City Council - Regular Meeting

One of the first motions proposed was John Adams, supported by Samuel Adams, that the Congress begin its proceedings with prayer. Reverend Jacob Duchesne, an Anglican clergyman from Christ Church in Philadelphia, was invited to lead the opening devotion on September 7th. He opened with an extended prayer and read aloud from several... Oh, sorry. He opened with extended prayer and then read aloud from several chapters of Scripture, including Psalm 35. A positive reception for the inaugural prayer led to the Congress to institutionalize the practice. The chaplain was appointed, and each subsequent session opened in prayer, establishing a precedent that continues to this day. Far from being a ceremonial formality, the prayer was regarded by many as a source of moral clarity, national purpose during a time of political crisis and impending conflict. And I'm running out of time, so I'll just read a short excerpt from that prayer. O Lord, our Heavenly Father, high and mighty, King of kings, Lord of lords, who does from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reigns with power supreme, uncontrolled over all kingdoms. We beseech thee on these our American states who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on thy gracious protection. I'll cut it off there. I'm looking forward to the history lesson for Lafayette and how that relates to Washington. There's a YouTube video I'll send you a link of where Lafayette discussed his view of slavery with George Washington. I would like to ask the council to consider a time of prayer at the 250 celebration. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other questions? Thank you.

Seeing no other speakers.

Okay, we'll close public comment and we'll move to the city manager's update.

Thank you, Mayor. Here's an update from all the city departments. From the police department, Chief Williams and Emergency Services Coordinator Andy Comley participated in a multi-agency tabletop exercise, which was hosted by the city of Orinda. And the scenario was a wildfire that starts in Orinda and then spreads into Lafayette and Moraga. and the discussion focused on how we could all work together, not only the cities, but the fire and police agencies as well, to address such an event. And attendees included all La Rinda staff and chiefs from all La Marinda cities, MOFD, Contra Costa Office of Emergency Services, and the Community Warning System, or CWS staff. From the Public Art Committee, there are three new exhibits that have been installed for the summer season under the title, Points of Reference, Three Perspectives on Lafayette's Past. And it's being presented by the Lafayette Historical Society and the Public Art Committee as part of Lafayette's observance of America's 250th anniversary. In the Don Tustin Community Hall Gallery, watercolors by John Finger reflect on the legacy of General Lafayette, while the Homework Center Gallery features 1950s aerial photographs of our city with familiar landmarks highlighted. And in the library lobby display case, artifacts of the Sakhalin people honor the region's earliest inhabitants and the deepest history of this place. Along those lines, there are flyers at the back of the room and on your desk. And this is Lafayette celebrating our country's 250th birthday and the Marquis de Lafayette's role in American independence today. The celebrations are going to be held on Thursday, July the 2nd from 4 to 6 p.m. And there will be a film screening on General Lafayette, the lost hero. You can find more details on our Web site. And finally, from the Planning Department, Lafayette, along with our neighbors, Arenda and Moraga, have selected RRM Design Group to design a collection of pre-approved ADU plans for public use. Residents should be on the lookout for feedback opportunities in the coming months. And once we have these permit-ready, pre-approved ADU plans, The plans will be made available to the public at no cost to local property owners. We estimate this project to be completed in early spring of 27. With that, I'd be happy to answer questions.

Okay, thank you. Are there any questions from the council? Are there any comments from the public? Okay, thank you very much. We now move on to presentations, and our Assistant City Manager, Tracy Robinson, will lead us in some very important introductions.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. I'm going to introduce you to three new people that are at city offices. The first is Michael Wong. He is our new assistant engineer. Michael graduated from UC Davis in 2024 and recently worked as a design engineer at a consulting firm in private land development. says he's always enjoyed public sector work and the opportunity to contribute directly to the community. So he's really looking forward to working here. Something that we ask all new employees to sort of get to know them a little among other things is what is a delightfully random fact that you know by heart? And Michael says that Norway once knighted a Scottish penguin. and i looked that up because i was skeptical but it is in fact true um his name is major general sir neil's olav the third um he's actually the second penguin to be knighted so Next, we have Ben Lee. Ben is an engineering intern. He's going to be with us this summer. He is in the middle of a career transition. He graduated from Cal 10 years ago. Yes. And after working, he knew that he wanted to do something more meaningful, something that would make an impact. on the world that mattered to him. So he started volunteering for the Bike East Bay and SF Bike Coalition. He says that he bikes everywhere and has never owned a car. which is a delightfully random fact, actually. And after finding that amazing community and having a lot of conversations about biking and transportation, he decided to pivot. And now he has just completed his first year at Cal Poly SLO, pursuing a master's in civil engineering with a focus on transportation. So we're very glad that he's here this summer to work on some projects. And his delightfully random fact is that the yield triangles on roads are called shark teeth. I also looked that up and it is in fact a known thing that it's called. So great, we're going two out of three here. And last we have Julia Comley. Julia is an administrative intern with us this summer and she's very excited to join us. She was raised in Lafayette and she's actually the daughter of Andy Comley. And after she earned her bachelor's degree in sociology and her master's in counseling, she has been working as a school counselor, but she's eager to contribute to her community in a new capacity. And we're looking very much forward to having her help us on some projects. And her delightfully random fact is that Scotland's national animal is the unicorn. Also true, looked it up. We don't know if the Loch Ness Monster was mad about being passed over for that. But we're very happy to have these interns with us this summer. And of course, Michael is here as a regular employee. Thank you.

All right. Well, welcome. Would any of you like to say anything? No requirement that you do? All right. Well, yes, if you'd like.

Yes.

Yeah, like my intro pretty much said everything about me, but I'm super excited to be here. There's a lot of cool. There's a lot. I'm super excited to be down. Right. Okay. Great. Okay. Yeah. Super excited to be here. I'm already seeing a lot of the cool construction projects going on. A lot of cool things for me to be a part of, and I'm just grateful to be a part of it.

Okay. Thank you. Welcome. All right. Oh, please.

Yeah, I just wanted to say I'm really grateful for this opportunity. Like Tracy said, I grew up in Lafayette and I really, this place holds a special place in my heart. I spent 18 years here growing up and then I moved away for a little bit and came back because I love it so much here. So I'm just really excited for this opportunity to really get to work with the people of Lafayette and also with the people that work behind the scenes in Lafayette to just contribute and keep this place as great as it was when I grew up here. Thank you.

Welcome back. The pressure's on.

Good evening, Council. Thank you so much, Tracy. I think it summarized basically a lot about me. As I say, I'm thankful to be working back in the public sector, and I'm excited to contribute to all the projects that really directly serve the community. So thank you.

Okay, thank you. We're delighted to have you. Okay, on to the consent calendar. Would anyone like to remove an item from the consent calendar? Would any member of the public like to remove an item from the consent calendar?

I've had no requests. No requests.

Okay, do we have a motion for adoption? So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Unanimous 4-0. We're on to staff reports. Item 11A. Patrick. So this is for the Downtown Lafayette Parking Management Study Year 1 Implementation Work Plan and Budget Request. And Patrick, you can assume we've read the staff report.

You can assume we've read the staff report.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. On April 27th of this year, the City Council received the Downtown Parking Management Study and provided direction to staff regarding implementation priorities associated with the recommended parking management strategies. Council also directed staff to return with a more detailed implementation work program and associated funding request. And so tonight's item is intended to do that. This evening staff is requesting authorization of a new fiscal year 2627 consultant services budget of 53,000 to support the first year of implementation associated with the downtown parking management study. So tonight's discussion will focus on that proposed year one work program. Just a quick revisit of the key conclusions from the parking management study. The study found that downtown Lafayette generally doesn't have a system-wide shortage of parking, but instead the study found that many of the challenges experienced by downtown users relate to employee parking demand, uneven utilization of parking resources, difficulty identifying available parking, and the fragmented nature of the parking system. So as a result, the study recommended a phased implementation strategy focused on improving how the existing parking systems functions before considering more complex or capital intensive parking strategies. The study recommendations were organized on April 27th into a broader phase one implementation program anticipated to occur over approximately three years. And tonight's request focuses only on the first year of that broader effort. So as shown here, the proposed year one work program consists of five foundational initiatives focused on parking inventory, performance monitoring, employee parking coordination, public information improvements, and assessment of future parking identity and wayfinding needs. And then future phase one activities are expected to include parking regulation simplification, employee and shared parking implementation actions, parking identity and wayfinding improvements, and additional parking management strategies. So the year one work program is intentionally focused on relatively modest efforts that improve the city's understanding and management of existing parking resources. The largest of these tasks is the development of a comprehensive parking inventory and database. And so while the parking study did do a very robust inventory of public and private parking supply currently available to visitors and customers, it did not comprehensively inventory private parking resources that are not currently accessible to the public. So this effort would expand that inventory to provide a more complete understanding of employee parking resources, customer only parking, permit parking facilities, and other restricted access parking resources. And the broader purpose of that effort is to identify underutilized parking resources and better understand opportunities to expand parking options for employees and visitors through improved use of existing parking supply. The second major task is the development of a parking performance monitoring program. And the goal is to move beyond one-time parking studies and establish an ongoing framework that allows staff to monitor parking conditions and make future parking decisions using current data. The employee parking coordination effort is intended to better understand existing employee parking resources and identify opportunities that may support future discussions among property owners, parking operators, and businesses. And then the remaining two initiatives focus on improving public information and evaluating whether future parking identity and wayfinding improvements may be warranted. By the end of year one, the city will have a comprehensive parking inventory and database, a parking performance monitoring framework, improved parking information resources, a better understanding of employee parking opportunities, and a roadmap for evaluating future parking identity and wayfinding improvements. The implementation approach emphasizes staff-led delivery where practical with consultant support focused on targeted technical tasks. The total requested fiscal year 26-27 consultant budget services is $53,000. No funding for future years two and three activities being requested at this time. Future implementation recommendations would be brought back to City Council as year one activities are completed and evaluated. So in summary, the proposed year one work program focuses on foundational improvements that will help the city better understand, monitor, communicate, and manage its parking resources while supporting future data-driven decision-making.

Thank you very much. We'll do questions from the council. So we've done your number one. We've received the program. We'll do questions, then we'll get public comment, and then we'll provide feedback and move on to discussion. So are there any questions?

Yeah, thanks. Thank you, Patrick. A couple of quick questions. So, number one, this is not in the current budget at all, right? This is a new item. That's correct. It wasn't even in the city manager's or assistant manager's report from last time. So this will be like number five or whatever on our list. Second, can you explain, I mean, I don't want to delve into the details too much, but, you know, we talk about a $15,000 sort of parking monitoring methodology or framework. Can you explain, like, what do we actually get from that output? Like, what does that work task actually look like? and result give us?

Yeah, so what I want to do is set up a recurring data collection effort that would take a look at perhaps parking occupancy, length of time, how parking is changed based on changes in meter pricing or meters versus non meters, changes in any potential public parking lots. What I want to do is set up that foundation so that we can better understand how parking is being used over time and that future decisions will help to will be data driven. So as an example, is there a block where parkers are generally very short term? Is there a need then to reduce the hours from two hour to 30 minutes?

So instead of findings, I guess I just don't, I don't want to.

It's setting up the path for the future data collection.

Is it looking for items of, is it looking for items that we need to kind of focus on years two, three, four? Is that the way you think about it?

Well, and well into the future. Beyond years two and three.

All right. The second, or just the final thing I have, well, it's just more a question on the wayfinding bit. There's just a need for better science. That's just analysis. You're not going to be fixing, you're not going to be repairing. Correct.

Not this year.

Okay. Yep. Thank you.

Question? Question?

Maybe just to piggyback on the Vice Mayor's question. So at the end of the three-year horizon, we'd be looking for more granular data on parking, I would think? More like live information? Is that kind of the endpoint of this?

Yes. Like more live information, more just an understanding of trends over time. Okay. that will help me and staff make decisions that are more informed, more data-driven.

And maybe improve information with respect to available parking so people don't feel like they need to, they can feel comfortable if they can park and shop in Lafayette. Right. And I know this is a very unfair question because you noted this, but years two and three, future studies, any ballpark on what that would be? Is that roughly what you think what this figure is, 50K, give or take? I don't want to be unfair to you here.

If we are to come up with a new wayfinding system and branding for the signs, which is something that had been proposed as part of the phase one, I believe that I had said that the total would be roughly 120,000 over the three years, but that would include what I'm asking for tonight.

So, okay. Do the math, like 70,000. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, would any member of the public like to comment on this item?

I have no speakers at this time.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the council for discussion. So any feedback that you'd like to provide on this?

No, I think, I mean, it's obviously we did. No, the feedback is, this is great, right? I mean, we had the study. We've had multiple studies over the years as we've heard some frustration about the studies we've had. And I think people feel like, oh, what have we done with the study? So I actually, this is good. This actually is okay. We did some day gathering. Now we need to actually move forward and do stuff. I know your next item. We're doing that. I'm, um, so no, that's my thing. I'm still, I'm still, I will admit I'm a little still hazy on the methodology or that, that framework bit. So I look forward to looking at that. I get assuming we'll come back annually at least to get some sort of feedback. So I'm looking forward to seeing what we get out of that. But otherwise, no, it's, this is, we're probably past due for getting this underway.

Yeah, thank you for doing this. I mean, parking is like one of the key things that are important to everybody and our vibrant downtown. And so getting data, this seems like a fact-finding mission to really get true data so we can justify future directions. So I appreciate that very much.

Okay, oh.

yeah I support this also I in the parking study was floored by someone's comment that they thought parking was easier in downtown Walnut Creek and Lafayette that still sticks in my mind so yeah whatever we can do to sort of like better understand what we've got and optimize it to me is a move in the right direction so thank you

Okay, I don't think we need to wait to the budget discussion to go ahead and authorize this. So could I have a motion authorizing a year one implementation budget for fiscal year 26-27 of $53,000 from the general fund and directing staff to return with future implementation recommendations and associated funding requests as year one activities are completed? So moved. You're second.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye.

It's unanimous, 4-0. Thank you very much.

All right. And now we are on to item 11B.

Patrick.

Good evening again. Tonight's second parking related item presents a coordinated set of parking management changes at two city owned public parking facilities in downtown Lafayette. The gazebo parking lot at 3429 Mount Diablo Boulevard and the city owned parking lot at 3299 Mount Diablo Boulevard adjacent to Ace Hardware. these recommendations implement key findings from the downtown parking management study and are intended to better align the use of public parking resources with current parking needs i'll begin with the gazebo lot the gazebo lot contains 37 parking spaces in a visible downtown location today 24 of those spaces are leased to three adjacent businesses for employee parking during weekday business hours Throughout the development of the downtown parking management study, staff heard consistent feedback regarding the need for additional employee parking opportunities throughout downtown. At the same time, the study emphasized the importance of ensuring that publicly owned parking resources are managed in a manner that is equitable and accessible. And staff believes that reserving approximately two thirds of this public parking lot for a small number of businesses is no longer consistent with those objectives. Accordingly, staff is recommending one final six-month extension of the existing lease arrangements through December 30, 26. And following that extension period, the leases would terminate and the lot would transition to longer-term paid public parking capable of accommodating all-day parking, including employees working typical 8- or 10-hour shifts. The recommendation is also consistent with prior city council direction. In 2014, the city council directed the parking ordinance committee to develop a program to terminate private leases in public parking lots. In 2016, the city council approved recommendations that included terminating these leases. And then the second component of tonight's recommendation concerns the city owned parking lot at 3299 Mount Diablo Boulevard adjacent to ACE Hardware. This lot contains 16 metered spaces and currently operates with a three hour time limit. However, parking study data found the lot to be one of the least utilized public parking facilities in downtown Lafayette, while staff has also received multiple requests from East End businesses for additional employee parking opportunities. So staff is recommending converting this lot from three hour parking to all day paid parking capable of accommodating employees working full shifts. Taking together these recommendations would make better use of existing public parking resources expand employee parking opportunities throughout downtown and improve access to parking without adding new parking supply. Staff recommends that city council adopt resolution 2026 dash 36 and i'm happy to answer questions.

Okay, are there questions. Your.

Yes, I do. So two questions. One, on the pricing, maybe it's just the way that it was phrased here, but it says up to two hours is $2 per hour. And so at the end of two hours, it's $4. And then you say two to four hours is $1, and then the max is five. And so are we intending to be $4 for two hours? And then it's for three hours is $1 per hour, and then you've maxed.

I think that it would probably go to five to all day after the second hour.

Oh, okay. So get rid of the two to four hours. Okay.

So if you're a $4 matching existing meter pricing.

Okay.

Yeah. Okay.

We need to work on the wording on that one. Yes. A little bit. And then second, you know, I had, I, Contracts, I just, do we have any legal exposure by terminating the contracts?

Is that something that has been- No, lease agreements do not contain any provisions requiring the city to continue providing these parking spaces. And there are provisions in each of the lease agreements allowing either party to terminate the agreement with 60 days written notice.

Okay, thank you.

I was just kind of curious, how is this going to be implemented? Actually, what are the people at Parker's going to do? Because obviously the lot we have at 949 Moraga, we have a box where you put in the money and the little slots. Are we doing something like that? Because there's currently meters in both of these. There's meters in the one by these hardware, I know.

There's meters at Ace Hardware. And from what I understand from Kathy Sergis, that is just making adjustments back in the office. So that can just be done remotely or maybe going out. That can be done very quickly. Signage would need to be changed. So I do need to change signs. There are no meters currently at the Gazebo lot. And we are looking, Kathy and I are looking at different options for pay-by-app and kind of newer technology.

okay so you wouldn't necessarily put in meters at the gazebo correct all right okay thank you i i noted that with respect to the gazebo lot there were a couple of letters or responses from some of the businesses expressing concerns have there been conversations with them to try to at least address somewhat what their topics were what their issues were

PB, David Ensign he or him, Regarding parking supply the parking lot will still be available for employees so and letters have been mailed to each of the three businesses with offers to have discussions.

So the concept would be that, so if I'm an employer and I've got a lease for six spaces, instead of that, it's open to whoever, but my employee could park there the day he or she's working for five bucks and be there all day. That's the...

Correct.

Okay.

Okay. Any other questions? Nope. Are there any public comments?

Yes, Mayor Nduri. We have one speaker, Ken Kosich.

Welcome. Welcome. Thank you. My name is Ken Cossage at 3435 Mount Diablo Boulevard. I bought the building in 1986, and I am the one that paid to have the parking lot developed. And when we met with the city, the intent was to have that made for a parking for the employees of the different buildings to come in. It's worked very well since it's been done. We talked about a letter. I was surprised that this was happening, that at least I had no pre-notice of this at all. And what happened was I have a loan on the building. The lender wanted copies of my leases that I have, plus they wanted proof that I had parking for the building. So I asked for an updated copy of the lease. We probably had been relaxed, the city and myself, in the sense that I paid the rent, nobody carried on and extended the lease at all. I just said, it's worked out well. So then all of a sudden when I got the lease, then I was told that, oh, you're going to get a letter that your lease is not going to be renewed. So supposedly that was going to be brought up in May at the council meeting. Then it was postponed to this meeting. And I still have not, he mentioned another letter about negotiating or even any conversation. I haven't had any with anybody. The other situation, even since I wrote my letter, I thought maybe somebody from the city would come talk to me and maybe say, what can we do to work this out or with the use, but no communication on there. The parking lots worked out very well, I think. Kyle Peacock's here. He may agree with me, may disagree. We park during the daytime, and the use by the brewery and the restaurant, they use it in evenings, Saturdays, and weekends. It works out fine. We have very little problem with parking there. We have the employees. Now, I was a little bit surprised that there's 13 extra spaces there that aren't being used because there's a lot of cars on the street for employees. And possibly they didn't know that they could rent it. Or maybe the city's not renting it to anybody else because they wanted to not have any leases or anything. So I don't know what that answer is. I just think it's going to affect me because I have leases with my tenants that I have to supply parking in the parking lot. And now all of a sudden in six months, the city is going to cut my lease off and I have leases in effect. So I'm not sure legally how I'm going to handle that. I'm not sure how the city can legally handle that. Yeah. And then is there a plan? What is the plan for it instead of just cutting this off?

Do you have any other points that you would like to make?

I guess the main thing is, I think the parking lot, they keep referencing us to downtown. And we're not downtown over there. We're in the east side. And it's a different types of businesses there than downtown. So I think that what you do downtown and the decisions downtown are different than what we should have on the east side. I mean, a solid-door parking lot, I mean, nobody uses that. I know the city lost all the meters one time. Somebody broke them all off.

Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the speaker?

Yeah. Just to clarify, so this is what we're calling the gazebo lot.

The gazebo lot, yes.

And how many spaces are you currently leasing?

I have 15.

15, okay. And they're all tied to leases you have with tenants then?

They're all tied to leases I have with tenants.

Okay, all right then.

Thank you. And can you share the terms on those leases with the tenants, what the outer date is on the farthest out lease?

Some of my tenants, I charge them what the city charges me.

No, not what you charge, but what the outer date is on the lease. When is the lease?

No, mine are just I supply parking based on my lease term, not with the city lease.

No, no. Your lease with your subtenants, your tenants. Okay. You provide parking with those leases, correct? Correct. And what's the outer date on those leases?

Some could be four years, five years.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions.

I do have a question for Patrick based on that, but I don't.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Let's just see. Is there anyone else would like to?

Yes, I have one hand raised in our virtual audience, Mayor Endury. Cheryl McDonald, you're going to be allowed to speak.

We'll come back.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

We can hear you. Yes, I'd like to support Ken Cossage in this. We have been involved, Don Ames and I and others have been involved with talking to the city about this issue for a very long time, for years, maybe even a decade, about Ken Cossage and his leases and the importance of the employee parking being available for them. And what happens if you terminate his lease with his parcel? Is he gonna be allowed to not be able to have parking available? What's gonna happen for his future with the city of Lafayette and the requirements for him to have parking available for his tenants as he can be grandfathered in. But more importantly, I think that the parking should be available for him and that the leases should not be terminated without further contact with Ken Cossage and others. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions for the speaker? No. Thank you very much. Is there any other?

No additional speakers.

Okay, and you had a question.

Yeah, thank you. So there's two follow-up questions related to the first speaker's points. Just to confirm, you're doing this in direction from the council gave in 2014, actually, right? So there's been a long kind of standing goal to get rid of private leases on city-owned lots.

2016 was the decision. 2014 was direction to staff, and 2016, right, yes.

Do we have any private leases on, say, loan lots after this? Or have they all been converted to this point? They've all been terminated. And the second one... uh oh the second one actually was he made a i can't um make a point that in the evenings uh we have the restaurants there and those the lot is kind of done used by the patrons i don't i believe it's free in the evening is that it is free in the evening is that is that going to be the continue the continued policy is that you can do it all day but it's free in the evenings or will evening parkers need to pay the two dollars an hour

I'm envisioning it would continue to be free in the evening.

OK. So what are the business hours then that it would be, are you thinking that it would be enforced?

Matching the hours of enforcement for the rest of the public metered parking.

Great.

Thank you. Any other questions? OK. We'll bring it back to the council. I think it's I don't I don't see any issue with respect to the ace parking lot or near ace parking there's just no question that's uh I don't think there's any question with respect to the A slot. I mean, that is the secret parking lot for those who know it's there. So that's not a question. So just one follow-up question. In terms of Mr. Coaches' obligations to provide parking under any agreements with the city, how would this affect – I mean, does he have any –

obligations to uh have a certain amount of parking for uh his office space i i don't i am not aware of any no no and there's nothing that obligates the city to provide that parking but i'm not familiar i'm not aware of any obligations on that property for parking nor an obligation for the city to provide

Right. No, I'm not concerned about that. I was just concerned about whether he had an obligation under any arrangement with the city to provide a certain amount of parking for the building.

Okay.

And the answer is no. Not that I'm aware of.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah, ordinarily we do not. But if you have a, do you have a question or a comment? No, we're talking to Mr. Kosich. Yeah. Could I ask you to come? This is being recorded, so we have to get near a microphone.

The city has recorded an agreement on my property when this was done in 1986, and I'm not sure if the city has done research on that.

An agreement that provides for what?

We did the parking lot that I paved the parking lot, developed the parking lot, and the city was going to provide parking to me. And there's an agreement that's recorded on my property.

Okay. Are we aware of that?

These things happened in 86, and I think the staff and everyone, everybody's new. They don't know.

Okay, no, that's editorials. It's just the facts.

My understanding is that there was an original agreement with Mr. Kosich from 1986. There was a subsequent agreement dated 1999 that replaced the 1986 agreement. And then there was the 2011 agreement that replaced the 1999 agreement. And there are no, in those agreements, there are no obligations mentioned.

Okay. And is one of those, the earlier one, is that recorded against the property? Or is this another document that's separate?

These are the three lease agreements that I'm talking about for the parking.

Okay. I have a question for Mr. Kosichin. Is what you're referring to a lease agreement? Well, if you could just answer, is it a lease agreement that's recorded? What is it that's recorded?

It's a lease agreement that I developed the property. And with that, I was given certain free parking for a number of years. And then it would change into paid parking.

And what's the date on that agreement?

In 86. What's the month and day? I have December of, oh, 24th of November, 1986 is when it was signed.

Okay. Thank you. Is that what you have?

I have a condition of approval from 84 that I'm looking at right now that says four off-site, off-street parking spaces shall be secured prior to the commencement of use. So that's what I have.

Okay, but that's a different... That's what I was asking about. Are there any obligations on Mr. Kosich's property to have parking spaces, whether on-site or off-site? And that sounds like an obligation to have four parking spaces. Is that still in effect?

I've talked to Mala and the planning department, and this is their understanding that this is the most up-to-date condition of approval for spaces.

That's the city manager for comment.

I wasn't here in 1986, but... I'm not, I haven't seen that agreement. It would be, I wish it had been shared with us. We would be happy to look at it and let you know how it affects staff's recommendations.

Okay, that sounds like I do have one more follow-up question for the speaker, if you don't mind. I'm sorry. You might just stay up there, I guess. I'm sorry. Because you are the most knowledgeable person, apparently, about this particular situation. You mentioned, you just added a little bit of color at the very end that I didn't hear your original comment, that you said you paid for the parking or the rehabilitation of the lot or paving it in 1986. And then that gave you free use of the parking spaces for a certain amount of time?

Correct.

Yeah. which is basically paying you back more or less for the improvements you made for the parking spot.

Right.

And then after that, and then at what point did it turn into effectively, you were just kind of paying the more transactional, you're just paying for the usage of the, um,

I want to say it was 10 years.

10 years, right. So 96 or something like that. So really then for the last 30 years. So 40 years ago, I'm just trying to get the timing right. 40 years ago, you paid, it was a bit of a mutually beneficial arrangement. You paid to pave the parking lot. You got 10 years of free usage. then 1996, 30 years ago, it turned into just more of a transactional agreement. You would pay the city a fee and you would use those spaces. Did you turn around and bill your tenants for the parking spaces?

There's a couple that I do bill. Most of my grant is included in the rent.

And then Patrick mentioned there's a 60 day termination clause, right? That the city is obligated for 60 days and the city is recommending six months of a transition time, right? So it's slightly more. And are you concerned? I mean, I'm just kind of thinking how it would work. Theoretically, would it not just be the case that once, if this agreement were to end, your tenants could just pay the city directly for the parking? Right, instead of paying kind of through you, they could just pay the city directly and park there and still have parking. Correct?

I mean, isn't the utilization of the employees... Yeah, this is something that, like I mentioned, it's something I think can be negotiated out and discussed instead of just coming down and saying, we're doing this, I'm doing that. All right. No communication with me. I don't think any with Mr. Peacock regarding his leases. He can answer that himself, but he and I talking, he hasn't heard any letter and any communication, nor have I. Okay. That's fair. Thank you. And again, this is not the downtown parking. I understand. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Any other comments? Okay. So I think... Not for that. Yeah, we're beyond questions. Closed public comment. So now we're bringing this back to the council. I think where we are is we're all in favor of moving forward with ACE. Yes, sir. And I think on this one, we were asking that there be another look at all available documents that pertain to this and then also discussion with the landowner and then bring it back to the council. So the question for you, Patrick, is it necessary to bifurcate this or can we wait for another meeting and bring back the same resolution?

Bifurcate the two parking lots? Yeah. That's fine.

But do we need to, is there any reason to move? Well, okay, we could just go ahead. There's no reason to wait on the other one.

Okay.

And you're okay on the course we've outlined for the second one? Yes. Okay. But we have to change the resolution. Why don't we bring back a different resolution at the next meeting? Yeah. And then when you're ready to bring back the other parking lot, we'll talk about that as well.

Okay.

Okay. So do we need to move this to a date certain, or can we just wait for it to come back, just wait for it to come back? Okay, thank you very much.

I do want to just recognize just as a final comment that, again, it's referring to the prior time as well. This is actually great. I mean, I think it's really good for the city to be, we've heard one of our big things is employee parking. I appreciate the state's effort to try to get more employee parking, right, for all employers in town. So I actually think that directionally it's good, but we got to make sure that we can, you know, make sure we have a full understanding of the impact. But directionally, I think it's a great idea. Yeah.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, so we're on to item 12A. Dana? Where's Dana?

Oh.

Okay, the AB2561 Vacancy Recruitment and Retention Effort Report.

Good evening, Mayor, council members, and members of the public. My name is Dana Poplin, HR analyst, presenting our annual vacancy report in compliance with AB2561. This report transparently highlights our current workforce vacancies, recruitment efforts, and strategies for improving hiring and retention. Please note that all information is reflective of fiscal year 2526 through May 22. And by bargaining unit, since the inclusion of one additional staff member city manager would have minimal impact on the data, we decided not to pull a separate data set for this role. Our total number of approved positions is 49.10 FTE, essentially unchanged from last year, remaining stable. Number of posted jobs is 13. This is four more than last year's nine job postings, representing a 44% increase in recruitment activity. at present we have four open positions across two departments and have a 8.32 org wide vacancy rate representing a near four percentage point improvement or a 31.5 reduction in vacancy rate overall despite more hiring activity we ended the year with fewer open roles and a significantly healthier vacancy rate Over the past fiscal year, we received 1,033 applications, which is 426 more applications than last year's 607. That's a 70% increase in applicant volume, indicative of a huge jump in interest and recruitment activity. Of those applications, we conducted 89 interviews, nearly doubling last year's 47 interviews. That's a 90% increase in interview activity, reflecting both a stronger applicant pool but also a heavier workload on HR and hiring managers. With that in mind, I do believe that's indicative of Lafayette's commitment to do the work to staff our city with great talent. We've successfully onboarded for seven regular staff positions this year versus last year's two. Based on these onboardings, our average time to hire has been 128 days, from date posted to first day on staff, which we anticipate cutting down through the next year. This represents an increase of 45 days year over year. However, both planning technician positions hiring has been on pause, which I am still taking into account as of today. Looking at this slide, we see much higher interest, much more activity, but also a slower hiring cycle due to increased volume and complexity. This year, turnover rate is increased from 13.19% to 14.58%, around a 1.5 point increase or approximately 10.5% rise in turnover year over year. However, it's important to note that two of the employees who left this year retired, retirements are expected and healthy forms of turnover, but they still count in the calculation. Our retention rate decreased from 87.23% to 85.11%. This is a drop of 2.12%. So going back to the point about retirement, even with those included, still reflects a slight downward trend in overall retention. The increase in turnover also helps explain factors related to why we had 44% more job postings. We were backfilling more roles than last year. So while we improved our vacancy rate and filled more positions, the rise in turnover and decrease in retention, even with the retirements factored in, this is something that we'll continue to monitor, especially around workload, competitiveness, and career pathways. In regards to workforce planning, employee onboarding and training initiatives, at present from the date of this report, this year we made major progress with the modernization of our onboarding and training systems, signing on for NeoGov's onboard and learn modules as a step forward towards helping us deliver consistent high-quality onboarding and training at scale. Because we had a 70% increase in applications and more hiring activity overall, we wanted to be intentional about tools to help us keep up without losing quality onboarding and access to training to get them growing from day one. Looking ahead, we're excited to identify 60-day, six-month, and one-year plans to create foundational institutional knowledge, gather real feedback from employees, and support supervisors with training resources. Continuing on with workforce planning in regards to employee feedback and engagement measures, at the present we continued our biannual evaluations and got the HR analysts, me, more involved with the process so I can begin to dive into more analytical work with the data received and also took our exit interview process over to help understand why people leave. Additionally, our departments continued their team meetings to maintain communication, and we also continued to offer employee events to keep folks engaged in fun ways with each other, building rapport amongst departments. Looking ahead, we're excited to roll out more structured feedback tools like poll surveys and engagement check-ins. We want to begin strengthening our recognition and employee communications, like thoughts of an employee newsletter, to get us more in the habit of cross-departmental communication. To also aid our retention, I'll begin to take a deeper look at our employee development and whether we have clear paths forward to support more long-term retention. My goal is to create a workplace where employees feel heard, seen, connected, respected, and valued. Some hiring challenges that I wanted to identify in our recruitment process. So as previously mentioned, this is a very high volume recruitment year. We received over 1,000 applications, which again, was a 70% increase from last year. With that, we conducted nearly twice as many interviews showing strong applicant interest, but also an increased workload. Because of this volume and specialized nature of some of the roles, their time to hire increased by 45 days, including the two pause positions. Internal promotions also created backfills, adding more recruitments to the pipeline throughout the year. These challenges reflect a competitive labor market, with an example being compared to CalPERS benefits and complexity to the public sector hiring. But they also show that interest in working here is growing and teams are committed to finding the right folks to join our team despite the increase in workload, which is a great sign. In regards to recruitment efforts to address the vacancies, at present we expanded our outreach by posting to different job boards slash channels and clearly saw a major bump in applications. We also continue to offer hybrid interviews to help make scheduling easier. We strengthen our panel process by bringing in more perspectives to improve team decision making. These efforts certainly paid off. We see a reduction in open positions from last year's six to this year's four from time of the report and lowered our vacancy rate by a third. Looking ahead, I'm excited to start using NeoGov's tools to streamline the recruitment to onboarding pipeline begin highlighting our organizational culture and benefits with Lafayette being such a special place to work and refine our recruitment strategies through hands-on work and data analysis. We're building a recruitment process that's modern, flexible, and competitive, and definitely just getting started. Tonight's presentation fulfills our obligation under AB2561 to provide a transparent update on vacancies and hiring efforts. We welcome any feedback from council members, employee representatives, and the public as collaboration is key to strengthening the city of Lafayette and delivering excellent public services. Thank you for your time and happy to allow comment.

Thank you very much. Questions or comments? Jim.

I'll be there.

So one of my questions I had on this was sort of like, are there any challenging areas in the hiring? But you've got a 70% increase in applications for roughly the same amount of openings, give or take.

No, we definitely had an increase in openings as well.

At the... Proportionally, the amount of applications is way in excess of what was there. Yes. Yeah, which I would look as a high-class problem to have.

Yes. It's a good problem to have.

So I guess I'm curious what the dynamic here is. Is it sort of cutbacks at the federal government level? Like what's pushing people to apply for a job in Lafayette? Do you have a sense of that from feedback from candidates? Like why are they looking here? We don't have CalPERS, which I thought would be a challenge, but maybe it's not as much of a challenge as I thought.

Yeah, and I'd be happy to allow Tracy to chime in too. You know, I think it hasn't been as much of a challenge with the CalPERS comparison this year as opposed to last year when I did this report. You know, if I'm speaking right now, I think it's indicative of the benefits and the culture that we offer. But perhaps Tracy might have a little more insight.

Well, I wouldn't completely discount the PERS. I think if we look at what we were recruiting, we generally have harder times recruiting for the higher level positions. Like seniors, any like assistant directors and directors, those are often quite a challenge because People who have the experience for those jobs likely got it in a PERS city. And so they don't necessarily want to leave that at the end of their career when they could be getting the high dollars. What we do get, and we have leveraged this in some ways, sometimes we get PERS retirees who love our 401 and 457 plans. And that has worked well, but again, you know, those aren't necessarily, you know, super long tenures.

So it's sort of a barbell where... People starting off in their career, it's attractive. People more at the end of their career because they banked CalPERS to the max, but it's that bracket in between where you've got 20 years in on CalPERS and you really want to get the last five or 10.

That's exactly what we have found. We have quite a bit at the high end and the low end and the middle is quite, and that's where you find a lot of the churn. Yeah.

That makes sense. And the other question is, you know, I'm looking at these numbers about our turnover rate and so on. I don't have context for that. Is that kind of in the ballpark for cities of like our size and our region? Is there any kind of color on that as to like, how do we stack up compared to other communities?

Yeah, so there's no published data that I could find in regard to cities that are just of our size, besides if I were to watch everybody's vacancy reports as well. But typically, yes, that is in the ballpark of average numbers. And that's with the assumption that they're doing their rates correctly, their calculations.

Thank you.

You know, I had a similar question actually just about both the retention rate, retention metric, and the time to hire. Like, do you have a goal that we're shooting for? Like, what is good or bad, right? If we're saying, you know, do we expect 10% turnover just because it's just the dynamics of, workplace, which it is, or some number. Do we have a goal that we're shooting for? Or is it just kind of whatever happens to us kind of happens to us as far as like, do we want to get the retention rate to 10% instead of 14? Do we want to get our time to hire down to 60 days instead of 120 days? Is there some sort of internal metric we're shooting for? Or what's your...

Yeah, so for time to hire, I mean, traditionally, at least for myself as an HR analyst, I typically, from posting to start date, I do shoot for six weeks. Yeah, but obviously, depending on folks coming in, they may want to give their employer a one-month resignation. You know, they may be, for example... an engineer and maybe they're closing up some projects and they want to do a month. So it's really hard to pinpoint a specific day, but I typically shoot for six weeks.

Great. Thank you. And I actually think, does this, I mean, with Council Member Svante's question about where do we stand, AB 2561, which I guess I admit I'm not totally familiar with, but is the whole point to collect data at the state level that we can actually then use to help better ourselves or not? Or is this only just some sort of internal reporting thing and we don't inform the state at all?

We don't inform the state. We don't send it anywhere. To be honest, I can check, but one of the provisions is that you send it to your bargaining units. So it's more on the labor side to give labor the information that they need. Probably for bargaining. And I did want to mention in the figures, time to hire, we had a couple positions that we intentionally left open. So that is skewing our numbers.

We have such, we have so small numbers compared to a lot of cities that one or two positions can really skew our numbers. I don't want to get too, I was just kind of curious more what your goal is, I think is the, is the 60 day or the six weeks is, is tremendous. So great. Thank you.

Public comment. Is there any public comment on this item?

No public comment on this item.

Okay. Any further questions? All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

12B, the budget. Tracy.

Okay, thank you. I will be brief. This is basically a continuation of the budget item that you heard last week. I'm sorry, two weeks ago. And there were a few outstanding items that you wanted additional information about or that you wanted to... Think about some more. They were $350,000 for the Parks Master Plan needs assessment, $100,000 for an ADA transition plan, up to $250,000 from available Measure H fund balances for wildfire prevention, mitigation, and fire safety programs and projects. There was a request by Grace Dixon from All Ages Recreation downtown for $25,000 in support, and there was robust discussion about adding back two crossing guard locations, one at First and Monroe and another at Relise and Spring Hill. So staff provided you additional information on those items, and I will take questions now.

Okay, we'll do questions from Council, then we'll hear public comment, then we'll come back and discuss each item that's here. Are there any questions on any of these items?

I did have a question on the on the the wildfire, the emergency preparedness list. Because I was a little unclear. I mean, it was a laudable list. Lots of great stuff. But it was unclear to me how that translated to the actual request and what would actually get done. It looked like that list was very much an in progress list. But is staff actually recommending to fund I guess I was confused on where I guess I'm confused on where that stands.

So I think the original idea and based on the council's adopted priorities was that, it's gone now. Andy calmly put together that very comprehensive list of all the things that we could do in approximate costs. So to support your priority, the idea was that you would allocate a certain amount of money, and we do have some funds in the Measure H fund balance that you could allocate an amount up to a certain amount, could be 250, could be more, could be less, and then ask the Emergency Preparedness Commission to look at that list and to prioritize those tasks based on obviously how much it costs and what was actually achievable within maybe a one or two year period. And then come back to you and say, given the cap of X dollars, 250, we think that these projects are the ones that should be tackled first. And the idea, though, is that none of the monies would be expended until the commission came back to you with a plan about how those monies would be spent. Some of it was also dependent on we're still waiting to hear back, I believe, from some grants. And we believe that, for example, those would be priority. We think those are already good ideas. We're hoping that we can fund them with a grant. But if not, they're still very good ideas that could be funded by Measure H funds. So that was how. So the number was not based on anything specific. It was just an idea that you could perhaps allocate.

Okay. The outline, the process you just outlined, I'm... much more comfortable with than what I said. So thank you. That is the kind of thing that I would, that's a really nice thing.

We'll talk about that process. Jim.

Any questions? I guess I was going to talk about the process. So maybe I'm not going to do that. Thank you, Mayor. Okay.

All right. Any other, any questions before we, okay. Public comment. Is there any public comment on the budget?

Yes, Mayor, I have a speaker slip from Sarah Regan, Matt Pease, and Jeremy Steele. I'm not sure if they want three, six, or nine minutes. So you tell me and I'll set the time. I think I can be pretty quick and then I'll let them come up and speak as well.

Can you hear me? Sorry about that.

Three minutes for you.

Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Good evening, Mayor Nduri and members of the City Council. I am Sarah Regan. For those of you who don't know, I have the privilege of serving as the Executive Director of the Lafayette Chamber of Commerce. And tonight, excuse me as I put on my glasses, I simply would like to express my sincere appreciation for the City's continued partnership with the Chamber and for the updated agreement. While we both, the City and the Chamber, are navigating increasing costs associated with public safety, security, and event operations, we are extremely grateful for the City's commitment to covering public works and police services for the Chamber produced community events going forward. We recognize the value of those services and appreciate the City's investment in helping us ensure that the community remains safe, that these events remain safe, successful, and welcoming for residents and visitors alike. The Chamber and the City have long shared a common goal of supporting a vibrant local economy while maintaining the quality of life that makes Lafayette such a special place to live, work, and visit. Together, we produce events that bring thousands of people to our downtown, support our local businesses, and strengthen community connections. During the Lafayette Art and Wine Festival weekend alone, the Chamber itself remitted over $32,000 in sales tax dollars for the sale of our event tickets and beverages. That doesn't begin to account for the additional sales tax generated that weekend by our vendors, restaurants, retailers, and other local businesses that benefit from the thousands of people we bring to town. Beyond the economic impact, though, for both the Art and Wine Festival and the Res Run, we generate significant funding for our local schools, nonprofit, and community programs that directly benefit Lafayette residents throughout the year, year after year. And what makes this partnership especially meaningful is that it extends far beyond the agreement or a budget line item. The partnership between the city and the chamber run deep. And we are incredibly grateful for the chamber staff, the city council, as I go back to the staff as well, who roll up their sleeves and volunteer alongside with us at community events. Our own city manager, Narup, can be found helping families safely cross the street during Trick or Treat Street. She has been hole punching in our taste of Lafayette and can show up to welcome new members at a ribbon cutting. Jonathan, our Director of Park, Territories, and Recreation is an invaluable member and has been for the last five years on our Art and Wine Committee meeting. So thank you again for giving us your countless hours of helping ensure our success as we go forward. There are many others as well, and their dedication, support, and willingness to jump in whenever needed are truly invaluable and reflect on the collaborative effort and spirit that makes Lafayette such a special community. These successes are only possible because of this agreement and partnership beyond that. We view the agreement as a shared investment in the community, as well we care so deeply about, one that supports our local businesses, fosters the economic vitality, and helps sustain the events and traditions that have made our Lafayette such a special place. On behalf of my board of directors, the nearly 800 chamber members, and many volunteers who show up and participate and help us make these possible, we thank you for your continued partnership and commitment to Lafayette. We look forward to continuing to work alongside the city to strengthen our local economy, support our businesses and enhance the quality of life to everyone who calls Lafayette home. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Matt.

Well, good evening, everyone. My name is Matt Pease. I'm on the Board of Directors for the Chamber of Commerce, and I'm the past president from last year of the chamber. I wanted to expand a little bit about what Sarah had talked about of these common goals and how deep they go. There's a lot of different areas that we work on together that actually take off cost from the city. So for example, we work very closely together to do business development. Many cities have to have their own business development staff full time. We take on part of that role on behalf of the city. We serve on groups to represent businesses, people like GPAC, how sales tax is used, and upcoming on the mobility initiative that's being looked at for downtown. We help educate businesses So they can continue to be successful and when they're successful they continue to generate revenue which in turn leads to sales tax for the city to run city operations. There's a lot of other events that we run besides the art and wine, things like the taste of Lafayette which brings people into our city. They see not just the restaurants but they also see our other businesses and what a great downtown that we have. And then finally, we run different affinity groups of different like-minded chamber members and help them share best practices and network together to once again, make them more successful. So I think all of this is what comes together to make sure that we're sharing these common goals. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Jeremy.

I guess I could just say ditto to that. Geez. I mean, they said it all. Sarah said thousands. I think it's more like tens of thousands of people coming into Lafayette, visiting our community, and they're being introduced to it through the events and coming back again and again. And with those affinity groups, they truly are wonderful. that Matt was speaking about, but we've had such a strong partnership. I've been in Lafayette for 17 years as a clinic owner, and I've been at the Chamber of Commerce just as long and on the board of directors for many years. And I know firsthand by talking to so many business owners and citizens and individuals in Lafayette, just the strong connection that the city and the chamber have and how valuable that is going forward. So I just, I don't have much more to say. They said a lot. I just want to say thank you to the city and I'm excited for the future and continuing our mission together to build a strong, healthy, vibrant Lafayette. So thank you very much.

Okay, well, thank you to each of you. The budget does include what I think is a very positive new arrangement with the chamber. We are just so fortunate to have the best chamber in the county, if not the state. It just, you do so much. It's just amazing to see the new members coming in, the very strong nonprofit membership, the membership from surrounding communities and even distant communities who are becoming members of the chamber. It's just such a strong organization. We're very fortunate to have you in the community and to be able to collaborate with you. So thank you. Questions, comments? Okay. Thank you very much. I've just got a quick comment.

I really want to second what the mayor said, because I think that having a vibrant business community is so essential to a strong Lafayette. And I have nothing but admiration for the work of the chamber in building that strong business community and in building a stronger Lafayette in turn. I really appreciate the activism. I mean, the taste of Lafayette is like trick or treat for adults. You know, walk around the downtown. It's something special. and uh you know so there's so much that i think the chamber's done and i've seen some of these small groups over at headslands not that i'm a regular there but um the affinity groups i think are really a marvelous way to sort of like support startups young entrepreneurs trying to make a new business for themselves in our community and feel like they're supported so kudos to you all in the chamber

We would be remiss to say that, obviously, I appreciate the Chamber very much being a strong part of it. But I think when we talk to people, I think of our Hello Lafayette event that we held this past year. We saw the new people that came, moved to Lafayette. You ask, why did they move to Lafayette? Well, it is the great schools and the Green Hills. But they also talk about, you guys have got the great downtown and the great business community. That's something that's kind of this unique combination. And we know it's due in large part to the Chamber. So, no, it's a great partnership, and let's keep it going.

Any other public comment?

No additional comments.

Okay. So bring the budget back to the council. Why don't we just go through each of the items? I think items one and two we already basically decided on last week. So the $350,000 for the master plan needs assessment, the $100,000 for the ADA transition plan, those are approved. Now on to item three. The reason I wanted to hold off on that is that I see a little different nuance to that. But, you know... Others want to do it differently. That's fine. But I would prefer to go to emergency preparedness and ask, okay, what is the most important things for us to do? What should we do this year? And then have come back with a recommendation to us.

So you'd like to do that without a cap, kind of like unbounded?

Yeah. And if it's higher than we want to do, then we'll put in what we think.

Well, sure. I think that's a totally... I mean, I will admit that it's... We probably get the same place, but actually, I think you're right. Having, I mean, focusing on priority and achievability and cost kind of together. I guess that'd be my only... The only... concern or not concerned, just a challenge to that would be, we got to make sure that it is somewhat cost bounded that we can't just, you know, which giving them a number to shoot for does help with that a little bit, but I'm okay either way.

Well, I mean, I think it's no secret. You're here and right here. 250,000 is a good number. I just don't want to commit to that. I just rather have the emergency preparedness committee come back and say, this is what, you know, is important to do in year one.

yeah i i think i'm fine with that approach there's a lot on the list much of which is really good good that are good things the 250 is conveniently a number that sort of aligns with uh other projects that we might not get we may or may not get funding from the state so um it's a good placeholder there but um I could see where there's more on this list, which totals like $1.4 million. I mean, that's a dream list over many years. So I think your approach then would be basically let's take this in bite-sized chunks because even if we had all that money, we wouldn't be able to spend it in one year anyway.

And, of course, the variable you mentioned is are we going to get any of that money back? from the state. So I think what we would do would be not to put anything in the budget now, but wait to see what happens with the state request. That doesn't mean the Emergency Preparedness Committee wouldn't say, here's the priority things, and we just wait to see what gets funded by the state. And then we'd come back and we're open to adding it to the budget. Do you guys know what the timing is on that?

I think they were saying it's going to be delayed. And so maybe August?

I think the likelihood is in a trailer bill can go right to the end of session.

Or it could go all the way to the end of session. Yeah.

So just to clarify, my sense then is usually I gather we have like a mid-year budget revision. We're not talking about necessarily waiting until that happens.

That's not my expectation. Tracy, you told us the last time if there are items that come up, we can come back with, yeah.

Okay. But it sounds like it is dependent on seeing what happens with Senator Grayson's bill, though. That is really kind of the... That is basically the trigger point. At that point, then, we'd like to hear from the Emergency Preparedness Commission, prioritized list, what they were given, dependent on that.

Right.

Got it.

okay and then I think we discussed uh is there any uh update on item number four because I think what we discussed last time is that can come back yes after we okay so that brings us uh to number five and actually just to clear the decks before we get there obviously we have approved 53 000 earlier in the meeting that wasn't in the budget before for the parking correct yep Okay, so we're on item five, the crossing guard locations. And okay, so the way it's presented here is we're discussing adding back to crossing guard locations at first in Monroe and San Luis and Spring Hill at a cost of approximately 42,000 total. Would anyone like to speak to that?

I support it. This is where I miss Councilmember Weatherspoon to speak with expertise on all this, but I think she articulated it really well in her last meeting. I support the concept. I think this is a good way to land it as we try to understand better what all this means. I had a chance to quickly skim the staff analysis. They did good work, but there's a lot there to digest in a short period of time. I'd rather go ahead with something that is meaningful. And I think this gets us going there.

I totally agree. I think we should add the two back in and then continue to think thoughtfully about how to phase them out at some point if we can, if there's other solutions that we can find where we won't need all these crossing guards forever, right? That's the kind of

Please support that, yes. I'm okay with it as it is now, but as we know, I've been really kind of harping on it. I think we really got to look at keeping this thing as lean as we possibly can, prioritizing safety, but also, I agree, we just can't, we don't want to be funding a 30-year thing where it's just the same amount indexed for inflation for the next 30 years. It's not really solving the problem.

Okay, so I think we're heading towards approving adding those back in with the understanding that, well, it hasn't been stated yet, but I just want to state that this is one year only and that there's an expectation that the school will take back some of the responsibility at some point. At least that would be my understanding.

I don't think that that was indicated as strongly as you are indicating it.

Well, I would recommend we should try. Yeah, indicate that. Yeah. And that. And then just as you said that we monitor the situation, we look for more cost effective ways to do it that don't compromise safety.

One question on this in as much. This is a point that Councilmember Weatherspoon raised, Measure H. I know the general fund is all fungible, but this is sort of a transit traffic-related program. And John Potter, I guess, I would think that that would be something that would be applicable for measure age, I mean it's I think it's consistent with what. John Potter, We voted on for that that's the point that she raised and I don't know if that's something we need to decide right now, but I think I put that out there, where it's to me would be. John Potter, For budget allocation purposes you allocating measure H funds for that would be appropriate here, given its use.

I'm not sure which way that cuts because our message in Measure H was we were going to continue existing levels. The city level was $120,000. I would prefer that this come out of the general fund on a one-year basis to fund something that was not a city obligation going into the year.

Okay, I'll go with that. Thank you.

Okay, so I think, is there any discussion on the investment policy and appropriations limitation? Good. Okay, so we entertain a motion for adoption of resolution number 202640 with the understanding that the attached budget will include $350,000 for the master plan, $100,000 for the ADA transition plan. $53,000 for the first year of the parking and $42,000 for crossing guards.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. It's unanimous 4-0. Thank you very much for all the work on the budget. Absolutely.

I just want to commend Tracy. She's been doing it for more than two decades, and she is a master at this. So thank you so much.

Yeah, I have to admit it. It went through my mind several times during this process. What would we do? Well, it's hard to imagine. Thank you very much, Tracy. Okay. All right, we are on to item 12 C, appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of MS 511-25. So on this item, we will hear the staff report. Oh, Joanne, sorry.

I'm seeing a hand raised by Linda Riebel. And I'm hoping I did not miss her in the budget public comments. She was kind of at the bottom of my list here. May I ask?

Oh, yes. Yes, please. I know she was interested. She sent us a written comment on this item. But yeah, no, let's find out.

I'm going to allow you to speak. And I'm sorry if I missed you earlier on the budget item. If you can unmute yourself, I can't seem to unmute you. It's for Linda Riebel. Kyle, can you unmute Linda Riebel? I can't. She's at the top of my list now. Yeah, Linda, can you unmute yourself? I'm asking her to unmute. She may have popped off. If I see her hand again later, I'll let you know.

That's fine. Yes, thank you. Okay, so we will hear the staff report. Applicant has up to 10 minutes to present if they wish to present. We will have then questions from the council. Then we will do public comment, and then we'll bring it back to the council for discussion. So, Mr. Wolfe.

I'm here in front of you to add anything necessary to the staff report or answer any questions. Appearing remotely this evening is Jean Iceberg, the project planner who will present the staff report and Robert Hodel, outside legal counsel acting as the city attorney for this item. Okay, so I will leave it to my colleague in the booth to bring up Jean Iceberg for the presentation.

Jean iceberg contract planner for this item, this is an appeal of the planning Commission's approval of a minor subdivision at 3233 deer hill road, also known as the terraces of Lafayette. I have a short presentation, I just want to start with some background this project was approved in August 2020 for 315 apartments. based on APO zoning district regulations. There was an understanding at the time that the site was one single fee simple parcel with one assessor's parcel number as shown here. The proposed project is a minor subdivision, in this case a parcel map, to merge 10 parcels into one parcel. There was an environmental impact report prepared for the terraces consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, that EIR analyzed the project as one consolidated lot. The proposed project would have no, this approval would have no changes to the adopted conditions of approval from 2020 and no changes to the mitigation measures from the EIR. In addition to the appeal before you, we were asked as staff to provide an update about the status of the building permits for the project. The applicant has applied for four building permits with the city. I will note that on the county side, this appears as dozens of permits because they issue permits based on buildings and retaining walls individually. But on the city side, four building permits. The only permit that has been approved and issued so far is the initial grading permit. and that was submitted and issued in 2022. In addition to that, there is a mass grading permit approved, but not yet issued. Same with retaining walls. And then the biggest building permit is what we call the vertical building permit. That's for the 14 residential buildings, the clubhouse, additional site work. We received a number of public comments which have been issued to the council and community today. They really fall into two categories, generally the first half providing support for the appeal, And based on these grounds, misrepresentation of the parcel configuration, concerns about the noticing of this hearing, and then other concerns about the project, separate from the minor subdivision application, but concerns that the land use permit has expired, concerns about traffic, about safety, and a preference for the R65 zoning. On the other side, there were a number of public comments expressing support for approving this minor subdivision and upholding the commission's decision. Those comments expressed support for the partial merger, commenting on the consistency with the Housing Accountability Act, and in terms of other general project support, support for housing, affordable housing, and concerns about further delay. This afternoon, a supplemental staff report was provided responding to comments about the noticing specifically and sharing updates about the building permit status. The staff recommendation is to hold a de novo public hearing adopting Resolution 2026-43 which would approve the minor subdivision, the parcel map, consolidating the 10 parcels into one and adopting the findings in attachment A. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay. Are there any questions specifically for Ms. Eisberg?

um so could you give a little bit of an explanation of what the holds are on these permits just for an explanation

I'm happy to take that, given the audio. Essentially, I think the terraces was approved with 56 conditions of approval, including a number of mitigation measures. And so, essentially, it is those. Um, standard conditions of approval are that, uh, the project is approved based on the plans that were submitted to the city, and that any changes thereto would need to be identified and presented to the city and not acted on until and unless the city approves those through an appropriate process. Uh, construction hours, um, you name it. So there might be, um, CEQA-related conditions of approval, like doing a bat survey or a migratory bird survey prior to removal of the trees, et cetera. So it is those conditions which are essential. We place a hold on issuance until the appropriate conditions and mitigation measures are fulfilled, and then we'll release the permit.

So do you have an estimate, like when would those expire? How much time do they have to release all those holds, I guess, is the question.

The project, as you saw the summary on the screen, was originally approved in 2020. The conditions of approval stipulated consistent with Lafayette Municipal Code 6-250, a one-year initial term, which is It provided for a one-year extension if a timely request was made. That request was timely made. It was appropriately granted, and they obtained the permit to do the initial work, which was pulled timely and thus exercising their use permit and vesting the entitlement.

The question was on the ones on the grading and the ones that she showed up on there. They were in 2025. And they've got all these holds on them. How long do those stay open?

Until they have met their obligations under the conditions of approval.

So there's no date. There's no expiration on that.

There's no expiration on the conditions of approval. They are.

But the permit, there's expirations on permits typically. Yeah.

Correct. Permits, and if we're talking about construction permits issued by Contra Costa County, they are valid for 180 days, is my understanding, and remain valid so long as the project is getting inspections and making for progress.

Okay, so you're saying as long as I'm making progress on those ones that you were showing, that permit will stay open until it's done?

Correct.

Okay, because are those county permits or those are permits? Those are county permits, right?

Correct.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Okay, so this is a de novo hearing. So if the applicant would like the applicant has up to 10 minutes to make a presentation with the applicant like to make a presentation.

Good evening, Mayor under the members of the city council, my name is Brian winter land use and sequel attorney on behalf of the applicant, we support the staff presentation and we're here to answer questions.

Are there any questions for Mr winter at this time. Okay, thank you very much.

Do you have any updates on how many of those COAs or where you think that that work is being done to get rid of those holds?

I don't have that information presently, but that information isn't relevant to the decision whether to grant the appeal approving the consolidation of the parcels into one.

Okay. Oh, one other question. So in the staff report, they talked about this phase one. So what is the definition of phase one work? And how does that relate to the rest of the work? Because you talked about it in your staff report.

Correct. There's no broad definition of phase one other than the first phase of a given thing and that this was the first phase of the kind of site work necessary to move the parcel from its condition prior to the permit issuance towards execution of the you know and and occupancy of the 14 buildings ultimately um so the initial phase was some grading roughly i believe in the in the uh 50 cubic yard plus minus um i'm doing this off of memory i don't have the permit in front of me although i can try to look that up and answer that and restoration of positive grades on the site so that positive drainage is happening and you're not getting pooling of water, which is problematic for a variety of reasons, including mosquito abatement, etc. So removal of the asphalt on the site, they've removed the trees on the site under permit. So it is that kind of preparatory work, which was John Potter, scoped they pulled a permit for it, they did the work and got it final inspection on it. John Potter, And the bulk of the work is still pending at the county. John Potter, They are close to being able to issue the permit once they have fulfilled all of the conditions of approval which they have been working through. John Potter, and. So I don't know specifically the timing on it, but the prescribed timeframe for initiating grading is April 15 to October 15. The requirements around grading during the wet season escalate substantially, and so most projects don't begin during the wet months.

So is it your opinion that that phase one work related in any way to the actual building of the project? So what you're saying is it sounded like it was just prep, but it wasn't towards building anything in the actual project. It was more just maintaining the site and getting rid of some asphalt.

The work that... Was done was the small initial phase work that would need to be done to build the project.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so are there any questions specifically for Mr winter.

Yes, I do, and. I was not on the city council in August of 2020 so this precedes me. but I am somewhat familiar with the terraces. I've got a question about the project itself, and this may be one for the developer's representative, but the other projects that I've seen come by here are condominiums in the two million, give or take, ballpark marketing to empty nesters downsizing from their homes in Happy Valley or Burton Valley. These are apartments. I guess my question is, so that was the game plan from the beginning, I gather, going back to 2011. So, I gather the O'Brien Group is still sticking with that game plan, I take it then?

That's correct, yeah. This project was originally proposed as apartments. There was an off-ramp at one point and the project became apartments again back in 2018 when the referendum petition stopped the alternative project from going forward. So, this project remains an apartment project, 20% of which is affordable.

20% of which is affordable?

Correct.

and okay um under the i mean the other projects we've seen that have included a modicum of affordable housing 15 for us that take advantage of density bonuses and so on uh did this project take advantage of that or the project has a right to take advantage of it and in fact as i recall sorry you're going back on a detail for me but as i recall back in 2020 when

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, We were going through the final hearings for the project. And when we obtained the final approvals. There was in fact at least one density bonus. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, waiver or reduction of development standards and I'm blanking on what that is at the moment, but the density bonus law has in fact already been applied to the project. Okay, right.

Okay. Now, my understanding is that BBK is not the city attorney for the city on this project and that we have Rob Hodel of the Koblenz Law Firm, who is acting city attorney for this project, available. Could we bring him in? I have some questions for him before we go to public comment.

He's in attendance and we'll allow him to speak.

This is Rob Hodel of Kaplan's Patch Duffy and Bass. Can you all hear me?

Yes, thank you. I have three questions for you based on the staff report that was made and on the public comments that we've received. And the first question is, has all public, all necessary public notice for tonight's hearing been carried out?

Yes, my understanding is everything that was needed to have been done within 10 days of the hearing was done at the correct time. And that's been documented in the supplemental staff report that went out today.

Okay, thank you. My second question is, are the entitlements and permits for the project that were approved in 2020 still in full force and effect?

Yes, the conditions of approval to the use permit that was obtained back in 2020, condition number three required that a grading permit or building permit be obtained before the expiration of the permit and also provided for consistent with the town's municipal code or the city's municipal code provided for the ability for an extension of 1 year to the initial 1 year term. So that extension was requested. was approved and then a grading permit was issued within that second year, the year during which the extension applied. And, you know, the issuance of that grading permit, you know, essentially kept the term of the use permit entitlements approved in 2020 alive through the present day.

Okay, thank you. And my third question, was there a legal need to consolidate the 10 parcels into one parcel prior to the 2011 application being deemed complete?

No, there was no legal need to do that. What's legally required for an application to be deemed complete is to provide all of the materials and the complete form needed by the city that are required for the particular entitlements being sought and being applied for at that time. So the, for example, for the use permit for this project, there's no requirement that you also submit in order for a use permit application to be deemed complete. There's no requirement that you also submit everything you would need for any subdivision map act approval that you may also ultimately need for the project. So that application was deemed to complete based upon all the materials that were required required for the application for those entitlements that went through the process in 2020 to have, um, and, you know, we're deemed to complete as far back as 2011 to. To proceed. And it's actually fairly common for subdivision map approvals, map act approvals, such as tentative maps, parcel maps, et cetera, to follow subsequently and sometimes quite some time after initial project approvals.

Okay. So just to confirm, you're saying it is common practice for developers to obtain their land use and other permits before they file to consolidate the parcels?

that's true or before they file to actually subdivide the parcels as may be necessary to proceed with the development. For various reasons, various land use entitlements aren't always, there's no requirement that somebody who wants to develop a property apply for and get approval of all entitlements necessary at the same time.

for various reasons some of some of them trail quite often it's things like design review and subdivision map act approvals that come later in the process for many projects okay thank you are there other questions from mr hodl jim i i do thank you very much uh mr hodl so just to follow up on the mayor's question so i gather with respect to this approval in 2011 you had one assessor's parcel number 10 what we're calling ghost parcels but one 315 unit apartment complex in various buildings. The parcel count, I gather you're saying, is not really material in the approval of this project. Am I hearing you correctly?

It wasn't material to the approvals that were deemed, the applications for which were deemed to complete in 2011. and the approvals that were granted in 2020. I mean, ultimately, to develop that project, they need to consolidate, as designed, they need to consolidate those 10 parcels into one parcel, which is why they're, you know, obviously why they're bringing that forward now. But in order to obtain those other approvals at that time, it wasn't necessary that they concurrently process a parcel map or, you know, discuss the parcelization in detail at that time.

Okay, right.

So I guess just to be just to really reiterate that. So, so this means if this gets approved the merging of the parts that goes person, the main parcel that doesn't affect any other any other aspect of the project. This is really just really targeted here that no approvals, nothing has happened so far is affected. Right.

Correct. The other the approvals of the projects before assumed that this would be developed as one parcel. So this parcel map once approved would be consistent with what was approved before and the environmental review under CEQA for the project through the environmental impact report and then the addendum that was approved in 2020 also assumed this would be development of a single parcel. So everything is consistent with those approvals if this parcel map decision by the planning commission is upheld tonight. All right.

Thank you. So I have two questions. Just understanding how development typically runs through and some of the legal rulings that have kind of governed that. One of them is that the Avco community developers and this one. kind of, it says that, you know, you can't let the developers just keep going on with these things unless they've actually started building something. It's not a bright line from what I understand, but it's like a, that's like basically what's been, um, what developers use in order to say, oh, you have to keep my entitlements because I did some substantial building, is what can we point to here that helps define that line for us? Like the phase one, of the phase one work, what was in there that kind of satisfies that for us legally?

Well, typically under the AFCO, Under the APCO case law, you need to obtain permits such as grading and building permits in order to vest a right if you don't have a development agreement or vesting tentative map or some other instrument that freezes your zoning for a long period of time. But, you know, you basically have to have valid permits and be continuing to work towards developing your project. And it's like you said, it's not a completely bright line. So what is or what's not? And I think I would also say here, you also have some layers of protections under the Housing Accountability Act that also work to freeze the zoning to some extent as well. So that's a layer that you don't have, that didn't apply in the AFCO case and doesn't apply to all projects.

Okay, so that was my second question was how does the housing accountability act. affect this because I didn't see anything in there about. You know, building projects and expiring permits and you know deadlines, it was more like it was only about the approvals and. How we were limited in how we don't approve it, and this one was approved, and so I don't know why the HAA still stands, because we already approved the project, how does it go past the approval.

This is another approval that would continue to be subject to the Housing Accountability Act because there was an application that was deemed complete in the past that basically triggered the application of the Housing Accountability Act to this project, and it otherwise meets all the criteria, including the 20% affordable housing.

But that doesn't explain how it extends to as it gets built where the HAA plays.

If the project needs additional permits and those permits that were deemed complete that triggered the protections of the Housing Accountability Act remain valid, then those additional approvals that are needed also need to be consistent with the zoning and general plan destinations that applied at the time the original application was deemed complete due to the housing accountability act

Okay, and then this leads into the next question is that in our COAs, we have all these things called out that need to be done before we issue a grading permit. And those are clearly they've still got holds on them. And so that grading permit in our COAs is different than the grading permit they got because we would not have issued that grading permit because we hadn't satisfied all our COAs. So how do you help us understand how the COAs work when it's so clearly states that we have to satisfy so many of those things in order to get the grading permit.

I'd be happy to speak to that as well. My review of the conditions of approval The conditions that are relative to a grading permit stipulate that is prior to issuance of a mass grading permit for the bulk of the site work, not for any grading permit or any building permit to demolish a building or Do minimal work that is not the masquerading for the overall project, so there, there is a distinction, and so the conditions of approval relative to the masquerading permit did not apply to the phase one submittal that they. submitted for and received and conducted work.

And so you're saying that those see ways. even though in there it implies the mass grading, it doesn't really, you're saying that this other little grading kept their permits alive, even though in our COAs.

They did not apply for their mass grading permits.

But that was one of the ones they applied for.

They have now, correct. But I believe the submittal date on that was not 2022, but it's 2025. 2025, yeah.

Condition of approval three, which is the one that triggers the use permit remaining in effect beyond the initial two-year, including the extension term, just says grading permit. It doesn't specify or qualify that it needs to be a mass grading permit in order to keep the use permit alive. It can be a grading permit or a building permit.

Okay. Are there any other questions for Mr. Hodel or staff or the applicant? Just final council question.

Last time at bat. Thank you. This is for the developer. I think this question was asked by the Planning Commission, but I think it's helpful to ask it here, which is, so it's now June 20-something, 2026. This project was approved in 2020 and now we're coming up for this sort of map, this lot consolidation. I guess the question was like why now versus say in 2020? It would have been maybe simpler to have done it back then perhaps than now.

For the record, again, Brian Winter on behalf of the applicant. The applicant could have, as a matter of law, applied for PB, Harmon Zuckerman, A minor subdivision map at the time the use permit was approved that is possible as Mr hotel said it's routinely the case that those types of approvals happen later in this case. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The reason that that approval wasn't sought at the time the use permit was being processed and when it was ultimately approved is because the applicant did not own the property, there was a different landowner and a developer. And oftentimes landowners do not want the status quo to be changed until their property is sold. And that was the case in this instance. So once the applicant acquired the property in 2024, the applicant was in the position to then apply for the subdivision map, consolidating the parcels. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then a question for staff. So I wasn't on the council when this was all approved. I was on the general plan advisory committee. The Terraces was one of the opportunity sites that was part of our housing element. At 315 units is about 15% of our RENA requirement. So I would think if something, if Terraces doesn't happen, then I would think that eats into our buffer. I mean, it maybe doesn't eliminate the buffer, I don't think, but it would take some, a chunk out of it. Is that, do I have that right under like no net loss provisions with respect to housing law? Is that, we're looking at this the right way?

correct we're the terraces not to move forward if it's not built we cannot count those units towards achieving toward towards housing production either in our annual progress report um which is where we report out construction permits issued and applications made and the units occupied um So we could not count them towards our 2,114 RHNA allocation. And that allocation is broken down into four income categories. And so it would reduce the overall projected numbers, which we had to submit to HCD and demonstrate that there is adequate land zoned at appropriate densities to achieve the 2,114 units. And we have knowing that not every project builds to the same projected size or in the same projected income breakdown. We do have a buffer. This one project would not eliminate the buffer in any one category, but it would substantially reduce it. And it would be a 315 unit hole or deficit that we would need to Make up for towards the 2114 overall units. Thank you.

Follow up on that, but our HSC settlement would. Make up for that.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding the question.

The Housing Action Coalition lawsuit settlement plan where we're going to be upzoning, great swaths should be more than enough to cover it if we got close on our buffer.

So the HACC settlement requires the city to consider upzoning around or up to $120,000? acres, in so doing, there would be additional capacity garnered from that. It would be close to, in my recollection of the numbers, that action would make it about even to the projected numbers. If the currently so yeah would roughly work out in between the two.

That is another three dimensional chess here, because we don't have the faith based organizations in that count. I don't think so. I'm not sure where all this settles out. But I think my my question or comment was more to line of like, it's a divot in the in the housing plan we've got.

yeah regardless of kind of which calculation you're doing this would would no longer be available to the to the bottom line are there any other questions okay would any council member like to take a break it's uh eight minutes past nine before we open public comment okay we will break for five minutes we'll be back at 9 15 for public comment

So.

Is that all right with answers? Yes.

you

It's 915. The council is back in session. We're on item 12. See, we'll open public comment. We will then offer an opportunity for rebuttal to the applicant and then the council will discuss the the matter so public comment.

The mayor and city council will take comments for persons in the community hall first and then we'll go to our virtual audience. So people in our virtual audience If you'd like to speak on this item, please raise your hands now so I can get to you when we're done with in-house speakers. My first speaker is Elliot Hudson, and Libby Henry, who happens to be in the meeting hall, is ceding her three minutes to Elliot Hudson. So Elliot has six minutes.

Okay, before our first speaker begins, I will just offer the observation that all council members have read all material that's been submitted by the by the public. Mr. Hudson, welcome.

Good evening. I feel like after the comments by our apologist counsel that this is a waste of breath, but I will go through some of it anyway. Is it the policy of Lafayette to let developers lie and cheat and ignore proper and truthful process without consequence? Just get away with it. You do not have to take my word for the fact that these people did that. These applicants, this developer has been working with the owner of this property since before 2011. They worked together to put in the application that was submitted then. But you don't have to take my word for the fact that they lied about their plans to develop and misrepresented this as a single parcel. Your city attorney says they did, and your staff says so. Here's the simple truth. If in 2011 this developer had truthfully disclosed the fact that they did not have one legal parcel, but instead 10 separate parcels, city staff would have told them they did not have a buildable project and to come back after the lots were consolidated. If that had occurred, no one would have batted an eye. It's no different than if I went in today with an application to develop the La Fiesta Square. Staff would properly tell me I didn't have a developable parcel because I didn't own it. And they would tell me to go away and come back once I had actually had a valid project. No one can dispute that under the Housing Accountability Act, a complete application presupposes and requires a valid, buildable project. They did not have one in 2011 and they do not now. The fact they do not and did not have a valid buildable project is proven by the very fact this application is before you. They can't build without consolidating the lots. They couldn't build then, and they couldn't have a valid project back in 2011. They want you to believe a single assessor's parcel number is an excuse. It is not. A single APN existed in 2011 and it exists today, but this application again proves a single assessor's parcel number is 100% irrelevant. That single number did nothing except help conceal the deception that they had one buildable parcel in 2011. They cannot build and they cannot properly exercise their permits or the 10 separate parcels that now existed that existed when they hid that fact in 2011 and that has existed for 15 years since. Your staff report says that this property was represented was misrepresented as a single parcel and that the staff relied on that in processing it. Council says that you don't have to have a single parcel in order to approve the conditions. Listen carefully what he said is you don't have to have a single parcel to process the application. That doesn't mean that the project was valid from the inception because it was proposed a project over 10 separate parcels that could not be built. Of course, if you have the application, you can run it through, you can process it. That's what staff did, but they didn't have buildable lots then. Why not? Because they knew that if they disclose the absence of buildable lots, and if they had to go get the consolidation first, this city would move forward swiftly with the rezoning of the property that this city council had directed in April of 2010. And they could have completed that rezoning. And by the time the applicant came in with consolidated lots and a complete application, they'd be subject to the zoning that was approved by the council at that time. Low density, single family, residential. This is a precious and irreplaceable property for the Lafayette community, which it highly values. Mayor Enduri, in 2012, you said we should build the Town Center 3 project and contrasted it to the terraces because they were a terrible idea. You were right then and you're still right today. Do not give away this issue. Courts serve a valuable function in American life. They exist to peacefully and properly resolve legal disputes. If you do as you should do, which is deny this application, the developer then has the option of asking a court whether it will excuse their lies and misrepresentations. Will they do it? I don't know. They can build 14 houses and 14 ADUs. That's 28 units. It's not insignificant. It's also not horrific. So if they decide to sue, that lawsuit would be relatively simple. It could be decided on stipulated facts, a motion for summary judgment. It would not be lengthy. It need not be costly. But there's no good faith justification to give away what this community values so highly and has fought so hard to protect. If you do that, you're telling this applicant and every other developer that lies and misrepresentations in Lafayette are just fine. Have courage. But more than that, have principle. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions for the speaker? No. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Jennifer Paul. Kyle, can you turn on the overhead?

The whole picture.

Kyle will come to our rescue. PB, Lupita D Montoya, virtual audience there you got it okay.

yeah.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, Joel audience, please be patient with us we're having a little. PB, Lupita D Montoya, problem with our overhead projector.

Do you want me to start and then show it or is it okay to wait?

It's up to you if this is essential.

Wait a moment. Yeah, it's important. Ah, Eric, thank you. All right, great. All right, good evening Mayor Andori, Vice Mayor McCormick, and members of the City Council. I've submitted three letters to the Council on this agenda item and would like to highlight a few key points tonight. First, as you know, I questioned whether this hearing should be proceeding at all. After reviewing the supplemental packet, I drove to 3233 Deerhill Road to find the posting notices. I had to pull over and refer to the map in the packet just to locate them. What I found were three standard eight and a half by 11 pieces of paper, Two taped to poles on Pleasant Hill Road, one on Deer Hill Road. That's showing. There are no sidewalks around any of the notices. They could not be read from any passing cars without stopping and approaching them and putting them within inches of your face. As I said, I sent the photos. Lafayette Municipal Code requires posting in conspicuous places, and this council has used large sandwich board signs before in the past. Additionally, the California Code requires specific notices to agencies responsible for services such as water, sewage, streets, and schools that I did not see having occurred. I'd asked the council to postpone this hearing until all of that had been done. And as you can see from the audience, and even with the probably lack of public comment, this wasn't noticed the way most terraces had been in the past. But as I'm seeing the council is looking like it's choosing to proceed, I'd like to address the substance directly. If I purchased my neighbor's house and I wanted to build one big house across both lots, I could not submit a building application before merging the lots. The staff report confirms exactly this, quote, building may not cross parcel lines. And it states the merger is required, quote, to allow construction. And those words matter. If construction cannot legally proceed without the merger, it is a fundamental legal prerequisite for the project and not an administrative cleanup. The applicant's own counsel acknowledged at the April 20th hearing that the 10 parcel configuration was identified in the 2011 report. title report. This was not a newly discovered issue, yet the project approvals and environmental review proceeded as though the site were a single legal lot. The EIR was built entirely on that assumption. The findings in the resolution 202643 simply refer back to the 2020 approvals to justify the parcel map. That is circular reasoning. The earlier approval is being used to justify the parcel map, but the parcel issue itself calls that early approval into question. And finally, the staff report points to the single assessor's parcel number as evidence the site was always one lot. But if the APN resolved the issue, this application would not be necessary. The staff report uses an argument that its own application disproves. I request that the council deny the parcel map. The required findings cannot properly be made. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions? Okay. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Janet Thomas.

And who follows Ms. Thomas?

our virtual audience. Okay.

Good evening. I'm Janet Thomas. I live on Palomares Avenue in Lafayette, which if you know the city, you know that I live very close to the corners of Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill Road. And I have no intention of moving. And I am aware of the traffic and construction implications of building there. However, I hope the city council supports the planning commission and staff's unanimous decisions to move forward for the plans for the terraces. My biggest concern is affordability, which is why my husband and I chose to build a one-bedroom ADU behind our house so that our son could afford to live in Lafayette. Renting an apartment, and the terraces will be apartments, is a fraction of the cost of purchasing a home. In this day and age in California, I feel this is the most reasonable way of offering affordable housing and housing for the missing middle. Plus, 20% of the apartments will be designated for lower income. I hope the community welcomes the newcomers who choose to live in the terraces with the same graciousness I've experienced and continue to experience in our wonderful city. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions? OK. Thank you very much.

We'll move to our virtual audience. And I have the following speakers. So if you want to join this group, please do so now. Linda Riebel, Jeremy Levine, Max Henniger, Don Walklet, Brad Rosenthal, and Lynn McMichael, Colin. And that is it so far. So we're going to start with Linda. rival or rebel pardon me and you can unmute yourself okay um i seed my time to colin elliott okay thank you thank you linda i'll move down to colin well let's go in order do you want to go in order okay uh Jeremy Levine.

Good evening City Council. Thank you for your time as always for this discussion. You know, I remember it was just about six years ago now that I gave my first public comment related to the terraces of Lafayette. And that's just a fraction of the time that this project has been being discussed by the city of Lafayette, has been coming before the council time and time again. The city has made a lot of progress on that time. We rezoned for denser housing for the first time, I think, in most people's living memory. We have a real project coming at Oak Hill. We're moving forward with 949 Moraga. The council has been, I think, really strongly supportive of these initiatives and has demonstrated a lot of leadership. And this is another opportunity to continue building on this city's values of creating a place that many people can afford to call home, that does not price out its children, that has a range of opportunities for people of all backgrounds, and reflecting, I think, what the city wants to be, which is a place that makes it possible and has a predictable process for building for the future. The Terraces is a footnote in Lafayette's storied history, and I think it's time that we close the book on this and let it move forward and treat this like the sort of routine approval that it is. I really appreciate the progress that I have seen my hometown and my community and so many people who I care about and love make on housing since that first time six years ago when I attended a Zoom planning commission meeting to talk about this project. And I really look forward to seeing 315 families or old people downsizing or young people looking for a job moving into that project when it's built. I think it's going to be a really amazing thing for our community. So thank you.

Thank you. Questions? Thank you very much.

Next is Max Henniger.

Thank you, Council, for the opportunity to um, speak tonight and for, um, your, your thoughtful discussion on, on this topic. Um, inclusive Lafayette submitted a letter on this project earlier today. So I'll be brief. Um, you heard from the outside council tonight that the project is protected by the housing accountability act. So I won't go into the weeds on that one. Um, I will say that, um, I work in, uh, in housing development and can confirm that parcel maps are routinely pretty late in the process, even after building permits have been submitted as is the case here. So it is a very routine approval and a typical time to apply for it. I really wanna echo the comments that you just heard from Jeremy. I think it's an exciting time that we get to look into the future on this project. We're so close to the point where this will actually be something that I'll be driving by on the way to pick my daughter up from daycare on Deer Hill, a real project that will house actual families, 315, who will be able to call Lafayette home because of it, rather than just a spectacle of nimbyism in the New York Times, which I think is unfortunately what nationally this project is understood as. But luckily, that's now in the past. It's moving forward. And tonight, there's a great opportunity to vote in favor of this approval, affirming the positive vision in the housing element that is moving forward and putting the unfortunate aspects of this project back into the past. So thank you for your time, your leadership, and your continued service to the city and And we urge a yes vote in support of the project.

Thank you. Questions? Thank you very much.

Next speaker is Don Walklet. Please unmute yourself, Mr. Walklet.

Mr. Rosenthal?

Yeah. Hey, Council. Thanks so much for the time. Just wanted to reiterate, I guess, one of the speaker's comments from earlier. I live in the neighborhood across the street, across from PHR, and I'm on a text thread with six other people right now, and only one of us was notified about the meeting. And no one saw said signs that were posted about the meeting. Would have been nice to get more notice about this. Neighborhood probably would have tuned in a little bit more. There might have been a little bit more public engagement. So kind of unfortunate, but just wanted to sort of reiterate the thoughts here from one of the speakers. That's all.

Okay. Thank you. Questions? Okay. Thank you very much.

Next speaker, I'm going to move on to Lynn McMichael.

Good evening. Can you hear me?

Yes.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. I'm so grateful for this meeting and it's not a minute too soon to approve this project and to move forward with the vision we have. or many of us have, of the future of Lafayette. And I just wanted to echo what Janet Thomas and Jeremy have said so far. And thank you so much for your patience and your time in hearing us out. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions? Thank you very much.

I'm on to Colin and Linda Riebel is giving Colin her three minutes. So you will have six minutes.

Okay. Can you all hear me?

Uh, yes we can. If you could speak up just a little louder, it would help.

Okay. Uh, how's that? That's good.

Thank you.

Okay. Um, well, good evening everyone. Um, I believe you all have read the letter that I sent, and I think this does raise a pretty important issue, actually a very important issue. This first came to my attention back in April when the planning commission first heard this about the subdivision map. Somebody mentioned it to me and I said, wait a minute, the Terraces Land Use Permit must have expired by now. They haven't done anything on site. And so then I was like, well, okay, let me investigate that a bit. And I heard, oh, no, they've got their grading permit. So I said, oh, all right. And so I requested said permit. I asked on May 21st. I sent an email on June 2nd. I sent another email on June 17th. And lo and behold, this morning, we get the permit. That is just not enough time to absorb something that is actually extremely important, despite Bob Hoddle, counsel, who I respect, talking around in circles and answering Susan's questions. Here it is. It actually, if you look at it, It does not say that it's land or grading permit number one. It actually, if you look at it, it's just a building permit. It doesn't refer to it as being the first phase of the grading. The first word in the description is demolition. This was a standard demolition and removal of asphalt. And then, yes, do they do grading? Of course, because you smooth out, you have to do the drainage. But the reality is that where this area was and where the house was is all going to get dug down 20, 30 feet and completely removed. They did not actually have to do this at this time. So why did they do it? Well, the reason is... A, they wanted to keep things moving, I'm sure. They demolished the house. The next part of that was to remove all the asphalt, probably the utilities, sewers, that kind of stuff. Developers do that. But this was under appeal at the time. And the reasoning is important because they now realize that if they lost that appeal, they've not lost value. This work could have been done regardless of what gets built on the site. It has absolutely nothing to do with the terraces project itself. It's simply removing the house, removing the asphalt that was there. If they do a townhome development, this will benefit it. So it's nothing to do with the terraces. As we know, the terraces real grading has 10 conditions of approval in front of it before it can be issued. So this thing here, I mean, to me, this is like somebody sending you a recipe for a Cordon Bleu a meal and you read it and it says, take a slice of ham and put it between two slices of bread. It's a ham sandwich. This is not the grading permit for the project. It had nothing to do with the project. Staff have chosen to call it grading permit number one. The developer said added for the terraces of Lafayette, but you have to actually look at what it was. And this had nothing to do with this. This does not in any way meet that condition of approval for a project of this size that said they need to have their grading permit or building permits. And we all know the grading was substantial. So that's very important. So staff trying to say, oh, well, those conditions are for the mass grading. That's just semantics. This doesn't, and it expired. So there is, there are in fact, as everybody said, no valid permits for this project currently. None. So developer could have come back to you 18 months ago and said, hey, we're having trouble. The market's not good. We'd like an extension. They didn't. They did their one year. They for some reason didn't come back to you and ask for an additional extension. That's on them. This is about fairness. It's not about the project. It's not about anything else. This is, are you treating this developer differently from other developers? The market is bad. The city's own website says that they were due to start work in March or beginning of 2025. They are not moving forward with this project, despite what people have said to you in this meeting. They're encouraged by its moving forward. It is not moving. Their own council can't tell you how they're moving forward and what the progress is on this. The reality is they're stalling. They're stalling for time and trying to keep this alive, but the reality is it actually has expired. Now, are there legal cases? Susan mentioned Avco. There are others. Sure, this is a complicated legal aspect. It's not something that you show this permit to everybody the morning of this meeting, and then make a decision on. This is extremely important as to whether this is in fact legal or illegal at this point. And I think the least you can do is extend, continue this to another hearing, have the developer's legal counsel have a chance to wade in, have people on Save Lafayette's side legal counsel and others have a chance to wade in. have a city council, a chance to read AVCO and other things and see if it really applies. Talked a lot about HAA, none of which made any sense. This is something that's extremely important, and I really do feel that you guys have to continue this and look at it, particularly maybe when you've got a full council here, because everything I'm saying, this just proves what I've said, and I've only read it quickly, that in fact, the land use permit for the terraces has in fact expired. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Other questions? Okay, thank you very much.

Next, we have Mike Griffiths, followed by Rob Lavoie, followed by Don Walkley.

Mr. Griffiths.

Mr. Griffiths, you are unmuted and now you've remuted yourself. So you just have to hit unmute. We could go.

Let's go to Mr. LaVoy and then come back.

Hi there. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, great. I thought maybe you'd cross me with Mike there. I have a few questions and maybe I don't know if the developer can answer them at this point. I doubt it. But everybody's saying, oh, we're looking forward to affordable apartments. But just because somebody builds an apartment doesn't mean it's affordable. If you've got ADUs with single rooms right now going for $2,600 a month, you can imagine what a Mark Warren, Three bedroom apartment brand new three bedroom apartments going to be with a view of Mount Diablo. Mark Warren, So I i'm not so sure that everyone's excitement over the affordable housing is going to be realized when this thing gets built. Mark Warren, But. Mark Warren, In terms of concerns that are brought up tonight, I think, clearly, the the proper notice. Mark Warren, Is is lacking. putting up a sign on a weed patch where nobody walks and saying that's a public prominent place is really deceptive. And the issues that Colin brought up, these are complex legal and development issues. And I think I just encourage the council to table this for tonight and bring it back when there's a full council. And after people have had a chance to really analyze these concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions? No. Thank you very much.

Go back to Mike Griffiths, and I'm going to allow you to unmute yourself. There you go. You have three minutes.

Mr. Griffiths? Mr. Griffiths? Okay, let's go to Mr. Walklet.

Can you hear me now?

Oh, Mr. Griffiths?

Yes.

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. Sorry, so much for my technology background. So I just wanted to attach my sentiments to the comments from Colin and Elliot. Colin made the good point and Elliot also made the point that this application was never complete and shouldn't have been approved. It was invalid per Colin's comment. So it was invalid in 2011 and it's been invalid ever since. So even now, the city and the developer have two choices. They can start over at de novo on their application for apartments in a market where apartments are dismal at the moment as a marketplace, or they can consider the current zoning and make an adequate margin on 14 houses with great views and about an acre each, also with an ADU. And that would be a lot less work to get approved. And they would be able, I think, to get a lot more return on their investment. Moving on, I think one separate thing that hasn't been brought up I'll just refer to two instances in the recent past, one in Lafayette itself, one north of here. The one north of here is the Camp Fire or the Paradise Fire. There, 84 people died. And PG&E declared bankruptcy because they saw a $30 billion bill for this fire. And they settled for, I think, $11.6 or $13.6 billion. Why I'm saying that is we ran the software that the city consultant provided for traffic egress from the site. They estimated 10 seconds per car. If you calculate that for half the cars, that's 40 minutes. If you look at the site, it's only about the size of a very large city block, maybe five, 10 city blocks. It's certainly not as big as Paradise. And also in that regard, in Paradise, they estimated the winds with the wildfire were moving at 80 miles an hour. So when you've got a lot that's not even a mile across, it doesn't take long for wildfire to sweep across there. What that means is when we ran the software, it indicated half the inhabitants or the residents would perish. That's 400. If 84 deaths produced a settlement for 13.6 billion, What would the bill be for the city and the council, given that they've been forewarned on this and therefore their exemptions from prosecution might go away? The other thing I point to as relevant is the Lafayette Tennis Club. The Lafayette Tennis Club was a minor fire caused by something from outside the tennis club. However, one thing that it did for sure was it froze all the traffic on the freeway and on Pleasant Hill Road. why I mentioned this, the second key concern you should have is the 28 buses that are supposed to pick up the children that are supposed to assemble in the Akilani's High School parking lot. The predominant direction of the wind prevailing, sorry, prevailing direction of the wind is from the southwest and will blow the fire from the development into the parking lot. You will have 1,800 children there waiting in vain for 28 buses that won't be able to get there, as the CEO of the bus company indicated in writing.

He can't guarantee that. Can I ask you to wrap up?

Sure. So I just make those two key points about residents of this city being exposed by a very risky decision, as well as risk to the city and the city council.

Thank you very much. Other questions? Thank you.

Don Walkley, you're already unmuted, so you can just speak.

Good evening, council members. Good evening. I'm Don Walklet and I own a residence in the Glen neighborhood. First, I want to endorse the input from Elliot Hudson and offer additional information and suggestions. In that regard, I also referenced the email dialogue with council member Kandel regarding wildfire risk in La Mirinda comments, which I have emailed to you separately. From my perspective as an expert in wildfire defense, the proposed project has never adequately addressed the inherent wildfire risk posed by increasing population density, particularly along roads already heavily impacted by rush hour traffic, specifically Mount Diablo and Deer Hill. To my knowledge, the proposed project has never offered mitigation to alleviate that impact as it would contribute additional traffic to an already congested area. Since the 2020 approval, there have been numerous catastrophic wildfires in California, most notably the LA fires in January of 2025. we are clearly dealing with different risks that need to be explored and addressed in approving new projects. The council's first responsibility is public safety. And in that regard, the evacuation of traffic taken into consideration without any further investigation is likely a serious mistake. The admonition applies to the Terraces Project and others coming in the future to the council's compromises regarding potentially efforts to avoid future litigation. In that regard, public safety cannot be compromised. Therefore, I highly recommend that the council not approve further progress on this project until wildfire mitigation is more fully studied and implemented. This can only be accomplished by a strategic review of wildfire risks while exploring options to reduce those risks, which are available off the shelf with a comprehensive update which the state needs to do on a comprehensive basis, the state and the county. I have other comments to make, but I'd be glad to take questions if you have any.

Okay, thank you. Other questions? Okay, thank you very much.

Mayor Enduri, council members, I have no additional speakers at this time.

Okay, we will now offer the applicant a five-minute rebuttal period, up to five minutes of rebuttal. Okay.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Good evening. Again, Brian winter on behalf of the applicant make a couple of points here tonight. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, To the extent there are questions about the efforts that the applicant has been making to implement the project to advance it to satisfy the conditions of approval. I'm sure the Mr. Wolf and Miss Miss iceberg can answer those questions. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, If those questions exist. The Avco case is a 1976 decision that addresses the question of when the developer obtains vested rights under the common law. That decision predated the existence of the Housing Accountability Act, which was enacted in 1982. Nobody is arguing vested rights with respect to Avco. Tonight, the Avco case is wholly irrelevant to anything that you're considering, and Avco does not establish any obligations on a developer. uh the issue here is the project and its protections under the housing accountability act which existed when it was processed originally when it was approved in 2020 and exists today i believe mr hodl stated this he can correct me if i'm wrong but there's was no obligation that the applicant seek a subdivision map at the time the use permit application was filed. No such obligation. And again, it is routinely the case that applicants file subdivision maps and seek subdivision approvals, whether it's to subdivide to create more lots or whether in this case to consolidate existing lots later in time for any number of reasons. Again, we established tonight that the reason that we did so in this case was because the applicant did not own the property At the time, the original applications were filed and the applicant could not, in terms of the relationship that it had with the landowner, could not file the application at that time. No obligation to do so. To a point that was made earlier this evening, had the applicant sought those approvals or filed that application, that application would have been deemed complete at the same time as the use permit application in 2011. The law does not establish or does not give any right for public agencies to play games with application completeness determinations so that they can change their zoning or their land use regulations and stretch things out over time. application to complete determinations are controlled by the permit streamlining act as a state law and had that had the you had the subdivision consolidation application been filed originally it too would have been deemed complete in 2011. the the project would be exactly where it is today except we wouldn't be here tonight the only issue tonight is whether you will grant or deny the appeal uh allowing the project to move forward with the consolidated parcels This is not the time to relitigate the merits of the project, the environmental impacts of the project, which were studied under an environmental impact report and a subsequent addendum that was peer reviewed by the city and its consultant. extensively there are no different impacts to the project as a result of consolidating the parcels all of the impacts have been analyzed disclosed and as relevant will be mitigated there there is no difference tonight this project remains protected by the housing accountability act in the same way that it was in 2020 under which the project can only be disapproved if the city can make specific adverse impact public health and safety findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. There is no evidence in the record of such impacts. The environmental impact report did not identify any such impacts. The statements from the public and the speculative statements and comparisons of this project to other circumstances are not substantial evidence. We respectfully ask that you deny the appeal tonight, allow the project to move forward, and save everybody's time so that we don't have to revisit this exercise at another hearing.

Okay, thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant?

So, question. Under the Housing Accountability Act, we've had many projects lose their approvals in the past couple of years that were covered under the Housing Accountability Act because they failed to move forward and they lost their approvals. And so... I'm just, I'm just questioning that the housing accountability act makes it so that we have to keep approvals open forever. I don't think that's the case because that's not what we're doing in our city.

So why are you thinking that this one is, I don't think anybody's talking forever, but we're, we are operating under the rules established by the city in conjunction with the protections provided by the housing accountability act we have obtained. a grading permit. We were not required to obtain the mass grading permitted. That's a different animal, but we were required to cry, required to obtain and implement a grading permit, which we did. Those have protected the project approvals that's already been agreed to by staff. It was confirmed previously extensively. I can also tell you the Subdivision Map Act itself allows extensions. There's a six-year extension in the Subdivision Map Act when you have a map for extensions. The legislature regularly grants extensions for economic circumstances, understanding that development is difficult and time-consuming and risky. And grants automatic extensions to subdivision maps, this is nothing new and my client has been working continuously. For more than a decade, including all of the years since the project was approved to implement this project diligently there's there's there's no delay there's no lack of of effort or commitment to this project.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Are there any questions for staff? And I will take the opportunity. Could we bring Mr. Hodel back in?

He's here. He just needs to unmute himself. If you ask him a question, he

Okay. I asked Mr. Hodel three questions earlier in the evening, and I would like to ask Mr. Hodel if his answer to any one of those questions would change or has changed based on what he's heard since I asked the questions, either from the applicant, from the public, or questions from the council.

No, my answers remain the same. So nothing I've heard has changed any of the opinions that I gave previously.

Okay, thank you very much. This is a follow-up question for Mr. Hodel. The topic of litigation came up here wherein when we put out a hypothetical, we approve the appeal, developer feels that they have damages and then presumably would seek restitution through the courts. Under the Housing Accountability Act or whatever other statute might apply here,

is a city liable for damages or what's the what's the scope of the of the game being played here if you get into litigation yeah so and so under the housing accountability accountability act if the if there was litigation in the city brought by the applicant the city were to lose they the applicant would recover first of all would recover attorney's fees um those could be you know Somewhere in the 1M to 1.5M range or so if it goes to just a trial court, potentially another 1M or so if there's an appeal, which is quite frequently the case. So that's the, you know, probably the minimum amount of financial damage to the city that could occur from that. The court also may order compliance with the housing accountability act and give the city a 60 day period. to comply. If the city fails to meet that 60 day requirement, then there's a minimum fine of $10,000 per housing unit that applies under the Housing Accountability Act and for 315 units That would be about 3.15 million dollars. If there has also been a finding of bad faith, the minimum minimum fine is five times that amount. So 15 over 15 million dollars. And those are minimums. There may also be potential remedies for damages or other relief against the city under other laws as well beyond the Housing Accountability Act is not necessarily the exclusive remedy. that a developer has if a court finds that an application was improperly denied. But that's certainly at least certainly a route that would be we would expect the applicant to take in the event of a project denial. Were they to decide it's worth litigating?

Thank you.

So we're not denying the project. I don't think that's, it's been approved by a majority of this council. So I don't know. I still am very confused about how projects we do, their approvals lapse all the time. And how, what do I point at to tell the residents that, who were asking me what do I point at as how we're keeping this alive with no end in sight and like how do we how do we justify to our residents the process that's in place where we do have approvals that are denied and then this one goes on forever. What's the end game? How do you define, because we want to get this built. I don't think that that's the issue here. It's got approved and want to get it built. We're trying to build housing, but do we let this go on forever? How do we get to the point where the city is achieving the goals and it's not ending out forever? What's the process?

Well, thus far, the process is, you know, compliance with the conditions of approval. And in order to keep the use permit alive, they needed to obtain a grading permit, which has been done. In order to keep this project alive, the parcels need to be configured in a way that allows the project to be constructed as designed and approved, which would be, you know, part of what is before the council this evening and the applicant would, in order to avoid abandoning the project, need to keep moving forward with that project. There is some case law about when does a project become abandoned once they've pulled permits and done everything that you would typically need to do under the AAFCO rule and that's usually you know quite some time 10 20 years down the line it's been a little while since i've looked into that body of case law something that rarely happens but you know there's there's nothing close to what would trigger a court to determine that uh that this project has been abandoned has has happened here And I think the fact that they're trying to process this parcel map to keep the project moving forward would be a fact that would counter against any type of abandonment having happened.

Okay, I'm not talking about abandonment. I mean, I'm talking about the very clear case where we had here in Lafayette, where Madison Lane, Madison Park, sorry, Lafayette Lane, Madison Park, they must have taken permits out to demolish that entire property. And their approval still lapsed. I mean, that's what I feel like has happened here. It's hard for me to justify, you know, where we've seen nothing go on there. I mean, literally, you're trying to tell us not to believe our eyes. And where we've had a very similar project that did some demolition, just like some demolition was done for this project, and their approval still lapsed. And so how can we get an accountability or a process here where we are confirming that they really are moving forward? Is it just because they're interested in keeping it alive? They're not showing us, they're not doing anything. But how do we get the loop going where we really are seeing, you know, movement forward and so it doesn't fall into this other category where that other project fell it's just inconsistent i want seeing how our city is managing this transparently and openly and if we are giving them extensions on special notice What's the process for us to do that and to keep this going? I don't see a consistent process and a transparent process in Lafayette for managing this project moving forward. And I would love somebody to point me to it. That would be great. Because it's just inconsistent with other projects that we've had here.

Yeah, and well, I can start feeling this and and hand it off to others on staff because I'm not familiar with the details of that other particular project. But what I can say is that here the applicant has. obtained a grading permit, which was what was necessary under the third condition of approval to keep the term of the use permit alive. They have done- I think that's a point of contention.

People assume a grading permit is the grading permit for the project, not a grading permit for the demolition of part of a project that they had to do anyway. That was prep. It's totally irrelevant to the project. And so that's another thing people have been pointing out. That wasn't the grading permit. That wasn't the building permit. And that's our COA say a grading permit or a building permit that's relevant to the project. And this one is not. I'm just trying to figure out the process.

Sure. I'll speak to what I know as to what they've done to move forward, which is to pull a grading permit, which, you know, there is no...

It was a demolition permit that had a little grading.

And so that's... That may be one way to characterize it. There are other ways to characterize it as well. And they've applied for and began processing other grading and building permits, as has been mentioned before. in the staff report, or at least in the supplemental staff report. And they're, you know, they've done the work that was required under the grading permit that they did pull, and they're continuing to process this entitlement, which is something that is needed for the project to go forward. So that's, that's, those are the facts as far as I'm aware of them in terms of what they have done to keep this moving forward, which continues to be you know, efforts on several of those fronts seem to be ongoing.

Let me ask, Mr. Wolf, did the Madison Park entitlements expire?

Not to my knowledge, no.

I was not aware of that either.

I thought that's why they pulled their project.

I mean, I just... This is not the issue for this evening, but I guess I have a different view as to whether the city has a transparent process for this. I mean, the times that we know that applications have lapsed, basically nothing has happened on the site. And we know that there are times when, like the Samantha townhouses, for example, they come to us and they ask for a renewal, you know, if they haven't done anything on the site. So I'm not aware of a situation where a project, well, there's been a question. I'll ask the city manager if you're aware in the years you've been here of a project that's been... No, perhaps you were thinking of...

The one across from the library on Mount Deer Terrace.

Miramar. The entitlements for the Miramar project did expire.

Yeah.

But they made no permits, made no efforts to exercise their approval.

I thought Madison Park had expired. Oh, OK. Because they did. They totally backed out. I thought that they expired. No.

They sold the property to somebody else with entitlement.

The property we heard was on the market. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Sorry. My mistake. That's okay.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Then staff, Mr. Wolf, would you like to add anything before we consider the... No, man.

I'm happy to answer questions.

Okay. And I don't believe we have any questions. Okay, so we'll bring it back to the council. All right, so we have the, again, this is a de novo hearing. We have the resolution in front of us. I'm prepared to consider the resolution and go through and make sure that we look at the conditions, what we need to conclude in order to make the findings for the resolution. If anyone would like to consider any of the other issues that have been raised this evening, raise them. We'll discuss them. The the ones that I don't believe are related to the well, one is the notice of the question of notice. And then the second is the issue that we've been discussing about the, you know, have the approvals lapsed, but and I'm not going to I'm, it appears to me that even if they have a lapse, this is still before us. combining the parcels. This doesn't go away. And then the third issue is whether there was an issue because the application wasn't complete in 2011 and therefore we shouldn't have moved forward. And I think we've gotten a pretty definite answer on that from the attorney for the city that that was not an issue. So would anyone like to discuss any of these issues?

I think it's pretty clear. No, I mean, those questions are answered to my satisfaction. I would say the external ones outside of the scope of the resolution.

That was a key question for me. I mean, the underlying validity of the approval back in 2011, which is not the scope of this resolution here. But I felt that the attorney answered that pretty clearly, that it was valid. So I presume, okay, check that box. I think we followed the appropriate procedure with respect to noticing. Maybe there are better ways to do noticing, but I believe we fulfilled what was obligated to us under California law. The other items, I took notes here. I am very mindful that the council approved this project six years ago, after a long period before then. It was before my time on this council. I've taken the view that I'm not reconsidering the approval of the action the council took six years ago. It's what's in front of us here. I am mindful wherein it seems to me that the approving the appeal, I get this right, therefore denying the lot consolidation in some some view that as a way to sort of stop this project as a sort of a indirect way to stop the project i'm really wary of providing any opportunity for a developer to come at us arguing damages because i think that the consequences that are really severe i think we need to play within the four corners of the court and um walk through this and see if we can make the findings which is where you're leading us mayor

A little bit slightly, a little different in that I still... Would like to get a better way to understand how these projects are progressing. And if there is some way where we can put some transparency around this project I think that's been. You know, a accusation against us for a very long time, and I think we should take this opportunity to bring some transparency around how. These go through and how we're checking the boxes and they are keeping it alive, I think people are aren't they don't understand it. And I think we could do better, and so it you're right, it is absolutely approved and that's we're going ahead with that for sure. but we should do better in keeping people up to date with what's going on, understanding the permitting process, and probably improving the notification process about this particular subject, noting the large, and that's why the appeal was filed for general community awareness. So I think those are things that we should do better in the future.

If I could just add on to that, I think that's a really good point. I mean, we do have a web page on the terraces, which stops a construction, which is frankly out of date. I think updating that would be useful here. And just as a rubric going forward, comments well taken. I think just updating people's, they can read it. This goes into great detail about the back history, but the current history could be a little more robust. I think that'd be useful. We already have the platform to do that too, I think.

That totally makes sense. I think we're all interested in progress of the developments. That being said, the focus of this is not that. But I think this did raise those issues. True. Absolutely. But I'm ready to proceed with the findings. Thanks.

Okay, well, we have the draft resolution in front of us. The staff has prepared it responding to the findings that need to be made. I guess the way I'll ask it, is there any of the prepared findings here that a council member thinks cannot be made that we should discuss? And if there is not, then I would suggest we just move towards adoption of the resolution. Is there any any question about any finding.

So I know there are seven components of the minor subdivision findings and fought for for the. approval of subdivision i'm fine with all.

And I take um. I cannot agree that the method and everything they've been doing on this site has been consistent with keeping the approvals open. I think, unfortunately to me, the staff report kind of proved a lot of the opposite. unfortunately and so i'm not going to be able to make the findings here i don't think that's going to stop this project but because i still have too many questions about whether we are following a process that is as open as transparent that we do for every other project in this city so i can't vote on these the lot line revisions because i question that the process that we're following for this is as we would do for any other project in the city.

All right. say we are following the same process but that's a difference of opinion yes and that's fine and i and uh not for tonight uh but i would definitely be open to discussing you know what we need to do so that there is no question that what we're doing is following the same process and i'll be open to additional things we could do to provide information as to the status of of uh projects that have been approved and where where they are so I think I can make the findings. I'm open to a motion for approval of the resolution.

I'll move approval. I will second.

OK. We'll do a roll call vote. Council Member Cervantes?

Aye.

Council Member Kandel? Nay. Vice Mayor McCormick?

Aye.

And I'm an aye. It's 3 to 1 in favor. All right. Thank you to all members of the public who participated. Thank you to the applicant. Thank you to staff for all of your work on this. Thank you, Mr. Hodel, for being involved during your vacation.

On vacation.

okay so we are on to uh item 14a um council member reports well actually is there any objection if we do b and c before we BC and 13, 15A and come back to 14A?

Okay, do that last.

Okay, we're doing 14B. Appointing two members to the Park Trail Recreation Commission. Council Member Witherspoon and I interviewed three candidates. Two of those candidates were members who had completed their most recent six years on the commission, Carol Singer and Allison Hill, and a third candidate who is very strong. We are recommending that Carol Singer and Allison Hill be reappointed to the PTR commission. So I move adoption of Resolution 202644, reappointing Carol Singer and Allison Hill to the Park, Trail, and Recreation Commission.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Is there any public comment on this item?

There's no public comment at this time.

Okay. And we have voted. And then, do you want to do the next one or shall I? Okay. Council Member Kandel and I interviewed three candidates for two openings on the Public Art Committee. We are recommending This evening that the council appoint Dana Anderson and Jennifer Lothrigal-Fairbanks to the two openings. And so I move adoption of Resolution 202645 appointing Dana Anderson and Jennifer Lothrigal-Fairbanks to the Public Art Committee.

I second.

All in favor? Aye. Sorry, I did it again. No public comment. Is there any public?

No public comment.

Okay. Aye. Almost. Okay. And we voted. So it's, well, all in favor? Aye. It's unanimous for zero. Okay. And then on to item 15A, we have a letter from Michael Milowitz resigning from the Emergency Preparedness Commission after 13 years of service. Yeah.

I had a conversation with him recently, and he really appreciated his service on the Emergency Preparedness Commission. 13 years is a good run. And he made an observation that his background is the doctor. And Michael's comment was basically, it's really important to know each other, to help each other, which I thought really was a good summed up how you do grassroots emergency preparedness. And I appreciate all his involvement with the commission. We'll go through the process of interviewing for a successor. But, you know, someone spending 13 years of their time for the community is something that's always much appreciated.

Yep. So we thank him for his service and is now going to 14A as part of my council member activities. Just to report that we moved the State of the City address and the council appreciation from the 29th as I discovered that only two council members would be there and this is an opportunity to show appreciation to people like Michael who have served. And so I hope he will be there that evening so we can express our appreciation to him and to commissioners who continue to serve as well as the commissioners who have left during the last year. And we have a number of them who have served double-digit years and really like to be able to acknowledge them and say thank you on the...

on uh july 20th well i will not be there for that meeting but you can add my thanks to your uh hoping we'll have we'll have almost almost okay any other uh i'm gonna let you go last just just real quick uh i had a chance to get together with our east bay regional parks district director linda uh dishambo and max corton who's the new general manager and had a good conversation about some of the wildfire safety efforts that they're doing. They're getting more active in that space, which I took great solace in. I've talked to the Emergency Preparedness Commission staff about trying to get them in to do a presentation, because I think it's really important to coordinate with them as to what they are doing, because they're right in our backyard. So that was really helpful. Related to that, Councilmember Candela and I were present for a firewise inspection, if you will, with CONFIRE just this past weekend. Our group is going through a renewal process, as are two others in the community, as we continue this sort of grassroots firewise effort. And Councilmember Candela and I were also in Sacramento for our legislation day. I think just to be really brief about it, I thought it was super helpful. We talked to our representative, Rebecca Bar-Cahan, Senator Grayson's staff, our assembly member next door, Annemarie Avila-Farias, committee staff from insurance and marriage preparedness. I think it's all about trying to sort of get people more aware of what Lafayette is, who we are, what we care about. Wildfire safety, evacuation, e-bikes were three of the big topics. I thought it was very helpful. Thank you.

Nothing to report, actually.

So actually, I have two things. So first off, I want to let everybody know that after a lot of thought and working it through with my family, I've decided not to run for council again this year. I'm doing this knowing that I'm leaving a seriously great council, one that will serve this community diligently even after I'm gone. And of course, I'll still be around. I will no doubt be sticking my nose into certain upcoming hot topics. But we'll take this opportunity to spend more time with my first grandbaby who will be born in November. So thank you.

It's okay.

All right. Second, ABAG. So I went to the big general session ABAG meeting. Kind of two big takeaways. So ABAG, and they kind of actually just admitted this, was that it's been almost completely taken over by MTC. And so that just kind of is fait accompli, done. The other part that was actually really interesting, and I sent all the RENA stuff out so you guys could read it as a council, was the RENA. And it is coming up. And the part that was interesting was that former ABAG chair David Rabbit from Solano County, he's a supervisor now, he spoke at the arena discussion and suggested very strongly that we should all be trying to form subregions. And so thinking about that and thinking about how Contra Costa is actually pretty uniquely suited to become its own sub region. And I wasn't the only one in the crowd from Contra Costa was thinking that way. So I walked up to this big table with a bunch of Contra Costa folks and said, hey, you know, who's with me on doing a sub region? And it was Alex Walker Griffin.

Yeah.

right from hercules who is the former mayor's conference um director and so he's like we absolutely should and so we have a meeting scheduled tomorrow with supervisor rabbit um to pick his brain and go why you know what because he's done it now twice for the last two cycles um it's like what is what's the secret sauce we have to do this kind of quickly by the end of this year in order to get our ducks in a row And so it may be a pipe dream, but he said he was so committed when he said it. I'm like, the former ABAG chair saying to do it. I'm like, okay, we better take this seriously.

It's interesting, because I saw it when you were sent out. Yeah. And first I was thinking it was just La Miranda. I wasn't sure what sub-region you were talking about. No, it's the whole county. The whole county, because we think we're just, because then we would do a lot more kind of shifting within the county.

You skip ABAC completely. They give us Contra Costa County.

Oh, Contra Costa County decides it.

And we figure it out. But we've got such great, the thought was that Alex and I were talking about, it was like, we've got such great partners here. We've got Confire, we've got CCTA, you know, our county folks that should be having more say into where we put all of our housing. We've got great partners here that we trust, right? That can help give us, help us with our visions on how to grow Contra Costa County. I don't know, it was,

no it's like it's worth it when i saw it sub i was a little worried if you're thinking countywide oh yeah that is that's an interesting concept you actually would i think we'd have a lot more um our voice would be more, maybe a smaller pond and would be a slightly bigger, because right now it's so big.

ABAC's so big. It's so big. ABAC does a whole region.

There's 114, I think 114 entities.

And so we'd be dealing with the people that have a stake.

19 cities or whatever, yeah.

That have a stake in growth in our county. And I was just, it's just a thought.

I think we just need to get a pros and cons list or something like that.

Whatever. Yeah. Yeah. You couldn't have said it better. Right? So if we come back and I get this meeting tomorrow and it looks like we'll bring it, you know, as a thing.

Good thought. But would every entity in Contra Costa County need to opt in? It'd be a little weird, wouldn't it? Because that would be weird. What if we had one or two holdouts? Well, then, get weird. Yeah.

Thanks, Sonoma.

The only one the last one that was Solano was the only one last time. There were other on previous cycles that did it and then didn't do it this last time.

Yeah, we should know why. Yeah, no, super interesting. I agree. It almost couldn't be worse.

Anyways, that's it.

All right, well, there will be plenty of opportunity also to thank you for your eight years of service. We certainly understand the reasons for you. No, no, no, no. We want to celebrate. I'm just saying it's too late to celebrate tonight. All you've done. There will be an opportunity.

The roundup, yeah.

Okay, anything else? All right, the meeting is adjourned.