Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

okay good evening welcome to the september 8th planning commission meeting at seven o'clock we'll go ahead and get started for anyone who would like to join via zoom hopefully you are hearing this and the instructions are on the first page of the agenda for doing so We will go ahead and do roll call. We do have Commissioner DiGiorgio who is excused tonight. So Commissioner Snider?

Present.

Commissioner Mason?

Present.

Commissioner Salimi?

Present.

And Commissioner LaVange?

Present.

And I'm Commissioner Radnich. Can I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda?

So moved. Second.

All in favor? Aye. I forgot to vote. Public comments, item four. So this is an opportunity if anyone in the room or online would like to provide public comment for an item not on tonight's agenda, so not on the objective design standards, now would be the time. I don't see any in the room, so I will look to staff to see if there's any online.

I'm seeing no raised hands online.

Okay. Item five, consent calendar, the August 17th draft meeting minutes. Can I get a motion to adopt the consent calendar?

Move.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Item six, continued public hearing. There's none. So we now move to item seven, new public hearing for the objective design standards. And I will turn it over to staff to Arlie.

Thank you so much, commissioners. Good evening. Good evening to all of you tonight. The Planning Commission will review the objective design standards phase two for the second time. Your original review of this document took place last December in 2025. The effort to update the ODS Phase 2 began over a year ago with Planning Commission offering again its initial comments last December. Approval was delayed as the HACC lawsuit was settled and now moves forward with a bifurcated approval process. The draft before you for approval tonight has five sections of the document removed with reserved in their place. This is because those sections have the potential to conflict with no net loss sections of state law. In order to ensure compliance, those five sections can be approved only after the rezonings considered by the settlement, but not before. Those rezonings are currently scheduled to come before this body in the fall later on. In the meantime, staff recommends moving the majority of the ODS document through the approval process so that it is applicable to as many future projects as possible. For clarity, there are three versions of the ODS document included in your staff report for tonight. The first and attached to the resolution is the clean version, what would be adopted if your recommendation of approval to the council goes through. The other two versions include a Track Changes version showing all changes made since the Council last reviewed it in January 2026. The second Track Changes version shows a mostly clean version with only the items removed due to this bifurcated process shown as stricken through. Staff's recommendation tonight is that the Planning Commission provide feedback on any changes it would like to see and then recommend approval of the modified document to Council. I'll now turn it over to Monica Sidlick and Kyle Kurtz of Lisa Wise Consulting, who will give you a more in-depth presentation regarding the project's history, process, and the policy recommendations in the ODS document. Before I do, however, please let me know if there are any questions about the steps or timing involved in the bifurcation process. Thank you.

Mayor Mrakas, Ask a question, can you please repeat the third.

Mayor Mrakas, version that's included absolutely i'll just go through them again yeah quickly, the first is the clean version exactly what would be adopted if you recommend it to counsel. The second is attract changes showing all changes made since Council last thought in January 2026. And the third is the track changes showing the clean version, but with the five elements that must be removed due to the no net loss conflict in strikeout. So those were replaced with reserved in the true clean version. Thank you.

So the original is in the package, and the other two are the attachments that are outlined in the attachment section? Correct. Is it really clear which I just want to make sure because I.

They do all sit next to each other. So the, the one meant for adoption. Proposed for adoption is immediately following the resolution and has no strike through. It's completely clean. The very next version has a lot of strike through. There's a lot of blue ink.

I mean, is it. Maybe I'm under misunderstanding. Because the way our packets come through electronically, we get the packets, and then sometimes there's attachments we don't get unless we have to drill down to them. So this is in the original package. All three are bound together. Yes.

And I can double check, but I believe typically what I do when there's an attachment that is to be adopted, it will be A under attachment one resolution. So the clean version should be attachment 1A. Whereas the two track changes versions will be attachments two and three.

Just one thing I noticed is the one that was posted for today has all the strikeouts. But originally I took and brought the one that we were supposed to look at two weeks ago, and that didn't have the strikeouts in it.

Okay. They should have been the same.

No, they are not the same. The one from two weeks ago doesn't have the strikeouts.

Let me take a quick look at the version that's online to make sure everyone has the right thing. resolution because i just assumed they were the chain then i noticed when i was pulling up today that i'm just scanning through the attachment to today's agenda it does look like yeah today's was fine okay so it was the previous one that was okay from two weeks ago did everyone look at today's package wonderful great thank you for that

Okay, any other questions for staff? Okay, then we'll turn it over to Lisa Wise Consulting.

Thank you, Chair Rednitch. Oh, great. Okay, so we've got the presentation up. Good evening. Cal and I are really excited to be here to present to you the, again, the hearing draft of the objective design standards for multifamily and residential mixed use throughout the city of Lafayette. So you know the project team. We've been working closely with Greg and Arlie. David Bergman has been the project director. I've been the project manager and have worked closely with Cal. So for this presentation, I'll quickly go through the project background and what led us to the material in your packet tonight. And then I'll go briefly through the recommendations that are up for for your consideration this evening, not including the content that's been struck out for consideration at a later date. And then we welcome your feedback on all of the draft standards in your packet. Okay, so I'll back up a little bit. We at LWC, so LWC, as you know, we're Planning land use implementation economics all things zoning code planning. and housing elements. zoning amendments. and City of Lafayette a couple of years ago on a rezoning project, which was largely implementing the housing element. Changes needed generally to support the residential densities identified in the housing element. And as you recall, a couple of years ago, we introduced new zones into the zoning code, which supported higher densities than were previously allowed in the city. The some general plan land use element amendments and zoning code amendments and a zoning map were brought before you in early or late 2024 and early 2025 to implement the housing that the programs listed here. And as a follow up to that, another program in the housing element called for the development of objective design standards for multifamily and residential mixed use projects. So following the adoption of those amendments, we initiated the objective design standards project specifically to implement the program here on this slide. So now i'll talk a little bit about the process that led us to the content in your packet. So we began this project. In spring of 2025. We established some initial outreach materials and came before you and the council for a study session to get your initial thoughts on what is needed and what you'd like to see in the objective design standards before we began any work drafting the standards. We released a memo that identified our analysis, what we saw a need for, and how we would recommend taking the input of the joint council and commission and turning it into um standards and of course we know we weren't starting from scratch we're beginning with a three-page document of objective design standards that the city had already prepared we then convened at the recommendation or at the direction of the joint council and commission a design review committee working group and we held a series of meetings we then brought draft material and ideas before The design your video at a DRC meeting and held a public open house, and then we following that following all of the the input that we received at the open house and from the DRC we released hearing draft objective design standards. We were before you December of last year. We documented your input, made changes, came to council, and then, as we know, after a series of delays, we revised the hearing draft standards, and this is what's before you tonight. So a brief recap on objective design standards. We know that we've, in this community, we've been at it for a while, so we know what objective design standards are, and really the occasion for the project. It's to ensure that The processes and the content and the code in the in Lafayette is consistent with SP 330, which is the housing crisis act of night of 2019 which requires a ministerial pathway for all residential projects. As we discussed with you and the council previously, and the community most importantly, there are advantages of ODS. With a ministerial pathway, identifying the design objectives and requirements and what you as a community would like to see ensures that the applicants know what is expected of them Before initiating the process, rather than proceeding through discretionary meetings with the Council with the Planning Commission and Council. And so, as we know, they apply to all multifamily and mixed use residential mixed use projects and the code your code identifies multifamily is any project with three or more. residential units. So there are other pathways described here on the right-hand side of the slide, but we're really focused on the streamlined ministerial review for projects that elect to comply with all of the objective design standards, which we're recommending go in a new part of your code. Okay, so we'll talk a little bit about what the actual content that's gone into the draft standards. So we looked at the general plan. It's important that we're consistent with general plan policies. It's, of course, also important that we're consistent with and support the new code amendments that were adopted in early 2025. And then we know that the downtown specific plan area supports multifamily and residential mixed use so we looked at the downtown specific plan its policies its goals and we took we took um we took direction from these to make sure that the standards implement these policies and goals we also looked at guidelines not requirements but we understand these are the design priorities that the community has identified and has articulated. So we took this to heart to make sure that the standards would speak to these elements and that the standards would effectively implement these. We looked at existing and recent and proposed projects. We looked at the evolution of the projects. We looked at the community discussion, the decision-making bodies discussion. We got a sense of how the projects were received by the community to learn a lesson from them and work with the staff on how these could inform the standards going forward. And then, of course, we all know that we weren't starting from scratch. You have three pages of objective design standards. So we looked closely at what's here and how they were laid out. And we thought about what we might want to do going forward. And suffice to say, we took a lot of this content that we know had already been discussed by the decision-making bodies in the community, and we rolled it forward. And you'll see it in the standards. So of course, as you know, the ODS address open space, creek side lots, landscaping, landscaping and required front and side setbacks, visibility of parking, circulation, and then the building itself, facade length and articulation, massing, Elevations that are at a facing rights of way and what are the requirements for these and and also articulation of building of upper stories. And so we talked a little bit about the outreach events that we held, and so we. documented carefully what we heard to make sure that we we hit up on all we had all these items in the standards that they show up that we're. acknowledging and addressing the community concerns. So we spelled them out here on this slide. But generally speaking, to summarize, we heard that the point system wasn't working very well. And generally speaking, we do a lot of objective design standards across the state. We don't recommend that. So we took that out. We understood that there was a need to address and regulate windows, materials, step backs, On site circulation open spaces when we worked closely with the DRC working group, we talked a lot about massing and articulation. We heard about facade design at the open house, we heard about the need to regulate colors and then in the. In December of last year in January of this year, we talked a whole lot about building height and roofs. And we talked about character and how does building form and roof design and upper story massing, how can that be reflective of the character that the community identifies as our own, as Lafayette's? And how can we make sure that it's seen in development going forward? So I'll go through. The recommendations are the content in the standards. So it's a new code section. So it follows the format of other parts of your code, which is to say it begins with the purpose and applicability section. We already know that these apply to all multifamily and mixed use projects throughout the city, regardless of zone. And then we have a series of purpose statements. So this is a little bit abbreviated, but these are all the purpose statements that are at the beginning of the new code section. We start with an emphasis on the semi-rural ambiance in the city of Lafayette that we identify with and we value throughout the city. And the purpose statements address traditional design they identify that we want to avoid boxy buildings materials streetscape you can see, generally speaking, the purpose statements summarize all of the main parts of the code of the new code section. Okay jumping into the standards themselves. We start with building height measurements stemming from feedback that we received from the planning Commission, we have. The goal is generally to the goal of this part of the standards has evolved to. evolve, such that the code is prohibiting flat roofs on buildings taller than two stories and also incentivizing pitch roofs. by excluding the height of a pitched roof from how we measure building height for buildings that elect to comply with the ODS. We also updated in the most recent draft to call out specifically construction where there's a sort of a flat roof surrounded by a pitched form, which we call a mechanical well. We have a section about roof forms. So this has gone through a lot of iterations. Generally speaking, the approach we want to take is less is more. We want to limit what we're specifically prohibiting to limit, to allow for the creativity of each applicant, but also establish some guardrails for what's most important for the community, what we most value in Lafayette buildings. So we have a list of allowed roof forms and some sort of guardrails about roof design. We've talked a lot also about building articulation, vertical and horizontal, and established some very specific standards for length of building at which specific articulation elements are required. And this varies based on height of building. So we have them summarized on this slide. But generally speaking, buildings up to three stories have certain articulation requirements, and buildings four or more stories have other requirements. And then for horizontal articulation, some changes in the latest draft. We made some language consistent in the particular language in the code itself and changed some graphics to reflect that flat roofs are not permitted at all for applicants electing to choose this path. And then we've got Generally, the goal is to ensure that the parts of the building are distinguished and to emphasize the base of the building. We've introduced standards for parking location and design. The goal is generally to screen parking from view of the right of way. So we have standards for surface parking. Where it can be on the site in relation to the building and the right of way. And then some standards for the design of structured parking when parking is is included in a project and it's structured, we want to make sure that the design is generally matches the high quality design of the habitable spaces of the of the project. And we're also limiting parking access to make sure that the the rights of way that we value so much, and we want to make comfortable and active for pedestrians are. Not full of driveways. Windows and window design and the amount of fenestration on a street facing facade. It was a big topic of conversation throughout this project. Generally speaking, the goal is to prevent walls with too much glass. So we introduced standards for upper story windows and the size. The size of the windows and the amount of fenestration that's allowed. And we also looked at the design of windows themselves. The goal being to prevent flat and unarticulated windows and ensure high quality design. So we looked at the trim and the glazing itself. Also the placement on the facade. We understand that with higher density residential projects, There's a concern about residential privacy and views directly into living space. So we developed, through discussion with the working group and the community and the decision-making bodies, we developed standards for balconies, decks, and windows within 10 feet of the interior side setback. And we also looked at entrances. What do we want to demand of residential entries to make sure that they're visible, that they provide, that they're recessed or have a projection, that they're comfortable places, and that they're essentially well designed. And we introduced standards for all of that. Now for residential mixed use development, we looked at the design of the ground floor. We wanted to make sure that where residential development, multifamily residential development is built and there's a non-residential ground floor use, that that non-residential ground floor space remains active and engaging and comfortable for pedestrians. So we looked at... elements of articulation and fenestration. And then we looked very closely and we spoke at length with the design review, the DRC working group about building materials, what building materials are appropriate, what building materials do we want to prohibit, what sort of combination of building materials do we want to require. Generally the goal is to encourage The use of multiple durable high quality materials, and so we developed the standards that are summarized here. We also got. We as discussions proceeded, we got a little bit more specific about colors and decided to introduce quantitative standards for building colors and generally the goal of these is to prevent. Intense colors neon or pitch black or blinding white and we want to support along with materials. A palette of colors that reflects the this this rural atmosphere that we've discussed. And then open space as part of site design, we looked at. the amount and the design of publicly accessible open space, when we want to require it, and when we do, how much, and where should it be. And then in addition, some standards about private open space accessibility and the forms that it can take. And then looking at Creekside parcels, we identified standards for connectivity pathways to make sure that projects don't turn their back onto the creek. And we also looked at landscaping in street-facing yards. All of the standards are consistent with the development standards by zone, but they pick up where those development standards leave off and look at the design that we want to require in the required setbacks. And a few more specific standards about fencing and screening and landscaping and lighting a lot of this material comes directly from the goals are specifically the policies in this specific plan and the general plan. is an attempt to to implement those policies. Along with feedback that we received from the Community and that's our summary of the standards in your packet. And we look forward to your feedback on all of these.

Thank you, so what we'll do is we'll go ahead and we'll if there's any clarifying questions we'll ask those now and we'll open it up for public comment. Then we'll ask the speaker of any public clarifying questions that we might have and then we'll bring it back to the Lisa wise consulting team for any follow up. And then after that, that's when we can provide any feedback or direction to staff. So I have a couple of questions, but I'd like to first look at my other commissioners if there's any questions on the presentation that would be clarifying. If not, I'll start. OK, do you mind going to slide 19? Here, the bottom two bullets, I guess, it talks about flat roofs. Can you please explain how that flat roof described in those two bullets is different than a flat roof that's not allowed?

So to clarify, those would apply for buildings that are two stories or fewer that elect to have a flat roof. So for buildings above two stories, a flat roof that is not surrounded by a pitched roof is not permitted. So those are just for when it's a smaller one or two story building.

OK, thank you. And then can you please go to slide 30? so here right above the four bullets it says must include one of the following every 300 square feet so just so i understand What if you have a very large square area and you have 300 square feet in one quadrant, 300 square feet, 300, 300. Is the idea that you are to be creating four separate seating areas or could you do it just say in the middle of where those four touch or those two touch and have a larger area that's kind of in the middle? What's the intent there?

I would say I don't believe we really discussed kind of those two different scenarios but the intent and it's not included in the slide but within the standards the reason that we're using that 300 square feet of open space is because we say seating wall minimum eight linear feet so we're talking about a specific dimension which is why there is the minimum square foot of So for all of those, the seating walls, minimum eight linear feet, benches with backs and armrests, a minimum of four seats. So each of them has a number associated with it. So the 300 square feet is to prevent, say, if you have a very large publicly accessible open space and you only provide a few chairs, the intent is to prevent that from happening.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions? Please go ahead, Commissioner Mason.

Just to quickly follow up on Commissioner's, the prohibition on flat roofs. It doesn't say it, but I'm assuming that rooftop penthouses are exempt from that. Stair towers, things like that.

No, thanks. As written, they wouldn't be. But if we think about rooftop penthouses, if the roof form at the building perimeter is pitched, you might expect that there would be a step back. As written, you would still, the step back penthouse portion would still require a pitch form. Yeah, it would.

So elevator towers and things like that?

Well, that would be, an elevator tower wouldn't be considered part of the building. That's like an appurtenance. That's the height exception. That typically wouldn't fall under. wouldn't be subject to the requirements of the building form.

OK. So if it doesn't fall under the height requirements, then it's not covered by the flat roof requirements. I'm just trying to make sure I picture this.

yeah yeah um so that i'd want to look in your code to see what are the exceptions to the height standard but i know that the way these are written so we're um we're not including that height right the the pitched roof form height in the in the building height. So then if you've got a building with a pitch roof that you're not including, but then you have something else sort of in the center of the building, you'd have to think about how, I would say that, yeah, I mean, that would be included in the building height. That would still be included in the building height, yeah. Okay, thank you. And it would require a pitch roof, yeah.

Can I add a little information on two of those items? First, our code does include exceptions to building height. Section 6-513 is titled building height and actually just lists all the things that don't count towards building height. It includes, it's a long list, chimneys, fire towers, radio towers. grain elevators penthouses cupolas spires it goes on so there's a number of things that would not count towards the overall maximum building height that would be allowed they're exempt from those things the question was more not what's exempt or what is it that much i understand is if it's exempt does it also does the flat roof prohibition apply to things which are exempt I think it would. I think they were talking about two different regulations. This building height exception rule is just about the measurement of the height. The ODS is about design. So there's still a roof on top of a penthouse, and it still would have the same roof regulations as described in the ODS. That's how I would interpret that at a quick glance.

Thank you.

And then I just wanted to return, if it's OK, to something Anna, you said. You were asking about the open space requirements. Just for clarity, the way that that's written right now, hold on, let me pull back up. So the XYZ per 300 square feet, there's nothing specific that says that they can or cannot be grouped. So if you wanted to make sure that they weren't grouped or were, that would need to be added. Right now, either way, we would have to say yes, this meets the requirement as written.

Okay, thank you.

Any other clarifying questions? Okay, thank you. We will go ahead and open it for public comment. So this is an opportunity. I believe you filled out a blue slip. And we'll start with speakers in the room and then we'll move to speakers online. So we have.

The first speaker in the room is Elliot Hudson. I think I heard the chair say that we would begin with speakers in the room and then proceed to speakers online, which is the council's approach and the planning commission's approach as well.

Excuse me, do you mind seeing if your microphone is on?

Is that better? Yes, thank you. Good evening, Elliot Hudson. The one thing you must not do is approve, first of all in terms of passing the objective design standards in two phases, that should be done because we shouldn't wait any longer than we already have. This process has already been years late and taken far too long. But I want to address the design standards that are part of what you're asked to approve tonight. One thing you must not do is send the City Council a draft that it has to rework yet again and send back down for more work. You should send them something that they can look at and approve. The first draft that went up to the City Council a few months ago was so deeply flawed that didn't happen. It had to come down. It took months further to revise it further. That shouldn't happen again. When these standards were first written or first drafted, they contain no reference whatsoever to the mission statement or the objective of semi-rural design. It got worked in but it's taken a lot of work to get it there. now they're far better and thank you and thank this commission for having the the wisdom to change the way wall heights were measured so that pitched roofs could be allowed there are four elements however that are still not consistent with the mission statement objective of similar world design Stated another way, under the mission statement, what's important is how this town looks. And if there's an element in the design that does not promote a semi-rural appearance, it should come out. The first element that is wrong is allowing butterfly roofs. Defy you to drive through any community rural community in the United States and find a blood of butterfly roof That is an ultra modern design that not even Walnut Creek has on its buildings There isn't a single building in Lafayette with a butterfly roof design It doesn't promote some our rural design. It should come out the second element are shed roofs and Less important, but still there. The City Council said you shouldn't have flat roofs. A shed roof is simply a flat roof that's been tilted a bit. Does it promote semi-rural design? No, it should come out. You have plenty of other acceptable roof designs that are consistent with the mission statement. the third element is the size of single pane windows this is above the first floor on the first floor you can have big windows for retail or whatever you want but above the first floor the original draft that went to the city council allowed 18 square feet of a single pane without uh single pane windows without division into multiple panes or using window lights The city council said that the window size should be reduced. It's not. It's still 18 square feet. That's 18 square feet. Please take a look at attachment one to my letter.

Will you say it into the microphone so it gets captured for the meeting notes, please?

I'm sorry?

Can you just speak into the microphone so it gets captured for the meeting notes? And your time is up, so I'll just give you one more minute if you don't mind.

Okay, that's 18 square feet. Take a look at attachment one with the example buildings of 1,000 doing Byron Park and any of the others. There isn't a single building that has anything close to that size. which you can allow as a single pane, and then you can have smaller panes. That's what the city council envisioned. This draft doesn't do it. The fourth area is in allowing a total of 45% of the wall area to be, oh, by the way, the current design would allow a whole string of these across a single wall. The fourth area is total window square footage. The initial draft was allowed 60 square feet. The council said that's too much. It's been reduced to 45 square feet. That's still too much. Again, look at the attachments to my draft letter. None of the desirable buildings, 1,000 doing Byron Park, Town Center 2, have 45 percent of their wall area as glass. You can look at also 210 Lafayette Circle, which is attachment two to the letter, which is a lot of glass. That's only 35%. So those four elements, if you change them, you can send the council a plan. It can just say, yes, thank you, let's get this done. Thank you.

Thank you. Just if you'll hold on one sec, just in case there's any questions. Are there, thank you for your public comment. Are there any questions for the speaker? No, okay, thank you.

Thank you.

That is all the speaker slips we have in the room, and now turning online, Libby Henry has her hand raised, and I don't believe I'm a co-host at this point. So I'll ask my colleague in the booth to allow Ms. Henry to speak.

Okay. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay. I wanted first to see if Elliot needs some more time, I'll grant my time to him because I'm mainly online to support what he's saying. and that to let you all know that, you know, I participated in the workshop and everything last year, and I appreciate all the hard work that everybody has done to try and, but to please focus on what he is saying as far as, you know, you're not quite there yet, and to make sure that these changes get made before it gets sent to the council. And like I said, I wanted to donate. If Elliot needed more time, I wanted to donate to him. Okay?

Is that the end of your comment?

Pretty much. I appreciate... I was watching when I saw the general plan thing and I said, well, thank God that's in there. Because... You know, there's a lot of us that are very, very upset and worried about what is happening in the state of California, in towns like Lafayette. This whole housing crisis is a fraud. And I think that all of you know that in your hearts. You know, there are 1.7 million vacant, unoccupied housing units in the state. We don't need more housing and housing. building abundant housing isn't going to make things more affordable. And we all know that, you know, people don't want to say it, but it's the reality. And Yimby is a fraud. And I'm sick and tired of their, you know, BS and what they've done to the cities and the people of California. So, yeah. You know, and getting back to this, just please take what Elliot, you know, he has been so meticulous about, you know, checking these things out. Please take them seriously. Please make those changes so that we can still be Lafayette. I've been here since 1958 and seen a lot of changes. And, you know, change...

might be inevitable but it doesn't mean that all change is good um thanks thank you are there any questions for the speaker okay thank you for participating we have no more public speakers Okay, thank you. We will bring it back to staff, Lisa Wise Consulting, if there, I guess, was anything that was brought up during public comment that you would like to clarify. If not, I can kind of restate a couple things that I heard that maybe you can clarify. Does that sound good? OK. One thing I heard in public comment was that the example at, and this is very detailed, the example at 210 Lafayette Circle is 35% window. On the wall, and I was wondering if you can walk us through. Why the city is proposing, maybe the 40 instead of 35. And actually I said that wrong 45 instead of 35.

Like how did we get to that? Sure, the feedback that we received, Monica is sharing that slide if we did wanna take a look at that. so 210 lafayette the feedback that we received um was that i know that some community members don't appreciate or really feel that 210 lafayette is appropriate for lafayette however the feedback that we received was that this was a good level of fenestration and so that's why um and and kind of going in between and seeing the different um variety and without wanting to be too restrictive

that's where we heard that 45% was the appropriate percentage okay sorry can you say that again so what I heard you say is that based on public feedback 35 was a comfortable number I wouldn't that we went with 45

I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SAY PUBLIC FEEDBACK BECAUSE I KNOW DEFINITELY DURING THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP WE HEARD THAT SEVERAL PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE 210 LAFAYETTE BUT DURING THE DRC MEETINGS AND THEN ALSO THE JANUARY MEETING WE HAD THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL DRC THAT MEETING WE HAD AFTER THE LAST TIME WE MET DURING THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL WE RECEIVED DIRECTION THAT 45 WAS STILL APPROPRIATE BECAUSE GOING LOWER THEY FELT WOULD be too prescriptive. So that's why the 45 was where that landed.

Okay. If I can add on to that. We did discuss what are some palettes, some architectural styles that are appropriate in Lafayette that we've seen that maybe have mixed feedback among the community but are The consensus is that they're generally successful and examples of what we might like to see more of in Lafayette. And we thought a lot about those. And we discussed different sort of palettes of details. I'm going to flip to another slide. So we looked at some existing buildings. We looked at some buildings that working group members liked. And we looked at, for example, the style of building shown in the middle. so that thinking about buildings of the style and then the the example cal just talked about which we did an area take off and found around 35 percent thinking also about our initial goal of sort of less is more and allow flexibility on the part of designers we arrived at 45 should be the absolute maximum but we should allow the flexibility to express to express the a particular style that maybe calls for more fenestration facing the street. All of that discussion put together, we came up with a maximum of 45. It isn't to say that it can't be changed, but that's where we landed for this draft.

Okay, and then can you please go back to the 210 Lafayette circle image? So in this image, we could just do maybe, just look at the, I guess the second or third story. There's a window with panes, a solid window, window with panes. The solid window, or how many square feet roughly would you say that window is? Oh, I'd be hesitant to say. Or maybe staff, because I guess what I'm getting at is one of the public comments we heard is that you could potentially have solid pane, solid pane, solid pane next to each other. But in an example like this, I personally prefer this where it's broken up. So I was just wondering roughly, do we have an idea of what one of those square footages of the windows would be, the single pane one? I know it's a very detailed question right now.

I definitely don't have a hard answer for you. had to ballpark it it looks like three and a half by four feet so maybe what is that well 15 15 14 square feet my understanding is that there are requirements to alternate designs there's not a specific requirement that a large pane window cannot be next to a large pane window However, there are requirements that. Alternation in style occur and changes in window design is one of those things.

OK, perfect. And then if Lisa Wise can walk us, sorry, go ahead. If you can also walk us through how the butterfly roof. And I guess the shed roof, how those came on the list.

Certainly. So going back to our initial goal was let's allow flexibility. Let's really just talk about what we don't want. And aside from that, just leave a lot of the style decisions up to the designer. And we looked at some of the buildings that are recent, recent projects, projects that we know the community has discussed. And we looked at 950 Huff. We looked at 3660 Mount Diablo Boulevard. We see a variety of roof forms. The shed roof at 3660 is just, I believe, at the ground floor commercial. But that is a shed roof that is visible facing the major right of way on that project. We don't want to limit the creativity of designers and architects. That's something we discussed at the very beginning of our first meeting with the working group. So we try to err on the side of, we know that Lafayette has a certain look, but within that, there is an eclectic, a range of styles that you see. There's different building forms, different roof forms, you see a lot and that contributes to the town's charm. We know that as of just a year and a half ago, two years ago, we are having to support and facilitate residential development at a higher density than has been previously allowed. So we wanna think about what do we wanna do? what standards will facilitate that development, because that is our responsibility with the code amendments. Go ahead.

I have a major question here, is with the higher densities and all, how much of this has to be redone? Because when you start getting higher densities, aspect ratios change, the desirability of flat roofs, when you stike on over 5 or 6 feet, a pitched roof on top really doesn't mean something. You don't want something looking like a Chippendale clock sitting out there. So how much of this detail that we have is going to take and need to be redone given the change in densities and another thing is i've only lived here three years people hold that against me but i have been through a lot of these discussions before and you raised a lot of them i was a big part of the whole thing in performance zoning in the 1970s and 1980s and the efforts there and The need for creativity, flexibility and all. The need of variation of styles. You aren't levitating and all are big things and relevant. And going forward, has anyone looked at the extent given the detail that we have in these? the extent of updating and all, how frequent it's going to have to occur, how much resources involved in it when you take and try to have this much detail in it. Yes, you're trying to take and preserve things, but you have economic forces changing, you have design styles changing and all. And like someone said, we have growth, it can be good growth, but you can't live in the past too. And to what extent do we want to impose or allow flexibility, innovation, creativity? Just a common example is we've been talking about windows. One of the biggest innovations, if you ever looked at architecture in the 1880s to 1900s, was the Chicago windows, Louis Sullivan and all, and how they dealt with putting light in, where you would have larger windows because of changes in heating technologies and all. And I have a big question is, are we going to the extent where such innovation as a Chicago window is now going to be prohibited and all, when it may be very functional in the context that we're looking? Do people know what Chicago windows are?

I don't.

Okay. When they started taking and getting changes in interior heating technologies and all, they were going from these single double-hung windows. And Sullivan's example, and it was in several of his buildings, the Carson Perry Scott's probably the most famous one, is he put two double-hung windows on the end, and then he put a big picture window in the middle. And it took and it worked with the aspect ratios of the buildings and all, so it still looked balanced and all, but it also took and allowed the flexibility of open windows, but also big view windows and all that a lot of people like in Florida, see windows without going to a full one and all. But there's been many innovations along these lines over the decades and all.

Yeah, I mean, are we in discussion?

Yes, I was just about to ask. So you had a clarifying question on asking what it is. Are you good? Are you answered? OK.

So my question is has anyone looked at the amount of updates and is this consistent with the that we're going to have to make in dealing with this?

OK. Mr. Hudson, I totally understand that you're frustrated by this, but if you do keep talking during this part, you will probably be asked to leave, because right now we're just following the procedure. So we do appreciate that you gave public comment in writing. I actually have one more follow-up question on something you gave that I'm going to ask staff. We appreciate that you also got two extra minutes when you were speaking so we're going to continue the hearing, and I would appreciate just out of respect. If you could keep the comments to yourself so i'm going to look to Lisa wise consulting or city staff to answer Commissioner snyder's question.

I'll let them give more detail, but yes, these densities were considered. The one thing that has not been wrapped into this is further modifications that may come out of the HACC settlement, HACC lawsuit settlement, which is coming up, so those modifications may occur. But generally speaking, and the benefit of having Lisa Wise work on the housing element, the zoning code adjustments for the housing element, and this project itself is that all of those are tied together in their own review as well. And so these higher densities are very much a part of what the ODS is meant to be applied to. That's the brief version.

I'll just add that, yes, we did, and in particular, some of the example projects that we reviewed early on with the design review committee working group, for example, 1001 Oak Hill, where we looked at, now, granted, that is a building that went through design review, so it was a different process, but understanding, and I know, of course, it's not built either, but looking at a building that is larger, does have higher densities, and kind of what was learned from the DRC during that process was a pretty critical part to the ODS document.

If I can add please to the second part of your question, that is something for this body and the City Council to balance your question of. How restrictive should this document be versus how open? You know, I think that what I was hearing Monica say earlier is that. The goal is to prohibit only that which is agreed on by the deciding bodies to be truly bad design or truly undesirable in Lafayette and to leave the door open to the flexibility of other options that not everyone is going to agree on. So it's just up to these approval bodies to decide which get to stay in and which get to stay out. Obviously there is a lot of personal opinion on what those are. Some of our public speakers don't like certain roof forms. That doesn't mean the approval bodies do. We don't know what the vast majority of Lafayettans feel. They're not here to weigh in. So it's gonna be up to you guys to decide what falls in which category.

okay thanks um i do have one more question in the written public comment regarding the waivers argument so this was the last item in mr hudson's letter um he stated that some argument has been made that without concessions on roofs developers will seek waivers of the ods so can staff clarify Can a developer seek waivers on objective design standards?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

It is a development design standard and therefore under density bonus law can be waived any element of it and once someone qualifies for a density bonus under state law there are unlimited waivers.

So for example could a waiver be to do a flat roof?

Yes. The argument as I understand it, and this was originally made in the working group meeting. Is that? That in that meeting the goal was stated to find a middle ground where this document can not be so restrictive that. A developer throws their hands up and say, well, I just can't follow it and I'm going to wave out of as much as I can. And strict adherence so the. Personally, when I am working with developers doing density bonus projects, the developers that are local and regulars do actually want to comply as much as possible and to keep their waiver count low. They will use them, but it's almost like a little bit of pride in not waving out of everything. And so I think I think see this document as a really strong guidance. Yes, a developer if it's incredibly costly to build a pitch roof, they will likely wave out of it. But if it's. only a little bit more costly, they might want to continue to curry the community's favor and point to this project as something that shows that they're a good player and want to be used and continue to be supported by the community in the future. So it depends. We have both types of developers. We have people that don't care and will wave out of everything. But we also have people that want to participate in making the community a good place. in a well-designed place.

I have a question.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Albanche.

Do you think, because the waivers is if you qualify for it, do you think in the future developers will ever not qualify for you know density bonuses because with ODS right you could because the whole point originally of having a streamline was and density bonus and what I think most developers do is they do that to have the assuredness that they can get an entitled project not necessarily because of the standards it's just we don't want to go through discretionary approval so if we do ODS or when that's fully implemented the discretionary approval will be highly limited So then maybe they won't be doing density bonuses. But I'm trying to remember, I don't remember exactly if you can do that without having any requirement. There's a minimum from the city, too. I just can't remember this.

The city also has an inclusionary housing requirement about specific percentages of specific affordability levels.

just to just to base develop not or to get not to get any incentives just to actually be allowed okay so so there will does that will that minimum always trigger the state density meaning that they'll always have it it doesn't line up perfectly to

to get the correct amounts for a full density bonus or to get the kind of initial state. So you'd have to play with percentages and provide actually a little bit more, I believe. But I think it's becoming decreasingly likely that we will see downtown multifamily projects that are not density bonus.

And so the second part, and this might be discussion, so if you want me to wait.

If it's discussion, please wait. Any other questions? Yeah, please.

I just want to ask you a question. I just want to make sure that all those standards are workable and consistent with state housing law.

You want to make sure that the ODS as proposed is consistent? Yes. Yeah, that's actually why we're doing the bifurcation process. There is a possibility that certain segments of the original document could be considered to conflict with state law. Those have been removed. Those are the, if you look at the third version attachment, the attachment three, Those are the elements that have been struck through. Everything else is the same in what's going forward. And so the plan is to return to this body and the City Council this fall with those added back in after the hack lawsuit settlement changes, whatever they may be. go forward it cannot happen before then because the changes would include higher densities which will then cover eliminate the possibility of a conflict with no net loss excellent so basically if an area we can have 50 housing uh if we were to implement those rules would still keep at 50 housing would not be in a situation where we'd have to reduce from 50 to 35.

sorry I don't think I followed that if I were to go with all those regulation and rules and if you have 50 units that can be built in one specific area if I were to follow all those rules and regulation the contractor and developers would not be in a situation where that 50 number would become 35 because of

The objective standards as proposed facilitate and allow for the achievement of the maximum density permissible in each zoning district.

Thank you.

Excellent. The question or comments?

Comments will wait but if it's a clarifying question that staff can answer please ask that now.

Similar to the 45, how do we come out with that height of 18 feet on the window? Similar to that 45% windows to wall ratio. If you can clarify this, please.

Yeah, similar to the 45%. It just came out of discussion, looking at buildings, looking at example buildings, and looking at facade composition, and also looking at picture windows. What are typical sizes of picture windows? And, you know, it was a number we went back and forth on considerably, I think, with this body, with the working group. And it's... We ultimately determined that it was a standard that allowed for a large, but not too large, picture window. Or part of a facade that, if you look at some of the examples, you can imagine there are some facades where we have panes of glass that are sort of a feature of the facade design.

Excellent.

Yeah.

And finally, I have another question for the staff. Do you think those changes would create more work for the staff in terms of reviewing application?

It depends on the level of change that's requested by this body if this body requests that the largest picture window allowed goes from 18 to 12 square feet, that is a change that can be incorporated into your recommendation of approval and no additional meetings. needs to take place, it would not change the approval process that's been outlined if, however. large swaths of text need to be changed based on what you would like to see done, then it might need to come back just for clarity and to make sure the public is aware of what's happening. So there's an in-between. It's not just one item. If there's a few small edits or numbers that are changed, then that can absolutely be incorporated as part of your recommendation.

Thank you, I understand we also have very high numbers to respect, and I don't want to make it more difficult to achieve those goals. But at the same time, very sensitive to what you have to say here. We have to find the right compromise, not make it too difficult, but also achieve our goals. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We will close the, are there any other questions for staff? We're gonna close the public comment portion. Oh, sorry, did you have someone else? Go ahead.

possibly just to um what uh commissioner salimi said um to your question about the picture windows um just as you were speaking i recalled kind of a conversation that went back and forth with the drc and the city council back in january and in particular a 4040 which is a four foot by four foot is a very common picture window size and which would be 16 square feet so that was definitely a part of the discussion of well that's a sensible and honestly looking at 210 Lafayette circle that's possibly what we're looking at there's possibly a four foot by four foot window so just to add a little bit I believe that was a an important part of the conversation

Thank you.

OK. We'll bring it to close the public comment portion, bring it to the commission for discussion. So again, just a reminder, our charge tonight is to provide feedback to staff on the draft ODS document to be added to chapter 6-39. potentially adopt resolution recommending approval of the chapter or the minor revisions to city council so if there's any initial thoughts anyone would like to start with I'm happy to entertain that. Otherwise, I don't think we need to go through every item, item by item. I think maybe we could focus on items that someone either wants to discuss or disagrees with. I'll start with Commissioner LaBonge.

I'm not a design person, so a lot of these, a lot of these are a little bit lost on me but um i've i've been around long enough to when i see photos i know ones i don't like so one thing i would love is i'd love an example of a 44 percent coverage and a 46 because i couldn't tell you the difference or you know something that's on the threshold because if 210 is 35 that i like that building a lot i think it looks very nice The one that was 60%, I didn't particularly like that. I'm not sure if it's because of the percentage. So if that were a threshold number, I would think that that would be helpful. I also think that if we do set a standard, let's say we put it at 40, and a really good designer says, I really want 41%, they will have the ability irrespective of the density bonus to come in and discuss it it would be discretionary i know and that does put a lot of developers in a world of fear but my guess is they'll probably have the density bonus anyway so i would rather air a little more restrictive than a little less restrictive because they're going to have so many opportunities to get it fixed so that if it's the right design hopefully they have the the gumption to come in here and tell us this is the right design and that's why i want a variance or i want an exception or whatever is required so i'm leaning that way um that's about what i have thanks okay commissioner mason yeah i'm

I don't particularly have a problem with the 45%. I think it is dependent upon the building exterior. That 60%, if I don't like it, it fits with the elevation, whereas the 25%, fit with that style and the 210 Lafayette Circle fit with that. There is going to be some, for buildings three stories and higher, there are gonna be some natural limitations anyway because you have to get kitchen exhaust fans out, bathroom exhaust fans out, and dryer vents out, and they have to be located, I think it's five feet from the operable portion of a window. or exterior doors onto balconies. So you are going to have something like that. And so I'm fine with 40% for the same reason. It's just easier if they say, hey, 41% is right. I know I can go to 45, but 41% is exactly what I want. And so giving them more flexibility to me is the better call. I mean, you look at the construction costs around here. They can afford top notch designers. Thank you.

So just to clarify, what we're reviewing does say shall not exceed 45%. So I just wanna make sure your comment is still the same at 40 or 45.

I am fine with that because I think it's better to say shall not exceed 45 and somebody comes in at 41, then reduce the 45 to 40 and then make them ask, can we go 41?

Okay, so so far LaBonge and Mason have opposite comments on Which is fine.

Yes. Understood. Thank you.

Can I ask? Either for the consulting team or the city team again putting you on the spot. This is a hot topic 45 35 60 I we agree is no You know 45 is what's proposed is there any way while we're doing our discussion to find an example in your archives from other cities or anything of what 45 or

looks like i would ask lisa wise i just did a quick google search and it's just unreliable i i don't feel like i can say with certainty this is definitely 45 so okay we're gonna keep discussion going and if that's something that um can be looked up that would be great okay uh commissioner snyder yeah my frustration is

The state's allowed exemptions make the type of discussion that you need very, very difficult. And where do you draw a lot of these lines of taking and allowing the flexibility and creativity that you need, while at the same time having something that reflects the desires of the community? And how far do you go in it? when reading through this, one of the areas where I was most uncomfortable was when you got to the detail of acceptable siting materials and all. Are we going too far there? What's an architect for then and all? How much can they play around with things?

Is that so commissioner signer is that for discussion or is that a question that you would like?

How far do we go and why don't we go do we go further and all because we have these exemptions Or do we take and try to create a some flexibility at the same time? I hear Two camps here, and just following since I've been here. Two camps, one which one's very restrictive, one which one's the flexibility, and the state which imposes the structure, which makes very difficult to take and come to a compromise. And how are we doing this in the process? And I see a very imperfect solution.

agree but I would say you have to deal with these kids there's no wrong answer as well so what we have I think holistically we're trying to avoid the outlier cases and what we have heard from developers applicants that they want to do a good job for themselves and for the community generally across the board. Now, the balance there shifts sometimes, but they would like a successful project across the board for everyone involved, their future residents, the neighbors and community and town, the city. So they generally meet with us ahead of time and say, what would the city like to see here? and this document informs that there is going to be flexibility with respect to it either through the traditional design review process which they may choose to pursue but more likely through the state density bonus process but they are looking for guidance and i think that doing our best effort it will be imperfect but our best effort to illustrate to them what we are looking for and preventing the outlier cases is helpful to all parties so i wouldn't get too hung up on a given number, whether it's 42 or 43, it really is not going to make a meaningful difference. If it's you know, one-third versus two-thirds glazing, that's a meaningful difference, and we can discuss it. But I wouldn't, I would not fixate on or spend too much time on the deliberations. To your point, there's ample opportunity for the architect to do what they do and their primary driver is going to be their client who is promoting the project but they they want to conform to the degree that they can and so i think putting out what we would like to see is it behooves us to do that um Will they ultimately wave out of one or more things more than likely? Yeah. But I still think it is a absolutely worthwhile and necessary thing. I know I didn't answer a specific question, but I wanted to give the commission comfort that what the Lisa Wise Consulting has done and the staff and the commissions and council to date has been productive and we're really close, in my opinion. would you have a recommendation uh... and i i think the forty five is an appropriate number in looking at two ten lafayette circle i'm surprised thirty five percent is the number so i want to go back and look at that and and see and to your point will will be looking for forties and forty fives as examples as well and your point i wholly agree with There were good 45s and bad 45s. I think your discomfort with the examples was not a function of the amount of glazing. It was a function of the assembly of the facade and what it was doing, not doing. I'll stop. Sure.

Saying that you're going to check the percentage to confirm that that was the number on 210? OK. Yeah. Because it did seem a lot, but I just trusted that it was accurate. But I do like the building at the end of the day. So it would be interesting to know what the actual glazing glass was. Is that OK? Yeah.

And I think credit goes to the architect irrespective of the precise number.

Quick question. Would that building be allowed because with the flat roof requirement? That's a flat roof building, isn't it?

It is a flat roof building. I don't believe it would be allowed as designed. I think they would need to incorporate a pitch roof. Which has been a discussion previously, and you heard the response to lower buildings can still implement a flat roof under the ODS. Taller buildings would need to incorporate a pitched roof, but then have the option.

And that's a three-floor building.

Yeah, under state density bonus to waive out of that.

Monica did just hand me a single sheet that she has for reference about glazing percentages. It has four examples of approved projects. I'll just call out that the glazing number is highlighted in light blue for each of these examples. I'm going to hand it up to you to look at. It ranges from 14 to 39%.

Yeah, I'll just mention this was sort of a study that we did as part of the working group discussions. We were looking at materials, primary materials, secondary materials. So this was developed for sort of to a different end, but it may help inform this discussion about glazing.

Commissioner Mason?

Yeah, perhaps I'm looking at this wrong, but to me, I always try and simplify something from Greg and Lisa Weiss. To me, these guidelines are more set up for local people that, hey, what can we do? And the more we can get local developers in here, the better. the apartment building back up against BART. I mean, that came before the city, I think 20 years before it was, you know, they pulled the permit. And the only people who can afford to do that are big corporate builders who can afford to land bank something for 20 years. And frankly, they're not gonna really care. They wait 20 years. you're just going to try and bulldoze this through the city, or you're going to wait 30 years till you can get a higher density or something else. So I am in favor of the general approach, which is the more flexibility, the better, and that the general intent, which is to give a little bit of help. I personally know, because this was what i did in a previous life i personally know some of the people that have regularly every five ten years come in uh you know checking with greg there's some of the old old families that have owned the land forever and just want to keep an eye on what's going on so thank you for your work

I'm going to pass this, and then if I can have this back after, because I want to speak. Thank you. I'll first start by saying there's a tremendous amount of detail and time that went into this. So I do appreciate all of staff's time, collective staff time, community's time, planning commission, focus groups, the design review commission. even when I went to city council and back, there's a lot. So part of me, like when you're giving your slide deck, I'm like, whoa, that's a lot. But it also, there's a lot. So thank you for the attention to detail. I generally agree kind of with just the general statements that have been made. What we're trying to achieve is to prevent the extremes. We, I mean, a lot of us have been up here for 10 years now almost, or three of us. We've seen a lot of different projects. State law has changed, and I do think that this approach to our objective design standards is much, much better than our point system approach. Is it too much detail in spots that could maybe, you know, you get lost in the weeds trying to match if your window is 18 square feet or 16 square feet? I don't know. Some would consider that weed, some wouldn't. I personally, what I appreciate is the things I asked the questions on earlier. I do like that there's open space improvement requirements. I do like that there is the window variation requirement, no matter if it's single pane or paned windows. I like the variation. I'm personally not a fan of a butterfly roof design. If it were up to me, we'd strike that, but I haven't heard anyone else speak to that. The shed design, I can generally live with. Do I find it frustrating that Waivers, it feels like, can be used on a density bonus project on almost everything. We oftentimes see the art piece go away. We oftentimes see setbacks go away. It would also be a bummer if the roof pitch went away or the windows. And maybe now we get a proposal for 60% independent of if it's 35 or 45. But that's nothing that our objective design standards or our commission or our staff has a say over. The 35% versus 45%, I am going to look at this image from Lisa Wise Consulting. I'm kind of, I'm on the fence of that one. I did understand Commissioner LaBonge's comment of, you know, let's make it a little more restrictive, understanding that if someone wants to go above, right, then they can. I also understand Commissioner Mason's comment and staff's comment that 45 was a number that came up to, or that the consultant team came up with, based on feedback from the working group commission and other inputs. And I'm also not a designer. And so at some point, I feel personally that I do put some faith and trust in the people who are more aligned with this in their professional experience or on their design review commission. experience as it comes to specific design items. I think I'm going to stop there and just open it if anyone else has comments.

I just want to make a comment. I heard a lot about Butterfly Rose comments that you don't seem in semi-rural perspectives and all but if you've ever looked at development of row homes row homes use butterflies very extensively to deal with the valleys you get between units when you have especially certain designs where you have a very high pitch roofs which are used um wouldn't be here because you don't have snow but they're used for several reasons and they have a very pleasing aesthetic when they're used in row homes. But you have to use a butterfly to get out of that flat valley and all. And so as we move to different densities here and all, Essentially, you're saying with row homes, they're going to have to be more boxes if you take and don't allow butterfly roofs. That's the type of thing I'm kind of concerned about as far as picking very narrow details here, is why are you taking and eliminating butterfly roofs where there is a specific context in which they are very, very useful? I think you guys know what I'm talking about.

And so that's a good thing for the discussion. Yeah. So right now they are proposed. So we don't have to cut it out. I was just saying, personally, when I'm thinking of it, I'm not thinking of the type of development that you're talking about. I was just thinking from work, the different projects I've seen with the butterfly roof that, personally, I'm not a fan of. But I also haven't heard anybody else on the commission have a problem with it, so I'm fine.

It goes back to Steven's thing on the windows. There's good and there's bad use of it. True. And there's a very appropriate use for butterfly roast, and there is a big abuse of it and all. How do you take and deal with that situation?

Yeah, Commissioner Salumi.

So I'm in support of moving phase two forward, but before we do that, I would like to ask every single commissioner if they want to address some specific changes and what those changes should be before we recommend those to the city council for adoption. Individual, I would like to ask the commissioner if they have any changes they would like to make to that objective.

Yeah, so that's what we're discussing. Oh, so you want to ask?

Sure.

So on behalf of Commissioner Salimi, I think the request is, it sounds like every commissioner has provided some discussion. You haven't, but I think. or you're getting there. So based on the discussion, are there any requested or suggested revisions that anyone feels strongly that they would like to see so that we can focus our conversation on those couple items, if there are any? So we'll start with Commissioner Snider.

my major recommendation is my general feeling is there's more than enough detail there and i think when they go through at the final time they need to ask is this requirement actually achieving a purpose and weigh it against how much the restriction is and i would take in favor having discussions i think there's so many unique styles so many different architectural aspects of buildings and all that we need to allow flexibility we need to take and make it so that the architects do know what we're trying to get at but i would take and say that we need to take and not put things in just to take and

make it so that there's a standard there that if you meet it you comply and you can move on so that is our charge tonight is um we have the draft in front of us that we can either recommend to city council for approval as drafted or we can provide any specific revisions that we would like to see it's my understanding that the intent is not unless they're very drastic um revisions the intent isn't for lisa wise consulting to go back and do another iteration so my comment is more that i don't want to see moving the other direction i think we've gone far enough in the direction of specification Okay, so you'd be fine making a motion on what's in front of you tonight, voting on what's in front of you tonight? Okay, and then on behalf of Commissioner Salemi, Commissioner Mason?

Yeah, I I think the same thing, you know My fear is I don't want to give these one of these angels dancing on heads of pins type argument It's been the next ten years arguing about something superfluous. So I am fine with Where we are fine with how we got here and I'm accept this as is Okay, Commissioner Salimi I'll ask you

There's been a lot of history here and I've joined the Commission about six months ago, so I trust the expertise of the people who have been working on it for many years. I just want to make sure that we move forward and we are also sensitive with the community. And even if we were to approve the draft tonight, I want the committee to know that when the design come to the commission, there will still be an opportunity for them after this is approved to come with their comments and work with us to make any specific changes if they don't like the specific design of a specific building.

Do you mean as a project? Yes, individually, yes. That is not the case. If a project complies with the ODS document once approved.

Before it's approved.

The approval process is at its staff level. ministerial okay so the whole point of writing these the way that they're written but if they ask for a variant so if they ask that is a different process that started i'm asking specifically if if we were to approve and they were to ask for variants then it will come back to us absolutely and then the community can actually say something there are in fact three levels yes if everything complies with ods it will be reviewed at the staff level with a ministerial Yes, no checklist. If they don't want to comply with ODS, but they do want to comply with the underlying zoning, they can go through the normal process. And if they don't want to comply with the underlying zoning, then they would require a variance. So that's kind of an additional ask. The variance and the normal zoning would go through the same process of coming to a review body. being publicly heard and noticed but just for clarity if anything once the ODS is approved anything that complies with it will be reviewed at a staff level with no public hearing

I am found to move forward because we are so far into the process. And I want to thank everybody, but also think that it is a lot of restriction, personally. I think that it's going to make everybody's life very difficult. It's almost they would have to run AI to know exactly, OK, what we can do here, what we cannot do. At the same time, I appreciate that staff is willing to meet with the developers and designers to actually educate them before a project can start and before they move forward with any design. I'll have to say so I would recommend it to move forward with no changes.

Thank you Okay, what question I would like staff to please clarify based on Commissioner Salimi's comment is Commissioner Salimi you use the word variance which is true is a certain Request what happens if a project comes to you and it's a density bonus project and they want to request waivers on some of these items, does that automatically kick them out of the ministerial approval process? No, it does not. Okay.

The one exception, and actually I would Greg I would want to loop you in there are in our own so this state law density bonus, and then we have our own density bonus code section within which. You know, we have to comply with state law, but we can add additional restrictions and we have a tiered system of. incentives and concessions where specific asks go to specific bodies for review and I believe that the way it's worded is there's requests that go through the zoning administrator requests that go to Planning Commission and then there's everything else that goes to City Council as well as specifics so they could avoid that review by not asking for an incentive or concession Which is possible. I've seen projects that do that. But if they did ask one for an incentive or concession that triggered that, then there would still be a review of that request. I don't believe that the review body would be able to review the entire project, but rather the appropriateness of that request as an incentive or concession. And please, Greg, if you have something to add.

Yeah, there's very limited ones that are applicable that can be decided by the zoning administrator, like the deferral of fees until later in the project. Public art fee is one of them. The bulk of the concessions or waivers would come to the planning commission. If it's height related or a number of stories, it would go to the council as well.

OK, thank you. Commissioner LaVange?

As a general statement, I think when people come to us in the future, we're going to have to just lean on them to say, does this fit a semi-rural small town vibe? And just kind of, that's about all the discretion we're going to have, and it's only to ask. we've done that in the past and had limited success so i think it's something we will just have to do i would prefer that we i i did i didn't know what a butterfly roof was before this meeting so this is a new concept for me but what i did look up every single single example except when i put row houses and by the way i went through about 50 i couldn't find a single one in a row house there are a lot of different row house types but that was interesting what you said because i i would be perfectly fine putting that not on the not part of the ods standards Because the ones I do seem to be more avant-garde type houses, which don't seem to be semi-rural. And this is sort of AI generated, so take it for what it's worth. History. Conceived in 1930, it became famous during the 1950s and 60s in mid-century modern architecture. That doesn't sound, especially in sunny areas like Palm Springs. That doesn't really sound semi-rural to me, but I don't think they're bad. I just think if they do it and they really think it's gonna work, let's make sure that we at least have a chance to look at it. So I would suggest that we put that on the list as something that would require, is not an ODS approved aspect, if you guys know what that means.

So that potentially design review commission or planning commission could chime in.

yes and and i would also but if you guys don't want to i'm totally not going to dig in on this i would want to put the 45 back to 40. but if you guys don't want i'm you know We're not going to sit here for an hour haggling over it, OK? So if no one else supports that, I'm going to vote yes on the 45. But I would like, so those are the two things I would say. For sure on the butterfly, and I'd be fine putting the 45 to 40. Because again, if it's a good design and they come in, I think we're going to agree with them. And if we don't, they're going to do the density bonus anyways if it's really that big a deal. But at least it gives us a chance to have a discussion. That's all.

Commissioner Mason yeah actually that raised one clarifying question so from your slide that shows how you measure the building heights How is it measured on a butterfly roof where you have a sloping plate height?

Is it the average is that the highest is at the lowest because that could also affect how we look at butterfly roofs I Think I can answer that I don't think that the ODS contains a separate definition of building height measurement and There are the the specific measurements of pitched roofs etc But outside of that we would rely on the underlying zoning regulations for building height Which measure from the average of the lowest grade so when you're thinking about a hillside development, right? There's there's the facade that comes the lowest down the hill so the average of that grade that goes up to the midpoint of the highest roof form

this is where I get get uncomfortable because we're flipping back between Lafayette's definition of height and CBC California building codes definition of height which aren't the same and I'm worried that they're going to be confused I don't believe we're using the CBC definition of height we would we would use the zoning codes definition of height to measure how tall a building is and then anything that the ODS says would trump what the underlying zoning says well the slides showed basically the CBC definition of height which is average grade on a sloping site the average elevation because you showed it to the midpoint whereas the city of Lafayette it's always to the lowest portion which on a sloping hillside can make a difference, but I'm okay with that part. I just don't want the two to get mixed up. When you're going from ODS, which has one definition of height, and then to the city, which has a different, and then I'm also asking, okay, well, what happens on like a shed roof or a butterfly roof where The roof pitch isn't taken up in the truss. It's basically you have a sloping top plate. And because all the definitions from your slides go to the top plate, and the roof isn't factored in.

So if you're referring to one of the diagrams in the ODS, text will always trump a diagram. So I see one of these, the 0.01, the building height measurement exception, it does actually look like the bottom line doesn't come down to the appropriate level for Lafayette building height, so that can be adjusted to be corrected. Again, the text is going to trump in our definitions. As far as the butterfly roof, I think we would just treat it as an inverse of a gabled or pitched roof. So we would still take the lowest point of the roof and the highest point of the roof on the top exterior of the roof and find that average midpoint of that highest form. And that would be our top measurement of height.

Okay, I'm still a little confused, but that doesn't change that I'm fully supporting this.

Okay, let me know if you want to keep figuring it out.

No, no, no, as long as it makes sense to you.

Okay, so the two things I would like us to please focus on so that we can make a motion. The window, I've heard 40 being proposed, and right now it's drafted as 45. Are we interested in making a suggested revision to 40? So I'm just going to go down the row and ask Commissioner Mason, where do you stand? Sorry, I'm looking at Commissioner LaBonge, I mean. Commissioner LaBonge.

I'm going to say what I said earlier, 40.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Salimi?

40.

I'm 40. Commissioner Mason?

45.

Commissioner Snyder? 45. okay um so that's i know we're not voting right now but let's keep that in mind that that's uh 3 2 40 45 um i've also heard comment from two commissioners on the butterfly roof shape um so i'm just going to go down the line and kind of ask the same thing would you like to leave butterfly roof option in as is currently drafted drafted or would you like to request that it be removed um i'm going to go and reverse this time commissioner snyder i'd like to see the butterfly roof allowed allowed okay commissioner mason allowed okay I'm removed Commissioner Salimi removed removed that's also three two butterfly I'm just writing down a couple things and then I guess those were really the two the third thing that I just heard Commissioner Mason bring up and that staff confirmed is that Text in the standards does trump images. However, I would respectfully request that the images that we are including, that they do accurately reflect the text so we avoid confusion. That's not fair to a developer who, as Commissioner Selimi already pointed out, probably has to use AI to go through this detail. Okay. I guess I'll just say, I know a lot, a lot of work has gone in to this. Of the two items, the 40% versus 45%, butterfly versus not butterfly, is there any situation where someone absolutely would not move forward with the recommendation to city council if their 40 or 45 wasn't the ultimate number that was included in the recommendation to city council. Okay, I'm hearing no. And then what about the butterfly roof?

Are you worried, I'm sure you're worried that the change is gonna be a lot of change. I don't think that's a lot of change.

I'm not worried that's gonna be a lot of change. I would like us to have a clear communication to city council of what we are recommending. And so what I would hate for, just made up examples, for someone to make a motion that was 40% window with butterfly roof allowed and then have multiple people vote no on it because they disagree with one of the items and not that we have to have total consensus i guess we can't have a draw right there's five of us i mean we can vote i mean it just depends which one goes first but it seems like there's unanimity in the disagreement so

yeah so just to just to confirm with staff what a revision a potential revision of 45% to 40%

or allowed butterfly to not allowed butterfly, would that be considered a minor enough revision that staff could handle? Absolutely. Okay.

Also, let me just say a thing, is when you vote on a recommendation like this there are many many aspects and you're not going to like everything and it doesn't mean i'm going to vote against it because i don't i prefer two or three or four things being slightly different if the overall concept in all is favorable so i think you have to keep in context is preferences have to be made within this larger context

yeah i think that's a really um astute comment that um even of the items that we didn't touch on in detailed discussion tonight there's not all of them i'm super you know they're certain that i'm not a big fan of commissioner mason yeah i thought for the newer members uh anna and i have our commissioner that's fine

have been here the longest and the whole time we've been here i don't think i can't remember any contentious vote we all weigh our opinions and we all have opinions but you know at least the way i look at it is if my opinion isn't strongly held i will defer to somebody whose opinion is strongly held or somebody you know whose it fits closer to their background of what they do in their daily life. So when asked, I gave my opinion, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that is how I will vote.

And I don't think we have to, I agree and I appreciate that. And I've really enjoyed the 10 years, you know, the longest with you two that we've usually been aligned, but there are times we haven't and it's been okay. Now, whenever we get to something really technical, like when we're getting to structural stuff and you start having an opinion, I'm going to lean on that because... even though i'm a structural engineer i don't know half of what you know um but this is opinion and this is uh um uh you know i think i said at the beginning i don't get this side of it as well so that's why it's hard for me to really so anyways all i'm saying is uh i'm ready to make a motion and i would not be at all bummed if a couple people didn't agree 100 on it because these are fringe items anyways

So I'm pretty sure I know what your motion is going to be. And so I'm just gonna let you know ahead of time that even though I do disagree with a couple of the specifics that we've talked about, I do really appreciate Commissioner Snyder's comment and that's where I'm leaning.

Okay, so can I make a motion then? Please. My motion is that we accept as written with the two and I'm not going to cite them all but hopefully you'll understand that we take butterfly roofs off of the ODS approved roofs and that we take the glazing from 45% to 40%. Is that clear enough? Okay, so that is what I'm recommending.

Okay, yeah.

Since we are removing the butterfly out of the equation, what about the shed roof which is almost like a flat roof?

I thought about that but I didn't have the same visual questioning when I thought about semi-rural and small town. I think that could be dealt with in a semi-rural and small town way. So I didn't, it didn't, to me it didn't feel like it needed to be excluded. That's my personal opinion.

Okay, so the motion is the revision to 40% to remove butterfly, and then I assume this still includes, or let me just ask, is this friendly modification to your motion include ensuring that the images in the ODS are the same as the text? Bless you.

Bless you, yes, yes.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Okay, I'm gonna just go ahead and do a roll call vote. So Commissioner LaBonge?

Aye.

Commissioner Salimi?

Yes.

Commissioner Mason?

Aye.

Commissioner Snider?

Yes.

And Chair Radnage? Aye. So the item, oh gosh, I will say. passes, but it's the resolution that's passing with the recommendation to city council with the three requested revisions. Thank you, and thank you for public comment on the item. Okay, forgot we still have more, but it's short, so we're gonna skip our break. Yes, thank you to Lisa Wise Consulting for traveling out to present tonight. um are you cool if we just roll through the last five minutes okay um arc volunteer friday september 18th i'm out of town i'm unavailable is anyone else available this is virtual at 9 30. so not this friday but next And if you are a new commissioner and you're intimidated to attend, it's not scary and staff walks you through it. And staff does a really good job outlining everything in the agenda.

We're very nice.

Okay, Commissioner Salumi, I'm getting the head nod. Thank you. 930 and then usually maybe like on the Wednesday or Tuesday before staff will reach out with the packet and the Lincoln stuff. Oh yeah, you and I did it together one time, yeah. OK, commissioners reports. Commissioner Mason.

I actually had one question for Greg. I read something and it triggered a question. So for all this low-income housing, who does the certification for the income requirements? Is that done at the city level or the county level?

It is initially done by a consultancy to the developer. So it used to be Hello Housing. There are companies and entities that will do it. I'm not recalling the most recent one, but initially it is done, House Keys is another organization that's currently doing it throughout the city. And they're the ones running the lotteries, doing the initial income verification. then it is passed on to the city and we do a verification of income. So done locally, not at the county.

Well, the reason why I was asking, there was an article in the Chronicle about how, you know, in san jose there are a number of people are making three hundred thousand dollars a year and in low-income housing because once they pass initial it's never rescreened and so people first starting out can qualify but they get married or their you know income increases as they go on and so the question is is that a potential problem in lafayette well i i think that would

prove problematic with respect to ownership because people have to demonstrate that they are low income for a period of time preceding the purchase but they may own the unit for many many years and their circumstances might change and so it would be a policy change to force those folks to sell the property separately income for rental income where there is not this long-term asset purchase, that can be done annually with less of a policy issue. So, yeah, there are rental units but the majority of units in Lafayette have been ownership units. There's not an annual currently verification.

Yeah, no, I was only asking about rental units.

Very good, yep.

Just another clarification on that. Income requirement, is there an asset requirement or limit on that also?

We're going to be reviewing all of that in the probably next 12 to 18 months. It's been on our list. I don't think we've done ever a assessment of the city's BMR, below market rate affordable housing, parameters since it was put into place. in 94, essentially. So it's been a while. So they merit updating, review and updating. I'll say that.

The reason I'm asking is a parallel one is qualifying for student aid and all. It used to all be income-based. And about 20, 30 years ago, they discovered that a lot of people with large assets would bring their income down in a particular set of years that is used and kind of skirt the intent of it. And so if you've ever filled out an ASTMA, rather a student aid questionnaire, there's these asset questions and all on it. And I was just wondering if there's some asset questions to prevent that type of gaming on it.

yeah as i said there are there are best practices associated with it now and you've identified certainly components that folks have used to game the system i can't say that that's the case necessarily in lafayette but it is a foreseeable possibility and so to try to forestall that and have it truly go to a warranted needy household, that's the goal. So as I said, it's on our review, and so we'll probably hire a consultant to do that in the next year or so.

Great, thanks. Any other commissioners' reports? M3 is starting soon, so that's coming up in a couple weeks, so then I'll have something to report. DIRECTOR HAMPSON planning directors report.

Next Monday night the City Council will consider adopting by resolution the pre-approved accessory dwelling unit city sponsored plan so off the shelf freely available to anyone in La Mirinda to choose to use those and have those costs borne by the city at the outset and so not have to incur design costs there. And the second item, Art and Wine Festival is coming up, and the city has a booth, and we're always looking for volunteers. Thank you, Commissioner Salimi. it is actually a very good time to spend an hour or two in the booth engaging with the public and trying to answer their questions so we'll try if the council is open to commissioners sitting in I know they've invited staff previously I'd encourage you to do it we'll send out a link we've been invited to stop by but not to sit or stand well I'll do some advocacy

I think yeah, I think that's great and I think it sounds like if that is an option and it sounds like staff will send out an email and then we can each reach out to staff Thanks awesome Oh, I did have a question when you said for the ADU item So I know we gave feedback, and I will read city council staff report, and I'm sure this is gonna be in there. This committee, this commission gave feedback. I believe the next day was maybe Moraga, right? So was the feedback, obviously they came to something, right? They came to design this code in front of city council across all three or town councils. What were the big changes or were there consistency in comments across the three participating communities? Or is that for us to read in the staff report? Not to put you on the spot.

Unsurprisingly there was not unanimity in the comments across all three cities Commissions and the public because it was also there was a survey that was put out to the public with Almost 40 responses, but there were themes and those are addressed in the staff report. There's no sea change drastic changes, you know high desire around square footage flexibility particularly around you know finishes and that sort of thing so I don't think you'll be shocked with any of the minor changes which were made