch with uh someone from the public art committee through the Lafayette website if you know of a wall that we could use to put a gorgeous next mural on. The other really exciting new art that we have in Lafayette is um at the Brand Development, which is across the street from Diamond K. There is this wonderful piece um that is an inverted metal cone that's hollow that was created by an artist um group called Wow House. And Brandt is a kind of goose. And so what you see is a piercings on this um metal cone that when the when there's a light on inside of the cone, you can see the geese sort of flying around the outside of the cone. It's really neat. And then we also have some spectacular tile work that was done by artist Eileen Bar. And the pictures I have here really don't do it justice, but it is just beautiful, vibrant u art that really goes well in this development. And this was done with Lafayette's 1% for the arts program in which developers use 1% of their development budget towards art in Lafayette. So, several of the things I'm going to show you tonight, and I'm only showing you a tiny number of the pictures of of the pieces that we have in our collection because I'm already 3

minutes and 40 seconds into my talk and not very far along. So, here are some of the very well-known pieces that we have at Lafayette. This is Speechless by Brian Gogan, and it's made of cast bronze. And it for a bronze piece, this is a huge sculpture, and it's right out here outside of our window. We could actually walk out and look right at it. Um, and this piece was put in when the library was built. And I will show you in a little while some of the pieces in the library. If you haven't had a chance to just go into our library and look around, there are quite a few really stunning pieces in there. People go in and get their books and leave and don't spend time looking at all all that we have. Um, this is a newer piece that we have called um, Friendly Gathering and Bird Row, and it's by local artist Joe Bolognia, and it's at the Mill, which is on the corner of Brown and Mount Diablo. And this piece just makes me happy. You guys are seeing the pieces that are some of my favorites tonight. I think it's really whimsical, and it really takes advantage of a not very big space to fill um, to put public art. And that is one of the problems that we sometimes come up against when we're working with developers is not having very much space in which to put art. So this is uh one of those cases and this is another 1% for the arts project. Um this is also one for 1% for the arts and it's called Blossoms by Gordon Huther. Um this is one of our first pieces that went in in the public art program. And these are it's like a um a bouquet of flowers. These are dicroic glass discs which at different times of day they um radiate different colors. It's they're really kind of um fun and magical to look at. Um, in our roundabout, um, away from our downtown, in our roundabout, we have Resolve by David Mudget, who is a

Pleasant Hill artist, actually. And this is one of our larger sculptures. Probably this and the David and the and the um, Gagan piece that we have out front here are probably our two very largest sculptures. And this is a set of um, stacked pierced dodcahedrons that are all stacked up. And you can see it in the roundabout at um Olympic and uh Pleasant Hill Road. I I pass it all the time and it it makes me smile to to see it. If you make it up to the community center in the Jennifer Russell building in the foyer, if you stand there and look up, there is an amazing sculpture by Oakland artist Ailen Kristofferson. She's a glass artist, but um she made this mixed media piece, which is aluminum that's been painted along with glass, little red buds um that you see in that lower picture. Um and that's a really neat piece because at night time you can actually when you drive by you can see it in the um in the window uh at the top of the building. It's really uh really special. So that's some of the public art. And I've just scratched the surface. Um, and now I just wanted to show you a few pieces of the Lafayette's art collection in our library. And one of the pieces that seems to get overlooked a lot is sun painting by Peter Erkine. And it's in the very back corner of the library, sort of in the quiet area, and people think it's just like a a skylight, but it's actually a really interesting piece that has prisms in it that breaks apart the sunlight into all of its component colors. So, it's really neat to just go back there and you can sit there or stare up into it to see what magic it does as the sun shines down through all of the prisms. Um, all of these pieces were purchased. Actually, the last piece was purchased. This piece was not. This this piece um was was a fairly recent edition um by

our former city manager Steven Faulk. It's called Seeing Red. And these are these massive um very almost photorealistic paintings that he created for this piece um called Seeing Red. And this was a donation that Steven made to um the city of Lafayette. All the other pieces that we see in the library actually were purchased and and they were part of the budget for um when the library was built. So um we do have many many pieces in the library. Um, this is a piece by Thomas Tanny Hill who lives in uh, Pleasant Hill and is a former public art committee member um, called uh, Dancing Oak. And so this is in the library um, as well. And this is String of Pearls by Anne Weber, which is just a fun piece that sits at the bottom of the stairwell and is made of cardboard actually. and she was here last year repairing it after someone had thrown a bottle at it. Um, and she came in and fixed it and and actually you can see where the repair is and that's become part of the history of this piece which is really neat. So now what's next in my last 1 minute and 10 seconds? We have a thing called dandelion seeds from Kinematic Labs. It's not just a thing. It's an amazingly large thing, which is a a sculpture of these large dandelion seeds that will sit over a quad at the entrance to the city of Lafayette's downtown area as you leave BART. So, this is made by Kinematics Lab and it's been kind of um on the back burner for a few years um due to some budget constraints, but those budget constraints thanks to the city council have been relieved and we will be able to go forward with these um

very large metallic um sculptures who that move around um when there is wind. So, that will be coming I believe this summer. And the other really great new project that's coming is called Binary Wall Datim Line and it's by Lafayette artist Clay Jensen who um is creating these tall 8-foot panels that have texture on them. And this is going in at 8 at 950 Huff. And this is really a neat these are really neat um panels in that they have a lot of texture in them. And they will also over time take on a patina that will make them really interesting to look at up close. Again, this is in a place where you're seeing him out in the wide open spaces is not where these will be installed. They will be installed in a very narrow spot on 950 Huff. So, and he is not included in the sculpture either, but you do see him there. Um, and we're we're so happy to have um to be able to add Clay to our collection. Um, and that so this is our latest development that um, he will be coming to do this for us. And I just ran into him at Pete's Coffee a couple days ago and he said these pieces are now at the foundry. So they are going to be done very soon and then we'll get them installed and uh, it will be wonderful and it it the piece really echoes what is going on in the rest of the architecture of the building. So I think it's going to be a really great fit for for this um, development. So, thank you very much. You can find out more about the public art committee at this very long URL or you can just go there and look for um uh commissions and committees and and find us there. And so, thank you very much. How close did I come to my 10 minutes? Oh, over by a minute. Thank you very much,

Janice. Thank you very much. Uh questions or comments? Just real briefly because the time is but I am. So, thank you very much for for kind of spearheading this. I think the it's important that is public art, right? And I think that's where it's interesting um that people, I'm assuming, are welcome to kind of join the committee meetings and see what's going on and participate. And this is what this is what it needs to be, right? If somebody has an idea, they should bring it to you. And

your microphone's off. Thank you. I did turn my microphone off after my I was done. Yes, we certainly do encourage community members community members to come. um and uh they can see what's going on. Um and and we do um you know we do welcome people's uh ideas and comments and feedback. Um the public and public art is really about that this art is accessible to everyone for free out in our community. And that's what the public the public and public art really means is that this is a way to add vibrancy to our community. um and and bring art into everyday living.

Stella, yeah, I just want to say thank you so much for your work. This is really an impressive impressive amount of accomplishments over decades. Um it's really adding a wonderful, wonderful spark and color and texture to our city. Um maybe we can get another announcement about when that unveiling of the mural is. Ah yes, it is 26th. It is 25th or 26th. 26th. 26th. It'll be right before our council meeting. Okay. Right. It is right before the council meeting at 5:00 at the mural location and everyone's welcome to join.

And everyone is welcome to join. Um I I will I will be there and the art and uh other public art committee people will be there and Rachel Pearls is delightful. So she is a really lovely person to meet and it is really neat to be able to go and really get up close and see see that mural. So I hope people will will come. It's we're it's been a long time to get to this point and we're so very excited about it and and also that thing about we do need another wall, guys. So, keep that in mind. Wonderful. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Any public comments? We have no public comments at this time.

All right, Janice. Thank you very much. Thank you to you and to the commission and to Jenny Rosen who's our staff liaison to the commission for all your great work. Thank you to Jenny for sure. Thanks. Okay. Byebye.

All right. Moving on to our second presentation. Financial arts. No. Uh the annual comprehensive financial record report. Welcome. Shut me off. Thank you and good evening mayor and members of the council. It's my pleasure to present the city of Lafayette fiscal year 2425 annual comprehensive financial report also known as aer ACFR uh to you at this time. This report is the sixur prepared by the audit firm Bedawian Associates after the city extended its five-year contract for one year. The finance subcommittee reviewed and discussed this report at their meeting on December 9th. uh 2025, Bedawian Associates have issued an unmodified or clean opinion on their audit of the city's financial statements. The city's continued the city continued to strengthen its financial position in fiscal year 2025, which in my opinion was an exceptional year, but I'm new here. Um, the city's financial highlights can be found in the management discussion and analysis section, which is found on pages 5 through 18 of the audit report. The uh most significant item of note in fiscal year 2025 is the $5.35 million fund balance increase in the city's general fund, which resulted primarily due to the recognition of $3.46 46 million of ARPA funds in fiscal year 2025. Excluding ARPA, revenues came in over $2 million higher than anticipated and expenditures were nearly $4 million

under budget due in part to projects that will be completed in subsequent years. Um, in previous years, fiscal year 23, there was $3.2 million. Uh we we received the $3.16 million of ARPA, spent 1.3 million, and in fiscal year 24 spent 95,000. Um and so this was the recognition of the final uh ARP funding um which we needed to uh recognize before the deadline. In this audit also was the imp implementation of Gazsby 101 related to compensated absences which did not have a big impact on the financial statements. There was a restatement of almost $124,000 to governmental funds and almost $11,000 to business type funds for fiscal year 2024 related to that minimal impact in fiscal year 2025. There's 17,452 to governmental funds and 97.81 81 to business type funds. Um on page 34 you can see where the general funds were almost $8.5 million more than expenditures which excess was partially offset by net transfers out of about $3.15 million resulting in the 3.5 I'm sorry 5.35 million increase in fund balance. These financial statements uh have been submitted to the um GFOA or um governmental finance officers association for the uh financial reporting award. And I expect that we'll receive that for the I believe it'll be the 11th year in a row. Right. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the city council may have uh related to this um this report.

Okay. Thank you. uh questions. Jim, thank you very much for the presentation. So, just want to clarify because you touched on this, but we've got a really healthy year, fiscal year in this last cycle, but due in part to the ARPA funds, three and three some million, which we'll never see again. We won't see again for a while, I got to think. And also on the expenditure side, projects that we had budgeted for but didn't yet happen, but will.

Correct. So, I think I want to be clear that you we lovely that we ran a great surplus in 2025, but it was due to a lump of money from the federal government we're not going to see again and projects that we had planned on but didn't spend but will still be later. Yes.

So, it's sort of like um I think I just want to make it clear to people who might look at this that it's a yay boo in that great year in 25 in terms of running a general fund surplus. The boo side is that a big element of the surplus won't be around in the future from the federal government side and we're going to spend money later on projects we'd plan for. So, um I I think I just I want to make sure I'm understanding this right, but I think I am that we we can't don't want to have an expectation we' be running like $5 million surpluses going forward necessarily. Not even. No. Thank you. Okay. And we'll be hearing more on this very topic uh later in the in the meeting. And a comment is that

well let me do the is there any uh public comment? I have no speakers in the community hall and I have no hands raised in our virtual audience. So speakers. All right. So this is a receive and final item. But now comments

general two quick comments. Thank you. I I took a quick quick look at this. I always look for a clean opinion. Check that box. So that's terrific. And I love the GFOA certification. The city's been doing this for years, but good financial controls are at the heart of a well-run city, which is Lafayette in my mind. And I've seen this from the outside in, so to speak. But, you know, I really want to give kudos to you and staff for the work done on maintaining good, strong financial controls. Uh it's we part of this I think is honoring the voters for voting for measure H that we're doing we're being good stewards of their trust and so it's just this kind of work the nitty-gritty of this very thick financial statement that goes to show that we're on that and I really appre appreciate staff for the work that you guys are doing.

Thank you. Thank you. And I also have to give credit to the previous person in my position. It was a different name back then, but uh Jennifer Wakeakeman had uh set things in order. 10 years in a row of the award is exceptional. I'm keeping that uh keeping that moving forward.

Just um to follow on because obviously we had a little review on this at the with the financial committee, but um I think I think really if you look at this budget, I mean what we see is it's conservative, which is exactly where we need to be, right? We are not a large city and uh you can read the paper or look on a news site anytime today with all the there's a cities all around the Bay Area and the state they're really suffering or you know whether it's you know uh Kalpers's obligations or other or other b you know budgets are just way out of whack and um we have such a we have a healthy reserve and we need it because it takes one disaster you know to kind of put our little town at risk. So I appreciate uh your stewardship your continued stewardship. I know we're going to talk about it later going forward, but uh this is an excellent um an excellent report. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. And for for those of you who are digging into Lafayette civic government and all that, there's a little more uh background information in this document than in the budget. So, I would commend taking a look at this. It's not all numbers. There's also some other information in it, but it's a useful document to be familiar with. So, Tim, thank you again. All right, we're on to the consent calendar. We do have one request uh to remove item G. And if there no objection, we will remove that. Is there any other item that a council member would like to remove? Is there any public requests? Any other public request?

Uh the one that Yeah, just that one item has been asked to be removed. Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion to adopt items 12 A, B, C, D, E, F, and H of the consent calendar. So, moved. One's a second here. I'm a second. All right. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I.

It's unanimous. So, we're on to item 14. Um, all right. 14A. Uh, the housing element implementation. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Arley Cassidy. I'm the senior planner for the city. I'm going to do a brief introduction before turning it over to Lisa Wise Consulting to talk about the objective design standards that do help implement the housing element. Yes, thank you. Is that better? Okay, great. Thank you. So, first I want to talk about a brief reminder um of what objective stand objective design standards are and how they're used. First of all, development standards different from design standards help regulate the general shape of development such as height and setbacks. These are things that we already have in the code and change per um land use. Design standards on the other hand regulate the design, architecture and layout of a site and building. We have topics such as building massing and articulation, windows and balconies and colors and materials. State law now requires that certain development applications be reviewed using only objective standards. No discretionary review can be required and only the standards we already have adopted can be applied. These standards will apply to all multif family and mixeduse development in the city. However, if a project applies for a density bonus permit, they can use concessions and waiverss to avoid individual standards, including those implemented by these objective design standards. With this in mind, the DRC

working group had a goal of making these objective design standards describe good design and prevent bad design without being so ownorous as to push developers towards the density bonus path. To give you a quick background of this project, back in 2019, the city adopted the objective design standards for multifamily and mixed use with residential, which was known as objective design standards phase one. In 2024 and 2025, the city adopted its six cycle housing element and immediately updated the general plan land use element and the zoning to align with this new housing element. Now, the city is turning to phase two of the objective design standards to expand functionality of the existing standards and to comply with state law requiring that only objective standards be applied to ministerial review. Phase two process began back in June of 2025 with a joint study session involving this council, the planning commission, and the design review commission at which the design review commission was directed to work with staff and the consultant to develop a draft ODS document. The DRC met and formed a working group which then met with staff and Lisa Weiss Consulting three times this fall to create this draft ODS document you have now. On November 20th, the full DRC uh body met and held an openhouse to invite the public um to comment and give feedback on the draft document. Um and the full body uh discussed the document and offered guidance to staff. The DRC made minor changes and appended the display boards you see behind me in the room uh to the document as it travels through its review process. I want to clarify that those boards are not proposed to be official um an official appendix to the actual code

that it's adopted only as we do the review. And so then the DRC voted to forward uh the document to the planning commission with a recommendation of approval. On December 15th, the planning commission also reviewed the document and voted to make minor changes regarding roofs and some of the images both in the document and on the boards behind me. I've noted those changes with pink sticky notes on the back. The uh digital version that was attached to the staff report already have those changes in them. Tonight, staff is requesting feedback from council on this draft objective design standards document. No formal action is proposed at this meeting. For next steps, after the council um and public give feedback to staff, staff will make updates as directed and return to council with an adoptable draft. No SQA action is required to adopt this ODS draft as it is an implementation step of the housing element which has already been fully analyzed by SQA or under SQA Sunni. Once adopted, the phase one ODS checklist will be replaced with a new checklist and the phase 2 ODS code section will be adopted into the Lafayette Municipal Code. The city will no longer use a point system for this implementing this program, but instead provide a ministerial checklist for review of projects. I'll note that the design review commission chair Glenn Cass and vice chair Richard Stanton making up the DRC working group are both here in the room with us tonight and available for questions should you have them. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Monica Sidlick and Cal Kurtz from Lisa Wise Consulting who will give the presentation on the draft ODS document. Thank you.

Thank you, Arley. Uh good evening, council. Cal and I are really glad to be here before you again. Um, as Arla mentioned, we've been working um on this uh these standards for uh the better part of a year and uh we're happy to discuss the draft and its current form with you and uh receive your feedback. Um so, as Arley mentioned, we've been working on this for a while with with Greg um and Arley and our team, which is David, our director. um and Cal and myself. And tonight we'll go through a a brief presentation. We'll talk a little bit about the project background, which Harley just went through as well, the process. Um and then we'll just go quickly through the standards themselves. We'll talk about the topics that are included and generally what we're aiming to do um for each section of the document itself. So rewinding just very briefly about a year ago in December, November, December, January of last year, uh we worked on the initial resoning as the first part of the housing element implementation uh for the city of Lafayette. Um and that entailed implementing um a few housing element programs um to uh prepare just some uh limited reszoning. So, we've got the zoning map here on the right. Um, and now as part of this phase two, we're looking at uh design standards for those new zones that we helped develop a year ago. Looking specifically at design on those uh design of multif family and mixeduse

development on those um parcels. and we're really looking at implementing specifically one housing element program. Uh so looking a little bit at um [clears throat] at our process here, we kicked the project off in April. Um we uh we met with you and the planning commission and the DRC in June. We got some great feedback and direction. We proceeded accordingly. We worked with the design review committee working group. Um we developed a um a detailed draft after really getting our hands dirty and having a number of working sessions with them. Came to the community in November again to the uh planning commission in December. Um and here here we are with the current draft. So a recap on objective design standards. And we know that you've been through this. You already have a three-page checklist on ODS. So the the community of course we all we all know what objective design standards why we're doing them um just in a nutshell we're um uh we're remaining consistent with SB330 um which was um effective as of January 2020 um which requires a ministerial pathway for all residential and residential mixeduse projects um they remove uncertainty from the review and approval process and most importantly they're an opportunity for the community to identify what what you want to see in design. So it's identified ahead of time. It's on paper um instead of um identifying what you'd like to see throughout the process but I but establish that in the code um so applicants can see that ahead of time.

So, where will the updated objective design standards apply? They'll apply to these zones here that are outlined in red. These are the the zones that we looked at and including the new ones that we developed a year ago. So, [clears throat] in short, these are all the areas of the city where multif family and mix residential mixeduse development is supported. So, how did we go about developing these objective design standards? We looked at the existing regulatory framework. So we combed through all of the general plan policies and figured out which ones are essentially our marching orders. Tell us what these design standards should look like. And pardon me. Uh what are we trying to do? What what's existing guidance? Thank you. That tells us what should be in these standards. We looked at the downtown specific plan. which covers a lot of the areas that we looked at in the the zones that are outlined in red. And we we looked at what are the standards and the guidelines in that specific plan to make sure that we remain consistent with the intent of all of that material. We really dug through it to figure out what are the topic the design topics and elements that are addressed and how do we remain true to that? How do we honor these standards while also supporting the residential densities that the specific plan didn't anticipate? We looked at the downtown design guidelines. So, these aren't standards, they're guidelines, but there's a lot of good uh good content and good direction. So again, we dug deep into these to figure out how can we develop these objective design standards to do what these guidelines say to do and they address a lot of the same topics that we typically address in objective design standards. So there's a

lot of good direction there. We [clears throat] looked at projects. We looked at existing projects, at pipeline projects, at recently built projects. And we didn't just looked at these projects, but we we uh we looked at what the community, what's been the reception, how do people like them, what's working, what's been contentious, what were the elements that um that were discussed during design review by the planning commission and by you all. What were the changes that were exacted before they were approved um to understand really the history of how the community thinks about the design of these projects? And we took a cue from all of that research. We looked at your existing ODS three-page checklist. Um, so that as you know addresses design of required open space, assigns points. Um, looks at creek side lots. It looks at landscaping. It's limited, right? But it does cover a lot of topics. uh landscaping and setbacks, pedestrian circulation, building massing and facade length and articulation, street facing facades, and then massing. Uh what happens, what must happen to massing as as a building uh gets higher to upper stories. And we thought about um how how do we reconcile these with everything else we learned in looking at the regulatory framework and talking to the community and staff. As you recall, we were right here in June. We heard from you, but this was also it was a joint meeting. So, we heard from you and the DRC and the planning commission that the points aren't really working well that there were some specific elements that you requested that we make sure to look at. Uh you told us generally what what you hope they'll do. Um that you're looking

for a pedestrian scaled streetscape, cohesive uniform streetscape design. And we also heard uh less is more. Let's not overregulate. [snorts] Uh, as Arley mentioned, we we had a a series of meetings with the DRC working group and we talked about all of the above. Here on this um on this slide, we've bulleted out a few items that really were the focus of our discussion. So, we looked at where buildings can be on a site. We looked at upper story stepbacks for all sizes of buildings and heights. Uh we looked at articulation and what we want to require of buildings of different scale, parking, entries, windows and balconies. uh we brought that at the uh at the end of that series of meetings, we we had a draft. We brought it to a full DRC meeting and an open house and [clears throat] we looked at we we looked at and talked about all of the standards that we were we were recommending at that time and we got a lot of great feedback on top of that. Uh and on this slide we've bolted out the uh the elements that we got some feedback on and then we went back to the draft to to reflect that at planning commission. We looked at the draft at that time. We uh we understood that there was a a desire to encourage pitch roofs and to modify how we how we measure height for projects that go through this this ministerial pathway and a few other standards. So now uh you have the draft standards and in your packet. So we'll go through very quickly um the the parts of that. So it starts out I should I should mention uh as Arie mentioned this is designed to slip right into the code. So it won't be

an outside document standalone but it's part of the um the municipal code the zoning code. So, we'll slide it into the into the code in chap as chapter 6-39 um and then go through the numbered um format as as your code um follow the format of the code. Uh we start out with purpose statements. We worked on these with um as part of the whole process. Um but generally speaking, we're we're talking about what we want to see and what the community values. The last one is of of course support allowed densities. So that goes back to what's new to the code here. We're looking at these 60 dwelling unit per acre zones and that's really we have to make sure that we're not only supporting but facilitating development of that scale and density. Um so stemming coming right out of the uh planning commission meeting the um the feedback we got was that hey look the way we uh measure building height doesn't uh uh doesn't sort of there's an incentive against pitch roofs. So for these projects, let's discount sloped roof uh the the height of a sloped roof form um in that way um sort of not disincentivizing uh pitched roofs. So that is a change that we've um slipped into this uh the roof form section of the ODS. Okay. So building massing, how do we want to break up chunks of buildings uh so that they feel more pedestrian scale and there's uh more light and shadow and

um relief at the facade comes down to um building uh pedestrian comfort and um uh building interest, visual interest. Uh so for buildings up to three stories um a building a a recess a minimum of 10 feet deep is required every 50 feet. And then for buildings that are longer uh over 175 ft in length um and up to three stories. We have a required access publicly accessible open space. Um and for buildings of this length that are over four stories, uh a few more requirements. um is generally speaking it was a balance between um um supporting um so ensuring um enough relief at the at the at the street frontage while um not introducing um what would be considered too many constraints on a building of that scale. Uh looking a a little bit closer in at building articulation. Again, we have standards based on building height and scale. Uh so for buildings up to three stories every 25 feet and for buildings over three stories every 15t we've got a menu of um of building articulation features that we'd like to see um on all street facing facades. Looking at horizontal building articulation we have standards

um that address building base. Um, again a menu of elements that ensure uh building visual interest and um elements that bring down the the the massing and the bulk of the of the feel of the building. For upper story stepbacks, we retained an existing requirement in your current ODS for stepping back the third story. It's 80% of the ground floor area. Um and so we kept that going forward. Um we introduced standards for roof v uh variation to prevent long and boring and unchanging roof lines. Um different standards based on different um different roof forms essentially um introducing specific standards for specific elements where appropriate. when we have um u a budding high density multif family projects privacy is a concern. So we introduce standards um related to um interior side and rear elevation um visibility into living spaces. Um and then looking at residential mixeduse buildings, we have a section that focuses on the on non-residential ground floor elevations to ensure ample um uh transparency and u visual interest and and uh character and pedestrian comfort really. Um, so the standards, so we've got uh transparency and then also a limit on blank walls

and required features that um that an applicant can use to to minimize blank walls. Windows were a big topic um in many of the meetings that we've had over the last several months. So we looked at the percentage of fenistration. We looked at uh si allowed size of of glass surfaces on building facades, building elevations. And we looked at window design and options for window design uh to prevent essentially uh windows that look poor in quality and that are flush with the surface um to ensure that that windows lend character to to a building. We took a a close look at the range the pallet of building materials that we feel are are that the community feels are are appropriate for uh for Lafayette buildings. Uh we talked about a whole range of of uh materials and came up with a list of permitted materials uh for primary and secondary um and a list of prohibited materials as well. And then we took a look at colors and we thought about different ways of regulating color. Uh we looked at light reflecting value. We looked at hue saturation value. We tested out different ways of regulating colors so that we um we honor the the intent of a little bit less is more but also trying to put our finger on, you know, where do we really draw the line? Uh we looked at site design. So, we looked at when when there's surface parking, which is um uh we wouldn't expect a lot of surface parking for new multif family and mixeduse development, but uh when there is surface parking, we have standards for visibility and location. And then uh

structured parking whether upper story or ground floor. We looked at uh standards to limit visibility where would where we would require um surface parking or structured parking to be stepped back and sort of lined with active uses and how much do we really want surface parking to be visible from any abuing right of way. Um and lastly, connectivity and landscaping. Um there's a lot of uh content about site design and and landscaping in existing guidelines and standards. So we ensured that where we're where parcels abut creeks the site design capitalizes on this and ensures access and visibility. Um, and then we kept some uh some of the standards in the three-page ODS document and carried those forward in terms of percent of landscaping and rounded it out as as we as we um thought appropriate. And that's the quick look through all of the standards in your packet. And I'll uh turn the presentation back over to to Arley. That's actually everything we have. So, we're happy to answer any questions you have before you move to your consideration.

Okay. Well, thank you very much for all your work on this and on the presentation. Uh special thanks to Commissioners Cass and Stanton for all that you've done on this and for being with us tonight. We really appreciate it. Okay, we'll do questions. uh then we'll get public comment and then we'll bring it back for discussion among the council members. So questions,

right? So um yes, I have plenty of comments on but couple just a question to start and thank you very much for the um uh for the hard work and clearly you put a lot of thought into it. I just want to know because I think we're going to have some discussion just anticipating what's going on with the public comment about roof lines and pitch roofs and how important those are and I can appreciate I think you putting in you lack of penalty. you kind of made it made it um uh frictionless as far as they can do a pitch roof or not. Did you um have any consideration to like encourage pitch roofs? I guess I didn't see that part. I saw the the first half which is great like you're not penalized for it, but was there any talk or I'd like maybe you can talk about your thought process about you know encouraging it, requiring it, you making it important over a certain number of stories or maybe you can just uh speak to that a little bit. So I think it might be helpful as we go forward with public comment. I can take that.

Um, so the original draft of this document that went to um the full DRC coming out of working group um had uh kind of the the broad outline of the restrictions on roofs or the regulations required for roofs um with no change in how we view height. Um and so it was drawn it was called attention that um this would in fact penalize anyone that built a pitched roof because of the way we define height here in Lafayette which generally takes an average of the tallest roof forms. And so a flat roof would be judged to have a a lower roof than one with a pitched roof. Um and so uh when this point was brought up um during public comment at the planning commission meeting um the planning commission did feel that that penalization should not take place and um had uh the consultant and staff reword how height is considered within this document only not broadly across the entire um zoning code. Um and so that what you have before you is uh the answer to the planning commission's request. No discussion was made by the planning commission to further um support pitched roofs by making um providing an incentive of any kind um for that type of roof or um or no decision was discussed of completely removing flat roofs which was also presented by the commenter. Does that answer your question?

Uh yes. I guess you're we could talk about more in comments I guess to understand the uh the pros and cons of that but that is fine. So, you did not originally bring a pres uh a proposal to um incentivize pitched troops.

Yeah. Follow-up question to that. If we were to uh revise the standards to require a pitch roof on buildings more than two stories, what are the what what are the the pitfalls of doing that? What what are the uh the the unintended consequences possible unintended consequences? Our so our primary concern with that is that um limiting the allowed roof forms could would likely be considered a constraint, an ownorous constraint. Um by uh limiting the allowed it it um we want to make sure that these standards support and facilitate development up to 60 dwelling units per acre. Um and by doing so it it's um it's an obligation on the part of the applicant that um that would likely be considered okay uh considered as constraint essentially we would we are not inclined to make the standard so ownorous

I just have to correct me if I'm wrong but uh town Center 3 is about 75 dwelling units per acre. Is that correct? And it has a pitch roof. So, I mean, we've done that in Lafayette. We've we've got a a development pitch roof with it's 75 dwelling units per acre. So, I'm not Do you still think that would be It's certainly possible. Uh yes. So that there are projects with a variety of of roof forms and you'll find them. But when we look at when we look at uh projects that have been considered feasible in the region, uh there's a lot of flat roofs out there.

Oh no, no, that's I guess that's not the the question of what we're getting at. I I understand there's a lot of flat roofs. I'm I'm saying if if we if we decide that Lafayette retains its character more with pitch roofs, which several of our larger building, actually all of our larger buildings are are pitch roofed. Uh when we required and is possible to do, what would be how could that be considered limiting developments? Clearly, we're limiting style, but that's what objective design standards are meant to be. unless we're completely misunderstanding the assignment.

If I could add, um, pitched RS uh can offer a significant cost increase because they are trusses. Um, that's a big added cost uh to the developer. Of course, the developer may elect to do that um because they may for design reasons prefer that architectural style. Um but just with modern construction, um most of the time or quite frequently a developer will say that a being forced to put up a pitched roof would add a significant cost to the design of the building. And as Monica mentioned, our intent with these design standards is to be accommodating so that a developer will elect to do the objective design standards instead of saying I want to use design review so that I can get um you know a longer process or have to go and do um a density bonus and then avoid all of these standards.

Okay. So then I guess I have a follow-up question for the city attorney which you do not need to answer now, but if you could look up is that kind of potentially adding cost. Well, is there any case law on this particular question and you don't need to answer now? I don't have an answer for you now. I could look into that.

Okay. Thank you very much. So just to follow up then just to not to beat the the the pitch roof. I just I'm I'm anticip your your thoughts out there so the public can reflect on that because to me there's a notion of there's there's the true pitched roof where we have you know they come to a point but for very large buildings that's not going to make sense because if you're very large building your pitch roof is going to be multi-stories but you could still I'm assuming architecturally have a have a a characteristic that looks like a pitch that looks like a roof but in fact behind it it's flat for uh the most efficient construction especially especially on large buildings. Is that something that would be within an appropriate thing to encourage? I mean, this is where it's a challenging, right? Because I think would we want to say that every building has to have pitched roof, but it like be nice to certainly encourage or or give options. Maybe you can just speak to that before we

Yeah. So, if it were the type of building that is um flat with uh with like a a pitched roof form on the edge, right? then that portion of the form that that is above the flat roof would be uh excluded from you know how how height is measured for that building. So in that sense um there's no penalty for doing that and in fact there would be um the developer might consider it to be an incentive in that the community would be more welcoming of that design and the decision-making bodies and um one could assume that there would be more goodwill among the community. So in that sense, yes, there's an incentive. Um, but if what you're asking is uh what we're trying to get away from points, right? So saying, oh, you know, you get more points for this versus that. We're trying to make it a little bit simpler. Um, and to not penalize pitched roofs. That said, we do know that it's more expensive, it's more complicated, and we are wary of requiring something that that is more difficult for the developer.

Yes, please. Just to add a few considerations, what you're describing is um very similar to a a manered roof where there's a flat roof but then kind of a wrapping of a a rooflike um pitch element. Um that would potentially provide some benefits. One downside um mayor and to a pitched roof is that these days larger buildings especially put a lot of equipment on the roof. A flat roof makes that very easy. A pitched roof near impossible. Um, and so if that equipment is not on the roof, it's somewhere on the ground floor and it often is making a lot of noise next to someone's window. So that's something that would um add difficulty to site planning especially as we're looking at more and more buildings next to each other um and especially going vertical um where sound echoes more. Um so a manered roof would provide a good answer to that concern. Um, one other thing to think about is as the city does increase in height, especially along the freeway, um, these these taller buildings are going to have views of each other's roofs. So, if our main concern is the view from Mount Diablo, which our kind of our scenic corridor, our main um downtown boulevard, um that might hide most of that equipment, um if we want to be more concerned or increasingly concerned about what people see from each other's apartments and roof decks and things like that, then it might be less attractive to have a manered roof. So, there's pros and cons to all of these types. Um it's just something to keep in mind as we as we progress. If I can add on to that, thank you for pointing that that out that the zones that support these higher density um residential projects that we have in mind, the up to 60 dwelling units per acre, they're not none of them are on Mount Dler Boulevard, right? They're they're behind between um

the highway and then halfway up that block. Um, so this effect that that um we're concerned about would not be visible from this from Mount Alo Boulevard or um the first half of the block going north. Right. Well, ju just to to clarify here, it um between Mount Diablo Boulevard and that 60s on what is now 35, it is possible to come in with a a bonus project. But if you come in with the density bonus, you're not subject to these anyway, right?

You you are still subject to the zoning. However, density bonus, state law allows for the developer to seek concessions and waivers. So those waivers could be used to wave one or more of the objective standards that are currently being developed yet. Okay. But just point out they can be um well a lot more dense along Mount Diablo than 35 with the with the D. Sure. Yeah. Yeah.

Right. And and again I think the um again just anticipate the the kind of just to well I we're still in question marks. I don't want I don't want to change too much. I am just kind of just curious. So you took the feedback from the December meeting where the kind of the I mean and this just just the postulating that the pitch roof has a has a has a little more charming feel than flat roofs which tend to be I think a could can be a little more urban looking and the idea was just to to kind of pro eliminate any sort of negative consequence but not do any sort of positive prescription. Right. But you're saying but we could potentially put something in um and still probably meet the spirit of objective design standards if we if we could prescribe man roofs or or maybe of you know buildings over three stories or four stories. I just want to make sure I don't want to be doing stuff that's going to just completely get into, you know, be uninforcable. I I think in the end that's going to be a question for Mala as to what the um latigious possibilities are of um being more specific about what kind of roof we want to have, especially as some roofs cost more to build. So if we were to say uh only pitch roofs are required are allowed under this document, nothing else, that's a lot harder of a line than to perhaps offer some smaller incentive. Um but again that's shadings of the same question. So I think Malo's answer um to M Mayor Andre's earlier question will will help inform that that discussion.

Right. I think I'll move on. Thank you. This is I just want to step back for a general picture of this in a way. I don't know if I'm thinking about this the right way or not but these objective design standards are sort of our opening bid perhaps. So if someone's a developer coming in and they want to get expedited processing, they follow this, they go through the TSA pre-line, so to speak. U I mean, that's kind of how it would work. If a developer had an issue with the mans roof or the roofing, the gabled roof, it was a really ownorous issue for them, so to speak. They could say, "Well, we're not going to do that. We're going to go through design review, the longer line." But they could still do that. and maybe through that process they could work their way to a a solution from their perspective that would work better for them. Is that am I am I thinking of this the right way?

Yeah, I I I'm glad you called that out. Um it's it's great to um make that extra clear here. What we're describing with the ODS document is um a pathway that we have to have under state law, which is an objective review. So under applications such as SB35 where you are not allowed to have a discretionary hearing um the pathway has to be a yes or no checklist. So we as planners will review these projects. I believe our code our um ordinance does require that the um applicant would come to a body but would not be able to have discretionary review. So we we'd have to review these projects with a checkbox and we'd have to be able to answer every question, every design uh standard with a yes or no answer. Um that's really what the full weight of objectivity means here. Um and so if we have that pathway um we are allowed to enforce those standards but any developer can say I don't want to go through that pathway and go back to our normal discretionary review and that pathway is still open and we can still do discretionary review if they opt out of this faster review process. We just have to have it. In addition, if they don't like our normal uh zoning code requirements, they can apply for a variance and that would be additional discretionary review for that. Doesn't mean we grant it, but they can apply for it. And all I would add to that is we also have to be able to say sort of with a straight face that the standard the discretionary path does facilitate development the allowed development scale and density by right. So we need to uh to say with confidence

that we're not u creating a narrow path that would lead applicants to not use that path.

So in in the end again I'm trying to frame this in my mind here with the objective design standards we're sort of trying to we're tilting the playing field so to speak in a direction where we want them to play. So, let's say it's gabled roofs. We could do that. They could opt. Let's say they decide, no, we'd rather have a barbecue pit on the top floor with a view Mont Diablo. If I can't do that with a mansard roof, then I'm going to just maybe go through design review and get get what I want that way. I mean, the developer could do that. Although, we've kind of made we were offering them we'd be offering them an easy path if we said, "Look, gabled roof, you go to the front of the line." But they could just opt not to do that, I take it. Right. the additional wrinkle. Yes, they can choose which of those pathways they want to go through. Um, we have to offer the objective pathway. We don't have to require it and we don't require it. It's an option for the developer. They can choose the normal discretionary view should they choose. Um, the additional wrinkle is that across all of these pathways, any application can also do a density bonus application. And if they're providing those density bonus units, um they are allowed to request a certain number of incentives or concessions and um additional waivers. And those waivers would apply to our normal zoning as well as these objective standards. And so should they opt to submit an additional density bonus application on top of their normal application, um then a lot of these can be waved away. Just to clarify on that, they can put in a density bonus application under the objective pathway, but say we're going to use our concessions to strike X, Y, and Z. Okay. Thank you. And you know, um, Director Greg Wolf and I were speaking about this in the past and some applicants have submitted density bonus

applications simply for the concessions and waiverss without even using the additional bonus of density granted by state law. We don't think that will occur much in the future. The the development playing field is changing. Um, but the concessions and waiverss are powerful enough to be their own incentive for applying. Um, so again, back to what I said in my introduction, the goal of this document is to avoid bad design, encourage good design, but not be so ownorous that every applicant immediately automatically does a density bonus application and kind of gets a jail get out of jail free card for a lot of these standards. That's we're kind of thread that needle.

Yeah, thank you. This is really excellent work and very very interesting. Um I have a couple questions. One was um about the need for utility um materials, boxes, functions, Hback, etc. on the top of um buildings. I was just looking at Town Center 3 aerial view right here. And it's I had no idea this is a building that that's been described I think favorably by many public commenters. I think many of us think it's it's an attractive well wellbuilt building. Um and it it's interesting because it has I mean I I don't know if maybe commission or maybe planning director Wolf could put it on screen or um it it's a flat roof but they've managed to cloak it.

Um actually the thousand one doing Yeah. one doing. Um, are you able to project or I mean I have my lap my my my iPad I don't believe I'm currently can I just put able to just try um I just want to find out what we give it a try.

This looks like a manered roof. So, a manered roof is um structurally a flat roof and then along the edge, the facade of the building, there's um a section of a pitched roof sometimes. I mean, I guess this one is somewhere between five and 10 feet long. It's at an angle. Um and so from the from the ground floor or from outside looking up, you see the edge of that pitched roof, but you typically don't have as a good angle to see that it doesn't continue. So, there we go. Right there. the the general 85 to 90% of the roof is flat, right?

And so there's equipment up there. There could be solar up there. There's a a usable roof for a lot of things. Um but someone standing on the ground is going to see a pitched roof. And this is a mansard style, you say? Okay. Okay. I think it's also notable you're looking at a merkantile, which has a similar which has also been mentioned much deeper, taller manered, but still the the flat roof in the center. So, is that generally the form for most of the buildings that we're speaking of as having pitch shrews in Lafayette? The larger ones, they might really be Mansard.

We have not surveyed them. Um, but it's quite possible. I mean, I'm looking at these. I actually didn't know. I haven't zoomed in on uh the Merkantile. I didn't know there was a flat man or a flat roof behind the the Manard. I thought it was a full pitched roof. My ignorance there. Um, but it it clearly has a benefit. I this is this is I would venture to guess that many developers want that equipment on the roof. So that's what the benefit is there.

Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that. My question was going to be where did they hide the equipment this building and then I looked at it online here in the aerial and I see well it's on the roof where you where you said they'd like to have it. But it's a really nice um a nice implementation. Certainly very very attractive from the ground level. Um see I have a couple other questions I think. Um, bear with me for a second. Um, so you know, I'm wondering, do these standards apply to the duplex and faith-based organization, multif family zones?

They do. They apply everywhere where multif family or mixed use is a permitted use is permitted by right. Yeah. So, there were a few like the MRO, the MRA, a few scattered sites, the faith-based sites. Yeah. Okay. And for the duplex um ones, I mean, those are going to be, I think, smaller scale buildings. The the lots are much smaller. Do these standards um work or that's a smaller duplex building.

That's something we talked a lot about with the the design review commission working group. Um and we determined that we wanted to be silent on the the smaller scale, the town home um uh configuration of buildings and the preference was for these standards to really try to address the the larger scale buildings.

Okay. of the understanding that um I think that the staff uh is not anticipating is anticipating that uh generally new multif family development will not take that form and that there hasn't been essentially a concern with the design of those um sort of midscale and small scale buildings.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Um, I wanted to clarify, is there only one secondary material and color permitted with these standards? I thought I saw something on one of the slides come through that looked like that, but when I read the when I read the document, I interpreted as secondary could be 12 secondary materials or colors or any number, not literally 12. Yeah, I don't we don't have anything about accent colors. Um but there isn't no there is not a limit that there's there's one only. That's not the case. Okay. It's

um the intent is to prevent a building that is just all one material in color. Uh which is why we reference primary and secondary, but we don't limit the number for the Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, you could have multiple secondaries. Yeah, certainly. Right. Okay. Um, also wanted to ask you, there was a um, in the privacy section a diagram that in one of the earlier versions described a 30° angle minimum and it was removed and I wanted to ask why.

Um, that was removed I believe after the planning commission um, hearing they uh, requested to remove it. they felt that it it um it would not adequately provide uh privacy. And is is it possible for you to to tell me on this diagram how to how to interpret it to see where that 30% or 30 degree rather was? Like which feature of the it was the angle of the it looks sort of like a the plan view of a bay window. So it was it um

you think of like you know bay window being shallow versus deep. It had to be deep enough that um the windows on the side were at enough of an angle that they weren't directly looking at the neighbors. Okay. And so now then what is this standard? I mean is this diagram accurate anymore? Uh well, yeah, the uh it's sill height. Basically, it's uh there's got to be a minimum sill height or translucent or frosted glazing. We just took that out as an option. Yeah, we took that third option out. Okay. At the recommendation of the planning commission.

Okay. Sorry, I guess I'm still not clear. Is it are B windows now not allowed or No, not at all. They're certainly allowed. It's just um that alone wouldn't satisfy the requirement the the privacy requirement. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Going back to the map and the question on the duplex, when you commented on the map on and where these would be applied, it was kind of only shown the color ones. You circled those in red.

Could you go back to that picture? Okay. I was just making sure that the BART lots and Deer Hill are in it and I'm not seeing that. And Dilva, right? Dilva is in over here,

but I'm not I want to make sure that these color because the colors get kind of muddled. The Bart Lot and then Deerhill. if for some reason that goes away, we want to make sure these apply to the Deer Hill site, right? If it comes back. So, um I just want to make sure those are included, don't we? Yeah. I think Okay, we don't have to make that comment yet. I just want was there a reason why maybe those were excluded?

Certainly. So on this map you can see that um in a in a moment [laughter] all of the bright colors that are um where the uh ODS would apply are within the downtown which is all south of the freeway. So Deer Hill and the BART lots on this zoning map are in an R district which means that single family residential district which means that these standards would not apply to them. That's not true. So, how do we I mean, at least for the Bart lot, right? Yeah. I I thought I thought it was said that these apply to multifamily, right, houses throughout the city, no matter what the

apply to zones where multifamily is permitted by right, which would be a multif family district. So, I'm wondering if this map is Yeah. Well, the Bart lots are clearly right included. And then if we somehow get roped into SB79, we need to have these. We want to make sure that we get this right. Yep. It's very important. And rather than limit it to a geography, we can state that they are applicable to multif family projects. Okay. Irrespective is our solution. We don't need anything more on that now. That's what we don't. Okay. We have to do

super duper. Um then I've got a couple of other questions. Um so under the massing um uh under C2 um there is I guess I don't understand that it the 50 ft minimum dimension. It seems like all of these dimensions should have a a width and a depth and not just one. And that applies to a couple of the other ones too. That's only it says like 10 ft deep. Don't we have a minimum width as well? Or was there a reason why it's not included?

Yes, we can certainly add a required width of the the public accessible. There's no reason that it wasn't included. Perfect. Excellent. Um, and then, um, I didn't see anything about bike spaces in terms of the parking, and I'm just wondering if that was intentional and if it's covered somewhere else, or do we need to include it in these

uh, required bicycle parking uh, off- streetet parking uh, parking spaces and, um, facilities are addressed in chapter 6-6. It's it's the codes off streetet parking chapter, right? There's a section on bikes the bike parking there and we don't need any objective design standards to make sure it's pretty. Just question. I'm just asking. Yeah. No. Okay. We could add them if we wanted to. I guess that would be the thought. Why?

Yeah. I mean, we we need to look back at the design of the of the cured spaces, the location, and see if there's a need. Um, in our working group meetings, we determined that there was no need for design [clears throat] standards beyond what's already in the code. Great. Um, can I just say when in the comment section, I think we should come back to this. So please do because we're hoping to design a downtown in which many people will be riding their bicycle coming down to the park theater parking going to lunch and then you know so we're going to have to have multiples of bike parking space of what we have now and yeah I think well let's revisit that.

Perfect. Okay. Um and yeah may I'm going to correct something I said earlier. Um so if we look at six 63902 applicability uh so when we developed these yes we looked at the at the zones where multif family and mixed us is allowed by right but as we say in uh on page one here the design standards in this chapter apply to all multif family and mixeduse development in the city regardless of where it is. If it ends up on an R10 zone yes they apply. Okay great thank you

helpful. Um, so you so between the last meeting, the PC meeting and this one, sorry. Um, the window, the sill and the apron one went away. And so I I was just wondering why it went away. Um I I don't have the previous copy of it. So I don't recall the silent apron being on the previous copy, but I will say that we had discussions with the DRC working group me um about this and we elected based on their advice of and their knowledge of construction um in Lafayette to not include those. So, just to be clear, that does not mean that um a sill and an apron um are prohibited. Of course, a developer uh could put those and um often will put those just for good window design, just for the longevity of the window. It's just not a requirement to meet our um window design standards.

Okay. Thank you. Um one more. the um we removed this is under the entry design um I guess on a pri on the prior revision um it says we took out or or the center entry we took out it's centered within a symmetric overall feature and and that was that that one was taken out from the prior one um but when I'm looking at a lot of the ones where you've got these um new building entrances with these little, you know, cutouts and stuff like that. Um, the way you've got the pictures here, the entry would be in a recess. And so I think maybe we do need to keep that one back in or was there a reason another reason why that was taken out and are we sure that we needed to take that out?

Yeah, I can respond to that. So, we did take it out. The concern was and it's sort of an interim review of the working document is that the wording was insufficiently objective that maybe feature or overall feature wasn't you know um there was a measure of subjectivity um as it is now that is one of a list of options. Um so so Yes, a a building entry could be located in a recess, but um that would never be like a a requirement, right, based on the way these are spelled out and listed as options. Okay, thank you. Um one [clears throat] more time, just a couple quick ones. Um on the non-residentidential ground floor design um you decide you say a facade any facade between two and seven feet and I I was I was wondering can you give me an example of what a facade two feet is? I mean like

what's what's the vision there? Yeah. So, if you flip to the next page, sort of there's an illustration that describes the intent of that standard. We're saying that ground floor, non-residential ground floor spaces have to have a measure of transparency, so you know what you're walking past, right? It doesn't have to be transparent way down by your feet. And it doesn't have to be transparent up by above where you can see, but between two and seven feet, you want to be able to see what a certain percentage of that should be legible.

Okay. So maybe maybe it's the description. I didn't understand. Okay. When you're you're saying that you want to have the transparency between 2 feet height and and seven feet of height, that's where you want the transparency to be in that range. I just maybe the wording wording maybe I'll look at that again

be tough. Um and then last ones and the building materials and colors um on 2C. Um it says natural or cultured stone but then there's a comment of the building base only. So why do we have that building base only for that one? Yeah. So we would it's my latest um we would delete those lines um so that it's not repeated um on two um secondary materials.

Yeah. 2 H. We would delete that. We would also delete 2 C. Oh, okay. Or no C but get rid of the building. Yeah. Yeah. because we're also um allowing natur because at some point we determined that oh let's allow natural and cultural stone to be a primary building material. In that case it wouldn't be only for the building base. So we would get rid of that parenthetical. Excellent. Thank you. Um and then and then you're also getting rid of two H because concrete's in there twice. Indeed. Yeah. Ah got it. Just making sure. That's my question.

Okay. Um is it Oh, please. Sorry about that. I I had just a couple other ones I wanted to get to once we got past the mansard roofs. Um public publicly accessible open space. I'd like to understand that better. So for if it's a up to three stories, it's 800 square feet, which is like an 8 by10 room. It's like a kids bedroom. It's not a whole lot. And uh larger if it's four stories or more. Where does that go? is how do you how does that I I'm trying to understand like what the purpose of this is and what because it's not a whole lot of space that'd be helpful to understand.

Yeah. Um yes I'll answer that. Um so all of our dimensions for the publicly accessible open space also for the common open space those were all items that we actually measured you know various open spaces that you have. Um and so the reason for example for the 600 square f feet um that is specifically because we see a pattern um within your downtown of these terraces, these open spaces where you know outside of a restaurant there are terraces. So we wanted to include those as forms of publicly accessible open space that could meet that you know that are allowed that we are uh accounting for. Um so that's why that you know that square footage is so small. Um but there are other ones as well. You mentioned uh the common open space um having a minimum dimension of 50 square ft. We want to make sure that um we're not uh allowing for common open space that may be called that but is not functional that can't be used by the residents. Um so all of the dimensions you mentioned another one. Um, yeah, all of the dimensions uh that we included were all specific to I apologize. I couldn't remember what the third one was that you said, but they were all ones that that we found. Um, and use those dimensions specifically.

So, it could be a bench outside a restaurant that's public open space. Is that is that what this could translate into?

Yeah. So, thinking about the the required open space for smaller buildings up to three stories, we want the them to be used, right? We want we want the space to be built out, right? We don't we don't want to um cut in too much to the to the buildable area on the site and we want the space to be used. So, for that scale of building, having a vast open space is less likely to be used if it feels a little more crowded, a little cozier. um it enhances the the pedestrian the continuity of the pedestrian activity. So that is very intentional. And then when it comes to the larger spaces like the the one where the the open space is elevated, it can be larger. It doesn't necessarily have to be at the ground level. Uh the common open space, it it's a little bit more flexible and it should be the the building on 101 Oak A. Right. So we looked at that as an example for how common open space could

Okay. So the idea here this is really the streetscape experience. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um and then later on um this is non-presidential ground floor. There's different design features about landscaping you know having a certain percentage uh 50% of wall space and so on. I I was thinking about this in the context of fire safety in zone zero. So, is what we're talking about here putting plantings right up against a building? Is that the the concept of the idea behind landscaping in all this? Because I think this I don't know. I just we're just conscious of like fire safety in zone zero and this would I would think would cut against that.

And is there a specific standard or section that you're looking at? Are we looking at the landscaping section? Yeah. So um sorry this is like page 11 um 11. Okay 6 3910 um C uh 2C that's one. Um and there's another one uh 6 3914 fencing and screening. It might be a better one actually. uh B in the subp part B

yeah to talk about uh fence or hedge minimum of six feet and height along shared property line um again these are we're just conscious of fire safety issues and maybe it's something to look at but um because the the the position maybe all this is moving to is like some sort of zone zero so anything within that zero to 5 foot space could be problematic in the future I just I just put that out there maybe something to think out. So, okay. Um, I'd also add uh that in the maybe along the streetscape in the front of buildings required landscaping that doesn't necessarily need to be in the ground, right? They can be movable pots or planters.

Okay, great. Thank you for all your work on this. Okay, I have a number of questions too. Um, is it possible to have different standards for different districts? I'm going back to our uh downtown design guidelines and you know we have special things for Brown Avenue for example. Would we could we require pitch roofs only on Brown Avenue and not elsewhere? Is that possible? Yeah, that's possible.

Okay. And um is it possible to put in these [clears throat] guidelines a requirement that um if a property is on one of the major streets, Mount Diablo Boulevard, Maraga Road, First Street, that the and also on another street that the entrance to the garage or the curb cut can only be on the secondary street. Can we require that?

Yes. Okay, great. And one of the things that's going to be more important [clears throat] as we move forward with our downtown design is providing space uh between the front of the building uh and the curb. Um, and is there anything that we can do in the um design objective design standards to require a building to be a certain number of feet from one of our main streets? Um, so it sounds as though you're talking about the the setback from the front property line or any street facing property line.

Yeah, I'm um I'm thinking just specifically of the uh of the curb, even existing curb. If you looked at properties that are being built now, you probably noticed one that's right on a 4 foot sidewalk and we can't if there's any way we can avoid that happening again, we want to do it. And I'm just wondering if the objective design standards can somehow be a way to do that.

Well, so uh typically, you know, we talk about design standards sort of picking up where the development standards leave off, right? So the development standards are the basics. They're height, density, and setback. Um, and the setback is counted from the front or the all the prop the property lines. Um, and when you're talking about a property line along a ride of way, that's typically at the back of sidewalk. So, building placement and minimum setback is counted from the sidewalk. So, what we're not doing with the objective design standards is going into the development standards by zone in the code and modifying those. We're keeping those as is. But I understand what you're saying based on the width of the sidewalk, the distance from the curb, who knows what that is because it's not a function of where the the property line is.

Right. Right. Um, so if we were to do that, we'd have to be very careful. What does that mean in terms of does it get in the way of that setback requirement and that's not something I I I know off hand. We'd have to I'll just leave that as question come back to it. Yeah, because I actually have I have that in my comments actually trying to we were talking about the the public open space. I would actually be more interested in having like just a broader facade

which may equate to wider sidewalks in the front generally speaking versus some sort of carve out. I mean, not to anticipate my comment later, but that was kind of my question as well. I mean, thinking about it, this square footage that way versus really a broader walking biking area in front, the the entire front, that's much more interesting and much more conducive to semi-row, whatever. Anyway,

yeah, so we'll come back to that in the in the comments, but that's a critical item for our downtown. Okay. Um, now I'm well just need some clarification. You've got the boards back here and you provided us with the the handout. Uh, well, I guess the copy of the boards updated. So, what is the uh intent? Is it correct that the there will be no there will be no appendix to uh this code section, right? I mean, is there

It was staff's understanding that at the special DRC meeting that had the open house that the DRC was instructing staff to append the digital copy of these boards to the staff report as the ODS went through the approval process so that these future meetings could see and understand what the boards held because they're a very succinct and visual summary of what the document has. um we did not understand them to mean that the digital copy of the board should be adopted as part of the code which is what the ODS document will will do in the future. Okay. So we can talk about that when we get to our discussion. Absolutely.

Okay. And let's see now, [clears throat and cough] we we've gotten a fairly extensive public comment from uh Elliot Hudson, who's here this evening, and he'll be speaking, and I just want to ask you so he'll have a chance to address it if uh he does uh speak. Um he's added a number of of uh new language uh in the uh the draft ordinance. uh under the purpose uh he's added language that grounds uh these objective standards in the city's mission statement particularly the part of the mission statement that refers to uh small down small town downtown and uh semi-ural ambiance and then at the beginning of each section he's put in a sort of a rationale for why we're doing it for example under 63904 building massing adding an intro that says a key attribute of semi-ural ambiance is avoiding a feeling of being crowded by buildings and maintaining a broad open sky you know so providing background for why we're doing this is that something I mean I'd just like to get your take on that so he can address it when he speaks I mean what do you think about that sort of uh approach because I could just as a general matter I can understand providing more context I wonder though in the context of objective design standards standards if it's not a good idea to provide that subjective background. Just interested in your thoughts on that. Um, in general, I would say we want to make we want to make the purpose statements concise and to the point and we want to say what we want, right? And we're focused more um in terms of the purpose statements leaving that largely up to the staff. We're focused on

objective language and objective standards. So the sort of introductory language I would say is not um I mean we might want to a definition of the word ambiance. I I don't know. I I would say I'm we're focusing our attention on the the design standards themselves and making sure that they're in the spirit of concise a concise set of purpose statements. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions before we go to public comment?

My apologies for jumping in and out of this, but I realize there's one last question I want to have and this is actually relates to the boards. I think fenistration. So, we've got um windows and there's a nice graphic you've got here on uh this is the town center 3 25% fenest regation. Okay. Um 718 Lafayette Circle 35% okay. And then this other building which I'm I don't know where it is. Waller Creek maybe 60% or more not okay. How how is that derived? I mean, where does it sort of like why is like 25% okay and 60% not okay? I mean, is there like a I'm really totally a newbie on this one, but where does that come from?

So, this uh that exploration came out of discussions with the DRC working group. We looked at a lot of images. We looked at different buildings. Um the idea was okay, let's look at a couple buildings and just sort of draw it out. Draw the polygons and calculate it. see what's there. We'll talk about it. Um and then just in just for the purposes of the presentation, add uh insert a couple to demonstrate what we're looking at and what we're thinking and then um draft a standard that um that that learns from that.

So every there isn't um I'm sorry to finish answering your question. Uh there's no there's no right answer, right? and every community will have a different threshold for how much fenestration is really right for a building in the mixed use and multif family parts of of that city. Um but that's uh out of some discussion that's that's what we that's what we uh recommended at that time.

So this is like a beauty is in the out of the beholder and we back into the percentage that's kind of the rubric here. So it could have been 50% or 40 or whatever, but okay. And I gather. So this is the residential side. On the commercial side, it's very different because to council member Kandell's comment earlier, there's a certain view we want to have inside a a commercial operation. So we're treating those very differently, I guess. Ground floor, non-residential be. Okay. All right. Thank Thank you.

Okay. Public comment. just taking my Okay, we do have public comments. Our first speaker will be Elliot Hudson, followed by Rob Lavoy and Libby Henry. So, those are our first three. Be prepared.

Libby has a hand up. Yeah. Good evening, Elliot Hudson. Um, we spent a lot of time in the council comments talking about the trees. I want to step back and talk about the forest again. The reality that um is, you know, this is it. This really is it. I started working on Lafayette's character back in 2008 concerning the downtown specific plan and then there was a housing element and now the new general plan, it all comes down to this tonight. Because if you don't make Lafayette what the mission statement says, what Lafayette residents want it to be tonight, a small town community with semi-ural ambiance, that's it. It will never come back. So before you give that away, look very hard at whether that's the only alternative you have and the only thing that you can do. We've heard about um well the other reality is these proposed standards were not drafted with semi-roll ambiance in mind which you saw up there on the purpose slide where that was the first bullet point. They didn't write that that didn't get into that position until three days before the design review commission meeting when it was pointed out that it was at the bottom. the pictures that are in these standards and that they showed you tonight with those nice uh pitched roofs, that's not what they wrote. The ones they wrote had one pitched roof at the very end. So,

there's been some massaging here to make this sound like semi-roll ambiance and and uh allegiance to the mission standards was part of this drafting process. And that's not true. What's true is what these boards tell you about the process they went through and the goals that they have with each one of the elements that they've designed. And there isn't one word about the mission statement, small town, semi-ural ambiance in any of them. Not one single word. If you wrote these standards and gave it to an architecture class that with an assignment to design semi-ural objective design standards, you get an F because they aren't. The reality is exactly what I said in the video and thank you all for taking the time to watch it. This let you build Walnut Creek. This is a design handbook for Walnut Creek, for flat roofs, for urban glass, for materials of stucco and concrete and cinder block that have nothing to do with what this town wants to be. Lafayette residents have worked for decades to protect the nature, the character of this town, for decades. And they've been consistent. The town took a horrible wrong turn in 2019 with the design standards that it's had since then. And every building you've got in the downtown, every single residential building in the downtown since then is a flat roof with urban glass that has nothing to do with what residents want this town to be. So tonight, you either stand with Lafayette or you turn your back on it. And that's the bottom line. You five people tonight, you either say we are gonna build a town that Lafayette residents

love or we're going to say goodbye forever because that's how how these towns disappear. They don't disappear all at once. They disappear one damn building at a time. And if you adopt standards that allow that, that is exactly what's going to happen. So I don't want to hear about what developers say they want. Developers will say whatever gives them the extra 5% or 3% on their profit margin. They act like a bu like a a pitched roof is something out of the uh unheard of. You can't do it. Nonsense. We've got pitch roofs all over this town. And everything built in Walnut Creek until they abandoned their own design standards had pitched roofs. Every residence gets built in this town has a pitch roof. How many flat roof residents are there? Well, a few, I guess, but not very many. Uh, they say developers might not want to build them because they're more expensive. But you know what? We need to challenge those builders. We need to stand with the residents of Lafayette. Don't give this town away without a fight. Make them prove it. Make them go through the elements. If they ask for a waiver here or there, deal with it. But if you don't require standards that going to protect this town in roofs, in glass area, in materials, this is all a farce because that's what you'll get. You'll get Walnut Creek and nobody here wants that. So stand with us. Make this town what the mission statement says it's supposed to be. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Are there questions for the speaker? Okay, I I have one question. Uh Mr. Hudson, uh you provided

us with a markup of the ordinance. Are you saying that if your markup was enacted, you would consider the city to be protected? If it was enacted, yeah, I would consider that you've done what you can do. Okay. Thank you.

I'm not perfect. There may be Oh, one thing. Um, in both the video and the markup, I concentrated on making the standards themselves more clear, integrating the appendix, which just got slapped on um, in a in a way that is not ambiguous, um, outline flat roofs, reducing the glass area. The percentages are based on what you actually we've all we've all read our We've all read it. Yeah. Thank you. And but then also I concentrated on those things because I think those are the most important. I just wanted to know you were concerned that you know okay

we're heading down the wrong path. This is our last chance. I just want to make sure that you feel what you had presented to us is what you thought would be and that one answered the question. One area I did supplement it and that's in the materials. I didn't address that because I didn't want to dilute the others, but I think on materials 70% stucco cement cinder block is way too much. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, Rob Lavoy to be followed by Linda Reebel. Welcome.

Thank you. Uh Rob Lavoy, 872 Maraga Road, 35-y year resident. Um, it's nice to be able to talk to you guys tonight. Um, I'm here to support Elliot's uh detailed edits to the uh uh presented uh design standards. I hope that you'll make them completely focused on the uh unique um uh mission that we have for our city, semi-ural and uh small town. Um we've been forced to allow excessively large buildings by the state law. Um but we should not require or we should require them to meet some standards which make our town unique. Um we need to tell the builders upfront what we want and as uh the uh consultant here said make it unambiguous. um they have um waivers that they can get out of these things. So, it's not like they're forced into this and almost every one of them uh will take advantage of those waivers, but we need to define very clearly um you know what we want. Residents came here for the, you know, the unique characteristics of our town and we we don't want to give that up. People say we're still no that we're not no longer semi-ural anymore, but we still are and we can still be different even with these big buildings. Um, but let's not make them ugly ones. Um, I think the no flat roofs should be uh included in the standard. And like I said, there's ways to get around that. Um, I would be interested in hearing from Mala if uh there are any uh um

court cases where where that's been determined to be uh um too difficult or ownorous. I I don't believe so. And and we can see by the examples of the Merkantile building and the uh uh doing building um I think that doing is that the one by um that they they have flat roofs but you can't tell from from the outside and I I think that's what we want. Um, and even if they want a uh, you know, rooftop deck or something, as long as the flat roof's on the the street side, they have their view from the from the other sides. So, oh, I'm sorry. Um, so let's see. And I would challenge uh, you know, architects and contractors to uh, you know, demonstrate that the that the roof requirement is is too difficult. Otherwise, I'd ban the flat roofs. and the other comments the fence and so forth I think have been dealt with already. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Linda Reel to be followed by Laura Lamont. Welcome.

Hello. Um the staff report which I have uh looked at is certainly impressive and it shows the complexity of planning that my hat is off to people who do it. Um I I'm I'm assuming you've seen the draft and are getting ready to request adjustments. Um, as a Lafayette resident for 20 years, I have seen a lot of changes, not all of them good. Um, and the citizens here have been very dedicated in sharing views about what we like and don't like. So, I'm here to just encourage you to defend the mission statement. That is a legal document as far as I know. And um I believe that Elliot uh proposed some modest changes. And please don't turn us into Walnut Creek. They remind me of Soviet apartment blocks which I have seen in person. Lafayette is is such a wonderful town. I thank you for your time and please make some changes. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? Thank you Laura Lamont to be followed by Brian Parsons. Welcome.

Hi. Thank you, Laura Lamont. Um, I saw that my I wrote a letter, but it did not get included in this, so I hope it's okay if I just read it. Um, there it is. Whoops. Have to read it off my phone. Sorry. Okay, so here's the letter. The new modern aesthetic is the friend of the builder. It is easier, cheaper, and faster to build a box. There are more there are a lot of very exciting examples of modern architecture in the world that have been designed and built, but they are not being built in Walnut Creek, where ugly boxes abound. This new trend toward modernism gives builders the easy way out. Let's keep the junky stuff out of Lafayette. We should build new structures that fit in with the more rural character of Lafayette. We can think of careful design of new buildings as an opportunity to make our town continue to look good. Just because modern is in is no excuse to settle for ugliness. And then I'm going to add to that um in regards to the comment uh made previously that pitched roofs cost more to build. We should I feel that we should not be so concerned that a builder is making their maximum amount of money. Um I think that builders generally make plenty of money and I also uh support everything that Elliot Hudson presented. uh to us. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Questions? Okay. Thank you, Brian Parsons, followed by Glenn Cass.

Hello, and thank you for your time. Um I really appreciate it. I just wanted to speak on two things that came up during the discussion of city council. Um Susan, you mentioned um bike parking and that is a big part for Vibrant Lafayette. We would love to see it included. Um we did an analysis where we walked all around to find the bike parking. There's actually a lot of infra infrastructure for bike parking on the street of Mount Diablo, but it's totally unusable because it's not in front of the Trader Joe's, the Diablo Foods. So having it built into the destinations that we want to get into would be amazing. I recommend the Crow standards um for bike parking. It's about $260. Um but yeah, the other thing was um Mayor Anduri, what you talked about with the setback and the distance. Um I walk with my kids all over. We're usually pushing a bike as we get on the sidewalk. So you can't have two people coming at each other on on a 4 foot wide thing. So what we have on First Street, that width is is amazing. Um, I don't know if that's possible, but that's something that Vibrant Lafayette is very interested in is the ability to not just walk downtown, but walk and push our bikes around as as we get into the more denser areas and put them in places. So, that's all.

Thank you. Questions? Thank you very much. Glenn Cass, followed by Cheryl McDonald.

Welcome and thank you again.

Yeah, you're welcome. um Glencast uh 3611 Boyer Circle um you know I understand Elliot and a group of them what their interest is okay but there is no architectural style that's is semi-ural okay and when you go to six-story buildings there is no style semi-ural now yes I see that there's designs that they like that are better than others but when I look at his amended concepts like eliminating flat roofs, it isn't going to work. You will not have any pro hardly any projects go through this criteria. They'll all be waivers and exceptions to it. The other thing is is that it's easy to talk about, well, what's the incremental cost of a trust for the roof? So on so forth. No one's representing affordability. Okay, we have extremely expensive buildings in this city and we are excluding a lot of people like teachers, public servants from living in this time because hey, just make it more expensive and who cares? Okay, well those people care. One thing I want to leave you with is that this document should not be cast in concrete. Okay, don't wait 10 years to revise it. Okay, when you have something that says, "Okay, let's change this because this is more fires safe, change it right away, make an aata sheet every single year. Change every single year until you get it right or you get it better." Okay, that's my main objective on speaking tonight is please do not cast this as a definite

thing that is going to last for any long duration of period. Thank you. Okay, questions. Okay, thank you very much. Cheryl McDonald to be followed by Don Ames. Welcome.

I like this microphone. It's going to make me loud. Um I hope you can hear me. Um great. Um I just wanted to say that I'm happy that you looked at Elliot's video. Um, and then I just wanted to also say that um, we don't want to be so many of us over many years have not wanted to be Walnut Creek. And part of what Walnut Creek is is those flat roofs and the multiple colors that just seem to be prominent throughout Walnut Creek. I think there are creative ways that we can get by that and maybe the pitch rule all brus like what you were talking about Stella. So it looks from the street that it looks appealing to to many of us, but that what's necessary to go on the the roofs that could be behind it. Called that a facade, but it works for maybe maybe that would be a a way to get by. Also, I just don't um I've grown up here since I was like in the 60s and there have been a lot of changes along the way. Um, and most of it's been really good, but the Brown Avenue project is just a center block. It's a really tall rectangle and it's not really overly appealing and the multiple colors that remind me of Walnut Creek and so many of us. So, I do support a lot of what Elliot has put and what Bob has said and I appreciate that. Thank you.

Hey, thank you. Questions? Okay. Thank you. Our first virtual speaker is Don Ames.

Good evening and happy new year. Um, to add to my email sent in earlier today, I'd like to emphasize that having been raised in Lafayette with my parents' family business and still owner of property on the east end of Mount Daba Boulevard since 1950, I'd love to see Lafayette retain its semi-ural character and small town ambiance as established and approved by the city council in the general plan and its latest revision. Modern urban boxy looking buildings, flat roofs, too many large windows, an aesthetic bright and bold colors for facades. Concrete, stucco, and cinder block are not the design, materials, or the look that maintains Lafayette's warm, comfortable, safe feeling town that many of us have loved growing up here. I would implore you not to approve the ODS as currently recommended. The proposed ODS will adversely forever and irreversibly change the direction and undeviating course of poor development of the town not in keeping with its semi-ural character and small town ambiance. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Are there questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh Mayor Anduri, there are no additional speakers at this time. Okay, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the council. And I'll ask the council if they'd like to take a five minute break now or wait until the end of the discussion. Is there any now would be better. This is a this is any one person decides it. So yes, we'll take a five minute break and return for discussion.

right our five minutes has come and gone. If we could uh ask everyone to take their seats and uh can ask everyone to take their seats. We're going to resume the meeting. If we could ask everyone to take their seats, we'll get we'll get started. If everyone could can uh cease their conversations and take their seats, we can get started. Yeah. Try to get through without doing

All right, we're back in session. Um, what I propose that we do is start out by if there's if there are any uh questions, any additional questions, ask the questions and then um we'll have the discussion. I'd like to start out with any general uh issues that are out there. discuss the general issues and then I'd like to go through uh page by page uh with the ordinance and and provide feedback and then finish up if there things that aren't covered uh uh by the uh design standards that you'd like to add talk about then we'll talk about those things so we can save those to the to the end. Okay. So are there any questions that

I think yeah go ahead. I think you want to do the general just to just to reflect on a couple things. Elliot was, you know, this is kind of our last chance to get it right. Center skin where we are on the process here, right? Because we're not actually being asked to make an to approve or deny anything today, right? We're doing we're doing just this kind of this is just like just a feedback session effectively, right? And so how how do how should we expect it uh to proceed after this?

Uh so the the goal of tonight's meeting is to gather your feedback. No action is proposed. In fact, no action can be taken because there's no resolution attached to the staff report. Um if you were very eager to pass something, you could continue it um and we could bring additional documentation. However, we are proposing that we accept your feedback, go back, make changes, and then return at a future date with um an adoptable draft. At that time, there will be a new public hearing newly noticed. And that can be a single meeting or multiple meetings as you desire. if there's more material to discuss or larger changes you direct us to make that need further tweaking. Um it it's up further totally up to you um how you'd like to proceed once that next meeting takes place.

Yeah. So just if I could just just to follow on that. So would the thought be that we give you feedback, you chew on that, does it go back to design review and planning or what's the it would likely return to the planning commission and travel through that body to this body um for uh because it's a um a code amendment. Um that's kind of the correct course. Um so it goes to to both bodies for their final review.

So there would be at least two more times for people to have to have comments beside after this one. So this is just okay that makes sense. Another kind of general question um would be uh thinking of the context or the preamble or talking about semi- rural I mean I certainly know it. So remind us then so in this document can we can it be policy statements or things up top and then we have the objective or kind of what's what's best practice here? What what should what should we really look for in this kind of document? I think it's frustrating. I I can see that. Right. If you just have a bunch of these kind of black and white standards without really talking about the the whole um so and maybe you can expand on that a little bit. Can can we have some sort of preamble talking about what we want or what what makes sense here?

And could I ask the city attorney to lead off on that? Oh, sure. Yeah, sure. Makes sense.

If you're talking about the preamles before uh each item that were suggested by Mr. Hudson, such as I'm looking at 6-3903 where there's a preamble after the roof form that the mayor had discussed. My concern is that it is a subjective it is a subjective standard and not an objective standard, that preamble. So, I wouldn't want anyone to think that if someone didn't comply with that preamble that the city could deny it because we really are only trying to adopt objective standards. So those standards are what would come after that. So I think the preamble could lead to some confusion because we would not be able to enforce the preamble. So So how how do I how do I read even a a right now where that says integrate semi-ural character of design elements in this? Is that is that an acceptable thing to say or that seems a little squishy in the

I think that the if you want to put the way I'm reading this is I think the purpose one is where you put all that. Correct. Because that's all the squishy stuff is. That's where we actually put our the overall goal, the background goal, but it's But again, I just want to caution everyone. I agree that is where you put it all. Um I just want to caution the public that that that's not the section we would then say, "Oh, but you didn't comply with limit." We do we do have the ability to put that there. Kind of describe our our our basic goals. But correct. Okay. So you would be comfortable with changes to the purpose section. Correct.

Okay. But not with with the caveat I mentioned but not adding the pream that that language in in each subsection. Okay. Does that answer that's very helpful. Thank you. That's all I have at this this part of the discussion. Okay. Well, now we're on the part of the discussion where if anyone wants to discuss a general theme um before we go into the

a quick one is um and it was kind of into one of Glenn's comments. Can we um exempt 100% affordable projects like Sunflower Hill? I'm just putting that under a big umbrella. Do we apply to all multif family, you know, things except for 100% affordable projects? Just a thought you're ask. Okay. Something to consider. Something to consider.

Okay. I mean, reaction to that. I mean, I would say we want good design on all of our projects and we're aiming for something that wouldn't be prohibitive for an affordable project. Wouldn't a 100% every waiver design? I mean, it feels like you would they get special that that would be a question like are they going to get all the exemptions they need no matter what they would be eligible for concessions and waivers. So, if it's an objective standard, in theory, it could be waved by a fully affordable project. So,

even if they're held to it, I think it is helpful to hold projects to them. And I know that 949 is reviewing the the objective standards and and trying to comply, but they might be asking for one or two that they need waved in order to accomplish the the project, and they're fully entitled to that under state law. Thank you. Okay. I guess where I would end, well, I would recommend we we not exempt them. Okay. That's right.

Yeah. I was thinking this is sort of a statement of this is what we want. I guess is the way I'm thinking about this these objective design standards and I mean so we're putting it on the table and let the developers deal with that so to speak. That's am I thinking the right way here? I mean I'm getting a nod. Yeah. Great. Yeah. I think the other benefit of these objective to design standards is even [clears throat] if we have developers coming in and using the density bonus and saying we're all these way we we know that we're going to have to rely on negotiation and goodwill

uh for getting uh good buildings. And I think it's going to be a lot easier if we can point to this section of the municipal code and say this is what we this is what we want. Uh so I think this is going to be very important.

Okay. Other general things before we dive in. Well, I'd like to discuss the issue of uh what um visual guidance we'll be giving people because as I understand it the way we are now once we adopt this they basically the guidance is all the u the code section there's nothing else that u developers can look at and see what we had in mind and I'm wondering is there a a best practice ice for this as a standard. Do other communities either have a section of their website that is the illustrative section 6903, you know, here's what we mean by this. I how do we convey to developers, you know, what it is that we're we we would like to see. So, as I mentioned, um the what we're looking at, the document we're looking at would be a code uh amendment. The um boards behind me in digital format would continue to be available. They're obviously attached to these staff reports which live in perpetuity on our um on our website. We currently do have an objective design standard web page that um mostly is listing the process right now, but all of the staff reports minutes of the boards themselves are linked onto that page. So that page I would imagine would evolve to become uh a page about what the standards are and we have the option to keep the boards linked there to list the projects that um the city feels are best um you know illustrating what we actually want to see. Um there is obviously in in choosing projects there is subjectivity. Um there might be projects that were approved through our uh discretionary

process that not all of the public love. Um one of the things that I think the um consultant did that I really value is clearly stating that when an image a figure or a picture is used as an example, it's typically used as an example of a single thing. Yes.

So that we can say this is what a good public open space opening to the street looks like. That doesn't mean we love everything about the building in the background. Um because there's probably no building that every single person loves, right? That's the whole point here. Um but we can certainly use a lot of the do um the buildings that we already have or that the plans that are already approved and say this is a great example of X. This is what we want to see more of. And we've heard from developers that come in with applications that they have driven around Lafayette and gotten a sense of what's been approved and what uh people are looking for and and I think that will continue to happen as well.

Okay. So just to be clear, we can several [clears throat] months from now develop this part of the website to include examples and I agree I really like the way it said for this particular element for fenestration good examples for the base of a building. good example that that we can provide we can do that on the website you know and well the color scheme for example I mean I'm sure professionals understand what that means but any member of the public looking at this is not going to have any I well I didn't have any idea what colors uh so this this was very helpful to to pick that up okay so the the alternative I mean does anyone uh attach it as an appendix to their ordinance Uh so typically when we prepare presentations for for workshops for open houses for the community to to um sort of understand what's in the document and see examples typically that's not something that we would put or we really have never and wouldn't put that in the code. It's it's not code language, right? Um it's really illustrative only and for purposes of explanation. Um that said, the visioning documents, the specific downtown specific plan guidelines, these all get at a lot of the same concepts and elements and those stand. Um so to the extent that the city is comfortable pointing to illustrations and and uh

descriptions in these documents, um these standards do very much go hand inand with the intent of those documents. Okay. So, so just to clarify, you could create a booklet that is here's our multif family objective design standards that has pictures, excuse me, pictures like the the sign boards, but actually has the actual code language. So, it's very clear how they relate. like the code itself will be in the municipal code and it'll it'll be available where Joanne puts it, but then you could still copy it and put it in a more brochure like or

and in fact um the the next step after um adoption is to develop a checklist similar to what we have but without the point system something that um in sometime sometimes we'll need to rephrase you know the the code section needs to be written as code which is a very specific style of language um and so we will use those standards and make a checklist that we can distribute to the public and also staff can use as we're reviewing the projects. That's just really the yes or no question version of each standard. Um, that will probably be a standalone document. Um, I think it would get too long to have a photo illustration of each standard, but we can have a a separate supplement that gives those examples. They can either be on the website or a link on the website, something available. to follow up that um I would say yes examples and illustrative examples can be helpful but I would like to say that we will stop short of designing buildings taking all these standards and saying here's what they amount to

that yeah yeah okay so but you could you'll have does it do XY does it do X yes no and you could then have a section on the website or part of a booklet that says we'd answer yes to these examples. We'd say no to this example. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other general comments before we go through? Just pop out. So the bike parking one that we talked about is that on is that do you want to keep that for later? I want to save that for the end. Okay. Or or No, it's all good. Well, we can talk about that now. either

just I mean well there are a number of general well the bike parking I mean this is just going to be critically important as we we go forward because we're going to be encouraging people to use their bikes people who live downtown people who come from the neighborhoods and so we have to have uh uh bike parking and we definitely we have some bike parking now but we don't have anything in the the amount we the quantity we need so I guess we need to think about cities that and they're they're all they're all in Europe uh that uh have bike parking and you know what we'd like to see in terms of standards for um well what design standards we'd like to have for that bike park

is that I guess that I guess I was a little surp I mean I completely concur with everything you said the fact that is this the is this the place where we put in the bike well that's a that's a question standards or there be a different spot for different place for it Um, I just want to clarify what specifically you're asking. If you're asking how many bike um, parking spaces should be required, that actually the California building code was just just updated January 2026. So, that already regulates how many bicycle uh, parking spaces are required per various measures. Yeah. If you're asking about design, then it would be good to know if if that's uh, what your question is.

Okay. So for um of all the U multif family buildings we've approved and I I do recall since uh 2020 we've talked about bicycles for each one and asking for more and all of the bicycle parking has been within the interior of the building. So it's not a design issue from the outside. So I think and that I'm sure that will continue to be the case that will require the bicycle parking to be provided within the interior of the building. But um so do where do we get an issue if it it you know I'm thinking the park theater for example because you know that's going to be someplace that say 30 40 people ride their bicycle. There aren't uh bicycle facilities there. Yeah.

Um but that that doesn't really come with but there space requirements. I mean I don't know. So so I actually didn't quite understand how it fits in here because unless we're have a city design standard for bike parking which seems beyond the scope of what this Yeah. No, I think maybe that is beyond the scope. Yeah.

We can think about this in in three layers. One is um what amount of parking is required for the development similar to the way car parking is required. That's the interior that's you know for the residents of the building um for the commercial uses usually the employees and then we think about um the average user that's visiting a space and that's bike parking that goes typically on the sidewalk. Um, so that's something that would potentially could potentially live here similar to the requirement for landscaping and street trees. Um, it's something that goes on the sidewalk. That's something that is in uh the public right of way. So, it's an interface with the public works requirements. But the sim the same way we might require a developer to redo the sidewalk and plant x number of street trees per feet. We might also want to require x number of this design of of bicycle um you know lock to or rack excuse me to be on the sidewalk in whatever formation. So this street design is starting to kind of enter this document. Um I don't think this is um we don't want to get too far into sidewalk design with this document, but it can hold a little bit. I think there's a place for some sidewalk bike parking here. The third element um is where um you know the same way that we have uh shared parking facilities for the city. That's another way to think about bicycle parking is park once, walk around. So, but that's neither here nor there at this meeting. And if I can add uh one thing onto that. So there's a a part of your code that where this is addressed. It's chapter 6-6 is off- streetet parking

and there's a section for bicycle parking requirements and bike parking design. So before adding a separate bike parking design section into succession 39, we may consider whether a more appropriate spot is where existing design standards are published. Yeah, that why don't we leave that with you? Okay, that sounds good. Okay. Shall we start in on the Yeah.

draft. [clears throat] Okay. So 63901 we have uh Mr. Hudson's suggested language. Um we don't have to we're providing feedback. Yeah, today we're not going to provide exact language. So I guess I need a sense of the council. Do you want to move toward that kind of broader purpose statement or actually in some ways more directed purpose statement to what we're intending to do?

I guess one of the the biggest thing is so we want to say semi-ural character versus semi-rollal ambience. And I don't know um I I don't know if the difference in that wording helps. I mean legally I don't know where. Okay, let let's not get into wording on at this level. Let's just say do we want to make a revision to include that kind of language? But when you say that kind of language, it's really just the addition of the first Yeah. paragraph, right? Exactly. That's the only thing. It's like, do you want to have like But I don't want to word smith that first.

Oh, I agree. You're looking at something in addition to what's there. Actually, that was there was fine. Actually, I kind of liked it. But you're just talking about do we want like an overall topic sentence kind of thing, right? Is that what you're No, exactly. Do we want something like that? I like I actually like I actually would like a topic sentence that kind of Yeah. mirrors the mission statement a little bit and just kind of says what what we're looking for. I think that's great. and then actually have the I don't think there's anything if that complies with everybody's whether whether it's that one or you know something a little softer I'm okay but I think I like that and uh then again we don't need to do the word smithing on

but but I do have a comment though um the in this current version one item was removed from the PC one and it said avoid boxy massive and flat homogeneous structures and it's not in this one but it in the prior one and I kind of like that one. Yeah. What was the rationale for removing that one because that that does basically says a lot. I like that does a lot. Yeah. So I just wonder must section the number was purpose. It was in purpose and it was in the PC or it [clears throat] might have been for the I don't think town hall or whatever

recalls exactly why that came out but it's certainly something that can be added back. Okay. Dipper. So add back boxy. Yes. Or no boxy. No boxy. No boxy. Antiboxy. Okay. And then I had a question. I haven't had a chance to look but F is limit the visibility parking along Mount Diablo Boulevard. Do we limit that to Mount Diablo Boulevard in here because I think we also want Maraga Road covered. I agree. I'll just raise that. I mean agree. I mean obviously I think you look at all the multi-ousing it's going to be it's mostly going to be Mont Boulevard. So and well I would and Oakill first.

Yeah. Oak first. Sure. I'm not sure how you major major major streets. Yeah. All right. Um, so we're on to I have one for purpose. Um, I would love to see something a goal for human scale interface between building and building faces and sidewalk. Something about the scale at a human level. Yeah. No, that's always good.

Okay. I'm confused. What do you mean? [laughter] Sorry. um that that the experience a person has when they're walking is that the buildings are not these giant monoliths towering over them. And maybe some of the standards in here accomplish that. I think they do. But I think it would be nice to to describe this as a goal that that a human scale. Yeah. Streetscape environment is what we're after. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Human scale for pedestrians on the streetscape. Exactly. I apologize. The last comment was letter F to add Moraga to Mount Diablo. Major heart. Major I think somewhere in here it's uh it would be um Maraga Road, First Street, Oak Hill. I think that's it.

Yeah. Golden Gate. Golden. Oh, sorry. Golden Gateway. Yes. Yes. Those are the that they're listed at. They're already there for the parking for off street parking. Okay. Thank you. So may maybe put them in in here just so there's no misunderstanding. Thank you. All right. Now on to roof form. Actually, so I did I did want to just not to but but with applicability. So I guess just to confirm then the um the slide we saw which had all the different the zonings and what it was applicable to actually isn't really correct, right? Given this paragraph, right? I just want to say that was really kind of like that slide that you had in the in the staff report we can kind of just get rid of.

Yeah, I was not really valid, right? We're really saying anywhere we see a a multi-unit thing, that's where it's gonna be. The confirm the the zoning map slide was meant to indicate the focus. The focus because that's where they're going to happen. You're right. That it is anywhere we're seeing that development. Okay. So, we're on to uh 3903. And why don't we just talk about this in a big one

generalities. Okay. If if we even go down the road of uh requiring some form of pitch, uh I don't think it should apply to anything two stories. It should only be above two stories because many downtowns have twotory buildings with flat even ours. Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah. Our our historic buildings are flat. Yeah. Alista and all along and they're all twotory with flat roofs and parapets. though to start with.

No. Yeah, we we cannot mandate pitch roofs on for every building, but this is really for the Yeah. the larger multi-story. And I think we've proven really that the Mansfford Manard the Mansard that in fact almost all the the examples that were shown that people liked were Manford roofs, right? I mean that was Merkantile, right? the uh town center one and town center three. Yeah. Town center 3 whatever. So that can be very effective. It's often but I am curious whether it's mandated or s but it can't be suggested right that's the problem. We can't say we prefer it.

That's that's where it's like I understand why we are getting rid of the points and we're going to this objective but there are limit there there are pros and cons. I I'm going to put it out there because I know people don't like the points, but there is a reason why you have a little bit of give and take because this objective this this binary choice is a rough is it puts us in a box in a couple different areas.

I think the um only way to kind of respond to that um desire of weightedness is to add if then statements. So I don't have a perfect example but if you were to say you know if um you know a mansered roof is chosen then and you allow for something that's more desirable then additional then a penthouse is allowed then you know it still has to be objective is can you answer it with a yes or no question but there can be caveats carved out. We don't have that we don't have that structure anywhere in here. We did not.

It feels awkward. I understand why that's how you do it, but boy, that sure feels awkward to put a couple weird little things in there because you can't say, and I understand penthouse is not a uh a thing, but it's hard to find think of a particular stick. I mean, a carrot that can go with that stick that everybody would think, oh, I that's absolutely something I'd want to do. Okay. Well, I think that's probably one of our first conversations is is it do we want to mandate this? Yeah. I mean, so that's the first thing. Do we want to go down this road at all? We don't have to get into the detail of whether it can be uh

what well what town center 3 and what Merkantile use which is I don't know how it's technically referred to a sloped parapet or whatever whatever that is but it's very effective whatever it is and I'd love to see it. Me too. Personally, I would like to see a a pitched roof requirement on buildings above two stories to really say this is what we want to see. The design style and okay, you can go do something else, but we're we're making a statement about what we would like to see.

And and I'd go with that. I think initially when I thought about this, I was saying, well, what's the problem with flat ruse? Um, I I I've seen my view on this is t tilted a bit and I'll credit Elliot for this, but you know, this is our opening position and in this in the dance we make with these developers and um I think it is a more desirable look. I feel like I'm I'm thinking of what I like aesthetically and backing into something objective. Um, but the buildings I like are things like um Merkantile building. That's a nice look. Mhm.

Um and uh Town Center 3 nice look. So I think it that's I put that out there and I and I I know we're kind of like it's really binary but it's like the that's the way we have to play this I think. So I agree and they look more expensive to be honest, right? And so I can't it seems like

that's what they're going for in Lafayette. So many of the developers, right? They want to look expensive because they're selling them very expensively, right? And so to me, the argument that it's costing them a little bit more, uh, they're going to get they're going to get it back. I mean, they get that's how they do it here in Lafayette. That's the game they play. They make it expensive. They put in all the parking spots. They put in all the cool stuff because then they get top dollar. And so I'm super comfortable with trying to make it a look for Lette.

I'm so I I'm going to support it. I'm going to put plays Devil's D for a second. Right. And I and I hate to use the Brown Avenue building because I don't think any of us particularly like it, but there are plenty of developers that are going to say, "Well, you got rooftop terrace, you got rooftop, you got all you got the views of Mount Diablo, all that kind of stuff that if you if we ask if we have a maned roof around um that will, you know, that is whatever 8 feet tall because it's got a blocked HVAC units. You're not probably a rooftop terrace. I agree. We could probably put something in there that would be really pretty that includes a rooftop terrace."

Yeah. I'm just I'm just I'm just saying it's like I think to me the man roof kind of I in my own naive way think it probably might avoid the construction. It's more much more costly because it doesn't seem like that'd be that costly. I just think I'm more about the amenities that you might want to Sure. And that would be good. That'd be totally fair. Yeah. So, but no, I'm totally fine with saying that let's let's do it. I think if if we have to put one thing in that's kind of uniquely up Lafayette, I'm this is a great great hill. Yeah. I was kind of hung up on that same point too because I go to Merryill Gardens a good deal. Yeah.

Um my second favorite hangout and they got these lovely rooftop patios with great view of Mount Diablo. It's a nice place to relax especially for a scene you can't get on the street so well. But they have railings to protect the the people there. And I think you could probably design it where you got a roof that goes up to a c where the railing would be and you can look out over it. So I don't know. I think it a good architect I think can make that work. That was the feature I liked about the flat roof, which is you could have a nice terrace on the top, but I think you can manage it. We'll see.

I think for a multif family building, you're going to not need a huge amount of area for an upstairs, you know, rooftop deck. It's different than at Millet Brown where they have their individually owned town homes and so you want your own your own space. You can't use like a portion of someone else's, let's say. Not saying I like it. I'm just observing that that was a obviously a a design consideration. Yeah. Well, I agree with with council member Svantes that that you should be able to have some type of mansard covering that would serve the purpose of the railing, safety railing. Okay. Okay. So, is that enough guidance on that?

You know, I had one thing on on Ruse for the buildings that were under two stories or two stories and below. Um, if a flat roof, is it possible to um to stipulate some type of adornment of the cornice? because there's a picture you have in the document on figure 6-39053 and there's the center diagram. Um that is a very plain plain cornis. Is it possible to include something some requirement for something more decorative? Um

okay so you be this is beyond section D. It is um D says therapist must be capped with pre-cast treatments, continuous banding, projecting cornises or dentals. Yeah. Oh, right. So, I was just referring to Yeah. to D. But then pointing out there's a diagram further on page um six in the document that's really the pictures about base articulation, but there's a particular um building in the center that lacks right lacks we don't like don't like the center one is what you're saying. Yeah, it's min minimally adorned. Yes. I'm wondering is there no character

to specify? I mean the parapets capped with pre-cast treatments, continuous banding, projecting cornises of dentons. Continuous banding to me sounds like that center image and I think is that what it is? Can I just point out that page six that's an example of base articulation, not cornice ornamentation. That's true.

That is correct. Um I would say we certainly can remove the um continuous banding if you would prefer to remove that language. Um, I will say that from an objective standpoint, it's very difficult to um, objectively say what the difference is between a classical or traditional cornice compared to a more modern looking blocky overhang from an objective standpoint. I don't know how you would regulate that to prevent that. So, unfortunately, I don't think there's an objective way to do that. When you say blocky overhang, you mean

that that image in the center that you don't like? Um that one that you know you were saying kind of uh sounds like the continuous banding. Um it does have an overhang which would qualify. Um, and unfortunately, uh, I could very well see someone making the argument that that is a cornice because how can you possibly objectively say what the difference is between a more contemporary approach to a cornice versus a more classical uh uh version of a cornice? When you say overhang, is that parapit or

overhang? Is is um it's a part of a flat roof. Um, so the parapit typically is above that cornice. Um and in this case it is just an overhang where you just have the overhang extending out and there is no additional parapit above that. So you know both options do happen. Yeah. And these images are um describing three sort of visual languages, three styles so to speak. So that should be to be consistent with the standard in that earlier section like an 18inch overhang that would sort of go with that that standard. But then again, as we mentioned, this is the intent of this diagram is to point out the features of the building base.

Yeah. And I know that about this, it was just example of the the rooftop treatment and and what a flat roof of two stories or less could be very flat. And I'm just wondering if there's a way for us to steer away from that in these standards. Well, but that's what this that's what this is. the parapit. It must include a parapit and overhang of at least 18 inches. Yes. Continuous banding part. That's what I was That's what I was questioning. Oh, okay. Well, I have to say I mean this is not actually not a the middle one's not a parapit, right? So that No, it's an over Oh, go ahead.

That's an overhang. The one on the left is describing I mean that's a parapet, right? Yeah. So I I guess I'm I'm happy with the language as is. Sorry. So to to describe parapits as such and to leave overhangs as also allowed. Yeah.

Okay. So one more comment um in B in the roof line um so it says roof lines shall not extend more than 100 ft in length without a change in form or ridge line as described below. Um 100 ft seems like a long distance and I know that if it was a flat roof it's it's 50 ft but it it it is 100 ft that seems I don't know I would I would shorten it [laughter] make it more interesting. Yeah I agree I'd be okay with that for sure. Yeah with shortening.

Yeah me too. Okay. Okay. I I I'm not sure. I I agree. But if we want to shorten it, this fine. I mean, if we get the pitch roof, 100 ft of pitch roof is fine with me. Y Okay. Um on to 3904 building massing. Any comments? Oh, one question. These figures that are in here, are they going to be in the code?

Okay, the figures will be. So on Mr. Elliott's uh redlinined Is this one? Yeah, he his comments say that these figures have been replaced. Is that correct? Maybe I'm reading this wrong. It says this figure was replaced or maybe this is the replacement that's in here now. Yes, there are two figures that um per the PL uh planning commission uh hearing, we did modify them to add pitched roofs as I thought that was good. I didn't think that was an objection. That was just more of a There's just a note that this is what was done. It's good. It's actually good that we got the feedback and we're Yeah, this is great.

Yeah. Right. Those are updated. Great. Thank you. Okay. So, do we have O2? Where is O2? Is not right. So, that one should be right. So, I actually think I think this is a very point. If we're saying everything's got to have uh pitch roof, every picture should reinforce that. Yeah. So, that one. Yeah. Okay.

And so, one of my concerns was that um on numbers changed, right? So, uh, build so item B1, buildings up to three stories must include a recess a minimum of 10 ft every 50 ft on all street facing elevations. And it seems like we should have a width there as well. And what would be that width? I mean, should be 10 feet deep and 10 feet wide [laughter] or a minimum of 10 feet wide or something. Yeah, we'd happy be happy to um look at some building examples and and make a recommendation for that.

Perfect. Okay, great. Great. Okay. Anything else in massing? And then the same thing about um Yeah. Yeah, I think we can. Yeah. Same thing for all of these, right? Make sure that they get there. Okay. Um well in one it's talking about a minimum dimension of 20 feet and 800 square feet. So that's sort of that takes care of that one's taken care of I guess. So that the space of it does. Okay. So it's also that needs 10 ft deep. Yeah.

Okay. All right. So 3905 building articulation. Any comments?

Well, so general comment is a little more on the the four more stories, but I guess it applies to three more stories. So just so I'm clear, we talk about the vertical articulation, but then we talk the horizontal dimension, right? as we're kind of looking at the and the these these don't the A through F don't exactly seem the same like a trellis doesn't seem quite as like permanent or substantial as an actual protruding pier or a bay window because a trellis can just be taken down pretty easily right and I just kind of worry about a flat you know you put up a couple decorative trelluses or even a railing that could be taken down or it could be repainted and it's gone you're stuck with this flat thing so it felt like it feels like like A and you know A and B and D are like substantial things. Railings and trelluses and changing change of fenestration type could be a very small change.

So I just kind of feel like we we I'd like to tighten that up a little bit. I have the same concern. It's like it's like we need to put dimensions on these or something to make them feel big like tier one and tier two ones. Tier tier twos are are encouraged but tier ones are mandated or something like that that we kind of have or something. I don't know. That was kind of my my thought on that. You know, more so definitely more so on the four story where we have this 50 foot run that we can have. That felt like a long time. 25 feet maybe he could do it, but the 50 foot one I feel like we really got to put in some or or certain it's got to cover a certain percentage of it or something.

But again, as I said, a trellis is not impressive to me as as an element. I don't know. Does that make sense? Oh yes. Yes. Oh yes. No, you that's giving you the intention, but I would not even pretend to figure out what to just I just want something that can't during a repainting job cannot be taken off and not there anymore, right? It has to be something that's got some architectural heft so we can get, you know, so it feels substantial. That' be my only thought. Can

you give me an example of what the change in fenestration type means or an example of what that looks like? Sure. So, what we're trying to describe is um sometimes uh to articulate a building um an architect might decide that uh for example, they have um uh a whole bunch of 3050 windows that have a grid on them and then there's a change and then it's a different uh window size. Maybe it doesn't have the grids. Um, and so it's meant to an architect might do that to kind of show um to make them seem like different buildings even if they are the same building. So that's what we're trying to get at is that when there is that significant change in the window type um from one plane to another, it can uh read kind of as two different buildings.

Okay, maybe we can revisit that once we get to the penistration section. Okay. Um because I have some thoughts about that. Okay. All right. Anything else on building articulation? So to go to go to John's thing, it's like the four building of four or more stories. Um we we need to really make sure that we've covered these and they're substantial. Like you don't want to have they can put an 8 in like the first one, a pillister appear protruding from the facade a minimum of 8 in. Well, you can't have it be two two inches tall. You know, it's [laughter] we have to kind of put in something 50 foot span. So, yeah.

Or 50 foot span. Or we have to put something that that has a minimum size or a percentage covering or or something so they don't get away with just a little teeny thing. Yeah. That's however that's best. However best. Yeah. Rest. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Anything on B horizontal articulation? No, I I kind of like that that whole the base articulation part.

Oh, there was um B3C. Um there on a prior version I looked at it. Um it was some it was something that said needed I said need to add back that continues along the entire base or something like that. And so when you have a base must include a minimum of one of the following arches, awnings there's we have to say that it has to have you know a certain that covers a certain percentage of the base or something. You can't just have like one column or arch, right? Okay. Okay. So, you're saying if somebody just put a central arch, that may not be enough.

It's got to be substantial, right? Or something with a minimum sizes of stuff somehow.

That was the point system. And that was the problem with the points. Like they would put in one light fixture that was nice or something and all of a sudden they got these points and you're like, "Uh, that wasn't the intent. Okay. So, you get the sense of what we're looking for there. Okay. On to parking configuration design. You had the corn. You had the parking entrance idea, Carl, that we need to add on to this one, right? Parking entrance. If you're Well, possible.

Yeah, that's not okay. I don't think Yeah, it's not addressed here and just figure out where we can address it. But I think it's we are fortunate now that each of our new buildings, big buildings that have been built, they're primary interest there is no curb cut on the major street. So um the the brand you go up the not a side street but you go up Dolores and you turn left into the parking and uh with Mel Gardens you go up second street and turn right into the parking you don't enter it from Mount Yava Boulevard much much better so I think we need to provide that if they're if they're front on a secondary street and on a primary street the parking has to be entered from the secondary Street.

Can I ask a follow-up question? Is that only if the the primary frontage is along Mabel Boulevard? Those the six streets. Those six streets. Gotcha. Yeah. Okay. That would be great. I mean, if we could if we could mandate I mean make that an objective design that would be don't get carried away. That would be good. Yeah. Yeah. Ideally, that's a safety concern, I would think. Yeah. Among other things. Yeah. Can I ask one more followup? So, we have a standard a maximum of one driveway to structured parking is permitted per street frontage. So, we're trying to say just, you know, if you're if you're on a corner, yeah,

we're just saying that if you're on Mount Diablo Boulevard and you're also on um another a less or any other street, you've got to enter from that other street. Okay. Okay. And do we want to reconsider the just one per frontage? Like if you've got can you have two on the on the other frontage that isn't one of these six streets? I think some parking garages are such Okay. But we don't have any of those yet. Yeah. One one Z1 OIL. I think that's No, that's just one entrance. Oh, is it just one? It is just Yeah. Yeah.

Thought there was one. I thought top was one of the top two or no there isn't. Okay, never mind. So, so far we've managed to get them all. It's been We're It's good. It's good. It's good. Yeah, I agree. Okay. Okay. So, anything on the surface parking 3B? Is that right? Applied materials. Um, again, I I I'm trying to make these like what percentage must be applied materials on that? Wait, which section that on the parking page eight? Yeah. Oh, yeah. The numbering

and then 3C is if you at least one of the following um architectural features, it should be per, you know, per 10 feet or 30 feet or something. You can't just have one on the side of a huge building, right? Yeah, I agree. Yeah. kind whatever lot whatever terminology we're kind of using for all the other ways right should be talk should be repeated here

okay everyone okay with that all right all right so then the big one here is the 60% right and that is a really big percentage

I tried to do some just rough measurement on one portion of the Grant in the western corner on Mount Diablo and just on the upper story just a section it looked to me like just doing some basic polygon areas at like 50% but when you look at the building it's got big windows and they're very dominant. So if if that 50% calculation was true then that's it's a lot of window. So I would be inclined toward dropping that back definitely dropping back from 60 but maybe 40 40 50.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, I' I'd love to see some examples. Like, I know you gave us a couple. I think I was a little bit uncertain about the 100 Lafayette Circle if that really was 35. Um, because it still looked like a lot of window, but I didn't try to calculate that one. 210. Yeah. 210. No, 100. Sorry, did I say 100? You said 100. Yeah, which is making lie. Yeah. No, that didn't seem like it, but it could be. It's the side the east side, west side brings the percentage. Of course it is difficult when you talk about a whole wall and the percentage is like but yeah I think hard to see because some of them are set back because of the balconies that are in the right but um but like pulling you know pulling that all to me like smaller percentage I agree

but what percentage yeah [clears throat] I think I'm good with a small percent I just have no idea I mean that's the thing I mean it's in terms of uh I mean you got our feedback I think there's a consensus we'd like that to be a smaller percentage but we don't know what it is. Yeah. As an interim measure, can we I know uh something is eventually be brought back to the planning commission but could we have a meeting with say the the planning and design committee liaison uh as a next step uh just to see that the the comments have been incorporated? Yeah. Before you you're right be because I can see there might be an issue with that the very next thing is then a meeting with the planning commission. Yeah. Uh then we' be

nice to have an interim step. So maybe I don't mind if we have the design review leazison meet with the design review guys. Yeah. No, that'd be good. Yeah. Then it then it's all not noticed and stuff like that to go over that. Yeah. Yeah. Because I think I mean I think to Right. I think it's good because I just think like how how we're struggling to articulate the window percentage because I think we we're looking I think we like I think was nicely put we want the smaller articulation. You know they're above it's not just floor to ceiling windows. it's come some sort of, you know, interesting pains or whatever. I'm not sure. Maybe percentage is not the best way to articulate that. Maybe there's a better way that you guys know of to articulate that. Yeah, because here here's the thing, and this is 210. U the percentage is the whole building, right?

And there are very few windows on the back. So if you really want to do this, you would have a percentage for the facing the main street the percentage of of glass facing the street. Yeah, I think it's relates to the facade which is the street facing portion. So I think this limited does it say that to the facade? I missed that. Let's close that gap if that's the case. Let's figure that out. Right. I read it as facade street based. Okay. the total surface so not exly blank of the surface area of any upper story facade or plane that just say upper story okay yeah because the lower story could be

right that one you don't it so nice to be charming if that if that is also a business different they've got the other ones right but this this is just at least right a2 is just talking about residential upper stories yeah yep actually talking about that of any upper story facade thought or plane. Do we want to limit that first floor if it is residential? Yes. Right. If it's if it's if it's commercial, then we have the separate section. But if the first floor is residential, we don't want solid windows being out there. So, I think you probably we want to probably tighten that up. Yeah. Like Mill, right? Brown. Correct. That's true.

And of course, 210 Lafayette Circle has got both a commercialish building. I mean, you know, it's mixed. So, right. Yeah.

Um, you know, I was starting to look at the, um, when I asked about the change in penetration type with respect to building articulation. Um, for traditional styles, I think you most commonly see, um, fairly consistent window alignment and distribution. Um, so, you know, it could be just a grid and not a lot of changes. And so, um, my my personal preference is for consistent alignment and distribution, um, and limitation on size variation. Um, how does how does the council feel?

Yeah, I understand what you're saying because it it works on uh the brand, for example, to have the different sizes, but I I see what you're saying. I'm now looking at That's a tough one. though, but it was managed pretty well on the um on town center 3 different groupings of windows because sometimes that can be really architecturally pretty, right? No, that was actually that and add Yeah, I mean I have a print out. Maybe I can put it on there. Okay. An example. I I should do that. I wonder do we want to be that prescriptive?

There there is that there is I don't know. I mean, this we won't be designing the building. Yeah.

And while while we're we're doing that, um you know, we have other items on the agenda here, particularly um my agenda in front of me, but the the work plans, the budget, and uh we have someone waiting to present those. I would suggest that we move those to the January 26th meeting and just uh do that now or have an understanding that we're going to be moving those when we get to them. Can we do that? Okay. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Definitely.

Yeah, I'd say they're very Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because they're all they're all related. Yeah. Right. We can we can cover them all next time. Okay. [laughter] You can thank May Mary and Dura for that. Uh good. Did the image work or I don't see it. Could we change the source on the screen to the document camera, please? So, they're all pretty small, but I mean, I guess in some of them, you can see there's some pretty um big variety in window placement. Oh, right.

In alignment, they're kind of jogged around. Sometimes the sizes are changing. Um that that's what I'm feeling limitations on would be good because you're worried that any of our buildings are going to look like this, right? I mean, that's I think she's trying to avoid these. Yeah, confirming because it's like a this is from a New York Times article called America the Bland which was about these and so the you can actually answer the question do you know which of these buildings is in Seattle? I think the top is Denver and there's a little like flicker and it'll tell you whether you're right or wrong that that's yeah what it's about and the the challenges with them

and people I think saying like you don't know where you are because these buildings are everywhere. Look at all those. Oh, this is this is thanks for this is really grim. Thank I know. So, can we leave it with you to think about that? What we might do? I I agree. If we're looking for something more that's traditional, semi-ruural than the more regular window pattern. Yeah, I agree. That's probably going to be I mean the one on anyway, how to articulate that? As I say, it feels like more than just a percentage. There's there's more going on. Yeah. pattern the window something. Yeah, exactly. Um and and limiting size variation. And then another thing, you know,

including um double hung or or divided lights. I mean, picture windows to some degree like there are in the brand, but then they're as part of like a window block. So, um it there's a big picture window, but then it's also got smaller panes around it. Um, I think that's that's better than just a single giant pick through window with no breaks. Um, and I think that there was a component about the square footage that was a question. Um, I think it says 18 square feet. That seemed very big to me.

Okay. Okay. So, something I don't know what the number is. Maybe I don't know 9 12 square feet. Um I don't know. Um one other thing I'm curious about. It says um under um windows, balconies, D upper story windows must wrap building corners. And I I I didn't really understand that. either what does it mean be a minimum of three feet from a corner? Does that mean the the window has to wrap the corner and go three feet past the corner or the window can't be within

Yeah. It can't be close to it. It can't be close to an edge. You either got to be far from an edge. So you have some or you are the edge or you are the edge. Okay. So you either are the edge are the edge or you're three feet from the edge. That's the way that's the way I interpreted that. So you had some sort of like uh color and structure around it. But yeah, wraparound. Is there some wraparound ones? Not super. It's pretty modern. Yeah, pretty. It's pretty modern. Like corner. Yeah, wraparounds are pretty modern. Yeah. Well, you know, I just want to make a a general statement. You mentioned that you'd looked at the buildings in in town and you know, there are four buildings that stand out that have been

either built or will be completed recently. the the Brmp the building at Brown um 210 950 Huff and each of those clearly is a modern building. I think we're fortunate in that we did get an opportunity to have design commission review and planning commission review in those buildings. We didn't get everything we wanted, but those buildings, at least in my view, are goodlooking buildings. But do we want to continue to have buildings like that? Right.

I that at least for me the answer is no. We want to have buildings that are more like um Town Center 3, Town Center one. Um the Merkantal, you know, that's that's what we're we're looking for. Y and and again, while the buildings we have are are acceptable, um what we really don't want is most of what we see in Walnut Creek. And I'm not saying, you know, we don't Okay, don't want to be a W what Walnut Creek is a great city and that for Walnut Creek, it's great, but it's not Lafayette. It's not what we want in Lafayette. And I look at any of these buildings, I think, oh, if one of those went up on Mount Diablo Boulevard.

I know. You'd definitely have a new city council. [laughter] There's one other thing for upper story residential. Um, no mirrored or reflective glass. There's a mention of it for I think ground floor commercial in the standards, but I think that also would apply to the upper stories. That makes sense. Yeah, I agree. Sorry. Was there a change um suggested for D the upper story windows? No, we're just trying and and now I understand it. Okay. Anything else on the fenistration?

Okay. Privacy and views. Any comments there? I see none. On to entry design. See, is this where I have a question. Why in on 2C the entrance must be located in the center of the building facade. Is that I mean is that an important I mean what's the the pitfall of uh

I'll give you a little bit of background on that. Yeah. Um so a lot of these have gone through revisions right? So this is a a draft that is reflective of many sets of revisions. Um at some point it was uh we talked about this earlier, right? Uh centered into a sort of in a entry feature with architectural features. It was determined that was not sufficiently objective. So it sort of got perhaps watered down a bit. Um it's also just an option, not a requirement. I'm sorry. You're saying it's an option, but it looks like that only has to adhere to one of these, right? Primary shared budget must adhere to at least one of the five. At least one. Yeah. Do we want to have more than that? Cuz this these are all good things.

You know, this the the one in the center clearly has to be optional because it's just may not work, right? And if on a corner is, you know, and are are we allowing more than one entrance? I mean, like Yeah. So this is it says the primary shared residential entrance, but most things we kind of have one. Most have one. I'm thinking about 10 uh one 01. Okay. That just has one. It just has that one in the middle. Oh wow. Okay. Yeah. I just have a feeling I think for security I I bet you most most places are going to have one. Okay. You know, you have the garage through the garage and then you have the one main

one that's through the street. But I do like the idea of giving flexibility though. Yeah. Context of this binary system we've got. So, but I think we should have more than one of these. Like I would they might not be applicable though. Must adhere to at least one. I would say I'd say at least two or something cuz we want it to be pretty. Whatever you want. I have a strong feeling on that. No, I have a strong feeling either. So, okay. You want Yeah. I'm just going to note consider whether to consider. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe go think through the think through that work if it's really only one. We want to be visually interesting.

Yeah. Totally. Agree. You notice like the front door of your house, right? Right. Okay. Non-residential ground floor design. The uh saw this there. I mean, I like the idea of no blank walls or limiting on that. Yeah, I raised the question earlier on the landscaping. Um, and it pops up later. Your comment scared me though. It's probably true. Thank you. No, but it's like I know like how we square that zone zone zero with actually the landscaping especially around these big buildings is critical.

I mean, it's absolutely critical to make these things blend at all. And the thought of having no landscaping around these big buildings is just like terrifying to me from just the visual what we want to see. So I don't know, but I'm worried that you're correct. So yeah, but I would actually I would I guess I'd rather say I'd rather have the zone zero requirements drive it than this drive it. I guess that'd be my thought. I want I don't want probably a long way. I I agree. And then then if we did I mean I take Commissioner Cass's point and I agree with it that this should be a living document that we uh modify whenever we learn a lesson and I think we may learn something more and then we would modify it. Well, that was like Cass's point, but

yeah. Yeah. Which I also kind of don't know. I mean, I can understand like for a single family home, which are basically tinder boxes, they're this, but these multi I mean, these are like significantly fire. It's a different kind of building. I mean, they are significantly fire. I mean, they have to go through con fire and all this kind of stuff. So, I kind of I don't know if it's I don't know if it's the same. Um, that's a fair point. I don't know if it's the same risk factors as it is with our single family homes that were built 50 years ago or whatever. If I could um just add uh my understanding is that the zone zero discussions with Calire are centered on um homes or buildings in the very high fire hazard severity zone. Um the zone which

is I think mutually exclusive with our downtown but not the sites where multif family might be built. So, um there's a potential to very objectively define sites where fire hazard is higher that maybe landscaping could be accepted and and removed versus everywhere else in the downtown where landscaping Yeah, there's a lower fire hazard and landscaping would be more appreciated. It's a fair point. Right now, it's very high fire severity zones and that's right.

Who knows where it'll be later on as we learn more about this stuff. I think it should be like this should almost be like what we want designed to be but then obviously there should be the overlay of any any confire requirements supersede any of this stuff right I mean I think that's would probably be the right way to do it right so we we put in what we want and then the fire stuff just gets laid right on top okay anything else on 3910 on to 3911 building materials and color yes so this one yeah I I have I have I have Yeah, sure. Yeah. Yeah. Another big one.

Oh, I mean stucco and concrete no more than 70%. H I mean number one at least like to say stuckle or concrete combined can't be more than 70 or 60% as opposed to letting either of them be. But is there and you have to add the um concrete block in there too. Concrete block, stucco, and concrete. I mean are the the three. Like why do I don't want any of that? What you know? I don't think I think I do or at least not 70% of my building. Okay. Well, I mean the Merkantail building is 100% Stuckco and that that was the one of the building we all I think love is all that. Okay. Well, I don't particularly love it, but that's

No, I mean the Park Theater is all stuckco. I don't particularly love it. I mean, I don't know. I guess I don't know what's the merkantile like solid to void ratio. Do we know is it is it 7030 or I'm afraid we didn't look at that one. We we didn't find that the merkantile. No, but ratio four. Oh, like the solid to void like the window to to surface. Oh, okay. I thought Merkantile's got a architectural element. And that's and that's what the key is, right? That's exactly that's why it works. It's got the big arch. It's got the great windows. It's got the

You don't need that much. The building siding is like Okay. So, I guess I I will amend my statement. I just like that felt pretty big when I read that that paragraph. It's like, wow, yeah, concrete can't be more than 70%. Stuckco can't be more than 70%. Yeah, I would hope so. I mean, are there different types of stucco? I mean, there must be. I mean, the the Merkantile just seems to be Yeah. really high-end Santa Barbara Stuckco. Stuckco. I don't know how you And then we have some other buildings that are look like spray-on ceilings. Exactly. I don't want whatever that is. I don't think we want that. So, I think those are maybe different finishes to the stucco.

Okay. Is there some way to that we can whatever it is they did on the uh merkantal that [laughter] that's what we're looking for? This is the way that they're doing it here. It's safer to just mandate different materials and stuff like that. That is so much more objective than we have to have have be so pretty if you're using one, right? And that's that's impossible to mandate. Yeah. Okay. We can't mandate the merkantal. No, no, no. But we can we can uh I think we can mandate this. If there is a style of stucco, it can be referred to. You use stucco. You use doublecoated and smooth. Yeah. It's a smooth tri finish rather than a

bubble sealer. Spray on. Yeah. Um, orange peel or further texturing. And I'm using orange peel as an example of um drywall treatment inside. And you you've all seen it and it hides imperfections well and and it can be even more dramatic than orange peel. So there there are different finishes both for interior but and and exterior stucco and we can find the specification which is essentially smooth trial finish.

Is that is that possible? What do you guys think? [gasps] We can yeah we can certainly add finish requirement. it it's a limitation but that's what I mean I think we really I mean I think the high-end finishes I mean that was an easy to show an idea though we have an example you know I don't know so urging that I don't know again it's it's it's subjective and binary so I'm not sure how what but but but I would put in a an overlying thing is that the maximum the the combination of concrete stucco and concrete block must not exceed 70% of the total primary plus secondary finishes, right? That would be

at least that would that would help me calm down a little bit, right? And then and that would be so then you've got 30% of other things that are very different, right? Because this could this the way this is written, it could be 70% stucco and 30% greed and that totally match totally matches the complies. Exactly. And so I would cons I would definitely want to add that what the total percentage is. We can talk it but

not qualified. I think it's got to be a combination of those three things because they're so similar. For secondary materials, um, one thing that I was hesitant about was um enabling too much poly chromatic appearance um or even even in in material texture. I'm thinking of the the mill building where they've kind of got I don't know maybe three or four different materials in the facade um the cladding and then maybe three colors four colors you want less colors or

Yeah. I mean these these ones are a little hard to tell but I think in the middle upper there's black, dark brown, medium brown, lighter I think. Right. Um I don't know how to do that. Sorry. Was your secondary colors and to limit the number of secondary materials. Is that That's what I was wondering about. Okay. Yeah. Like is that possible with that? Materials or colors? A color. Maybe both in some ways. I don't know. Well, just sticking let's do materials and then

colors on on materials. I make sure I understand under the way this is written. You can do 95% of um let's say shingles and then have 5% um what could you use brick and that's that's okay you can you could do 100 well no you can't do 100% right oh do we I think let's see do you have to apply permitted they must incorporate a primary and a second but we should have a percentage or something we should something that doesn't allow him to have like nothing.

Well, no. This that says it has to have a secondary. So, you're But how much is it? 2% have a minimum of Yeah. 9010 or something, whatever it works. I mean, how how does that work out in practice? I mean, because we've got I mean, I don't know how the uh um town center 3 most it's got stone along the bottom, but it's Yeah, they have some things on it, you know, stone. So it's not all single primarily two two textures. Yeah. Kind of monochromatic really. Yeah. That's why I like But wouldn't you like it if it was if the stone on the bottom was like grayish colors rather than just gray? Yes.

You know, you could we could tolerate that, right? Oh yeah. Right. Oh, it doesn't have Yeah. Right. Okay. Okay. So, I guess the question is is is it useful to provide a minimum percentage for the secondary? I think so. Because we're requiring a secondary material. Yeah, we have we should have a minimum. Should we just leave that as an open? You come back with the suggestion. Yeah, probably. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Specify a minimum percentage. Okay. and

and 2 C you going to get rid of rid of the stuff in the parenthesis and then got rid of 2 H. So in C what you're saying natural cultured stone could be more than the base. Yes. Um and then 2 I um if we keep it like this um we should have concrete block and not use secondary where the primary material is stuckco or concrete. Yeah definitely good.

[snorts] Okay. Anything else on materials? And if not colors. So basically we I'm looking at the saturation level, the brightness, but we're not talking about the number of colors. There's no limit on number of colors right now. Right. So, is that something we want to do? Would you say no more than three for sure? There's a question

some really even homes with four colors that all work. And I know I feels I I don't know if we want it. That feels and I mean you know maybe you could do something where you don't want them if you have three or more colors you can't have them be like the orange the orange wouldn't be allowed but they have to be compliment they have to be close in shade or something like so it's not it's not like you have three very contrasty things or four contrasty things that totally I don't know I mean that I'm saying that's an approach if we want to go that direction,

right? Nonobjective though, right? Well, it we could has to be in the same class. Question best practices here. Yeah.

Are there best practices about limiting the the number of colors on a bill? I mean, I like the palette. I have to admit palette seems nice, but is there a thing about saying no more than two or three colors, or is that kind of like just being too prescriptive or just not really worth the effort? Um, honestly, I'd say that that's another example where there there just isn't like a right answer. You know, it it we can certainly limit the number of colors. Uh, we understand that sometimes there's an objection to um panels of bright colors. So, we've just in order to avoid that, we've just um disallowed bright colors, right? Anyway, um that said, we understand that we're inviting large structures and there may be a desire to for the design to make it sort of break it into smaller uh look like smaller buildings, right?

That's right. I kind of worry a little bit about some seen those that look like they actually look great. You know, the big thing it looks small, but you you need a fairly big pallet to kind of work. No, I think I I think what you've done in terms of whatever it's called is good. Um I don't know. I think we're in now trying to limit it. Yeah, I think so. I think Can I ask you what you think on this one? Well, some people are complaining about a small building. Yeah. when you get the very large building. Right. I know. There is that.

Yeah. I wonder given how much Yeah. given how much we're struggling with this one. I mean, I [clears throat] think in a way it's like that maybe tells you, okay, that's just too much. I think especially to make it in some sort of binary thing like make it objective. Many too many variables.

Okay. Okay, we've good. Okay. On-site connectivity and open space. Okay. So, street face now. Okay. Do does this how does this um interrelate with street trees? Is that do we deal with street trees completely separately in our Yes. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. These standards apply to everything that's private property essentially. We're not looking at the public rightway. Okay. Right. So Okay.

So we are looking we could and do in objective design standards um address landscaping in the front front setback or front yard, but when we're looking at you know tree wells along the sidewalk, that's not something we're as out of the scope of this uh document. Okay. Okay. All right. All right. And so it was any comments then on 3912. Okay. Okay. C one comment. Okay.

Um for the publicly accessible open space which is um sorry I have a hard time reading these. D um D2. What about um trees? like a tree per square footage. I think that's Oh, no. That's in the front yard. No, it's not. It's not in there. Yeah. Yeah, sure. So, a 24 inch box tree per

But this is But this is within the minimum one of the following. So, you would just have this be I don't know how you put that into the one of the following, right? Remembering this? You got to raise planters. You're saying or a tree. A tree every So you're saying or a tree. Is that what you're saying? Initially I was thinking mandate a tree per some square footage, but we're not doing but then you need this one. That's what I'm saying. It doesn't really flow unfortunately. Like you wouldn't a water feature fountain is great. Yeah. I don't know. I'm not sure what what you'd put in there.

Okay. Okay. And just to clarify, this is publicly accessible open space that's not in the front yard. The required setback plus any blah blah. Yeah. Up in number two cuz there we do have a yard one tree. Yes. This is different. Yeah. This is like the big Is this like the big open space in between the 100 foot building and between? That's right. Okay. Well, this is a pretty big space. We might need it. would be above right is that like I was saying that's this is the one but I see where I think at 10 where Stella was getting because that's a pretty big space

you know if if it's a small space that's one thing but if it's a really big space you want to have it per foot or something 600 feet per or whatever if it gets really big you want to have a bunch of these things but then we say raised planters we say raised planters per I mean this I'm trying to figure out how it all fits together a minimum of one of the following per per 200 square feet again my concern is just being overly prescriptive here. I mean, maybe we add tree as an option and let the architect design team sort that. I mean, if we get into like saying x square feet means y. Yeah.

I that's we've already, you know, up above we've covered mixeduse residential projects. If it's a mixeduse residential project, then um you've got to put a minimum of one tree for each 400 square feet or fraction thereof, whether it's the front yard or anywhere else. Okay. For the yards, h for the yards. Yeah. Street facing yard. No. Of all landscaping. Minimum of one tree shall be provided in the front yard for each 400 square feet per fraction thereof. of all landscape

right at the front yard versus but this is like in section C though isn't it the street facing yard and that's three yeah I know you it's that okay I agree we should not I don't think we're going to come up with something that's I think trees I think tree is a great option though yeah think there's anything wrong with that oh yes put as opposed to just add it add it just add it It's it's another option. Yeah. Great big, you know, nice big tree is awesome. Joanne here, Mayor Andury, we have a hand raised. [laughter] We need a motion.

Mayor Andury, we're going to need a motion. and you you can't open any new items after 11:00 p.m. And if you have items you would like to uh take action on this evening that are still on the agenda, you could do it now and come back to this item. I think that's a good idea. Okay. Yep. Let's Yes, let's let's do that. Let's open these items. Sorry, we have this limit. Yeah. Okay. So, we're going to um on the budget

stop discussion of this item. We'll come back to it as soon as we finish off the items we need to do tonight, which I'm going to say um uh [clears throat] I'm move that we continue items 14B 1, 2, and three till the January 26th meeting. Second that. Is there any public comment? Nope. All in favor? Oh, there's a motion. Motion to Oh, did you I thought you made the motion. Motion you. All in favor? I Okay. Um but we do need to do the rights. Can we open and then come back? We don't have to complete them.

We also have so we Okay. So um open item what is now 12G under 16 and open item 17B and 17 C and 18A

and then we'll now can we just cover those and then come back. Okay. So we're now on [clears throat] um 12G removed from the agenda. We have a request that it be removed. Um just say on the proclamations, [clears throat] the mayor and vice mayor develop the suggested list of proclamations. Um this year the original intent was they be for two years so that people could plan ahead as to programming and the like. Turned out that that didn't happen. So we decided just to make it for one year so we could be more flexible in terms of what we put in. It was also intended to cover uh recognitions of uh ethnicity uh nationality and identity. So u even though it's somewhat related and for another reason we deferred on be kind 21 in Lafayette we'll if the school district is still doing that we'll bring that back for a separate resolution. And for example, every year we do a Red Cross resolution. That's not part of this because it's not the purpose for this this uh resolution. So uh with that is their public comment.

Yes, Mayor Anduri. Uh we have a speaker Rob Lavoy. Thanks for accelerating this a little bit. Um yeah, I dashed in a little letter uh today before noon regarding uh these proclamations. I I think uh you know they they borderline on uh political and that and it's concerning that the council is not supposed to be a partisan uh group and uh taking sides on these some of these hot button issues. uh you know, it it just alienates residents and it's something that you're dealing with that you can't control. Um you know, how do you pick groups to support and which ones to exclude? Is it divisive to uh you know, have the same groups on there each year but be excluding a bunch of other groups? um uh in this historic year um you know the founding of our country 250 years ago. It seems like maybe we should make an emphasis on that and how that's impacted the freedom that we have to express our views to have a vibrant debate. Um, you know, we did a lot for the anniversary of the the city, the 75 years. You know, maybe we can do something similar to that where we each month we have a highlight from 250 years ago. Um, let's [clears throat] see. Um, things like the trans day, gender day of visibility, that's extremely controversial. You've seen the protest in front of the school. Um just on the

medical front uh the CASS report, the HSS HS HHS report um said that you know most kids are going to outgrow uh this phase and that a lot of the medical and and uh drug treatments are causing irreversible damage to children and HHS recommends uh psychological help. uh rather than irreversible u you know things that are that are uh part of the gender gender affirming care solution. So you know trying to weigh in on something like that as a city council just seems completely inappropriate. Um you know if if and if we're really trying to deepen our knowledge and understanding of the varied backgrounds and life experiences of our community. Um, shouldn't we present the dransition day of visibility as well for people who've come out of that uh, you know, gender affirming care model damaged and and regretting that that they made decisions when they were too young to understand the consequence of that. You know, the whole thing there's a group called gays against grooming gag. um they are against this sexualization of children. You can look it up online. So, it's not just right-wing conservatives or religious people that are concerned about this. Okay.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Is there other public comment? No additional speakers. [clears throat] Okay. Are there any comments or are we ready for a motion? Um yeah, one we got some public comment with a request to amend MuslimAmerican Heritage Month to Arab and MuslimAmerican Heritage Month and I thought the arguments were very compelling.

Well, we have tried uh to keep the categories as broad as possible. So the original category was North African and Middle Eastern heritage month which is even broader than Arabic. Uh but we this year we decided to go with MuslimAmerican Heritage Month. Um if we were to put in Arabic it would be, you know, there's Iranian-American Heritage Month, there's Egyptian-American Heritage Month, there's you know [clears throat] with uh Asian-American, you know, we cover the broader area. I see. Yeah, it's difficult. It's a challenge.

I would suppose we go with this this year and then want to make a a change for the next year, we we make the change. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I guess there's some things in here that are ethnicities and some that are religions and some are identities

and some are identities and it's it's challenging. I mean, I think that there are many world religions that are not here and I wonder is there maybe just a world religions month? Yeah, we tried to go with was the ones that are most represented in the communities uh in our community uh that we would want to make sure felt felt welcome and they belong. If I could chime in, I'm good with this. Um to speak to Mr. Levo point to two of them. I'm perfectly fine with having a transgender J visibility. Um, the last trans individual I worked with was transitioned in her 40s. So, it's it's a broad population and it's a fairly v vulnerable one and I feel like we kind of need to sort of like say look, you're part of this community too like like all these others. Um, that's point one. The second is with respect to the 250th anniversary and I was the one who was bringing up Bunker Hill and so on earlier because of where I come from, but I I believe the mayor you talked about doing something with Lafayette that speaks to the French connection, our name our our our namesake, so to speak, and the and the role France played in the Revolutionary War, which is huge. So, I think that's one way to manage that, which is unique to Lafayette. And uh I'm sure that that's not in this specifically, but I I have a hunch that that the mayor has got some thoughts on that.

Yeah. No, there's there's a lot of proclamations that we'll be doing during the year that aren't in this. That's not the intent of of this. Yeah, this is that's how I view this. It's not this not exclusive list. And uh yeah, to to Rob's point, I mean, this is uh transgender people I know of. They're they're adults. This is not really weighing in one way or the other on on on kids or not. This is just saying it is a vulnerable population and uh I think it's good to recognize. So I I support the list. Okay. Before we Take a vote. I I move that we extend the meeting time till midnight. A second. All in favor? I. Okay. So, are we ready for a motion uh for approval of the proclamation? So, moved.

A second. Or the resolution. Sorry. Resolution. Okay. All in favor? I I Okay, great. Um on to 17B. Council member Witherspoon and Vice Mayor McCormack. I think is Heather gonna I'm happy to present but sure. And you guys can take a a break if you want. Yeah, Heather's not here.

I I'd make a brief staff report. Uh this is the 12th rate here and uh your leazison to recycle smart. Vice Mayor McCormick and Council Member Witherspoon met with recycle smart staff and are recommending a 10% rate increase for rate tier 12 and the rate increase is driven by CPI adjustments contractually required increases in disposal and processing costs and labor and fuel escalation. want to point out that the 10% reflects a discussion that the leazison had on rate smoothing. As you know, recycle smart has signed a contract, a a long-term contract which will go into effect March 1, 2027. And that contract will result in significant increases in our in our rates. So apply applying the 10% for rate year 10 kind of uh lessens or manages that significant increase that we might expect in the following year. We are uh right in the middle of the pack when it comes to the member cities and as such I I'm going to defer to your leaons to answer any questions that you might have. Yeah, I'll just fur the comment that uh yeah, it's um 10% jump is not great. The um we're entering as as we mentioned we're entering into this the last year of the old agreement. Next year will be a year from now we do it'll be the new agreement which is about a 40% increase. And so we are trying to mitigate that by um instead of jumping have a large jump trying to kind of stage probably 10% increases over the next three or four

years to kind of ease into it versus having a modest one this year and then just completely uh killing ourselves year after. Uh Danville's doing 9% this year. I think uh I think we're render seven. So we're right in the ballpark. We are still cheaper than Arinda and Maraga uh from but not as inexpensive as Walnut Creek or Danville just because they have much flatter uh roads uh than we do. So uh they have an easier easier pickup thing. So it it is um this is just trying to do a little rate smoothing as we go. We'll have to pay for it one way or the other and we figured it'd be easier to kind of ease it in over the next few years. Okay. Any questions then? Any public comment? No comments.

Okay. Bringing it back to the council. We're looking for direction and uh do we need a motion for this direction? Okay. To provide direction to the uh to your leaison. Yes, council member. I was going to make a motion, but uh yes, we need I I move that we approve the uh recommendation of the um committee. I I second. Okay. All in favor? I I It's unanimous. We are on to [clears throat] 17 C. Council members Witherspoon and Cvantis.

Thank you. And I'll lead off on on this one. Uh we had interviews on December 2nd. Mike Moran, head of engineering public works and Anne Frell, chair of this uh committee and I were able to sort of do the interviews. Four great candidates. Really interesting discussions. Um, part of it felt like kind of going back to business school and some some of these discussions which are great. So, uh, we have one open position and one where there is an expired term up potentially for renewal.

The committee's recommendation was to reappoint Mike Lman um and to appoint Carly Funk in your bank for the two positions. And, uh, I would thank the other two applicants who we may well see in other spots in the city, but we only have two. So, that's our recommendation. So, what was this? Mike, who was it? Was How do you spell his name? Mike Lman. Okay, that's right. Okay. All right. Any questions? Any public comment? No. Okay. Um, we have a motion. I'll make I'll move to appoint Mike Lman and Carly Funker Bank. Second. Okay. All in favor? I.

Okay. Unanimous. We're on to item 18A. This is the request for a resolution. Are there any questions about this? Seeing none, is there any public comment? None. Okay, ma'am. A motion for um approval of this proclamation. I would love to do that. My son and his now wife were very involved with this for very many years. So, very big fan. Yeah. And we we've been working with them in variety capacities for years and they are a terrific organization. So, I wholeheartedly second. Good. All right. Uh there's a motion and a second. All in favor? I It's unanimous.

All right. Thank you through those. So now we are coming

back. Well, actually, while we're waiting for Arley to come back, let me just um reiterate that on [clears throat] January 26th, um everyone's invited to come to the uh unveiling, although it's pretty much unveiled of the uh [laughter] the new mural. uh that starts at five o'clock, but there'll be a nice uh party there outside the mural. Recognition of the artist and the uh the property owner and the consultant who helped us and the public art committee. It's been a a great team effort. And then just so everyone is aware, you also all are invited to participate [clears throat] in the first uh Hello Lafayette welcome event which will take place here in this very room on February 3rd from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM. And uh so all council members are welcome to come and meet newcomers to the community. Uh old-timers in the community are welcome to come and meet newcomers in the in the community. Um, and um, I know virtually everyone here is going to to be there. We'll have representative city groups. We'll have other people there, but it'll be shaping up to be a good event. We have no idea how many newcomers will be there. It's a work in

case you're interested. We because we are sending out kind of postcards to all the people, everybody, every household who has moved to Lafayette in the last year. 775. Wow. Yeah. Much more than you than you would think. These these would include both moves within Lafayette. So that might not exactly but yeah but no just so it's really interesting. We think it's it's you know not but it's it's a ton of people. So uh it could be uh could be quite quite interesting. All right. So we're back.

Oh to on-site comity. Um item B on that one. Um the the last comma this is totally nitpicky but it has it's it shouldn't be there because it breaks up the intent of the standard. I think anyways that was my comment. I missed that. Where are we? Uh um B. So it's the on-site connectivity. Okay. Okay. Says on-site open spaces must provide continuous uninter pedestrian access, to any abuing creeks or trails. No, it just that needs to flow through. Yeah.

Yep. Okay. All right. So, anything else in 3912? Okay. Well, in in the No, I'm not gonna We'll find You'll find the typo. Um, okay. Landscaping. Anything in landscaping? Okay. So, this is where I got the street tree thing in D says street trees shall be planted at 40 foot intervals minimally. So, all street trees shall be installed at a minimum 24 inch box size. I get that. But the Okay, so this is talking about street trees. for the developments. So we are requiring a minimum amount of street trees.

That's right. And so that particular standard um a number of these standards or rather I should say the inverse when we look at the existing objective design standards it's your three-page checklist. We wanted to carry forward as much of that as as made sense. So that did get carried forward and it's true that that um okay refers to trees in the right of way. add. Okay. So, is is this I'm just again 40 foot intervals, comma, minimally. Could we say it not more than 40 feet intervals? I mean, is the intention that they be 40 feet or less apart, right?

Is that the intent? That would be the intent. So, I read I I yeah, I didn't read it that way from the language that's there now. at 40 foot intervals minimally. So 60 ft would be better is the way I guess I would read the the English. But but the idea is that way it can't be it can't be more than right no more 40 feet right at least the interval can't 40t right okay

okay so yes all right anything else in 3914 we didn't anything else in 3913 nope 3914 Seeing none. I do actually. Um so [clears throat] on C3

in the fencing and screening um the refuge areas this is the you know garbage cans or whatever. Um so it can be so these are options. It can be screened with a minimum 3ft wide planting area containing evergreen vegetation. Um I it seems like you're we're saying that it it must be with that. I mean like basically you have to always screen it with plantings and it seems like fencing is should be okay.

That's a good point. Or it could be tucked back. I mean, basically we have here it says within a building. We don't care if it's within a building or within a detached enclosure. And then there's three things it has to do. And the first one is located to the rear of the sides and not visible from the public street or public driveway. So already it's hidden from the street, but then not only hidden, but uh has to enclose your design with the same materials and color as the primary building. Well, that seems reasonable. And but then not only a fence with the same color, but it's got a that that fence of the same material and color has to have a three- foot wide planting area. Wow. Okay. So, it's it seems is that it seems a lot initial reaction is overkill, but kind of overkill.

I not not that I'm opposed to overkill generally, but sorry. it. You know, I would Yeah, that I was like, so why don't we just say reconsider reconsidered adding the planting or or or you know Yeah. Well, yes. Um and then you showed a picture. Oh, it was the public art um person was showing the picture of the one down at Brown that had the fun color birds, you know, the kind of the Yeah. Um,

and then there's like this grading thing with all the utilities like visible from the street right underneath that piece of art. And I'm like, huh, that shouldn't have been like you should like all the utilities should be covered, you know, as or visible. They shouldn't be visible from the street. Yeah. This is refu, right? That's refuge areas. But but this but that was all the utility stuff. Don't we want to hide those too? Yeah. I do worry a little bit that sometimes there's just the the physical P gen infrastructure. But yeah, no, I agree. Our aspiration is you can't see the garbage and you can't see utility boxes, right? That's so

I would just echo um what council member said. Um we will just need to be very careful about PG& requirements. Absolutely. Other utility requirements and things like that. Right. Put in with the exception of whatever. Yeah. Perfect.

Okay. If I may I um correct a statement earlier. So um this 63913D uh street trees um I'll take the time to go back and find you know when that made it into the to the draft and sort of the his sort of the history of that. Um it's not in the three-page ODS checklist. However, the other standards uh that address trees in the front yard which is um 639 12 street facing yard th those standards regarding trees do come directly from the three-page checklist. So given that and um the question that you posed earlier and concern about this document addressing design in the right of way, we may consider removing that.

Well, I guess my position would be if we can keep it in, I'd love to keep it in because I I think it's just going to be more and more important to have veget well have trees along the uh the roadway. So, if we if I'm I would want to square that away with the city standards for street design. Yeah. Then we have a Yeah, I'll we'll we'll leave that with with you and and staff. Okay. 39:15.

Yeah. I put comment. Um it's too vague. Um we don't want industrial flood lights that are painted black. Right. And we we want exterior lighting that is Wow. How do you make this objective? I I don't know. Um and how many do we have? That was another one on the checklist that was a a real fail. Like they had like one light fixture on this entire 100 foot, you know, side of a building. And that's not that's not okay either. And so I I think this one is definitely under um specified. Yeah, maybe we can just

But from a from a provide lighting standpoint or a Yeah, provide lighting aesthetic standpoint. Both, right? Okay. Yeah, because Well, from aesthetic standpoint, well, okay. From a provide lighting standpoint, we can probably be objective. But yeah, from a aesthetic standpoint, I'm not I guess we maybe we leave that to you as to how we do it because I say I think she'll utilize colors and finishes that are consistent with those of the primary building uh and aren't you can either say are the same color, but you can't consistent is subjective. Yeah, that was my concern.

And you wouldn't but you wouldn't a lighting fixture though could be black. I mean, which could be a good-looking black fixture, which is your color is not color. You don't want like the industrial lights, you know. Well, as we know, the lighting fixtures can make make or break a building. Oh, 100%. I agree. So, this seems to be under specified given how we are incredibly prescriptive on some stuff and this thing kind of is like, but how can you possibly specify? Okay, so we'll leave that with you. Yeah, I mean I agree that can be a very important feature. I mean and safety too, especially as we get to, you know, we have some areas that don't have street lights properly and so the lighting on these buildings is going to be like the main lighting and like what does that mean? So,

right. Um I'll just point out that most typically that doesn't live within ODS. Usually a city code has standards for exterior lighting. So, we're just verifying that. Okay. Um, but we will absolutely consider that there are objective ways to regulate lighting, but probably not in the way that you mean. It's usually called a bug, which is uh backlight uplight glare. Um, right. Probably not what what you're intending. Um, of course, you know, preventing, for example, reflective materials we can do on a building and, you know, it makes sense. Perhaps that doesn't make as much sense for lighting. glass, definely metal, glass, all of that. Um, but we'll certainly look into it.

Okay. Okay. All right. So, are there Let's see. There are there general things we haven't covered. That covered that. Cover that. Cover that. Covered that. Covered that. Okay, I've got anything. Are we all set? Do you feel sufficient? What you can I ask for clarity on two items and Yeah.

Um I just wanted to understand because I feel like we I heard some back and forth with the roofs. Are we requiring only pitched or also allowing mansered? We're both both are allowed. Both are. Oh yeah, definitely both. Only those two, but either one. Correct. And the Manfrford can't be for for above two story buildings tall above two stories. And um and the intent of the Manford is is to mimic a pitched roof in facade because there's those other images of a Manford ugly.

We want to mimic a pitch, right? Yeah. And and just for for clarity for the record, like a manser roof is classically Parisian, right? Where you have a very deep outer pitch and then a very That's I want to make sure we don't want that one. Which it allowed for an additional floor of living space. All right. That's not And so that is not the intention. The intention here is to have mimic from the eve line an upward pitch. Yes.

And then after some given distance, it can drop down like a parapet and be flat on up to house equipment, HVAC, etc. Perfect. And it doesn't count against them. Correct. And we will clarify the terminology around that. Okay. And [snorts] there was a second line,

right? Um, it sounds like it's about the visibility of like a flat the flat portion of a roof. So, we understand that for buildings of a certain depth, there's sort of an applied pitched roof form and and it's done in such a way that that's all you see from the right of way. That's correct. So, I think there was a question before like whether this means from other buildings or this the street line. We It's from the street, right? That's when people walk around or bike around or drive around Lena, they're going to think they're looking at pitched roofs whether they are or not. Right. Right. Right. And then there's the mechanical well area in the center that's not visible. Well, you can be. Yeah.

Now, this this applied roof form. Um, and in terms of how it's part of the building, I mean, that's sort of up to the designer, right? Um, but thinking about buildings just that that we know of, multi family buildings. I mean, there there are any number of roof forms, you could have shed, you could have uh you could have towers, you could have uh dormers and just simple gables, any number of roof forms that that would be allowed. Sorry. And standards. Okay, I'm gonna leave it at that. [laughter]

Okay. And the second one, I had one more question for clarity. Um, at one point there was a mention of um the ODS document going back to the working group or the working group and another B. So I just wanted to follow up where we landed with that. There was some discussion of the DRC working group and maybe some other additional staff consultant body leazison if if the DRC DRC working group is willing we'd love it to have come back to them together with the council liaison to the DRC got it thank you

okay all right well thank you I mean I was when I read this obviously a lot of work has gone into this and uh this is a big step forward from where we are now. Huge step forward. So, thank you very much for all your work on this. Yeah, very big priority for our community. So, appreciate it very much. Thank Thank you all for all the effort. The DRC also. Yep. And Elliot, thank you. Yep. Okay. So, we're coming back to the agenda there. I think the only item we didn't do was uh council report. We can't do that though. Can't do that.

Okay. Oh, bummer. I slipped mine in during the Oh, that was that was very clever. Clever. I do I do have a Well, if you say it before I adjourn, you're good. One update. I would like Yeah, I'd like to at the count at the um mayor's conference, Sue Novak gave an update from MTC saying that um the the OAG funding should be released uh January and the updated TOC policy we should expect in February. So, I just thought we all might be uh interested in that. She didn't give any context. She just said they're working hard on it and we should be getting it um next month. Okay. And with that, we are adjourned. It's