City Council - Regular Meeting

It's 6:15. We'll call the meeting to order. Let the record show that all council members are present other than council member Kandell who has an excused absence. Can I have a motion for adoption of the agenda? Uh so moved. Second. All in favor? I I It's unanimous. Uh this is a time for public comment on item the item that's on the close session agenda. Is there anyone who would like to comment? Mayor Anduri, there are no speakers in the community hall and no virtual participants who would like to speak at this time.

Okay, thank you. We will go into close session and we will resume at 7 pm.

CJ, are we ready? It's 7 o'clock. We're back from closed session. There was no reportable action. Uh please join in the pledge of allegiance. To the world, indivisible, liberty, and all.

The uh city manager has a statement on behalf of the city.

Thank you, Mayor Anduri. We were shocked and saddened to hear that a Lafayette resident was killed this weekend and our hearts go out to the family and friends of the victim. This was the city's first homicide in over 20 years. I want to express my deep gratitude to the Lafayette Police Department and to the officers who responded and were able to swiftly locate this and detain the suspect. I also want to thank all the other law enforcement agencies who came to our assistance on Saturday, especially the Contraosta Sheriff's Office investigations and crime scene investigations. I want to reassure the community that there is no threat to the public. Lafayette is a safe community and this was not a random attack. The v victim and the suspect knew each other. The investigation is ongoing. If you have any information about the case, please contact the investigations division of the sheriff's office at 9253132600 or call the anonymous tip line at 8668463592 to leave a voice message. Again, I just want to say thank you to our police department for their swift response and for arresting the suspect. That's the end of the statement.

Thank you. Uh this brings us now to public comment. This is for public comments on items that are not on tonight's agenda, but that are within the purview of the city council. So, if anyone would like to make a statement up to three minutes, now is the time to to do it.

For members of the public who have not been with us before, if you wish to speak tonight, you must fill out a yellow speaker slip. Um, we have no speakers in the community hall who would wish to speak, but I have two hands raised in our virtual audience. First is Joey Harris, followed by Janine Palmer. Go ahead, Joey. Not hearing from Joey. So, I will lower his hand and he can speak again. It's not connecting.

Still trying. It's still trying. Okay. Give us a moment, Mayor. I think we'll move on to the next speaker. The next speaker is Janine Palmer. Go ahead, Janine. Okay. No audio there either. So, we will bring them back if they come back on.

Okay, great. We'll bring them back on if they when the audio connects. All right. So, this brings us then to the city manager's update.

Thank you. Uh just want to remind folks that uh the citizens police academy kicks off tomorrow with 12 participants including a council member I hear council member McComecomic. Summer camp registration opens Sunday and favorites like carpentry and sewing are back alongside new K-pop inspired camps. Details and signups are on the city's website. from the public art committee celebrate national national poetry month at Poetry for the Ages on Tuesday, April the 21st between 12 and 1:30 p.m. at Town Hall Theater for readings by six local poets followed by tea, coffee, and cookies. There are only 25 seats, so please do register early. And finally, very good news. The city has secured $3.737 million in state transportation improvement program funds for the aqueduct pathway. We were hoping and hoping and it finally came through. The funding will be available to the city in fiscal year 2029. This will help build a key segment con connecting Dolores Drive to the Lafayette Bart Station, improving safe access to downtown and transit. The design work for the project extending to Pleasant Hill Road is already underway and that is it.

Thank you. Are there uh questions for the city manager? Is there any public comment? No, mayor. Okay, so we're on to the consent calendar. I would like to remove item one, the February 20 minutes. Is there any other item that you'd like to remove? Okay, seeing none, is there any item that anyone on in the public would like to request be removed? I have no requests at this time, Mayor Andy. Okay, so I have a motion. I I uh move to approve uh the consent calendar uh except item one.

I'll second. All in favor say I. I. It's unanimous. So among the wonderful things that we have done is we have accepted the donation of the dgera type in memory of our troops 6475 by Ben Dawn for inclusion in the city's public art collection. So that will be in the library. Carol Reef, thank you very much for all your involvement in this. And we've approved the proposal uh by Masuki Nagasi for installation in the Glen Seaborg Garden uh which we now can look forward to that. So, thank you very much. Okay, so now we're on to item 12A.

Thank you, Mayor. Each year early in the calendar cycle, the city council meets to establish priorities for the upcoming fiscal year, which runs from July 1 through June 30th. These priorities play a critical role in shaping the city's budget, including how we allocate resources and staffing. The council met on February the 20th and identified three key multi-year priorities and they are wildfire prevention, preparedness and traffic, I'm sorry, and utility safety. The second is Mount Diablo corridor planning and the third planning for the development and financing of the city's recreational needs. Following the workshop, management staff met to assess workloads and funding and we are beginning uh our budget process and confirming the priorities this evening will allow us to better prepare and uh focus our efforts on achieving the council's priorities in the upcoming budget year. As such, I'm recommending that the city council confirm these priorities. Happy to answer questions.

Are there any questions? Okay. Uh public comment. Opportunity for anyone in the public to comment on this item. Mayor Anduri, I have no speaker slips for persons in the Don Taxson Community Hall and I have no hands raised in our virtual audience. Okay. So, discussion on the item. There's just one minor change I'd like to make in the heading under on wildfire prevention. Just delete and utility safety because we took out the I apologize. I'll take care of it. Okay. Are we ready for a motion? Just one quick comment.

Yeah, sure. I always do this from for members of the public. I'm very excited by this. I thought that the council spent a really thoughtful, thorough day going through priorities. Um, I think these are all things that are important for our community and you know, look forward to working with you all and staff to sort of make these things real. And I guess with that, I'm happy to move this item. Okay, there a second. Second.

Any discussion? Let me just say, I know we covered this in the meeting afterwards, but you know, thank you to uh our city manager and to the staff who came and briefed us on developments in each of these areas. Thank you to Naen Levan who uh led us very effectively through this. And I I agree. Um I think we've got some important we've set the priorities. These are the things that we need to work on. I think this sets it out right

very well. Maybe sorry if you don't mind just just to add on to that. I think um also obviously the passes measure H allowing us to stabilize our our our finances to be able to actually think about the future and be a little aspirational in the especially on the both Montablo side but certainly the recreation side um is terrific. So thank the community again for that. All right, do we have a motion? We have a second. All in favor? I It's unanimous. Thank you. Okay. All right. So, we're on to item 13A and um take it away.

Okay. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Monica. I'm the consultant planner on this project. Uh the request that you have before you is a state density bonus design review, a major subdivision, grading permit, category 2 permit. Um this project is being processed under SB330 and AB130. The project proposes to demolish an existing 4,7970 foot commercial building to construct a 62t 3 in six-story mixeduse building. Um the project proposes 31 condominium units. Um 42 square foot of ground commercial space and 55 parking spaces. The property is located at 3458 Bout Diavalo Boulevard. The lot size is 0.64 acres. The zoning is C1 commercial. The general plan designation is downtown East End District. The surrounding land uses include multifamily residential to the north, McDonald's to the south, Mirro Gardens to the east, and commercial office complex to the west. the summary of the key changes since the design review commission May 12th study session and February 9, 2026 meeting and the March 2nd, 2026 public hearing includes an increase from 30 units to 31 units. Um a height increase from 58 ft to 62 feet 3 in. Um, under massing, they added upper level stepbacks on the main facade along Mount Diabo Boulevard. They replaced a dog wash uh and bicycle

storage area with one live work unit and one commercial space. Um, for landscaping, they expanded the planting areas and added trees along Mount Diablo frontage. They reduced the thickness of the balcony posts, um, opened the trellis elements above the balconies, removed horizontal banding, and eliminated corrugated metal panels to address the design review commission and the planning commission's feedback. So, um, there has been some changes since the publication of the staff report. Initially um the initial revisions um after the planning commission meeting included a conversion of three um of one of the three two-bedroom units to propose a three-bedroom unit. Um this would meet um the municipal code section 63710 um in terms of bedroom count, but it would still not meet the the code on dispersion. Um and the the applicant proposed a concession for public art instead of inclusionary design. Um the applicant made these changes to um address some of the planning commission's comment. Um however the staff conveyed that they would not meet the dispersion requirement and so therefore um they would because they wouldn't meet their that requirement then they um would not be able to use their concession for public art because they wouldn't be able to meet the inclusionary requirement. And so the applicant changed um their proposal to convert the previously proposed three-bedroom unit to a two-bedroom BMR

unit. And now the proposed concession is for uh inclusionary design rather than public art. The current this is the site plan. um the previously proposed and the current. The current submitt replaces one of the previously proposed commercial units into a live work unit. The residential entry at the corner of Mount Diablo Boulevard and Second Street has been refined into a more um defined entry plaza with integrated steps and pedestrian walkway. Additionally, a public art um program will be developed within the entry plaza. The updated plan shows expanded more continuous plantings areas along both frontishes and um and additional trees has been added to soften the building's presence. At the study session and public meeting, the design review commission provided feedback regarding density, building massing and height, the balcony projections, the banding, and the main facade along Mount Diablo Boulevard. The revised design introduces more stepbacks at the upper floor. Ground floor uh glazing and storefront elements are more prominent. They reduced the thickness of the balcony post, opened up the trellis elements, and removed the horizontal banding on the facade and remove one of the previous proposed commercial spaces into a live a live workspace.

This is the the north elevation as seen from Orchard Hero Boulevard. The revised plan includes a staircase to improve access from Orchard Hero Court. Incorporates upper level statbacks and horizontal banding has been removed on the east elevation as seen from Second Street. The DRC expressed concerns about the two-story parking podium, particularly along Second Street and Mount Diablo Boulevard. The podium was described as a two-story blank wall for pedestrians. The applicant addressed the DRC's concern by adding residential units, uh, wood siding and architectural detailing, refined the entry plaza at the corner of Mount Diablo Boulevard and Second Street to enhance street level activation. They removed the horizontal banding to simplify the facade and also eliminated the previously pro proposed corrugated metal panels and replaced it with light gray cement plaster. on the left west elevation. The DRC previously commented that the design of the building was boxy. In response, the revised plan incorporates stepbacks at the uppermost residential level, add trellis elements and upper level decks to further break up the building spoke on. So this is level one and level two. Level on level one, the applicant provides 29 parking stalls, one commercial unit, and one live space, live work unit, a mail and package room,

trash facilities room, long-term bike room, and lobby. And on the second level, the applicant provides 25 parking stalls, two uh very low units, a commercial magazine, and a fitness room, lounge, restroom, and electrical room. On level three, there are two and threebedroom units, private and shared outdoor spaces. Level four includes two and threebedroom units as well and one two-bedroom market rate I mean um moderate income unit and private decks on level five um it includes two and threebedroom units features private decks level six are all three-bedroom units includes private decks as well and a dedicated resident club serving as a prim primary indoor amenity space for all building residents. Regarding parking and access on level one access is from Second Street and um the drive aisles are 24 ft. There's also a 5-ft pedestrian circulation on level two. Access is from Orchard Hill Court. Um there is also a 24 foot drive a whiff and 5- foot pedestrian circulation. Uh this is the landscape and open space plans. um the first and second level. The DRC emphasized the importance of landscaping to soften the massing and reduce boxiness, especially at the podium level and along

facads. To address the DRC's feedback, the revised plan includes on the first level continuous planting areas along both Mount Diablo Boulevard and Second Street to break down the building's massing, a visible residential entry plaza located at the corner and public art program. Street trees are proposed along the main frontage on Mount Diablo Boulevard. Uh there's going to be storm water treatment along Second Street. The perimeter of the building features outdoor patio decks that wrap around the residential units. These terraces includes a mix of raised planters, seating areas, and shared gathering spaces accessible from common areas. The outdoor spaces are directly connected to the resident lounge. For the roof plan, um the two large designated areas are enclosed by mechanical screens to hide HVAC and other utility equipment from public view. The staff roof is centrally located. The elevated roof is positioned near the c center south and multiple clear story elements are distributed across the plane providing natural light to the levels below. Uh here are um the materials that the project proposes. The siding and panels include composite wood siding, wood composite panel, cement board wall panel. Uh the metal finishes include horizontal slat wall, perforated metal panels for for the balcony railings. The the concrete and glazing includes CIP

board foam concrete wall, cement plaster wall, aluminum windows, and for the landscaping element in it includes the green screen. Here's uh so the applicant um will be presenting and has a lot of uh renderings as well as 3D views. And so I'll just quickly show these but they will be showing um and this and speaking about it in more detail. So this is um a rendering of the site from from the southeast corner. And here's a rendering of the project as viewed from the outer side of Mount Diablo Boulevard.

Yeah. Sorry, I just have to ask now. Those trees that are in there, where are those trees? I mean, who did this rendering? The the architect did the renderings, I believe. Okay. What trees are those? I mean, well, the applicant can answer that. Okay.

Because I thought trees were being removed. This is a rendering of um mount uh a view of the commercial space as seen from Mount Diablo Boulevard. To the left is a view of the entrance plaza of the commercial space and then to the right is an eye level view of the commercial space. And in this rendering, it's a view of the west facade from Orchard Hill Court on the northwest. And in this rendering, um, it's a view from the other side of Second Street Northeast. This is a Google Earth view of from the southwest. Another Google Earth view southeast. And then a view of the project south. And this is a northwest view. The project also proposes a major subdivision. Um, this includes the removal of property lines that divide parcels three and four, removal of the existing 5-ft sewer easement. Um, it

should say 31 uh condominium units and one um commercial unit that's recently been changed. and um some common areas under uh the city's code um for tree protection. All trees and commercial zoning districts are protected. Removal requires approval and mitigation per the code ratios. Um the existing and proposed removal includes um the existing trees are 20 trees. Um and then the applicant proposes to remove 18 trees to accommodate the building footprint, driveway access and make public improvements. The replacement requires um 18 trees 15 gallon in size. The project proposes three 24inch box white crepe medals and three 24-inch box fairy magnolia. The proposed mitigation does not meet the codes replacement requirement. Uh for this the applicant requests a waiver under density bonus law. Uh regarding the zoning code compliance, um the project proposes uh the base project is a density of 23 dwelling units per acre and um the project includes um is w is requesting for for setbacks for waiverss for setbacks. Uh while the code requires 10 feet for the front side and rear, the project proposes between zero to 10 feet

to accommodate the building's footprint on this corner lot. Waivers are requested for the minimum required setbacks. For building height, the minimum height is 35 ft, but the project proposes a height of 62 feet 3 in. A waiver is requested for the height as well. Um, for open space, the code requires a 10-ft landscape setback from any street line. The applicant is requesting a waiver to reduce this to between zero and 10 ft. Under parking compliance, the project complies with the parking requirements, including auto spaces and bicycle spaces. the inclusionary housing and um and um base the conclusionary housing and density bonus. Uh the calculations are as follows. The base density calculation for a 64 acre site has a base density of 35 units per acre which allows for 23 by units. um applying for the BMR units applying the 15% requirement to the 23 unit base results in 3.45 BMR units while the 0.45 45 fraction would normally trigger and in Luffy the city has not yet adopted a fee resolution. So only the whole units are required and therefore the proposed BMR units are three BMR units, two very lowincome units and one moderate income unit. Um, under state density bonus law, by providing these affordable units, the project qualifies for a 27.5%

density bonus. And um, additionally, the there is a housing under the housing element, the project is awarded a 5% credit um or density for um, lot consolidation. the applicant. So the maximum density would be 31 units and the applicant is proposing 31 units. The inclusionary housing design requirement requires uh that the BMR well I'll read it. inclusionary units must be dispersed throughout the project and the and be comparable in terms of bedroom count and exterior design to the market rate units. So in the left you'll in the left graph you'll see the current distribution of the BMR units on each floor and you'll also see the distribution of the uh market rate units on each floor. And then so as you can see there's um a cluster of BMR units on the the second floor and staff believes that a more proportionate distribution would look more similar to the right right graph where you have the cluster of of market rate units here on levels three, four and five. And then so if the project proposes proposed um a BMR unit on each level it would be more proportionate meeting the dispersal requirement. So for this um for this requirement the applicant is requesting a concession.

So um the so this is the bedroom count. This table shows um this table um shows the required proportional BMR unit mix uh with the proposed unit mix. The proportional requirement results in two two-bedroom units and one threebedroom units. Since all of the proposed BMR units are two-bedroom units, that staff does not believe the project as currently proposed meets the city requirements for comparable bedroom count. The applicant request a concession for this requirement. So, um, under Lafayette Municipal Code, uh, 63 68B, um, owner occupied residential development projects. When affordable units are required in owner occupied residential development projects, the unit should be integrated with the project as a whole. Affordable units may be smaller in aggregate size and have different interior finishes and features. than market rate units so long as the interior features are durable, of good quality, and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. And so, um, the total number in in this chart, it shows the total number of two-bedroom market rate units, which are 17. The average size, um, equates to 1,241 square ft. And the total number of two-bedroom BMR units or three units, the average size is 921 square feet. And so that would make it 74% of the average size of a market rate unit. This table um shows the a list of the requested waiverss and the concession.

Um, the applicant is requesting in several waivers to allow the project to be physically constructed as designed under state law. A waiver is a request to deviate from development standards that would otherwise physically preclude the project from being built at the proposed density. Unlike concessions, there is no statutory limit on the number of waiverss an applicant can request, provided they directly relate to the physical necessity of the construction. Concessions are deviations from local requirements intended to result in actual cost reductions for the development. Uh because the project includes at least five% of its units for very lowincome household, it is legally eligible for waiverss and one concession under state density bonus law. The applicant is currently requesting a series of waiverss covering parking design, height, landscape setback, minimum side and rear yard setbacks, building design, third story stepback and a concession for the inclusionary design requirement. The project is being processed under AB130 which mandates consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes. A consultation meeting um a formal meeting was held on an January 4th, 2026 involving the tribe, the applicant team and the city and city staff. Um the the tribe had requested active monitoring during ground disturbing activities and um specified protocols have been established for the treatment of any tribal cultural resources found during

construction. All requested protective measures are incorporated into the project's formal conditions of approval to ensure compliance. The project was referred to outside department and agencies. The city the city engineer focused on garage access from Orchard Hill Court, the location of a two nose in parking spaces, the replacement of deteriorated sidewalks and and storm water treatment. The applicant did address the engineer's comments um regarding the fire district. the the fire district requested when they apply for a land use permit. Verification of water supply, compliance with emergency escape and rescue opening requirements required a land development permit and fire final file district approval will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. and the the sanitary district um indicated that the applicant is has uh sent the submitted a request pro to process a quick claim for the existing 5-ft sewer easement. Um the public art um liaison zone uh felt that the the building um blocky had a blocky design and emphasized that art must be accessible to public and not on private rooftops. Uh the landscape consultant noted concerns regarding the the plea the tree replacement ratios as staff mentioned before because this is a new multifamily development in the downtown specific

area. It is subject to the phase one objective design standards. Um the the project um in terms of outdoor space has um achieved 43 points where 25 points are required. And um regarding creek and landscaping, the requirement that was met, they provide 240 square foot of planting and two trees in the front setback. And for parking and circulation, the require the standard is met. All parking is within the building podium. No surface parking in the front setback. And regarding height, height and scale, um the requirements have been met. There's a high articulation scores achieved through the balcony material changes and penistration variations. And then for building design, they would meet the building design requirement with a waiver. Uh the applicant indicates the applicant indicated that while the second floor exceeds the 95% floor area limit um due to the parking podium upper level um features significant stepbacks. The downtown design guidelines provide qualitative guidance for for development within the downtown and are intended to implement the vision of the downtown specific plan. The project reflects several of the downtown design guidelines objectives as described in the staff report. the the project is consistent with these

general plan goals as described in the staff report. The project has been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and is determined to be statutoily exempt pursuant to AB130 and as described in the staff report. Uh, public notice of the city council meeting date for this item was provided in a newspaper of general circulation, mailed to property owners within a 500 ft radius of the project site and were posted within 300 ft of the project site at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Since the February 9th, 2026 design review commission meeting and prior to the publication of this report, staff has received one public comment letter included as attachment seven. And after the publication of the staff report packet, the city received one additional public comment which was forwarded to the city council. So, uh, therefore, based on the record as a whole, staff recommends that the city council adopt resolution number 2026-24 recommending that the city council approve the project subject to conditions um in attachment in exhibit A. This concludes the staff report. Feel free to ask any questions.

Thank you very much. That was very thorough. Appreciate it. Are there questions for staff? I do have a couple questions for staff. There's questions for there, but uh thank you very much. Couple questions for staff on this one. Um just to confirm because you know it's been a while since we've seen something with talking about parking minimums and densities. So I do understand this is beyond the the the um the radius from BART where there are no parking requirements. Um

yes, just um outside of the radius. That's why there why the parking calculations here. Um the also I noticed there was no solar involved. Is there there's a require is there did you guys talk about that or I could ask the applicant but it didn't look like there was any solar uh for the uh for the building. No, there was not.

Okay. We asked and also did you look at um the process for trash recycling and compost pickup? When I looked at the plans, it looks like the um the trash area is on the on Second Street or uh yeah, Second Street. And there's an access door and then sidewalk and then the bioil or whatever. And I'm not I'm unclear how dirty units could generate a lot of trash and where the how the the um the the the the big trucks are going to get there and they're going to have to drag the dumpsters down the sidewalk for a while to get around the the bioell, whatever. So, did you guys model that and figure out how that's going to work? I didn't see Republic Services in the agency.

Um, uh, Republic Service sent, uh, a later comment in terms of what their requirements are and those have been forwarded to the applicant, right? But it seems Okay. So, we don't have an answer for that or do we I just don't I didn't really see a path. I mean, normally you want it kind of in the back so you don't have a lot you don't have a lot of visibility. Right now, it's going to be parked right in front of Mel Gardens. The truck we're going to have these big dumpsters rolled back and forth along the sidewalk because you can't get there's no direct access to the truck from the door. Did does staff have any comment on that or did you guys do any

um staff forwarded the the requirements and um it's my understanding that they will address it at building permit stage. Okay. May I can ask the yes applicant as well. Um, and then finally, and maybe this is also a question for the applicant, the the the commercial prop the commercial spots we have along Mount Diablo. Were those always commercial or was that like an addition? I mean, I've seen the planning commission meeting on this, but I didn't go back that far. Were these original originally residential that became commercial or how do you know the history of this of those spots? The the commercial on the site Montiello? Yeah. The two commercial spaces

that was it originally a part of the plans? No, before they were proposing um a dog wash station. Okay. There. Um and then um after DRC's feedback, they changed it to two commercial spaces and then after planning commission they decided to change one to a live work unit. Great. I'll ask the applicant. I wasn't clear of anything in the planning commission that would have necessitated that change, but maybe I'll talk I can ask the applicant.

Yes. The applicant expressed that they were concerned that the commercial spaces wouldn't be they wouldn't be able to rent out the commercial spaces. So, they thought that if they provided one live work unit then um that would help them rent that space out. I'll talk to him about that then point. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, thank you for the presentation. Um I have a question about the below market rate units. So in the plans that were published, the two units are shown on the level two. Yes. And you described moving them to levels three, four, and five.

Well, I what I was describing is um what I what I believe because the code has um the inclusionary design code for BMR units requires a a distribution of BMR units throughout the project. And then so I was trying to illustrate what the current distribution looks like, which is a cluster of of two BMR units on the parking level and they're they're only residential units on the parking level and how how a more uh distribution would look like proportionate to the market rate units. And so a more proportionate distribution that would satisfy the codes requirement would be one BMR unit on level three and one on four and one on five. So that would be most proportionate to the market rate units.

And do we have plans that show uh a layout that's not two of the BMR units on level two? Yeah, the plans as currently proposed proposes two BMR units on the second level and then one on the fourth level and then so um Okay. So, we don't have though plans that show a distribution that's different than that. So, I I saw those plans in the packet. So, I guess what I'm asking is do you have the has the applicant produced any other plans that show a different distribution? No.

Oh, okay. No. Okay. Okay. No, that was just um staff illustrating what a proportionate distribution would look like and what the applicant is currently proposes was the left side of the chart where it shows the current distribution of BMR units. Okay. So, what we have in the packet are the plans as submitted. Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Just maybe a follow-up question. I sort of a similar line of questions as well. Okay. With respect to the BMR units, we talked earlier on this. So Mhm. And maybe it's maybe a question for the developer perhaps, but Okay. Uh I thought they're going in for a concession on

Yes. Yes, they are. Yes. So staff is just illustrating that these are the requirements that are not being met, but they're requesting a concession for that. So basically, our standard would be dispersion. So, let's say for argument sakes, levels three, four, and five, they want to put the two BMR very low-inccome units, the two bedrooms on the second floor, the third floor, the third one, the the one threebedroom somewhere up. Yes. On the fourth floor. That's what they want to do. And they're asking for a concession. Yes. Because it does not meet the dispersion requirement. Just Just to clarify, they're not asking for the three-bedroom anymore.

Yes. So, so previously like after the planning commission meeting, um the planning commission meet the planning commissioners had mentioned that they would like a a three-bedroom BMR unit. And then so the applicant thought if they added the three-bedroom BMR unit, then that would satisfy the requirement as a whole and then they could use their concession for for public art. However, staff had informed the applicant that that you're only satisfying you would only satisfy one portion of the of that provision and the other provision that's still not satisfied is the dispersion. And then so if you use your concession for public art, you still would not be meeting um that part of the provision for the dispersion.

Yeah. No, understood. just the right the current proposal is two two-bedroom units on the second floor, one two bedroom twobedroom unit on the fourth floor and therefore they're requesting a concession. Yes. But the applicant, you know, maybe could be amendable to um providing the three-bedroom unit if the council can find that they are meeting the dispersion requirement and then they would use their concession for public art instead. But that would be up to the council. Okay. the public art sort of a trade-off piece. Yeah. In in in all this. Um as a conversation I guess with the developer

the other thing I just wanted to clarify so access to parking so on second street provides that but also on Orchard Hill Court. Yes. That goes to the second level. The second level. Okay. Um, and maybe it's a question for the developer because it's Orchard Hill Court rather narrow is so it's not the most generous way to get into a parking structure I would think but that may be a conversation for the developer. Yes.

Okay. Okay. Ju just a couple of questions. One of the let's see I couldn't tell uh inside out architecture interior landscape. Yes. Is that a consultant to the city? Yes, they're are consid they're a city landscape consultant. Okay. And they uh pointed out the vulnerability of the huge Valley Oak tree that sits on the corner of Second Street on the Merrill Garden side. And they recommended that there be additional protections for that tree even though it's not on site. I couldn't find that in the uh uh conditions of approval. Is it is

I mean the the applicant is requesting for a tree protection waiver. A tree protection waiver? Yes. Kidding. I mean, sorry.

Wow. Okay. It's a tree tree replacement waiver. Yes. I mean, which follows under the tree protection ordinance. Okay. Well, we'll get to that when the act Okay. Maybe a misunderstanding here. Um but but the did did staff consider putting protection of that big oak tree and particularly it points out the limb that comes over the street and there's going to be a lot of equipment coming in protection for that tree or just ask it another way. Is that in here

in the conditions of use? The tree protection requirements are in the conditions of approval. And is there protection in here for that oak tree? Um, the protections that are required are what's required by the the arborist.

Okay. Any any tree protection measures that are prescribed by the arborist are included as a condition of approval. Okay. The arborist said it is recommended that this tree be included in the arborist report. The arborist I believe the the applicants arborist did not include that tree. So our arborist is recommending. I I unless that's explicitly called out. I wouldn't consider that to be covered. Okay.

So I guess we can talk about that because that's an important tree in the order. Okay. And then um I noticed um in some of the earlier discussion that there was a possibility of the bio retention basins on Mount Diablo Boulevard. Yes. But just to clarify now they for sure will be along Second Street.

Yes. So initially the um to address the engineers's comment for bio retention um the the applicant proposed two options one on Second Street and one on Mount Diablo. uh staff presented both options to uh the DRC and planning commission and both recommended that the treatment occur on Second Street. And the the reason why is it's the engineers recommen recommendation and um the applicant's preference is because the water naturally flows to that location. If it if the treatment were to be located on Mount Diablo, it would require more mechanics in order to pump the water um to that location and then that can fail and it would cost more money and then so um Second Street seems to be um everyone's preference and yeah.

Okay. And so that's why they're proposing it on Second Street. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So now we'll hear from the applicant and uh then we'll open for public comments. Welcome. Thank you. Good evening everybody. Can I interrupt just a minute? The applicant gets 10 minutes. Am I correct? Thank you.

Good evening everybody. My name is Nikl Gera. I'm the the applicant. Um, I'm going to have my architect talk you through the project and how it's progressed over time. I will come back at the end to talk about the main issue which I think we need to discuss is the concession and the BMR and the three-bedroom versus two-bedroom, all of that. Um, the rest of it seems pretty pretty straightforward and it's been a good process for all of that. So, I'll introduce uh GZ Frank as the architect. He'll walk you through um the details of the project and I'll come back like I said. Thank you. Good evening, city council. Good evening, uh, Mayor Anduri. And, uh, good evening members of the public. Thank you for hearing us, um, and letting us present. Thank you for Monica for presenting so thoroughly the project. So we will not go into much repetition but just want to uh highlight a bit uh the renderings and the evolution of the project um throughout the process. Uh other 10 minutes is is is the discussion regarding the at the end is that also all included or is that 10 minutes only?

The 10 minutes is your presentation.

Okay. Thank you. So um okay next Monica next. Ah thank you. So um so from uh beginning of the uh project uh we actually uh engaged uh with with planning and then also we conducted a voluntary study session for for the project. Uh and we tried at each round to address um all comments that we received to the best pos possibility and uh in fact the project was revised at each stage. Uh and we can quickly uh point this out. Um so next so uh here you uh we we highlighted with the numbers here. These were the changes to the project coming out of the planning uh commission hearing. Uh that was we we changed the all the light colored volumes on the project. They were originally corrugated metal. uh the uh planning commission and also the design review board they thought that uh this is too too of a too cold of of a material so we changed it to a a light colored stuckco material. Uh number two there were horizontal bands in the dark volumes. Um again the design review board was not was a bit concerned about that that hor horizontal structure. they thought it might appear a bit uh commercial. Uh we had actually no objection. Um uh so we I mean we we took them out. Um then we also lightened up

number three the the structure around the balconies because there was some concern that the balconies might appear a bit looming uh over in in the sidewalk area. And then uh number four, we we added a a larger uh tree uh at the at the center of the uh facade there where where you go towards the commercial uh spaces. Uh and uh addressing uh the mayor's question about the the trees that you see on the renderings. Uh so we only have four trees along our street facade that are actually project trees. The other trees that you see in the rendering are existing uh street trees that we tried to model as uh as well as possible but sometimes you know you don't quite get it right. You can actually see here there was another request um to show to make the renderings more realistic because when you go further out I mean we model a certain context that's close to the site but there there are limits to much to how much you model. Um so where you you see on the right hand side there is this kind of lightly colored square that that appears there that is actually a clip out of Google Street View. So to make this really realistic because it's actually like a like a montage of photograph what you would really see and that was at the request of the uh at at the planning commission they they specifically requested that. So next this is the the view uh from from the other direction and we can go next and it's basically the the same uh changes that were just described in the

previous. It's just a different a different view there. And again on the right hand side you see that very that rectangle there. That's that deep view to the back. There was also a criticism that in the background that was not accurate what was shown there. So we we clipped there the the real view basically as a photo montage. Okay. Next um this is a a view from the street level and it just illustrates the the level of uh activation at the street front. So, we have an entry plaza at the corner and and at the right hand side, you can see these windows that were added as part of the two-bedroom units that we put into the podium uh with the intent to activate the the podium. Next, um out of the uh study session very early on there was a comment uh a request that if we could make uh more of an effort to step back at the top floor and you can see what we revised here. So the green areas on the right hand side are all areas that we where we pushed back the the top floor and and opened open open it up so to create a a larger step back particularly on Mount Diablo. You can see the green that that is really stepping back uh in the on the top level. Next, uh yeah, there is just a a comparison what what how the project looked uh at the very beginning and then how it looked in in in the in the iteration. And you can see also by stepping back that the the the level that you that the perceived levels of the building got got reduced. I mean from you can see on the right hand side you can basically see four express stories and on the right

hand side it's it's down to three of that prominent volume. Uh next this is the um this is the ground level plan. On the left side you can see what was there was a question before what what was originally there. You can see there was uh an amenity program was bike parking and dog wash and um the design re review board thought that that's not very or maybe not active enough. And so on the right hand side you can see that we replaced it to with these light blue spaces. These are the two commercial spaces and then the left one of these was converted into a work live unit out of you know of concern of viability of of these spaces. Next and these are this is the second floor and you can see on the right hand side there was also a concern all that is shown gray there was basically a a facade of with a garage behind and again in an in an effort to activate there we put in these two um units the living units there and they basically activate the facade part because there's a residential use behind rather than a a garage. There at one point somebody voiced concern if these are inferior units because they might be next to a garage. There is really no concern there because the the there they will heavily acoustically insulated walls to the garage. So the people who live there will never know that basically they they're next to a garage area. Uh otherwise, these are actually nicely located units because when they go out, they go right and and they're right next to the amenity areas. So, for all intents and purposes, the are actually

really uh attractive units. Also, I would like to note the 900 square foot units. So, in context of our building, they are a bit smaller. But this is has really something to do because the overall product that that uh our client would like to offer is a bit higher in in in in standard. So, but a 900 ft² unit is is a perfectly fine mark normally actually a market rate two-bedroom unit. Okay. Next. Um yeah, these are just views from to show the ground level. Next. Uh, these were site renderings. They were

on. Oh. Oh, yeah. Okay. Here we go. Uh, yeah, these were uh Google renderings. Uh, Monica already presented these. And then next, yeah, also Google and there were site context section. These were also just requested to to display, you know, the relationship of our project with the site. Next side drainage. Uh Monica already uh uh yeah talked about this this item. Okay. Next and these are the BMR units.

Okay. Thank you.

Um so I'll step in here to talk about the BMR units which I think this is about. Um by way of introduction I already told you my name. I'm Nikl Gera. Um I'm a Lafayette resident for almost 20 years. Um I've built a project in Lafayette already. It's called the Wood Haven. Came out pretty nice, I think. Um and I'm keen to build more in the city, right? Um so that's the context I'm coming from. I'm a third generation real estate developer. I understand and take very seriously um the responsibility of building something here which will be here for a long time. My family's done this for many for generations now. Um, so I take that seriously. Now, if I can, I know the time ran out, but I just want to talk about the the concession. Is it okay?

Just briefly, please.

Yeah, very briefly. So, at the planning commission, we proposed what's being proposed to you now to provide three two-bedroom units. They came back and said, it's important for the city to have a three-bedroom. Can you consider it? So, I was like, let me go back. We went back and looked and I was willing to sacrifice a corner three-bedroom. They're less corner units than the middle ones. the corner units are more valuable, but I said I can put a three-bedroom in on in one corner. I'm willing to do it. Um, and I'll just I'll just swap out the concession. So, I'll use it instead of a public art. And at at that meeting, they said we'd rather have a three-bedroom than have public art. That's more important to us. So, I took that as, okay, I'm going to try to f fulfill that request. That's what I did. That's what was submitted. But then I was surprised. What came back is that if I do that, I'm still short and I still have to do the public art. And I was essentially using the the hundreds of thousands I'm going to save on the public art to fund the loss on the two-bedroom versus the three-bedroom. The math is the math, right? So I was surprised with that. So what I would really want out of this meeting and direction from city council is direction to staff and so a developer like me understands and we don't get something like this at the last minute. Um is what is meant when you say that the units have to be dispersed across the project. Can you go to the next slide please Monica? This one. So my view is we don't have a problem with dispersion. Right. You have got six levels. These are these are spread out in this fashion. This is one way to look at it. You can look at it very literally the way the staff is staff is looking at to say how many residential units on each floor. Can you provide some percentage of each floor? Or you can look at it kind of holistically like I'm looking at it to say you've got five six stories. They spread across a couple of them. Is that good enough? Right? That's basically the question. If you're willing to say that this is dispersed across the project and it's fine, then I'm okay saying, "Okay, I'll provide the three-bedroom, right? I don't need a concession for this. I'll

get a concession for the art and everybody can be happy with that solution. If I can't, I can't afford to lose money or subsidize the three-bedroom and pay for the public art is what I'm saying." So that's kind of the direction I'm looking for city council to provide staff and me so we can kind of see what we do here. Thank you. Other questions for the applicant team? Okay, great. Thank you very much. Um,

thank you. And I I want to start saying I do appreciate the changes that have been made. I mean, let's, you know, be honest. you know, you've you've you have worked with the different commissions and we can see material improvements in the project up to this point. So, I really first off, I want to start with that. So, thank you very much for that. Um I don't I'm not going to I think others are going to talk about the the BMR. So, I want to I'd like to focus on a couple other things. Sure.

Um specifically the commercial units. So, um I appreciate that they were not originally streetf facing commercial units. Now they are, you know, now you you've made them kind of there. My cons my so um just mountabo it's our main business thorough affair right I mean it's one of the things that makes Lafayette attractive for builders like yourself to build condos is because we've got this vibrant downtown aura of places that people go to eat and shop and and get their haircut or whatever. And so I appreciate we've got two commercial units on um on on the the Mount Diablo side. I I I just I worry that it's not quite far enough and I understand you're kind of hedging your bets. it looks like on one of them with a live work unit because you're worried that a commercial may not sell and if so you want to be you want to be as an apartment. I'd like to put something else to you though is we actually have a couple of recent examples here in Lafayette. Um 210 Lafayette Circle had a ground floor live work unit because they were all so worried and a live work unit ended up being um like the worst of all worlds, right? It's not a great place to live. You're right down the street and it's not a very attractive commercial. So any and I don't think it ever sold that if Del end up having to take it back and rent it out. We have the Brand which just opened up just down um on the west end of town which has two dedicated commercial units downtown and they sold immediately right they they have been ready to open up for years now ready to go and I'm just kind of asking have did you consider really leaning into the commercial side? Um, you know, I mean the when I look at it is like that live work one's like I'm not sure what sort of business could really go in there. You know, the the the ceilings are kind of low. It's like a 9 and a half foot ceiling. Um, you know, there's not very good space for signage. Uh, it seems hidden back there. And so, have you thought, you know, if you really made it a truly, you know, a place that a business person could purchase and own. There are not many places that you can b

own your own business if you were in Lafayette to really make it a a a kind of an interesting feature of of downtown Lafayette. Did you think about that and kind of how did what was your thought process there? Because I'd really love it to have a great a couple of great uh businesses there fronting Mount Diablo. Yeah, so I did think about it. Right. The reason the larger unit which we're now calling a live work unit has a double height in the middle and it's whatever there's a loft section is is in order to get that volume and height to make it more attractive and have more visibility from the street. Right. The first goound was just it was at grade and we're going to keep it just because we're building two levels of parking. So there's two slabs there

and the intention was how do we enhance the visibility and make it more usable. And my hope is to get like a small cafe or something there which has some upstairs downstairs right um that's the goal but the reason I'm called I switched just in the last go around I was like okay I'm allowed 31 units I'm doing 30 let me build in some flexibility here so that in case it fails and I can't get anyone because that side of Lafayette does not do as well with retail and even the other side of the west side of Lafayette which does better has a ton of vacancy today. Mhm.

Right. That's just the the way the the fact, right? So, I don't have a lot of confidence. The brokers I talked to, nobody is confident of of what can be put there. I did rent. It's I currently have two tenants in my building, right? I bought it and I put two tenants in on a temporary basis, right? I obviously wasn't willing to put in the TI dollars to get a new tenant and all of that, but I was able to get someone in at pretty low rent. One's subsidized. I like dogs, so I was happy to put up a a dog rescue at subsidized rent. I felt good about it. Um, but it helps pay the pay the cover my costs. And I put another person in who's a contractor who was okay with something like that. But going through that exercise, I did not get any confidence that you can get $4 or5 rents that you would typically want to get for a fully fil nicely built out place. So again, limited experience. I did manage to rent it. I talked to a bunch of people when I advertised the space and negotiated with a bunch. Um but after that entire process I wasn't any more confident that hey this will easily lease which is why I was like what's my backup plan go to live work or not but my primary goal would be because I would want it to be active because that's better for the building right I would which is why the larger unit has that up and down to to counter everything which you just said to have that presence on the street and make it a more attractive hopefully a cafe is my goal but I don't know if I'll get there and find an operator.

Okay. Um, okay. I think I understand what you're saying. I think your building there though, plus the other buildings going on in that area are actually indications that that part of Lafayette will be more vibrant. And in fact, you know, you're you're bringing 30 people there. Um, okay. Well, I mean, I would just say I I'm I'm afraid that, you know, you've as a live work. I'm just worried again because you as a to live there, you you're right underneath the fitness center,

right? You you have an entrance right onto Mount Diablo and a fitness center right there. So I just worry as a living space it's going to be compromised and so um and to be a viable business you have to have big windows big open windows on front of Mount Diablo. So I'm just worried again that you know we're kind of splitting something that we have a non-optimal use. Maybe at minimum I could ask that if you think it's gonna be a cafe, it's got to be proper plumbing and sewage and everything for a restaurant or a cafe, right? It cannot be done for, as you probably know, right? If it's done as a residential unit, it can never it's it's almost impossible to translate it to some sort of Yeah. restaurant, right? So, you got to make sure it's it's it's got the electrical and the plumbing and everything that is suitable for a restaurant. I

I don't think it'll be done for a restaurant. It'll be done for a cafe. I have a project in San Francisco which has a cafe, right? a pro 129 unit project developed in San Francisco. We have a cafe there and those requirements are very different. There's no grease trap. There's no venting. There's no hood required to the ceiling and all of that. Right through to the top. So, it will not be a full-fledged restaurant, but it'll have it'll be provisioned for a cafe. Yes. Okay. Because I know we had Ape Cafe just down the street and they had to deal with all sorts of sewage and all sorts of things from the county. I just worry it's I just want it to be viable as my

Right. And I'd like it to be viable, too. I totally totally get what you're saying. it'll be planned for that and that calling it a live work versus commercial is not a I mean until the planning commission when I kind of thought through this a little more said okay I've got 31 units I'm only using 30 should I build some financial flexibility for myself that's where it came from for me that's not speaking plainly that's not a big deal for me if you say no no we don't we don't make it a live work call it a commercial unit I mean it's not going to be the end of the world I'm just afraid that if it's not occupied and I can't get somebody to occupy it having a dead dark space in my view is worse than having it as a live workspace which is at least someone doing some kind of work out of it. It's got some activity activation as opposed to nothing. Okay. So that's where I was coming from.

Okay. Well that thank you. That's my shot. Um couple other quick things and we'll move on. Um I did I as I mentioned to uh staff so there's no solar on the on the property there. It wasn't required in any of the staff requirements. I understand it's not required but it's like is it 100% there will be cuz for my goal as a developer would be to control HOA costs. Right. Right. Right. And having that solar on top is one of the easiest ways to do it. The elevators will run on it. The the the garage needs to be lit up. The lobbies need to be lit up, right? All that uses power. So, they will 100% be solar. It just wasn't a requirement. The building isn't designed from a building from a construction drawing perspective, but it'll 100% have solar.

Okay. And then what was your um did you have a chance to think about what I was saying about the trash pickup and what that's going to mean logistically? We have thought about it some. We will engage with for public services to find an optimal solution. Um, we're not there yet, but I see your point and I'm just because you have Mel Gardens right across the street and we got the truck coming there and yeah, I think I think the pickup will still be there. We just have to find out find an efficient way where we stack them at what time of day. So, it's it's done, but it it will be done. We also there's some optimization to be done around that too about how trash works within the building. Um, but we haven't we haven't gotten to that stage yet. Okay. Um, okay. Okay. Well, I look forward to that because I think that's important because we want to encourage people to to do it. But anyway,

no, I listen I 100% agree with you because finally I have to come up with a product which sells. That's right. If it's inferior in any way, then I'm I can feel happy I built it, but I and we want to be fully Yeah. I I I you and I on the same page, which is why I had all these meetings to get feedback from as many people as possible. I wasn't required with with the SB330 application to have a study session. The point was I'm willing to hear all the all the perspectives to make it a better project because that's the better outcome for me too. That's right. No, and we as I said I appreciate and we can see it is evolving and getting better and better. So, all right. Thank you very much. We'll let other people Thank you very much. Yeah, absolutely.

And I'd like to start off I'd like to echo um the vice mayor. you could see the iterations and the project does you know you I've seen what you've done to sort of like respond to feedback through the city's design review and planning process and that's much appreciated. Um there's a few things I wanted to understand better. Sure. And we touched on the we'll talk about the BMR units then.

Um and and maybe this is a later on discussion here but the idea of having a three-bedroom in my mind at least would be more optimal. you could have a larger family living there and we're talking moderate income. We're talking maybe a couple of school teachers um with their kids. I mean, that's kind of BMR here. And uh even the the two bedrooms, you know, it's a school teacher and with one kid or maybe it's a police officer. That's that's what we're dealing with with that. I want to make sure we have we can accommodate that kind of a population here. Mhm.

So to understand this then you were open to the idea of two two-bedroom very low-income units and one three-bedroom moderate income unit. But what you wanted in exchange for that was to drop the public art requirement. Correct. That was the trade that you were looking for.

I I I because I'm providing more than 5% BM very low income. I forget what the classification I'm entitled one concession. So I can use a concession either for the art or for optimizing the BMRs. So what I presented to the planning commission was the the concession for the BMRs and they came back and said can you please provide a three-bedroom for exactly what you said that we need it for families. And I was like okay I'll go back and do it and I was willing to do it but then I was surprised when I saw the staff report which said you I'm still I I mean I I'll end up paying for both. I'll pay for the public art and I provide the three-bedroom which is financially um disadvantageous to me. So yes, I'm still seeing the same thing that if I can not have to provide the public art, it saves me a couple of hundred grand, right? That kind of goes goes towards paying for the three-bedroom. Um not really, but it's it gets me part of the way there and I can live with that.

Okay. And let's say we say we we take that configuration two two bedrooms one threebedroom the threebedroom is somewhere on the third or fourth floor on the fourth floor. Fourth floor. Thank you. But in your configuration you would have the two two bedrooms on the second floor. Correct. That you you I mean staff pointed out the I guess the and I intuitively would have thought dispersion means you got like you have one BMR unit on on each floor and so on. This is a little bit different here. You've got it more concentrated. Right. And I I'll explain why that is. Right. I'm sorry. Why don't we stick to questions now and then we'll get into the discussion. I'm mentioning it a discussion here. Mayor, thank you for reigning me in.

Um well, if you finish up your resp.

Yeah. So, I I let me respond to why those two bedrooms the two BMRs are where they are, right? for us to provide and like city of Lafia does not have a prescribed square footage or a percentage that a BMR can be smaller than the market rate unit right it's based on I mean there's nothing nothing prescribed Moraga says it can can be 30% smaller so it can be 70%. So these are I think we saw the math. It's like 75 74 75% is worth. So having a smaller unit helps me helps the developer financially because you build less and the amount you get paid is based on income and not based on the size of the unit. So what we're presenting here are 900 ft two-bedroom BMRs which have very low income units which will sell for in the 200,000 range. Right? 230 40,000 something like that is the number for those units. Um, so the only place I could put these these 900 foot units without impacting the entire stack because otherwise you build a stack with the plumbing going up and down right through for all all stories was to put two of them here side by side to kind of solve that jigsaw puzzle to say how do I do it without adversely not just losing money on these two but also having to build other small ones which I don't honestly think there's a there's a market for 900 ft market rate units in Lafayette. That's not that's not the market. That's fine for Walnut Creek. It's okay for it's big for San Francisco for market rate, but here we are providing 900 ft² below market rate units and the market rate units are 11,1200. So fitting those 900 was problematic anywhere else and that's why we put them here. Long story short,

and I think this is a question um just so I understand like big picture here. Yeah. Who are you selling this stuff these this product to? I who will who are the people or families you see living here? What segment are you trying to capture? I think it's a question. Um but I just got to get like what's your what's your vision here?

Yeah, I it because there two and three bedrooms it it it caters to a pretty big audience. My gut tells me and based on the other project I did and what I'm seeing happening in the city, I think this will tend to be a bunch of people who are empty nesters, move down buyers who want a nice space to live without any maintenance, brand new, lock and leave and travel, right? That kind of clientele as opposed to a young family who are moving from the city. There may be some who kind of move from the city, are used to urban kind of living, want to be commutable from Bart and just don't want to deal with the backyard, right? Um there may be some of that but I think the larger will be slightly like older people I'm seeing in their 50s 60s who do not want to deal with a big house anymore. Kids have gone to college um or left the house and they just want a place which makes life easier but they but they want a comfortable luxurious life similar to what they had in a single family home. So you need to provide slightly larger spacious units which is what I'm trying to build.

Right. Thank you. Welcome. Yeah, thank you very much. Um, I have some questions about the planted podium, the outdoor space. Um, because I I was having a hard time understanding it. So, um, I guess let me see if I can organize my questions here. So, I think I heard um Monica say the outdoor decks are connected to the resident lounge. Is that Did I mish hear that in the presentation? There's a resident lounge on the top floor. Okay. But on the on the on the third floor where is the podium I think you're talking about. There's no lounge there. Those are private for each unit.

Okay. May maybe I misheard. So yeah, maybe if we could just have the image of that level three to refer to. Um okay. So the blue areas are the the the podium planted area. Correct. The roof of the garage is the is the deck for these units. Okay. And so who has access to them? Just each individual unit. So just the third floor residents. Okay. Okay. And then how will the planting that's prescribed be maintained? Would it be the responsibility of the homeowner?

Yeah. With the HOA will also be involved with uh this having a gardener go through and maintain that. again it'll be part of the HOA's responsibility to uh look after various elements of the project including that okay okay yeah because I mean I think that was one of the the evolutions of the plan I think right to soften

the massing so important that that continue you know 100% agree right because as a developer I'll be putting in the infrastructure for it the I'll spend the money to buy the plants I'll put them in right there'll the drainage setup for it on a sprinkler system, right? And then thereafter hopefully it's a question of maintenance which is not as much of a problem for the property when for for the owners. But um that's what is the hope that nobody goes and kills those trees.

Yeah, I mean I guess that yeah that that's the that was the question about what is the plan for it. Um and then the other I have is about the facade the Mount Diablo facade. So those balconies that are in the center of the building, they um they extend. They're like cantalvered. Yes. Okay. And are they over just the um kind of that front area that's the access to the commercial or do they actually go over into the side over the sidewalk? Yeah, they don't go over the sidewalk. They're well within that. They just over and they they're two feet. If I remember correctly, two feet is within the building facade and 3 feet extend beyond it. Right. Yeah.

Okay. And then my last question is about property lines. I I saw that the I guess clarify is the property line really the center line of second street. Okay. So, does that mean that Second Street's a private road? I think I think there's a permanent easement there, right? So, I mean that you own the property, but there's an easement. It exists and nobody can change that. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Um I several questions. Um, you heard the discussion about the tree, the the big oak tree. Are you willing to include protection? Happily. It's a great thing there. It helps the pro project. It's I mean, I'll pay for landscaping all day long. Okay. So, we'll include protection for that heritage oak across the street. Yes. During construction, right? That's what this it's Oh, yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 100%. It's on its own after construction. Yeah. Mayor, I just want to clarify. I believe that oak is on another private property, so we may just want to condition it on that owner. Oh, yes. Yeah. No, we're not forcing anything on that owner, right? We just have a willing protector here.

Yeah. Thank you for pointing that out. Okay. Um, and then u we were looking I can't remember which slide it was but there was a it was one of the ones showing a difference and there was a tree number four which was the closest tree to the entrance to the building. What kind of tree was that intended to be? Is that one of the crepe myrtles or is that another tree? you had a number four on it and you explained that there was a that tree and I I didn't want to interrupt you to ask you what that was going to be. I'm sorry.

Okay. Well, my concern with a lot of the montage here is that there are trees that aren't there that are showing up or trees that are supposed to be cut down that are showing up in the final product. And it's just I'm concerned that with a six-story building replacing a one-story building and taking down the um relatively tall trees that are there now, there's not going to be much um well, there not going to be as much vegetation in front of this building and certainly not as much as shown in the uh montage here. I'm I'm just concerned that those photos were a little bit misleading. you know, unless you can speak to that and say what you're intending to do.

Yeah. Monica, can you go to the landscaping plan, please? Let's see what uh now this one. Um there's one which shows that shows the trees and color and everything. Keep going. Keep going. There were two from what I remember there were two side by side. One showed the third the third floor podium and then there was one next to it which

so a number of these are showing where trees are to go. Was that in her her present? Okay. So that we can go back to that montage. Okay. So the two trees at the left don't exist. So I'm not sure why those are there. The far left. Yeah. Well, the the ones property the Okay, there there's at least one there's at least one tree there for sure. Well, it's it's dead. There's no leaves on that tree. It's a dead tree. Okay. Okay. So, this this shows the three trees to the west end of the property. And then that that's number four. Mhm.

The one what what is that going to be? I I think it's it's pointed out in the landscaping package we submitted. So Monica, maybe your presentation had it. Sorry to make you jump around. Okay. Well, let me the three on the west side show as crepe myrtles. Okay. We'll we'll when we get into the discussion, we'll come back to that. But but um I'd really well like you to consider larger trees to I mean again we're we're we'll get into it later. Okay.

Um Okay. Can you confirm the sidewalk width in front of the building on Mount Diablo Boulevard? I've read on the plan it said 8.5 ft. I want to make sure that that's the what the width of the sidewalk will be. I think so. I notice you think it won't be what it says. fire was heat. Well, okay. So, we're looking at plans. Yeah. Which I assume are your most recent plans and they say 8.5 ft, which would be very good. So, I'm asking if I I would be well, it would be a good thing if they were 8.5 feet.

I agree with you 100%. I'm

hoping this comes to I'm going to follow up on what what reason I'm asking this. I'm sorry. I'm going to be now commenting, but yes, you got me on that one. Okay, so following up on Council Member McCormack, uh, yes, right now this is not as lively a spot or a part of Lafayette, but the idea is it will be. And to the east, you've got Mel Gardens, which has several commercial spaces, which have people coming and going uh when the uh um corporate terraces property is developed. to hope to have uh commercial there as well. We just can't have a dead spot here. And and the same the same goes with the uh uh the the the pathway along the boulevard on the other side of the street at Merryill Garden. That's a 10- foot wide sidewalk. It's just a very uh elegant sidewalk for walking along. and then you come across the street where this property is and it it narrows down. It's just it just doesn't work. So, I was very happy to see the 8.5 ft and I just want to confirm that it will be an 8.5 ft sidewalk.

The architect says it's correct. Okay, great. And on the um second street that is now 10 feet uh no sorry 8.5 feet from the building wall to the edge of the curb and I understand that's going to be uh end up being six feet. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay. Uh, side works. Is the tree numbered? And what kind type of tree is it? No, the number three is I can't read it. It says focal point flowering accent tree. Okay.

So, it doesn't call it out. Okay. My final question. Um, did you consider stepping back uh the third floor on the Mount Diablo facade. It it clos it steps back on the east and west facades but not on the Mount Diablo facade. Did you consider stepping back on the Mount Diablo facade?

It's a spine and we kind of stacking on both sides. So, it's kind of that that that's the longest in order to make eight units fit of the size we think we need. That was the only way to do it. I mean certainly if I dropped two units on each floor we could have done it but that's not making the project viable. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from council?

Yeah, mayor if I might. Um just two two questions. Um the access to the commercial space and the live work space for ADA. How does one access because I saw there are steps down in front of the lobby area, but is there any way to get to the commercial and the live work?

Well, actually, this is being recorded, so I'd have to ask you to come to the microphone so we can get it in the public record. Yes. All spaces on the ground floor are ADA accessible. There is a ramp located on the second street side of the lobby along the building where you where you come down to this area. Do you think um staff could put the image up?

Oh, okay. No worries. Um okay. So I I I think I know where you mean. So the second street corner, the lobby has a wraparound on the corner, right? There's glass on both sides. So, it's at that second street area. You would be able to walk without steps, but you'd have to go all the way around the building to get to the live work space or the commercial space. So, if you were coming, say from, say, coming home from Whole Foods, you would be walking down the street going east. You would then have to pass your apartment, go all the way to the corner, go all the way down, come back in. That that's the the layout. Okay. Um and the other question I have is for your second level um horizontal screening over the podium, will there be any visibility to cars inside? Will that screening obscure?

Yes. What's the Yeah, that's the intent. We we have no we have no fully openings. We have uh the only openings we have have a a slat a horizontal slat screen. So there will be no direct visibility of cars. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, we have one more question. My apologies. Um I raised this earlier. I forgot to follow up with you, but um access to that second level parking structures off of Oakill Court.

Narrow road. There's an apartment building on the other side. I think sometimes vehicles are parked there. I'm sure you looked at this, but I would think it could be a tricky access point. Did you How have you worked that out? Yeah. No, good observation, right? The engineering saw it too. They're requiring us. It's I forget what the width of the road is now. It's like 15 16 something like that. Now, they want us to widen it to 20 to that very specific for that reason. So, we're going to widen it and make it work. But they looked at it from an engineering perspective. Um and even though it's an existing condition, it was a requirement for us to widen it and we said yes.

Okay. Okay. And then maybe one last thing which is there may not be any way to address this but you've got across the street a building with many many elderly individuals um during construction. I could see that that could create kind of a hardship for that population. I don't know there's any way to sort of mitigate things the construction process. Have you thought about that? Um, it's kind of a unique setting given the property across the street. I don't know if that's if you've talked about it with the Mal Gardens management or not, but I'd just be curious.

I mean, I I have not talked to them about it and I think we will communicate when we get to construction. I'm hoping um that I'm able to build this and actually build a project. There's a ton of projects in Lafayette which have gotten approved and nothing gets built. So, I'm optimistic that I'll get there. Um, obviously a lot of things have to line up and when I get to that stage and financing markets in place, the markets we're not in a recession, there's a good outlook, construction costs are in control, lumber comes from Canada, whatever, right? When all those things line up, um, at that point I think is a time when I go to the merit gardens and try to figure out something so that the inconvenience is minimized, but I'm not anywhere close to that yet.

Yeah, appreciate that. Thank you. One quick question which which this this diagram reminded me that I had for just I'm just kind of curious on the EV the EV you have EV on these uh parking spaces. What infrastructure is there on each space? Is it just pre-wired? Are you actually are there actually charging pedestals or how does that work for a system like I mean I just don't even know like as a a complex like this it's just pre-wired for 220 volts and then depending on what kind of car you have you'll put your own charger in or you or you just go off 220 volts directly. My other building has the same thing. Every unit in the other building has it's pre-wired for EV and they just put a 220 volt in and depending somebody's got a Tesla, someone's got a Rivian, someone's got something else, they just plug it in.

Oh, and just kind of curious. So the the owner of the space cuz they're assigned spaces, right? So the space owner kind of configur configures it however or Yeah. that when they set it up just on day one, they're like, "Okay, this is the kind of car I have." And then if they want to have a specific type of charger, they put it there. Otherwise, they keep the other side the in in their car and they just plug into the car and plug into the wall. Y pretty pretty straightforward. Is there any public comment? To put it another way, we're opening now to public comment on this item.

Okay. The mayor and council members are taking public comments on items 13A. If you would like to speak, please fill out a speaker slip. I have two speaker slips for persons in the community hall. First speaker is Will New Hart to be followed by Ramon Amar. I may have butchered that name, but you can correct me when you're at the podium. So, uh, Will, three minutes.

Good evening, city council members. I'm here to ask that you deny the request for this project in its current state. I propose the project for two reasons. First, the design and use of space is totally out of character, not just for that stretch of Mount Dav Boulevard, but Lafayette in general. I hear many people sing the praises of Lafayette maintaining its semi-ural charm. But there is nothing semi-ural about this building. It is hulking. It is without character. And it's a boxy bland mass that I've seen a hundred times in cities all over California. As stewards of our city, you should approve projects that will leave a positive legacy on the visual footprint of our city. You've done this before. The Merkantile with its fountain and star motif, A+. The Town Center Apartments by BART with their shingles and ornamental tower, solid A. Heck, even the office building across from Trader Joe's with its forest animal motifs. It's dated, but it's unique. It's memorable. There's more semi-ural charm and whimsy in our tiny Taco Bell than this entire behemoth. If you're going to be big, be beautiful. And if you can't do that, at least be interesting. This building to me is neither. Reading the report notes, many of the design review commissioners offered similar concerns. I've seen them work. They are thoughtful and meticulous group, and if they have reservations, I would listen. Second, the design shows a total lack of awareness from the development group. If they took any time to research the area in Lafayette, they would know how ridiculous the design is. I'm aware that outdo Lafayette, which appears to be a holding company for a larger developer, Gar Developments, has a recent history of developing buildings in Lafayette, but that only makes this out of touch proposal worse. The design's lack of offsets and terracing shows that their only concern is squeezing the profit they can out of this lot. They show, I mean, they see us as a rich, desirable community with land in a mandate to build. One of their requests tonight is the state density bonus, so they can build all 31 proposed units. To qualify, they must have 3.45 45 below market rate units to qualify and they have exactly three below market

rate units and instead of converting a fourth unit to BMR, they opted to pay a fee for the fractional unit. Gee, I love that outdo Lafayette LLC is doing the bare minimum to help make Lafayette a more affordable place to live. As you highlighted, the two very lowincome units are wedged into the bottom floor next to parking. I'm sure future tenants will love feeling like they live in the steerage section of their building. The sheer number of waiverss and concessions requested should signal the developers lack of regard for our standards and community needs. Again, I'm not against building on this site. Please develop it, but be thoughtful in your voting this evening. Your decision will shape the face of Lafayette for a half century or more. You can either leave us with imposing soulless structures that become eyes for future generations or you can follow in the rich history of discerning council members who gave us the wayside in the park and town hall theaters, the pizza antigga building, Lafiesta Square, city plaza, the library and the merkantile. All beloved, all timeless. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions for the speaker? Okay. Thank you very much, Ramon. and you can correct my pronunciation of your last name.

All good. Uh, good evening, mayor, council members. Uh, my name is, uh, Ramona Maral. I'm a field representative for the North Coast States Carpenters Union, formerly known as the NorthCal Carpenters Union out of Local 152, which covers Lafayette. I'd like to point out that the North Coast State's Carpenters Union are pro- housing and see the dire need of more housing in our communities. With that said, we are also pro worker. My experience have shown developers coming into the city proposing a project and using incentives and streamlining only to choose an irresponsible general contractor who exploits workers with unlivable wages and no benefits using unskilled labor causing costly delays and unsafe working conditions. Selecting a responsible general contractor ensures a safe and clean job site built on time and on budget. using a skilled workforce trained by a state certified apprenticeship program and earning a fair livable wage while also obtaining health benefits and a retirement plan for themselves and their families. This project has the potential of being a true community benefit as long as strong labor standards are imposed and with the use of a responsible general contractor. I urge the council to adopt labor standards to ensure that the developer are held accountable for selecting of the general contractor. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you very much. Mayor, council members, there are no additional speakers on this item at this time.

Okay, we'll close the public comment and bring it back to the council. But actually, sorry. Before we close the public comment, we'll give the uh applicant a chance to respond if they wish to respond to any of the public comments. Okay, applicant is indicating no interest in responding. Uh so we'll close the public comment and we'll bring it back to the council. Do we have um anyone want to start just general comments? Um, okay. So, there's there's things that I like about this that I think are good. Um, and I'll just run through them. Um, I think replacement of the aging commercial structure with needed housing, that's a plus. Um, I'm in favor of a affordable three-bedroom unit. Um, I think that's an appropriate inclusion. Um, inclusion of commercial space I think is very important. I agree with Council Member McCormack. Um, I appreciate the regularity in the fenestration, at least in this type of plane. Um, I like that there are no curb cuts on Mount Diablo, that the parking access is on Second Street and on the the other Orchard Hill. Um, I'm really appreciative of the bulboutouts that you've put in on the corners. um and that you've retained the sidewalk on Second Street and that the bike parking was expanded. So, those are all the things that I think are really positive characteristics of the project as it's evolved. Um the the things I'm concerned about, I started to to mention the planted area on the pod above the podium and the the maintenance and the upkeep of that. Um, I think it's really important and, um, I'm concerned about entrusting

that to residents who, as you said, may want to move to this to not have a backyard and then suddenly are effectively told now you're maintaining these flower boxes, etc. And I think maybe possibly even are there trees on that level, some box trees as well. Okay. So, that that's that's just an observation, a concern. Um, I have a number, but let me see if I can maybe just start with the the biggest one, which I guess is the the massing, the dominance, the the heaviness of the Mount Diablo facade, um, is concerning. the the planted podium deck is is good, but it's not on the Mount Diablo side, so it does nothing to to soften the building's um really very heavy appearance. Um I think also that southeast corner, the lobby facade plane just continues all the way up to the very I think fifth level. Um, and that doesn't to me reduce the the perceived mass of the structure from the right of way from Mount Diablo. Um, and I think maybe one of the biggest things that that strikes me is the contrast of the materials. Um, that that central lobby area mass um is very dark in these renderings. Um, I mean, it almost to me looks sometimes like it's black and white or black and very pale pale cream. Um, and you know, I I think that it makes that volume very prominent and and almost like they're disjointed, the the pale beige column tower and then the the

large mass of the dark gray, dark dark brown. Um, and you know, I think it in terms of articulation, it makes the building look kind of graphically articulated, but not necessarily less massive. Um, and so to me, I I think if it was um less contrasting, it would be an improvement. It would bring the the black, gray, dark brown lighter a bit. maybe increase the the um the intensity, the saturation of the cream, but um to have it be less dramatic, I think might help the the appearance, the massing and that dominance at the at the curb from the curb. So, I'll leave it at that for now. Before we go on to the comments, I just want to um ask the city attorney um and I'm asking this in part in response to one of the public comments about the discretion the the council has to approve this item. What is the range of discretion that we have on this

given that it's multif family and affordable housing um and it complies with all of our object design objective standards and general plan and specific plan. We are very limited in terms of particularly design review given the comments we heard and trying to modify that based on state law. Okay. And what um there number of waivers have been requested. What uh discretion do we have in in deciding on whether to grant those waivers?

If you do not want to a finding um you are well aware of this finding. It's called the specific adverse impact finding relates to public health safety. Um it is a very challenging finding to make. So in order to deny a waiver, you would have to make that finding.

Okay. Would would it be fair to say, and you don't need to answer this if you don't want to, that uh in terms of the developer changing what's been put before it, it would have to be that the developer either or either sees it in the developer's own interest to make the change and or uh sees it as being a change that would contribute to the community by enhancing the look of the building on Mounta Boulevard. Yes, I think that's a fair statement. Okay, thank you.

Thank Thank you for asking those clarifying questions. Um I think my intent was to work hopefully with the applicant to achieve the best option that blends with the neighborhood context. That yes. No, my Yeah. And my was not at all in in response to your comments. I should have asked that question right after the public comment because exactly your questions are exactly the way we need to proceed tonight. Okay. Uh express what we see as improvements that could be made that would make it a better project recognizing that um given where we are, it's up to the applicant whether to make those changes or not.

Yeah, I appreciate that. I think one other note is to me was just looking at some of your Google Street View or Google Earth aerials just how how much the building stands out, how much that dark massing pops out because a lot of the buildings in the downtown are more in light um tones. Yeah, great. Thank you. Um, so just to kind of uh wrap up the conversation we had, which I appreciate um appreciate what you've been doing, think about the commercial side. Um, I my my request would be lean into the commercial. I think it's great to have a backup plan in case doesn't work. One thing I just want to address or you think about because you were talking about like how how much rates you could, you know, what kind of um, you know, the rent you could get for and all that kind of stuff. know at least on the branch side, you know, those uh those spaces were sold, right? Were purchased by business owners who did it. And I can tell you as a business owner in Lafayette, there are there are very very few buildings that a business owner could purchase and actually operate a place business out of. There's aren't that many, right? Many most places in town are are owned by families of long-standing and you can only rent and you got triple net. You have all these things. And I know there was great interest in the brand having those two great commercial spots along Monti. I would love to see the same energy there. So I guess we would be asking to take a li of leap of faith that we could get this side of Mount Diablo as vibrant as that side. But I would just love a more even more kind of commercial on that on that street to kind of get um get the energy because we want people to be walking. We want people to kind of walk the neighborhood there and and have places to sit and eat. So, I appreciate you want to be a cafe. Great. I think it's a great idea. Just love to kind of whatever we can do to the building itself to make it look a little more inviting and more commercial friendly, which again means big windows, you know,

place for signage, all that kind of stuff. It would be just just terrific. Um so, so thank you for um just for considering that because I think that would make it a great uh hopefully it'd be a win-win that you would have people surprising people lining up to hopefully purchase that as a commercial venue. Um, so that was kind of my thing. I think at the moment that's kind of my my biggest concern other than I appreciate what you're saying on the below marketing. I was, you know, I looked, they seemed very small. Like I could look 900 foot um two bedroom, you know, two-bedroom is like awfully small. It kind of squish in there. The price point though is um is attractive, I will say. I mean, if you're thinking of a 200 $300,000 price point, those do not exist in Lafayette. And so I really appreciate if we can get something to that level to have a chance to have somebody own in Lafayette at that price point um is worth some trade-offs. So I I do appreciate that that's that's here part of the um part of the building.

Thank you. Uh um I think I'd like to echo some of aspects of what uh Council Member Weatherspoon related and I do looking at the site as it is now with this really clunky looking one-story commercial building doesn't add anything and then having the prospect of housing there to me is a net win for the city. Um, but I look at the site, it's a big block of um, material on the street. It will like I think will have the greatest presence along the entire boulevard when all was said and done. So, doing it right to me is really critical. Um, if I only if I were king, I'd say, well, let's do this, but maybe not six stories. I'd probably be something more along the size of Mural Gardens. But I don't I don't have that discretion and neither do we under the Housing Accountability Act. I get that. But so I think trying to sort of like uh acknowledge the building and its massing but in a way that has less of a impact on the boulevard is is important. And um I really do appreciate the effort made by the developer, your team to respond to feedback from this design review commission, the planning commission, this feedback here. Um, you know, we want a project that's going to be successful, fully occupied, and uh provides housing for people in this community. Um, and doing it in a way where it's net additive to the the street feel for on the most our our key artery in this community. So, I just put that out there. Um, I think with respect to the project, I lean towards the idea of a three be a threebedroom below market rate unit. Uh, I'd be willing to accept some kind of a trade-off on that because I think it's important to provide housing op greater housing options for lower income individuals.

So, that's would be a discussion point for us, I think. Um, and we would leave it for that for now.

Okay. Um, you know, given where we are in the process and the discretion or lack of discretion we have in uh deciding on these matters. Um, yes, I'm happy that um we're going to have housing in this location in this uh location that has been undeveloped and is not an attractive spot. Um, and I would not have made it six stories. I would not have brought it so close to the sidewalk to the street. I would have stepped back the frontage the way other buildings uh are are doing and what our soontobe objective design standards will call for. uh unless builders go into the density bonus and then we'll be in the same situation we are now. Um so I feel very frustrated uh in terms of uh uh this huge building going in which um you know the strongest praise I can give is that at least it looks better than anything in Walnut Creek. uh you put thought into how it's it's designed. It's not the same sort of boxy, but it is it's just it's it's a huge building without ah but it it it doesn't fit in. I mean, Merryill Gardens uh is one of my favorite buildings in Lafayette in the way that it's uh steps back uh the way it's been developed. It has the courtyard. It has the 10-ft sidewalk. It just sits very nicely on the boulevard and allows for people to go up and down the boulevard. And as I

mentioned, now going from from west to east, there's going to be a it's going to be constrained. The sidewalk is 8 and 1/2 ft. That would be be great. I just hope that in this process that doesn't narrow down because I think that would be a huge problem. uh if there's any way you can think of, you know, providing more room, providing a setback, I understand what you're saying about the spine of the building. You know, it all comes down to the number of units and I just think that's un unfortunate. So, it it's like the things that I'm commenting on are just embroidering around the edges. At least, please have a wide walking area along the boulevard. at least please try to have bigger trees that provide more of a a you know leafy barrier for the building. I mean right now the trees are I think 20 or so feet tall even though they've been topped. Um um but these crepe myrtles are not going to reach that height. And so you know we need trees that are going to do something to mask the the uh the base. So I I'm you know just do what we can and hope that uh that you will you know think about what can make it uh look better. Okay. So unless there are other specific comments I'd suggest we go to the resolution and the um Sure. Just to follow up um regarding trees, um I I'm disappointed that the tree replacement is not possible um given our really hot hot climate. Um I think it's just extremely unfortunate to reduce our downtown tree street census um and

exacerbate our urban heat island effect, not take care of greenhouse gases. I understand why the applicant is requesting this waiver and I understand the intent of the of the state density bonus law um is to expand housing units, but I just think this is an example where really legitimate policy interests collide. It's just an editorial.

You've reminded me of something I was going to get into during the question period and I saved it. But we do have the downtown street improvement plan which calls basically four rows of street trees along the side of the street. And uh the intention was that there would be this this uh along the boulevard these large uh large trees and um I just hate to see this at le half of a block, you know, be a dead spot in that lineup of of trees. So, if you please uh consider that. Um I think those are a variety of oak tree that are planted. It's a red oak I think that's planted in front of Merryill Gardens. We think about planting that. That's I believe one of the approved street trees in the downtown street improvement plan. Um because we just have to have some you know size of trees, some screening of the of the building. Okay. Now, there's one issue we'll go to the resolution, but the one issue that you've each alluded to is the the um three-bedroom uh uh affordable unit. Now remember that is tied to the question of dispersion of the units because even though the applicant was willing to do the three-bedroom staff determined and I agree with the staff finding that you still do not have dispersion of of the units throughout the building. So it's beyond just it it isn't a question of three bedrooms versus

uh public art. it's three bedrooms and also agree to having the two uh two units on the same you know waving saying you can make the finding that the units are dispersed through the building versus the public art sorry could you repeat that I didn't quite understand that that clarification

there's there's two there's two parts to it it's not just have providing a three unit uh apartment it's also we have to make a finding uh in order to avoid the applicant needing to use the concession to say that no the to say yes the three apartments are adequately dispersed throughout the building. Right. But I did think I was on my understanding though that the threebedroom versus two-bedroom was kind of a trade-off with public art. No, it's not. That's that's a point I'm trying to make. Okay. Did I misunders Okay.

It's not that's not a straight trade-off. is e even if no it's that's not the trade-off you have to be they have to correct me if I'm wrong but they have to meet the um criteria with respect to the the size and dispersion of the u below market rate units. Yes, that's correct, mayor. If um if you look at the code section right there, um there's the the section of the code that says inclusionary units must be dispersed throughout the project and be comparable in terms of bedroom count and exterior design to the market rate units. So it's two-part

and then so um the applicant if they if they propose the three-bedroom units, they would meet one part of the provision. However, um staff does not believe that they meet the dispersal uh portion of the provision unless um I mean but the city council can also um make a determination as to whether they're meeting the dispersion requirement. So on the left is the current distribution. you have um the two you know BMR units concentrated um here on level two and then um one right here. So it's I you know staff believes that this is a more um proportionate dispersion um since the BMR units are concentrated on level three, four and five. But it's really up to the city council to make that determination.

But and to clarify on the graphic on the right, um on the second floor, you would have two market there should be two market rate units there, right? Because there are two units on that second floor. Yeah, that's why it's a taller green square on the left there. Right. There's two. There's nothing on. Okay. I didn't see. Yes. on the right it doesn't have it because the the green below market rate units this is a proportional distribution and then staff is trying to illustrate that a more proportionate distribution is if the below market rate units were located on three four and five right but there would be two units on that second floor in this case in that scenario be they both be market rate

that's not what it's saying though because it' be this is where I'm confused on this one I understand I understand conceptually what proportional means. This this but if we if if your bars add up to 31 units on the current distribution, don't the bars have to equal 31 units on the proportional distribution? So wouldn't you you can't I mean they do. Do they? I mean you would just say you need more units on unit on levels three, four, and five then. No, I'm saying instead of the units being concentrated on level two, a a more proportionate distribution if is if it was low. No, what the council member is saying, where did the units on floor two go? Yeah. I mean, like I mean those were the only below market rate. I mean,

no, no, no. But if you're Where did they go? I mean, if they they went to three and four. I mean, they went to three and five. So, but under doing that, the applicant then had had to squeeze down the others.

I want to speak at Yeah. Can you Okay. Okay. Can we comment?

Uh yeah. Yes. Just Yeah. Go ahead. So, so we we put the the I mean the elegance of the solution to putting the two BMRs on the second floor is that they also served to shield the garage. If we disperse them on the upper floors then then we would expose the the garage again. Uh I I would also like to note because we we do this often uh planning these buildings we fully understand the planners motivation to to optimize the the the distribution here. However, we would just like to note that architecture is not a fully a fully flexible malible affair. I mean there are multiple uh factors that influence floor planning which uh Nikil mentioned before stacking uh floor plan overall layout. So you do your best but there is there's always like you can get maybe to 80% but to to mathematically come to 100% this is rarely what what you see because it would just lead to very unoptimized otherwise very strange uh situations. So, so it's it's almost a very typical and normal situation that in in in in a case for the for the distribution that you get there to 80% to 90% and and that that's pretty okay. So, what we would just ask is is that what we show good enough for for for the distribution and particularly taking into account we only have three units. So I mean if you have like let's say 12 BMR units there

is more flexibility but if you only have three you know well you put two in one location and one in the other and one is higher up in the building in a tour lower down and you know so yeah this is what we requesting. So, if I could clarify, yeah, because I think this I was under the impression that um there were still going to be two units on that second floor. If the BMR units were moved upstairs, so to speak. What you're telling me is no. Uh it would be just the garage. It would be that big wall that I saw in some of the schematics. Is that am I understanding this correctly? That is correct. Yeah.

Yeah. And let me add to that, right? The way we made space when we got feedback to say this is a too big a building. How do you provide room and reduce the bulk? So, we reduced the number of units on the top floor. I was like, okay, I still want to build that many units. Where do I put them? Those stepbacks where we lost those 2 3,000 ft was put into the into the second level. So, I can say, okay, I mean, if we wanted to go down and go through this exercise and rehash it, it would entail get rid of those, go back up and make the sixth floor even taller, right? Because then you won't have the step backs. If I want to get the same output, right, sellable square footage, it's not going to disappear for the pro project to pencil, I need that square footage. So, we went through all those things and determined that this was the best place because it hit both objectives. It kind of shields the garage and the upper level.

Yeah. Yeah. I will say I think the spirit of I mean many do here, right? Do you have Well, I'm I'm do you I do I have an observation or a question? I'm sorry. Okay. Well, I'm just don't want to keep the back and forth.

Sorry. I'm sorry. I would That's fine. No, you can sit down. I just I It's more of a comment. I think perhaps that the um Thank you very much. I think the the intention of dispersal though is to make sure that the people in the BMR units don't feel like secondass citizens, right? And what we have here I I understand the technical I understand like the the ge geometric constraints that we're under and I'm certainly sympathetic with the stacking and having want the same floor plan up and down. Let's just observe though that we have the second floor to these two units um next to the garage. Uh one of them is right across from a bathroom. Uh they are uh in the elevator. Um and you walk out your door and you go into the parking garage, these two units. So it is it is certainly um doesn't feel integrated into the neighborhood of this complex unfortunately. So I just

Okay, I'll just make two observation. One, I think the applicant would say, as the architect did in his presentation, the way it's configured, it's almost you get off the elevator, you're in a suite, you go into your unit, if you come out and turn left, you go either into the lounge or the fitness center. So, you have access to those and it's a nice and you don't even see the parking lot unless you go to your your car. That would be the positive side of it. The way I look at it, I I I would be very reluctant to agree that these are that meets this particular requirement. I mean, it meets other um goals within the design, but I don't think it meets I don't think we can make a finding that they're dispersed throughout the project because it would set a precedent that we would never be able to get. I mean, it's it's just a terrible pre set that to to if somebody didn't understand the whole of the unit to say that you've got the two uh two of the three units are right next to each other. They're on the garage floor. They're separated from the rest of the units.

I would not want to make that finding that that that's dispersion of units. So, Stella and then Jim.

Yeah. Um I understand your your point. I I guess I don't I don't see it exactly the same way. Um I mean I dispersed throughout the project doesn't give absolute prescription in how they should be dispersed throughout the project. Um we only have three units out of 31. Um there's only is that five candidate floors to put them on. um maybe four really because I understand the sixth as kind of larger square footage. Um I mean I I don't see the second floor as necessarily being disadvantageous. Um I think I believe that it will be substantially separate from the garage through pullway doors etc. One aspect is convenience though. no need to take elevators up and down from your parking spot perhaps. Um I personally having been an apartment dweller in a in a college dorm and um I I like not having a whole lot of neighbors, not a lot of people traveling through the hallway. Um so I see that potentially as a benefit. Nice to be kind of one of two. Um the access also there is better to I think the lounge and the fitness center. I see those as trade-offs and and not necessarily um in in conflict with dispersion.

Okay, Tim. Yeah, a couple of thoughts. Monica, could you pull up the slide that shows that uh facade on Second Street? I think there's two there. One of which is with the um second floor being having the two two two-bedroom units. The other is just the parking garage. And maybe while you do that, I'll make a couple of comments. One of which is I think part of this is the problem of small numbers where we're trying to sort of got three three BMR units and we're trying to sort of like make them fit. Okay.

Yeah. And um so that that's one. The other kind of related to that is that sometimes it's the perfect is the enemy of the good and which is part of what I'm grappling with here. I would rather have the BMR scattered, you know, one on each floor above. That was my going in on this. But I think I realized that if we do that, then we end up with the if uh the presentation on the left, that's what Second Street would look like, as I understand it, because the the the having the BMRs on the two bedroom ones uh on that second floor makes that facade on the right work, as I understand it,

right? I think that's a much better look. No one's asking the applicant to move those units. Well, if the say we want to maintain proportional, which means having BMR units on the third, fourth, fifth floors, let's say, then as I understand it, the option on the right does not work and the applicant would seek a concession. That's what the applicant's asking for now. That's what's in the proposal before us, right? The concession is to drop the public art requirement as I understand.

No, no. The concession is to be able to leave keep the units together like like this that they don't have to meet the dispersal requirement. That's the concession. Yeah. But then as I So if that's the concession the developer gets then they would take on the public art requirement. Yes. Which as I heard them say does not the math doesn't work for them doing that. No. They said they said it would they can't do both. Right. They can't do the three bedroom unit and the art car. Right. So, you'd have three two-bedroom units. Correct. Yeah.

And that's the other thing I'm trying to hang on to, which is having that larger that have the three-bedroom unit as one of the three below market rate ones. And maybe that's the trade-off we make perhaps. Okay. You know, because I frankly prefer the look on the right than on the left. So are you saying just I'm maybe you can explain the our our trade-offs because you're right they're asking for the concession they're kind of like is the option is we acknowledge this don't dispers dispersion and then they get the concession to make it work. Is that

if if um if we agree that two units on the second floor, one unit on the fourth floor is adequate dispersal, uh and they change that to a three unit, uh then they don't need to use a concession and they'll use the concession on public art. But the key to that is to say we can make the finding that that's adequate dispersal. So I guess that's the first question, right? Because if we can't, they'll use the concession to get put it here. Yeah. So I take it that you're you're in willing to make that finding that that's adequate dispersal. I'm not

I believe. Okay. It's not adequate dispersal. It's not adequate dispersal. I'm not going to I don't see how it's not it's not. And uh I I I agree with council member Woods that there are certain advantages there, but there's advantages for any unit to be there then. It doesn't have to be the you know you can say it's any unit market rate one. I think the square footage comes into play though. It does because those are 900 something square foot units. So, I guess you could turn two into one market rate, 1,800, but I don't know if if I I don't know the square footages of all the different units, but 1,800 is probably one of the upper end.

So, I forget to because we're we're sort of deadlocked deadlocked on that item. If it were three twobedrooms DPMR, um then as I sort of understood it, then the changes the math on the developer side where we could make the dispersal work. No,

no, that no because you can't because the two units are still on the second floor on the garage level. So if Okay, so one one alternative because in neither case it's presented At least in my view, I don't think we can make the dispersal finding. And if you can't make that finding, then it does come down to do we um well, it'd be two three two-bedroom units. Um they would use the concession for that and then would have public art. Yeah, actually there's no other if we don't make the dispersion finding there's they have to use the concession for that. I think so.

Yes. So that is the key, right? Yeah. Right. Because the I am concerned the president is significant. If this isn't dispersion, then what is or is not dispersion? I mean, I think we've seen a long time ago maybe a proposal the I forget the name, the corporate terrace. I think they had talked about having one entire building block. That's correct. As the lower income that's clearly not dispersed, right? But that that was not just lower income. That was adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. There was a reason

and that was the rationale. Yeah. Right. Right. Why don't we hold this then and go through everything else and come back to it. Okay. So, looking at the resolution, we'll just go through it page page by page. Any uh changes on page one? On page two, I have a question. Um the sixth whereas on that page refers to the designer commission recommended option one as a preferred storm water treatment alternative for consideration. Is that just is that the uh bio retention on second street?

Yes. Okay. Any comments on page two? Page three. Oh number one commissions should be city councils. in the second line. Understood. Hereby adopted as the city council's own findings. Um, let's see.

Okay. Anything else on page three? Anything on four? Okay. So this this is important because these are the u uh the waiverss. Any comment? No. No. Okay. Over to the next page. Any comments on that page on to the next. The one that says major subdivision. Any comments there?

Well, except for I mean obviously we have a public art. Yeah, we'll come back to that. We're just going to skip ignore that for now. Yeah, but but if Yeah, we'll leave it there for now.

Um Okay. I would just note under the downtown design review paragraph D, I don't have page numbers, so I'm not sure anymore what page we're on, but downtown design review on the top and D project promotes a character relating to Lafayette that is informal with variations in architectural styles, massing setbacks and upper story setbacks. I just say it is what it is.

I mean, it it does qualify especially under the stamp today. So, Okay. Next page. Anything? Next page. Demolition permit. Nothing. Well, final page of the resolution. Anything. Okay. So, we're on to the one type of There is actually Yeah, it's been going for a while. I think the movement going on here. We can make sure. Okay.

All right. Okay. Exhibit A, the conditions of approval. Okay. Page one, I think. Page two, page three, page four, page five, page six, page seven. Okay. So on page eight, page nine, um question how we can put in the u the tree um protection. You'll either add that.

Yes. If um yes, when when plan when the city council makes a motion um the city council can um you know make a motion with the request that that staff add the tree protection to the conditions of approval and staff will make that change. Well, it's already there in number seven number 40 there. We just need to add 40 in the correct. Yeah, I think this that's the standard language. Oh, I see. I I think we need to call this this out. I didn't know if we were if we would augment that or be a separate one. Sorry.

Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I see. Yeah. Good. Okay. Uh 9 10 11 and again I note the public art. We'll come back to that if we go a different direction. 12. And that is it. Okay. So that was quick.

No, it's it's been through enough. Um, okay. So, we're back to our issue. Okay. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding it correctly. If if we if we cannot we have to make a finding that uh well in order for the applicant not to have to use a concession we would have to make a finding that the units are adequately dispersed. Yes. It's three a threebedroom or a twobedroom.

I mean even you you've said earlier they came back. Yes, we'll do a three-bedroom and then we have these two twobs and you said no, that still doesn't meet the dispersal requirements. Yes. Yeah. Right. Correct. And to clarify, because I watching the planning commission meeting, that was kind of a they get these got conflated, right? That was almost like a separate request during planning during the planning commission review about the the lack of diversity in the housing. And that was more right that almost didn't have anything to do. I seem to recall it wasn't even brought up. This is why it's hard these two these two things overlap but they're not necessarily related. Right. This was in response I believe the planning commission concerned about the lack of diversity housing didn't have anything to do with dispersion.

Right. Just it happens that there's two parts to that test. Yeah. And if if we can't find the dispersal then the test isn't isn't met. And then then I would understand the applicant saying would saying, well then it's going to be two units rather than three. I mean two bedrooms rather than three. I think that's the we break the deadlock, but I don't know how else we kind of Well, have you are you saying you can't vote for it?

I cannot. And I think part of my concern is there's um as I understand this better and I think I do um that with uh if we have a dispersal so all the BMR units are on floors three to five then that facade on Second Street's going to be that it's the garage. I I just think but Jim, my understanding the applicant under no circumstances is going to change that. Correct.

Yeah, that's that's not a possibility. So, it really I guess we said before it's art or um okay, in order for it to be a three-bedroom unit or public art, we would have to say the units are adequately dispersed. Okay. then then it's um we could get the if you if we wanted three bedrooms versus public art then we could get the three bedrooms. I just have real difficulty making that dispersal finding because of the precedent it sets because we're going to have other we know we're going to have other things come before us going to be pushing

Yeah. And I hear that again. I think it's um these projects are also all different in their own ways. In this case, we got 31 units and we're trying to spread three units on floor. So, um but I hear what you're saying. Yeah. I mean, if if it were simply a question of three-bedroom versus public art, then I think we could make a decision. I probably would still vote for the public art. Um but u but I think there's something deeper there that causes a problem. Yeah, it's the press.

So if we were to say no, can't have two two-bedroom units on the second floor, what happens with that space? No. No, we're not. We No, we we all we're um we're saying is we can't make the finding which we're This is one area we have discretion, right, about we can make the finding that these aren't adequately dispersed. The applicant has an option then to use a concession, right? So they can still make it happen.

Yeah. So they can they can make it happen. No one is going to force the two bedroom units. We can't do that out of the second floor. All we can say is that doesn't meet our we we can't make the finding that that's an adequately dispersed project and then the applicant uses the concessions. I see a concession. Yeah. So, okay. So,

yeah. So, let's just take a formal vote. Um, do we have a So, let's cl I just want to clarify what the formal vote would be. So, we're deadlocked on the on the finding. So, we can't make the we can't make the Well, that's the the vote's going to be on can we make that finding? And if you don't if we can't make it, then you need three votes to make the finding. Yeah. And if we don't have it,

right? Uh then um the applicant the materials as they're here stand the applicant's asking for a consession for the uh the fine and that we don't have to make the finding and uh we'll have three two-bedroom below market rate apartments and public art. Right. And to clarify on that, so we cannot make the dispersal finding. So then the question falls to there's is no question after that. They'll use a concession for that. They use a conc. Okay. All right. Okay.

Do you want a motion? You need a negative motion or positive? I want a positive motion. So you make um let's see. Um so if we move what's in this resolution here then well no just on this point and actually let's we can just take a I mean just ask for an agreement that it that this meets the uh requirement. So I can move then that we can make the dispersal finding. Yeah. Okay. Move we make I'll move just to keep the process moving here. I'll make I'll make a motion to approve the dispersal finding.

Okay. Second. Okay. And we'll do a roll call vote. Council member Witherspoon. I I No. No. So, the motion fails to carry. The applicant will use the uh make sure the city attorney is in agreement with the way we're proceeding. The the applica application as is before us stays the same. The applicant is asking for a concession and um then the public art requirements stay in here as they are. Yeah.

Okay. So now uh we need a motion to uh approve the resolution.

Oops. Okay. I I'll go ahead and make that. I can I make if I were because I want to add the tree protection. Okay, that's fine. Go ahead. Okay. I I move that we Okay. Make sure. Do we need to wait for anything? Make sure. Okay. Okay. I move approval of resolution 202624 uh with an amendment that provides for adequate protection for the herited oak on the um northeast corner of Mount Yappel Boulevard and Second Street. I'll second that. Um roll call vote again. Councilman Witherspoon

I I'm an I. So it's unanimous. Okay. Congratulations. And there is well no there is is there a no there is no appeal. Okay. So we will take a five minute break and resume at uh 9:40.

Okay, we're back in session and we're on item 13B. Nicole Ziddle will present.

Thank you, mayor, and good evening everyone, council members. My name is Nicole Little. I am the project planner for this appeal of a denial of a variance for a property 7 L Creek Lane. For some site context, located on the screen, the project site is located in the northeastern portion of Lafayette at the end of a private lane off of Relise Valley Road. Both seven and five Lark Creek Lane which are identified in the image to the right are under common ownership and the subject of the appeal of the variance is for seven L Creek creek Lane highlighted in green. What is shown is the existing and proposed barn um that as part of the variance request was to be converted um to a conditioned single family residence. This barn existed at the time of the 1997 minor subdivision. Um there was one lot and it was subdivided into three. So three, seven, and five Lark Creek Lane. And as stated, the variance request would convert this existing barn into habitable space. As outlined in the staff report packet, the planning commission reviewed the appeal um of the denial of the variance by the zoning administrator. Um the Vani Commission reviewed this in November of 2025 and upheld the zoning administrator's um denial of the variance request as they were unable to make the findings for a variance. Now I'll go into what we are seeing on the screen. So the existing barn storage is 1 ft 4 in from the sideyard property line which I've

highlighted in green. The existing barn's encroachment into the required 15 foot sideyard setback which is dashed in blue is approximately 13 feet 8 in whereas in the R20 zoning district in 15t sideyard setback is required and this non-conformance is the result of the original structures sighting and not due to any physical limitations of the site on the minor subdivision or the approved our tenative parcel map of the 1997 minor subdivision. On this property, there did show a proposed single family residence that would comply with all of the zoning regulations. This property is generally consistent with other lots in the R20 zoning district in terms of its size, shape, and topography. The site is relatively flat and unconstrained, allowing for reasonable development that could meet all applicable setback requirements, as demonstrated in the 1997 subdivision. The planning commission staff report analysis remains applicable in this city council agenda item that the findings for a variance still cannot be made. Public notice was sent out to neighbors in the vicinity and the immediate area was posted at least 10 days before this meeting, but no public comments were received. Um, before I get into the recommendation, I do want to point out a couple things. In city council draft resolution 202612 um on page one is4 one of the whereas statements um says whereas the November 17th 2024 zoning administrator meeting was canceled that should be corrected to

the August 17th 2024 zoning administrator meeting and on page two of the draft resolution the whereas statement whereas in November 2025 the applicant met with the city manager should be changed due in September 2025. The applicant met with the city manager. So staff's recommendation is that the city council find the project exempt from SQA and adopt city council resolution 202612 denying the appeal and upholding the planning commission's denial of design review 0724 and variance 0724. Thank you.

Okay. Are there questions for staff? Just may I'd just like to just disclose that I did uh visit the property last week. Just in full disclosure, I met with the applicants um and toured the uh the barn and chat with them about their project. Just in interest of uh just disclosing that. Okay. You Okay, I'll disclose I did visit the property today too and also disclose I was on the planning commission in 1997 when the property was subdivided, but I assume that doesn't matter for this purpose. Okay. Okay. questions for staff.

Oh, I I have a question. Um, so the issue here is that it's there's a 15t setback requirement because we have two separate lots, albeit under the same owner. Um, and which is the makes build converting this barn into a residence problematic. If there were no lot line separation, in other words, these lot five and seven were one, does that setback problem go away?

So, if the lot line were to be dissolved and five and seven were to be merged into one lot, then the barn as it exists as a non-habitable structure uh would yes conform with the setbacks. um if it were if it were to go down the path of being converted, there are options available um to the property owners if they wanted to convert that um an ADU, Senate Bill 9, right? So, it could be an ADU. I I understand we have certain size limits on ADUs and this may not fit that but um

so in our in our ADU ordinance um the conversion of a existing detached structure granted this would be if the lot line were dissolved um it would be the conversion of existing space to a class B ADU and there is no size regulation on a class B ADU okay thank We can hear from the applicant and uh you'll have 10 minutes if you Okay. And good evening. Thank you for having me here, giving me this opportunity. Um, I I have no uh differences in the findings or the facts and all of that. We we get it. Okay. No arguments on all of that. So, the reason I'm here and I don't know if it would help to provide some narrative on how we got here. Uh, and there's actually only one small discrepancy in I think it's Nicole, right? what she just said in the appeal in November. Um, at the meeting, uh, we were told that the if we dissolve the lot line, I I believe I'm going from memory that, um, the barn structure being, 1300 square foot fate would u exceed the ADU. Uh, but what I just heard is that it does not. So that's something different than what I was told I believe. Okay. That that's my only discrepancy. And if

that is actually available to us, uh that's something that we we need to think through. But since we didn't know about that, uh that that is currently not top of mind for me. Does that make sense? Yeah. So far I'm just might mention in the minutes from the uh planning commission meeting it was actually uh Mr. uh Kubachek yes

who said he noted that the existing building is over 1,200 ft and the maximum square footage for ADUs in the city is 1,200 square feet if they merge the two lots. So unfortunately that statement is of Mr. Kubichek is not does not reflect the actual situation. Thank thank you for that. Like I said, I'm going from memory, but at that same meeting though, the planning commission did not correct that statement. So, we were led to believe that statement was accurate.

Okay. So, um yeah, how we got here. So, we bought the property a couple of years ago and everybody told us that this was not going to be a problem or issue. So, that it is what it is. um you know you know I I I think these meetings and I'm speaking as a you know not an expert right just a a resident by the way 19 years in Lafayette and I don't know if it makes a difference but uh I think a pretty outstanding citizen of Lafayette okay um so um you know when we go to these meetings whether it was planning commission or you, the council and the mayor. Um, you can look at these um appeals and you can approach it from the perspective of finding a reason to deny it which clearly there are basis for it. Or you can ask the alternative question is that if we approve it, does it improve the community? It's two different ways to look at the same question. And and what I submitted as a letter was that I think the community would be better off if we were given the opportunity to make this barn a two-bedroom, two bath unit, right? or dwelling because uh we would definitely it it was contingent on the um improvement of the fireproofing for the roof. So we would replace the roof with a higher level of fire safety and also the siding. So that that's a benefit not just for me but for everybody in that neighborhood. All

right. So I I would ask you to really think about this. You know, the whole point of variances is you got to look at everything uniquely, right? If you don't, there's no need for a variance. You just go by the rules and done deal. So, I I would ask that you think about it in a way to balance the the pros and cons of it and um you know, consider us uh giving us this uh this variance, you know, on that. So, I told you this was going to be very short because there's not a lot of controversy. It was just a simple balance of values and uh I I think the uh the neighborhood. Now, I I guess one last thing I I hate for the way this might sound is not intended to be, you know, threatening or argumentative since the denials. Um, we've the the reason I'm here alone is there's no architect, there's no attorney representing me, right? Because I kind of nixed the idea. We we did talk to a law firm and a developer and they suggested that we go the route of 1123 and they said if you go down that route, you know, you you have a lot more latitude and you can do a lot of things, but it won't really achieve what we want. We wanted this to be her dream home. That's how this whole thing got started, right? And um you you know, I I think what we're proposing um is is really a a a pretty good compromise because um it makes no changes to the square footage of the barn structure, right? There's no external visual changes to the way it looks. we don't raise the height. All of our neighbors would be actually pretty

happy about that. And the alternative is for us to turn this into a financial development. And I don't think any of our neighbors would would want that. That is an option for us. But I I I do not believe that's the spirit of the Lafayette community, and I wanted to comply with that. So, I'm going to leave it there. Um, any questions for me? Questions? Yes.

Yeah. Great. So, thank you for your statement. So, um, given what we just learned and guess we have to figure out why you why we've been misleading. So, if it is possible to dissolve a lot line and then classify as an ADU and then you could do what needs to be done. Does that change your does that seem a viable approach to you? my boss way in. You need to step up, guys.

You know that having two lots is my dream, you know. Yeah. And this this barn is for my um so I can take care of my older sister and I'm getting old too. So for me to drive, she live currently live in Orinda. for me to drive during the night time to visit her. If she's in bad health, if she leave next to me, I can just walk over there and take care of her. But his question is, are you okay? Well, because I like two lots, you know, it is more valuable for two lots than one. I understood. Yeah. I guess this does give you a path to kind that was a path we didn't know about.

Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. So, it's a little bit of a Okay. Thank Thanks. Any other questions for us? Nope. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I'm just going to ask if this is new information for the applicant. If the applicant wanted time to think it over, would we bring this back at another meeting or should we proceed tonight? I'm asking the city attorney. I don't think the findings can be made on the variance. So, you can proceed on this action. If they were to choose to move forward with a merger or some other aspect, that would be a separate application. Okay. All right. Is there any public comment?

Mayor Anduri, I have no speakers in the community hall and I have no hands raised in our virtual audience.

Okay. So, we'll bring it back to the council who would like to go first. I'll start off. When I first saw this item, I kind of wanted to figure out a way to make this work. I said I figure look you've got a barn structure converted into another unit all good as I u because you can create a little more housing even if it's one unit that's to me a net positive um and I get the circumstances in this family's particular case. I I guess the problem I ran into is we had a discussion on a lot line variance just a few weeks ago on Spring Hill Lane and could not make the findings and therefore uh denied that property owner's request. Uh this is even tighter. I mean it's like a foot and a half off the lot line. Um, and you know, as I I think I felt like we we stuck to the black and white of the law in the prior case. I think we need to do that here. I'd love to find a creative solution to facilitate this family's, you know, priorities and maybe dissolving the lot line, doing an ADU might get there. I I'm hardly an expert on this at all, but um I I I don't I think that the planning commission did the right thing. I I don't see how uh I could support a variance on this because it's black and white. Once we do it here, I kind of think to the mayor's prior point in the last discussion, I think you got a precedence issue. So, I'll leave it at that. Yeah, I would just um I would echo that. I think uh I do appreciate what they're trying to do. They're doing a high quality work. The barn is a great structure. saving it like it is. It's just it's just uh I applaud their creative thinking. Uh that being said, I

just think that the precedence because that lot you the the building could go a bunch of different locations. That's lots currently configured. It's really hard to see how we would approve it without really opening up um a lot of a precedent setting that is not um not warranted. So I appreciate I accept that uh we have an outstanding citizen Lafayette. Absolutely. and uh but it's hard to really kind of make that finding given the circumstances.

Um yeah, I concur. Um I do hope though that there are some options like the ADU pro possible lot consolidation um maybe SB9, but I would encourage the the owners to work with the planning department on all of the possibilities. But yeah, I can't make the the finding. Yeah, I would just note that in uh Mr. Kubichek's letter to staff in February February 21st, 2025, he states that the building for which we are requesting a variance is an existing building where we're changing the use from storage facility to living quarters. It is not a rare situation in Lafayette where an existing building is converted to living quarters in close proximity to a property line and um staff was not able to come up with any case where that actually has happened. And I guess just a couple of comments. I I understand what you're saying about um finding what's in the best interest for the community, but one of the things that we have to think about in terms of being in the interest of the community is an applicant or being able to come before the council and everyone being treated the same. And um if we make an exception in one case, we set a precedent that means we'd have to make it in another and we would have applicants coming to us and not knowing whether we are going to, you know, make a special exception in their case and we just can't have it. I mean the best interest of the community is to have a system that is decided the same for for everyone. The other comment I would make is that one of the things I learned early on my years of the planning

commission is that you never take into consideration, this may sound harsh, but you never take into consideration who the people are who are making the application because the building is going to be there long after the people go. And uh we have seen a couple of cases where a special um well let's say not in the variant situation but decisions were made because it was somebody's dream home and then a year later they left and the neighbors were left with someone else's dream home which was not uh optimal for them. And um so we just have to think about the you know what what the the building rather than the uh the people. So um I think it's it's pretty clear we can't grant the variance. We haven't to my knowledge we've never done it in a case similar to this and there's so we really can't do it now. So um entertain a motion to adopt the resolution. I'll move it.

Okay. So, moving adoption of city council resolution 2026. Oh, I'm sorry. Correction of of an apologies. 202621. 21. Uh transposition. All right. Okay. Is there a second? No. Second. Okay. All in favor? I So the um resolution adopted and the appeal is denied.

Okay. Hey, we're on item 14, the item removed from the consent calendar. This will go quickly. that was in the minutes. And um I think it's page 21 of 27. There's a misquote. Um uh it states that the money that um I mean the statement was made correctly on the day. Uh the minutes show that uh it says that Tracy said that the money for uh Kana came out of the parking fund. It actually came out of the city office fund.

Great. actually have another Oh, go ahead. Um on page eight, uh it says on um vice said it's just the restriction only applied designated red flag days and also said he noted that Arinda has installed signs saying no parking red flag days. Um Nicole, thank you very much. Thank you, Nicole. That was um that was not me saying that there was no Arinda had no parking on red flag days because I did not I was not aware of that until that was spoken. I don't remember who said it. It just wasn't me. So, Susan, I think it was Susan. It was Susan's. Yeah. So, we She's not here tonight.

Yeah. Top top of page eight. Yeah. Third paragraph. I just think it's Susan. You know, Council Member Candell noted that Arinda has installed signs saying no parking red flag days. So, okay. So, I have a motion for approval of the minutes with the two corrections. So, moved. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I.

Okay. So, um, okay. I didn't realize. Okay. So, Council Commission reports. Anyone have anything to report? Okay. All right. Um, on to 15B, appointing one member to the environmental task force. Council member Withers.

Yes. Um, so last month, council member uh rather Mayor Anduri and I had the good um pleasure of meeting with two applicants for the environmental task force and we would like to put forward a recommendation to appoint Derek Siver to the environmental task force. He brought enthusiasm and background from his work in San Jose with environmental issues and we thought he would be a very active and positive member. Hey, is there any public comment? Mayor Anduri, there's no public comment at this time.

Okay. Is there any discussion? You want to go ahead and make the motion? Sure. So, I move that we appoint Derek Siver to the environmental task force. I'll second that. All in favor? I Okay, thank you. And we're on to 16A. Uh, email from Seabir Williams requesting a proclamation recognizing April as autism awareness month in Lafayette. We have the proclamation. Does anyone have any question? Is there any public comment?

No comments. We have a motion. I move we uh proclaim or recognize April as autism awareness month in Lafayette. I'll second that. All in favor? I I unanimous. We're on to B. Email from Laney Whit Connect, campaign chair for measure H, requesting a resolution of endorsement from the Lafayette City Council. Um, do we have a anyone who would like to speak on this topic? Is there any public comment? No public comment.

Okay. You're here for insurance purposes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Okay. Any comment? We go right to the motion. I will um I'm sorry. Comment. Sorry, you about to make a motion. I was going to make a motion, but you want to comment?

I just wanted to make a comment that I I think that what I've read here is this notion of, you know, strong community needs strong schools. And I, you know, in a in a community like ours where we talk Green Hills great schools, you got to make great schools work. And great schools need stable funding, which to me is what this measure H is really maybe our best letter. Let's hope for lots of hope. So, thank you. Great. Well, then uh I would like to uh make a motion that we um we have a resolution of endorsement from the Lafayette City Council for uh the approval of measure H.

Okay. Is there a second? Okay. In terms of discussion, I'll just say that Vice Mayor McCormack and I used the two city council slots uh to attend the the launch party uh on uh Tuesday and it was fantastic. The energy level was just incredible. The two co-leaders of the campaign are incredible. Made incredible presentations. I like the focus of the campaign on cander and you know just well this measure has to pass. I mean there's just no question about that. It's the way we looked at our measure h in a second.

Um but it's I think it's even a more severe situation and so um yeah I think this is the right thing for the city to get back behind this. I know that all of us uh each of us individually supports it and uh yeah the schools are what bring people to the community and all right in favor I it's unanimous. Thank you.

Okay, we're on to C request for Mary McCusker um and the alkaline chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution for proclamation recognizing the Marquita Lafayette. is a proclamation they would like presented on April 11th when they will there will be after the DR meeting in the library a militia and a perhaps a fifth and drum corps will march to the statute. So um is there any public comment? No comments. Okay. Um, I have a motion for adoption of the proclamation.

I move adoption. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I. It's unanimous. I thought of something where the mayor wears a sash like they did in France. Thought of amending the interesting idea. That's right. Maybe there is that sash.

Okay. And then the final item um email from Maria Gastel Mundi resigning from environmental task force and um as we accept the resignation just thank her for seven years of of service on the environmental task force but even more than that for the p personal and professional example that she's set through the rising loafer and through her own work on environmental causes. It's uh just been quite a record and I know she's going to keep that up. He just will not be on the environmental task force. So we thank her for all that she's done.

Yeah, absolutely agreed. Many many thanks to Maria for her hard work on behalf of our environment for the betterment of Lafayette. Okay. And if there is nothing else uh we will adjourn.