City of Lafayette Lafayette City Council Meeting

Transcription

1 City of Lafayette Lafayette City Council Meeting MINUTES Lafayette Library & Learning Center Community Hall November 25, Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 6:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor M. Anderson called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: City Council: Mayor M. Anderson; Vice Mayor Tatzin; Councilmembers B. Andersson and Reilly (arrived at 6:45 PM) Absent: Staff Present: Mitchell Steven Falk, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Niroop Srivatsa, Planning & Building Services Director; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney; Megan Canales, Planning Technician; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk 3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA ACTION: It was M/S/C (Tatzin/B. Andersson) to adopt the agenda. Vote: (Ayes: M. Anderson, Tatzin, and Reilly; Noes: None; Absent: Mitchell). 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS 5. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel Anticipated Litigation (Gov. Code (b)) (1 case) Significant Exposure to Litigation B. Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation (Gov. Code (d)(1)) City of Brentwood, et al. v. Campbell - Case Number A OPEN SESSION/REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Subramanian stated there was no reportable action from the Closed Session held earlier. 6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor M. Anderson led in the Pledge of Allegiance. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ALEX FLAGG, Lafayette First, stated on November 11 th, they sent a letter to each Councilmember on behalf of Lafayette First that aggregated the community s questions after the September 17 th Town Hall meeting. He said he hopes the Council read the letter and considered the points and questions from approximately 200 members that attended that City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 1 November 25, 2013

2 evening. The City Manager and Planning Director met with them on November 21 st to review the information in lieu of a lengthy response. The night before they received an 8 page letter along with a 200-page attachment and the letter and material were greatly appreciated, and they held a productive meeting. He noted that after they digest the 200 pages they will follow up with their own written response, and he asked that the Council read their letter, the City Manager s response and supporting material. He also noted that the Lafayette Homeowners Council meeting with Mayor M. Anderson and Vice Mayor Tatzin was a great success and he thanked the Mayor for his great PowerPoint and Vice Mayor Tatzin for his candor and backup support. While there seems to be some disagreement on whether Lafayette s choice to become a PDA has any connection to the building occurring in Lafayette, he will submit that they are at least correlated. He said Plan Bay Area calls for 80% of the building to take place in PDA s and there is no way to get around that. Councilmember B. Andersson indicated he believes the Council read the letter and he said he looks forward to staff response and pursuing the dialogue. City Manager Falk said he agreed it was a very productive meeting. He and Ms. Srivatsa were impressed about not only how knowledgeable Lafayette First members are but also how willing they were to listen to staff and try to digest some of the bureaucratic material staff presented. Councilmember Reilly asked if a copy of the material was forwarded to her, and the City Manager agreed to resend her the materials. 8. PRESENTATIONS None 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor M. Anderson requested removal of Item 9A. Councilmember Reilly requested removal of Item 9C. ACTION: It was M/S/C (Tatzin/B. Andersson) to adopt the Consent Calendar Items B and D. Vote: 4-0-1(Ayes: M. Anderson, Tatzin, B. Andersson, and Reilly; Noes: None; Absent: Mitchell). B. Resolution Approving the Third Amendment to the Stormwater Utility Area Agreement Between the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Lafayette Recommendation: Adopt Resolution D. Update on the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Recommendation: Receive and file. 10. OLD BUSINESS A. Mala Subramanian, City Attorney Purchase and Sale Agreement between Contra Costa County and the City for the Old Lafayette Library located at 952 Moraga Road, which is exempt from CEQA APN and Resolution Intent of City to Reimburse Certain Expenditures From Proceeds of Indebtedness Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to sign the Agreement between Contra Costa County and the City for the Old Lafayette Library located at 952 Moraga Road, which is exempt from CEQA APN and Adopt Resolution B. Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director Funding for Purchase of Old Lafayette Library at 952 Moraga Road City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 2 November 25, 2013

3 Recommendation: Amend the FY13/14 budget to include $1,970,000 in Fund to purchase the Old Lafayette Library located at 952 Moraga Road APN City Attorney Subramanian suggested taking Items A and B together. She reported what is presented to the Council is consideration of a purchase and sale agreement with the County for the Old Lafayette Library. The City would be purchasing the library as the City for $1.97 million. The proceeds from that sale the County will be utilizing to reimburse itself for much of the litigation costs associated with clearing title on the property. In addition, they will use the money for additional hours for the new Lafayette Library, additional books and other materials for the entire County collection, and servicing, maintaining and replacing technical equipment at the new Lafayette Library. If the City were to sell the property once it acquires it within 10 years they would also have to use the proceeds for that same exact purpose that she just listed, which she is calling permitted uses. Staff has determined that the acquisition of the Old Library is exempt from CEQA as noted in the staff report and at this point, the County will be considering the agreement on December 17 th and staff is requesting the Council s authorization to have the City Manager execute the agreement. Councilmember Reilly asked what would occur if the City happens to sell the Library prior to the 10 years at the price the City paid. Ms. Subramanian replied that it would have to be used for the same purposes. If the City were to sell it to the school district, the City would not be prohibited, but the proceeds from that sale would have to be used, if sold within the first 10 years, for the permitted uses. It does not matter what the purchase price is, but the City must use it for those purposes if within the first 10 years. Vice Mayor Tatzin asked if the City were to lease the property, what would happen with the proceeds. Ms. Subramanian said there is no restriction on lease; just the sale. She explained that staff did have a conversation with County Counsel about seeing whether they could carve out some sort of exception for a sale to the school district. While they were not opposed to it, it was something that needed to go back to their Board of Supervisors. At this point, since the City has had such a protracted process in trying to acquire this property, staff thought it was best to bring this forward now and then at some future date, if they wanted to make an amendment, they could make that request of the County. Mr. Falk added that he and Ms. Subramanian had several conversations about this. He believes the County would review the request favorably. Staff has no reason to believe they would not, but they wanted to deal with this first, given the length of time it takes to make that happen. Councilmember B. Andersson thanked the City Attorney for what was an unexpected, protracted, and difficult negotiation. Mayor M. Anderson called for public comment on Item 10A. Public Comment: JIM BURNS, said he read the staff report which says this has been in the works since 1996 and he thinks it does not pass the smell test. The City got in a mess regarding the maintenance costs of the library and the only thing this can be interpreted is a backwards way to pay for library maintenance. He said if he buys something, he owns it. If he does not buy it and say he will pay the County $200,000 and the other $1.7 million will be used to maintain the library and on top of it, if he sells it within 10 years, the other money he sells it for is also exclusively used City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 3 November 25, 2013

4 for the library is ridiculous. That the County will happily let the City sell the library to the school district and use the money the way they want is clearly something that BART negotiators would come up with. The idea that the City signs a contract with the understanding that it will be looked upon kindly when they come to sell it is completely absurd. Item 10B states that the City will return the money to the General Fund if it sells it to the school district or they use it as a City use, and it would appear that if sold to the school district under the terms of the contract, they must use the money entirely for the library. He suggested not moving forward with this, come clean, let residents know, and go from there. Lastly, he thinks that the City setting up a 17 man committee to decide to buy something which has been in the works for 17 years is on the same level of planning as the zoning for the Terraces. Mayor M. Anderson moved to Item 10B and asked Ms. Robinson to provide a staff report. Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson stated that as the City Attorney indicated, the City agreed to purchase the old library location for a price of $1.97 million. The next question before the Council is where the money for that purchase should come from. The staff recommendation is to use General Fund money from the reserve to purchase the property until such a time that a final disposition of property is decided. As she indicated, the City offices fund has a cash balance of $2.65 million currently, but since that use has not yet been settled, it would probably be more appropriate to use General Fund money at this time. She cautioned the Council that there will be a short term decrease of the General Fund reserve from about 61% currently to 45%. Mayor M. Anderson asked Ms. Robinson to comment on Mr. Burns assertion that the City has a statement in the staff report that indicates if the property is sold to another public entity such as the school district, the General Fund can be reimbursed. He asked if this is contingent upon the City reaching some agreement. Ms. Robinson confirmed that would be contingent upon the City reaching agreement with the County. Again, if the library is used for City offices, they would use the City offices fund money to reimburse the General Fund without restriction, which is allowable under the current agreement., The City Attorney concurred. Councilmember B. Andersson asked that if the building committee and Council agreed that it should be used for some other City purposes, such as a community center or something else that would remain with the City, whether part of that decision would be identifying the funds that would reimburse the General Fund. Ms. Robinson said this is a very good point and this is exactly the reason staff is recommending using General Funds, because reimbursement would definitely need to be considered when reviewing other uses. Councilmember Reilly asked if Parks and Recreation decides to use it, could funds be moved from Parks and Recreation to repay the General Fund. Ms. Robinson said if those funds existed, they could. Mayor M. Anderson called for public comment. Public Comments: JIM BURNS reiterated the discussion the Council just had which shows this is the most unplanned and pathetic effort. They are rushing to sign something but they do not know what it means. He thinks this is a very, very serious breach of normal practices. Vice Mayor Tatzin said in contrast to some of the public testimony this evening, he thinks the deal before the Council is the result of some very smart negotiations by former City Manager Bob Adams. When they were negotiating an agreement to establish the Redevelopment City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 4 November 25, 2013

5 Agency, the County wanted to limit the City to $75 million in gross proceeds and they also wanted the City to refurbish the existing library. Mr. Adams was able to get the County to agree that the City could do that but that the cost of the library would be over and above the $75 million cap. This resulted in the facility in which we are all meeting because they could pay for it with Redevelopment money that was not under the cap, and truthfully, the library cost more than what the cap would have raised. They did it in such a way that through the private work of the Community Foundation, they raised $12 million which they then loaned to the Redevelopment Agency. As the Redevelopment Agency pays that loan back, it funds most of the operating cost of the library. The City has done what it said it would do they took what they were putting into the old library, increased it with a little more than inflation and this has been the extent of the City s contribution. When he speaks to other Councils around the county, they are envious of what Lafayette did and do not ridicule it. Vice Mayor Tatzin said the other thing that Bob Adams did was negotiate a condition that when the County wanted to sell the City the old building it would agree to use those funds for library costs. Normally, if one buys a piece of property, the buyer does what it wants with the proceeds. The agreement Mr. Adams negotiated said the County could not do whatever it wanted to do with the proceeds, but rather put the money back into the library, which was fairly smart negotiating. Therefore, he thinks they are here many years later celebrating the work Bob Adams did more than 17 years ago when he negotiated this agreement. He would say that the agreement led to both the funding for the construction and operation of the library and now puts up a substantial amount of money available to help with refurbishment, book supply and other things that the library needs going forward. So, he is pleased with the agreement and he would support both Items 10A and 10B. Councilmember B. Andersson seconded the motion and commented that it is not quite clear what happens to the proceeds of a sale. If the library is not sold and kept within the City for whatever City purpose, there are no proceeds. If money is transferred from one City account to another, the money is not tied to library services. If it is sold to a member of the public, the money would have to be used for the library. The question is only what happens when it goes to another public agency. His assumption would be that before a decision is made as to exactly what use it would be put to, the Council will have discussion with the County on how that works out. Obviously, the determination of how to use the building would differ depending on the discussion with the County. Councilmember Reilly said it is her understanding that if the City did not purchase the library from the County as they stated they would, the County could sell it to whoever they wanted to. This piece of property is very important and being able to have some input as to what goes into it, since it abuts an elementary school in the downtown, is a good deal, and she will be supporting the recommendation. Mayor M. Anderson commented that there are many options in front of the City in terms of how they handle this building. The option of leasing, if there is a problem with selling the property, could work out to be quite beneficial in terms of whoever the public entity is. They could have a lease return on that and after 10 years, they could make the lease an option to buy or something else. He thinks this was an asset very strategically placed in the negotiations that occurred in 1996, and at that time it seemed like a good deal, and he still thinks it is. ACTION: It was M/S/C (Tatzin/B. Andersson) to authorize the City Manager to sign the Agreement between Contra Costa County and the City for the Old Lafayette Library located at 952 Moraga Road, which is exempt from CEQA APN and Adopt Resolution ; and amend the FY13/14 Budget to include $1,970,000 in Fund to City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 5 November 25, 2013

6 purchase the Old Lafayette Library located at 952 Moraga Road APN Vote: (Ayes: M. Anderson, Tatzin, B. Andersson, and Reilly; Noes: None; Absent: Mitchell). 11. STAFF REPORTS - None 12. PUBLIC HEARING None 13. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR A. City Council Minutes November 12, 2013 Recommendation: Approve. Mayor M. Anderson referred to page 2, first sentence of the paragraph starting 5A; Mayor M. Anderson reported that the Lafayette School District Governing Board had a very busy year. He believes this was for the City Council. Under public comment on page 14, between Doug Fields and Jean Follmer, there was a comment in regards to the Mayor s house construction and he did not see it. The Clerk indicated it was under the school board joint meeting at the top of page 2. ACTION: It was M/S/C (Tatzin/Reilly) to approve the minutes of November 12, 2013, as amended. Vote: (Ayes: M. Anderson, Tatzin, and Reilly; Noes: None; Absent: Mitchell; Abstain: B. Andersson). C. Support for Ban on Single-Use Plastic Carry-Out Bags Recommendation: Direct Mayor to send a letter to Senator Mark DeSaulnier that supports a ban on single-use plastic carry-out bags. Councilmember Reilly stated she contacted the Senator s office this morning and had a discussion with one of his aides. She clarified that the staff report talks about single use plastic carry out bags and SB 405 is for all single use bags and not just plastic bags. She wanted to be clear about that, and said this does also include paper. She knows the Environmental Task Force came before the Council a few months ago and was discussing plastic bags. They talked about potentially wanting to charge, but the Council did not talk about banning paper bags. Therefore, she thinks this might be going too far. Most letters the Council receives from people refers to plastic bags and she was not sure whether there was some confusion about what the Council is discussing locally versus what the state was looking to do. Councilmember Reilly said the other thing is that the Senator s aide offered to send her some information on the contamination factor, but she never did. However, she will take her word on it that she felt the contamination issue was mute per studies she was going to send. She still had some minor concerns about that. Lastly, after reading the bill, there was some discussion which she clarified that the law would pertain to any store that sells food. For example, since Target sells food, they would also be banning all bags, which was concerning and going too far. The good news is that they were not targeting restaurants for carry out, which was an improvement. Vice Mayor Tatzin asked if there are amendments with the letter that would make Councilmember Reilly comfortable with it. City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 6 November 25, 2013

7 Megan Canales, Planning Technician, indicated that in SB405 it does say that stores may make available for purchase at the point of sale a recycled paper bag, so paper would still be available for a small charge of 5 or 10 cents. Mayor M. Anderson stated therefore, paper bags are not banned, but there would be a charge. Ms. Canales said they would also have to have a certain percentage of post-consumer material which is defined in the Senate Bill. Ms. Canales stated staff wanted to strike something from the letter and recommendation, noting it states, Support for a ban on single use plastic carry out bags... Mayor M. Anderson said this reinforces what Councilmember Reilly is concerned about and he asked and confirmed that the real point is to get rid of all single use bags. He said the recommendation is to support a state-wide ban on single use carry out bags. Mayor M. Anderson called for public comment. Public Comments: EVE NICHELINI, Environmental Task Force member, clarified that when the material states a ban on paper bags the store is giving them away but there is a charge, but not saying they cannot be available. This is no different than what they proposed earlier, to ban the plastic carry out bags and provide a small charge for paper bags. She would hope the City could support this, stating so many counties and cities throughout the state have already enacted very similar legislation, and this would codify something already in practice. For example, some cities provide paper and plastic, some are only providing paper, and this is a small effort. Vice Mayor Tatzin asked what Ms. Nichelini thinks should happen to a merchant who says they do not want to use plastic bags but they are happy as part of their value proposition to customers giving away paper bags. Ms. Nichelini said she thinks they could provide it for a small charge to encourage people to bring their own bags and they should be denied the opportunity to give away a paper bag for free. Vice Mayor Tatzin asked if there are other things merchants should charge customers for every time they go into a store. Ms. Nichelini said this is the only thing which is something that affects the outside of the business which can be litter, end up in creeks, parks, on roadways, and this is just one small effort people can make. GREG MERONEK, Environmental Task Force member, reiterated his support for the state legislation. He thinks the question of whether merchants are charging 5 cents for a paper bag is almost a fee or tax to represent the true cost to the environment. JANET THOMAS encouraged the City Council to support the statewide ban on single use bags, paper and plastic. There are many challenges facing the environment and while this might not seem very important, it is one simple way of mindfully improving the way people relate to the environment and resources. By using re-usable bags, they contribute towards the City s goal of 75% decrease in waste by 2020 and join numerous communities throughout the Bay Area where this is now the norm. Personally, she finds using a reusable bag is simple and efficient. While there will be change for some people in adapting to this, she thinks such a ban will not only help eliminate a major threat to water fowl and pumping tanks, plastic bags in recycling centers is a major cause for breakdown of recycling centers. It will also decrease the amount of unattractive waste that litters the environment throughout the state, such as the hundreds of plastic bags along Highway 4 in Pittsburg. Councilmember Reilly said Ms. Thomas talks of plastic bags and littering. She read some information of bags getting into the sewer system which is costly. She asked if the paper bag is City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 7 November 25, 2013

8 doing any damage. Ms. Thomas said she was addressing plastic only, but paper bags are just a matter of waste and they are made from trees which are resources. It is nice to recycle them, but many people throw their paper bags away, so it is more a question of using resources wisely. CAROL SINGER said she would support a ban on plastic bags but for paper bags, she asked to look into what merchants think about this because she can imagine shopping at a store and asked if a merchant would allow her to walk out with a handful of purchased clothing or toys at Target if she did not want to pay for a bag, which may be viewed as shoplifting. She thinks the Council should determine this before it votes. ALEX FLAGG said plastic bags drive him nuts and is very much against them. They do not break them down and is thankful that some stores take them back. He is indifferent as to whether a store can charge for paper bags, but he has heard that paper bags also do not often get recycled properly. He supported charging merchants 10 cents which goes back to the merchant and thinks people should use paper over plastic and he supported thinking forward on the matter. BOBBIE FREITAS said at her salon, people need a bag to walk out with their products. Often times they are handicapped and she does not want to charge her clients 10 cents, given the bookkeeping nightmare it would cause. She agrees stores could do without plastic, but as a merchant that uses that all the time, she would like to continue using paper bags and does not want to charge her clients. LINDA STAAF said she is hoping the Council will support a ban on plastic bags and unfortunately replacing them with paper bags is not the best idea. She encouraged people to bring their own bags and said often if she is not carrying anything with her, she carries things out without bags. Tonight, she said she was planning on coming to the meeting with plastic bags she collected from around the streets, but clean-up crews had already done it. She found of them though and said they litter the streets, do not deteriorate, and said she found a plastic bag 2 feet below her soil when replacing a plant which had been there at least 25 years and it was still intact. Mayor M. Anderson asked staff for response from public comments. In response to the concern that Ms. Freitas s salon would have to charge for paper, Ms. Canales indicated that SB 405 only refers to stores of a certain size. It defines them as a full-line self-service retail with gross annual sales of $2 million or more or that has at least 10,000 square feet of retail space, so it would not apply to the smaller shops. Mayor M. Anderson said the Council commented that the Council can write the letter to say it wants and the question of charging people for paper bags is the sticking point at the moment. He said he works in Alameda County and if he shops there, he must bring a bag in or he will be charged for a bag. This happened once to him and he learned from the experience. He understands the benefit of this, as people really do not need single use bags. However, he recognized also that the transition needs to occur and stores are ready and supported the bill. Councilmember B. Andersson said he has half a dozen bags in his car but sometimes walks in stores without them. If he had to pay 5 or 10 cents for each bag, he would go back out and learn soon to take them in every time. Regarding plastic versus paper, they are two very different pieces of the waste stream. Plastic does not biodegrade, it floats on the lightest breeze and paper does not. They are a tremendous problem for the waste stream as well. He would want this letter to include single use plastic carry out bags and he is not as concerned about paper and supports adding 5 or 10 cents to the bill. People do not notice when people buy cans or City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 8 November 25, 2013

9 bottles of things a fee is added on and people are able to recycle them, so he would be in support of the letter as written and he is also in favor of the nominal charge for paper. Councilmember Reilly said she would support the letter as long as it is asking for an amendment to SB 405 to only pertain to plastic bags. Vice Mayor Tatzin said he would support sending a letter asking for an amendment that would ban single use plastic carryout bags, to ban single use paper carryout bags that did not have a certain percentage of non-recycled materials, and is not comfortable in mandating a charge for bags. Mayor M. Anderson summarized that Councilmembers Tatzin and Reilly are asking to send a letter requesting an amendment to SB 405, and Councilmember B. Andersson is supporting the letter and asking to support single use plastic bags. Councilmember B. Andersson said if the Council is supporting SB 405 and they are only interested in a plastic bag ban, he would support other Councilmembers. Mayor M. Anderson said the letter can be changed to support the ban in SB 405 as it relates to single use plastic bags, but ask that they amend and change the bill so it does not mandate a charge for single use paper bags. Councilmember Reilly asked if paper bags would be eliminated. Vice Mayor Tatzin said he suggested eliminating carry out plastic bags and he would ask to prohibit single use paper carry out bags unless they had a certain amount of recyclable material. He said there was testimony this evening that merchants can get bags with recyclable content and it is reasonable to ban those that do not. Therefore, the charge is irrelevant because they would not be in stores. Mayor M. Anderson noted that the letter would need to be redrafted to support the ban of single use plastic carry out bags, but also like to consider a ban on paper bags with less than a significant amount of recycled materials. There is a percentage contained in the bill to cover those paper bags. The Council would also prefer there be no mandated charge for the paper bags by merchants. Councilmember Reilly said the only thing she is not 100% sure of is what percentage of recycled paper bags. Most bags from stores usually say they are made from recycled products and she would be okay leaving it that paper bags would not be banned and not specify the amount of recyclable material. She supports giving the merchant the opportunity to charge or not charge. Councilmember B. Andersson said he could support either paper bag policy as it always tends to get recycled in some other product, but as far as the mandated charge, this is done for bottles and cans and anecdotally, there is a practice quickly learned which is valuable, but if the Council does not wish to charge, he is supportive either way. Mayor M. Anderson asked staff to redraft the letter to refer clearly to supporting the language which bans single use plastic carryout bags and to ban paper bags with less than the specified recycled content in SB 405, and to not mandate a charge for paper bags by merchants. ACTION: It was M/S/C (Tatzin/Reilly) to continue the matter to the next meeting in order for the letter to be redrafted per the Mayor s direction. Vote: 4-0-1(Ayes: M. Anderson, Tatzin, B. Andersson, and Reilly; Noes: None; Absent: Mitchell). 14. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 9 November 25, 2013

10 A. Councilmember Traci Reilly Consideration of Senate Bill 1 Recommendation: Discuss and direct staff. Councilmember Reilly said she asked staff to agendize SB 1 after listening to the Mayor and Vice Mayor at the Town Hall meeting and listen to resident speak. It was introduced by Darryl Steinberg, it is an inactive file, but by all indications, it should be returning by the end of the year and she thought it was a good opportunity to discuss it before it is signed by the Governor. She read the bill and listened to the Board of Supervisors discussion in August. Some concerns were similar to hers which include concerns regarding not needing to find blight in order to use eminent domain, the set-aside for low income housing would be 25% versus 20%, and there were issues about the EIR component, specifically section that affects the potential for individual projects to do an EIR would be degraded and it would make it easier for projects to go through. Vice Mayor Tatzin said he breaks the bill into two components; the ability for counties/cities/special districts to set up new redevelopment area agency successors. For Lafayette in the next couple of decades this is a moot point. The bill states one cannot be set up if there is still outstanding debt to pay off, and Lafayette will still be paying off its redevelopment debt for the next 20 years. He is concerned there is some wording that states the city and county or a special district may create an authority. This is not clear whether this would allow BART to create an authority without concurrence by a city. He suggested asking staff to draft a letter after going through the bill with more detail of things Councilmembers like and dislike, and returning to the next meeting for consideration. If interpretation of the bill is such that a special district, even one without land use authority, could create such an authority, he would not favor this. A compromise might be that they could do it if they have concurrence of the land use planning jurisdiction in which the authority will exist. He would also note that as drafted, the bill would suggest that these authorities get into project labor agreements which are something the City has never dealt with. It has dealt with prevailing wage for construction, but they have not gotten into other aspects of project labor agreements. The second part he thinks is of more direct concern to Lafayette is the proposed amendments to the EIR process. There are suggestions that if there is a programmatic EIR which the City does for the DSP, then they cannot go back and look at a project s impacts in a number of circumstances. When the Council approved the DSP, they did so with several findings of special circumstances in his case, only because the law allowed them on a project-by-project basis to go back and review. If this law takes away that ability, then he does not think this is good. He would move at one level to reconsider the DSP, but right now, they are talking about this proposed piece of legislation. One solution might be that whereas the draft law says that this would apply to EIRs that were adopted prior to the law being implemented, if a programmatic EIR or plan were adopted after the law was implemented then it would apply. His general sense is to ask staff and the City Attorney to go through this in more detail and pull out the areas that would be of concern to Lafayette, given its DSP and the basis by which this was adopted and write a draft letter for the Council s consideration. Councilmember B. Andersson agreed and added that he thinks the key item of his concern is he is not sure what the Pro Tem has in this bill ultimately. He would not want to write anything opposing or supporting the bill because the Council does not know what the bill ultimately will be. This seems extremely fluid and he thinks any letter should be focused on the EIR as well as concerns Councilmember Reilly brought up as to what the Council would and would not like to see in the bill rather than support or not support the bill itself. As the Vice Mayor said, most of it has any effect on Lafayette for the foreseeable future. Vice Mayor Tatzin clarified that he thinks the EIR applies regardless. City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 10 November 25, 2013

11 Mayor M. Anderson recognized there is concern with SB 1 and questioned whether staff has monitored legislation closely and asked for comment from the City Manager. City Manager Falk said the City does not have a legislative analyst on staff and relies much on the California League of Cities for this type of work. There had been occasions in the past where Council has asked staff to draft letters, but in that analysis they rely heavily on the League for that and staff can prepare the letter for a future Council meeting. Vice Mayor Tatzin noted that the City does have a legislative committee and in the course of the year, there were several bills like this moving through the legislature and at Council meetings they had discussed the fact that the concept of the authority was moot for the reasons discussed tonight, but over the past several years there has been Council discuss over the impact of changes to the EIR process. They have asked staff to monitor this and have expressed opinions in letters or in meetings with their legislative delegates and thinks they should continue to do so. Mr. Falk said the Council does have a Legislation Committee of the Council; Vice Mayor Tatzin and Councilmember Mitchell. If the Council agrees, staff could draft the letter for review by the committee and then once comfortable, it could be brought to the full Council for review. The Council concurred with this direction. Mayor M. Anderson thanked Councilmember Reilly for bringing the bill forward, and called for public comment. Public Comments: ANOUSCHKA WARDY said what she understands SB 1 will do is fund Plan Bay Area which is a flawed plan that should either be scratched or re-written with numbers and data realistic and not idealistic. She has heard much criticism of SB 1, as well as SB 375, and citizens are not aware of these impacts. She admits she is still reading and learning and thus far has learned that it creates a new government agency to extract property tax and other taxes to fund Plan Bay Area. A Sustainable Community Investment Authority would be created with no voter oversight. It could issue bonds without voter approval and also declare rural and suburban areas blight without cause. Someone called it eminent domain on steroids. It will lead to an increase in city and county taxes. The Governor has scheduled to vote on SB 1 in January and it is great the Council is discussing it tonight. Unfortunately, this is a holiday week and she hopes the Council agendizes this again so people can have a chance to comment. She also hopes staff and Councilmembers conduct research to conclude that yet another regional joint powers authority getting into the City s business is not beneficial. She encouraged the Mayor to write a letter to Governor Brown to vote no on SB 1 as soon as possible. ALEX FLAGG thanked the Council for bringing this up in advance as it is quickly moving. He also will be doing homework on it. When he spoke with Mr. Falk and Ms. Srivatsa, they mentioned that items like this are well-served and addressed as their greater focus. He responded that it is an item where they should think globally and act locally. From what he has read, it is the combination of things like SB 375 and SB 1 that add up; new rules are being introduced mid-stream and it is fluid. He thinks the EIR and other areas where cities at least should have a check and balance system which is very important for planning. The City should maintain its own local control and these things take away from that. He views it as another piece of the puzzle to make things difficult for cities and he is against it in its current form and looks forward to the letter coming back to the Council. City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 11 November 25, 2013

12 BYRNE MATHISEN said she has tried to understand this, but said SB 1 breaks new ground in expansion of the definition of blight as an inefficient land use pattern, which is one of the most offensive pieces of information in the bill. This definition would and can apply to any property, public or private that was arbitrarily assessed as not meeting its full potential. A blight designation makes all properties within a redevelopment area such as the Transit Priority Project Area subject to eminent domain. Once defined, the project area becomes virtually permanent. Designation of blight justifies in private gain by corporate welfare programs. Further, the designation of blight has the oppressive effect of local property owners changing the character of vibrant neighborhoods and locally owned business districts that fall under the threat of eminent domain. In addition, SB 1 effectively eliminates how our ruling institutions are defined by division of power between state and local governments. The new form of government under SB 1 is authorized to determine the conditions by and which citizens must live disguised in the language of economic development. To meet political goals as determined by administrative agencies and entities under an investment authority whose own self-interest and ideological ideologies are served. She lives very close to the BART station and is personally offended that they could declare her neighborhood as blighted. BOBBIE FREITAS said it feels very bad to her to think citizens are giving up more rights as citizens and more of their rights as a City to govern the way they want to and need to make their city to be the way they want it to and overturn the ability to someone else who does not live here, to guide them and tell them what they can and cannot do. This is why residents have a Council; to vote and make sure things are the way they need to be and not a cookie-cutter stamped city. She works hard to live here and wants a right to be able to vote and create the city the way she wants it. The blight determination scares her to death because Lafayette loses control. She asked to be able to keep their freedom and to be able to create the city the way they want to. Councilmember Reilly said she thinks some of Ms. Freitas concerns are ones she shares. It is almost a full time job of knowing what is going on in Sacramento and often they do not realize until it is too late, where the city can be stripped of its local responsibility. She thinks it is important to stay ahead of these things, speak out collectively and continue to be in charge of their own domain. Mayor M. Anderson said to remember is that they are all subdivisions of the state government. If people are worried about Senate Bills, they need to look at who represents them in the Senate because they are elected and re-elected and this is where these issues are coming from. Vice Mayor Tatzin said the Council can write a letter but the City does not vote in November elections for State representatives. He would encourage each speaker to write their own letters to Joan Buchanan as their State Assembly representative, Mark DeSaulnier as their State Senator, and Steve Glaser and Tim Sbranti are running to be State Assemblymember. Mayor M. Anderson restated the direction for staff to return with a draft letter. Mr. Falk said staff will work to agendize the letter on the December 9 th agenda. B. Don Tatzin, Vice Mayor Appoint Director/Alternate to the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection) Recommendation: Discuss and direct staff. Vice Mayor Tatzin said the City is one of many jurisdictions that belong to Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) that runs County Connection buses. Since the Board was formed in 1980, Lafayette has had two representatives; Gayle Uilkema and Erling Horn. Mr. Horn has City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 12 November 25, 2013

13 stepped down and the City needs to appoint a new representative. He has been alternate since the mid-1990 s and never had to go to a meeting because Erling Horn attended every one. He attended the first meeting last week and asked the Council to consider him as the actual member as opposed to the alternate. ACTION: It was M/S/C (B. Andersson/Reilly) to appoint Vice Mayor Tatzin to serve as representative to the CCCTA. Vote: 4-0-1(Ayes: B. Andersson, Reilly, Tatzin and M. Anderson; Noes: None; Absent: Mitchell). Mayor M. Anderson inquired about the appointment of an alternate. Vice Mayor confirmed an alternate was not yet needed because at the next meeting, there will be an opportunity for people to sign up for things they would like to participate in next year and he is sure he can make the December meeting. C. Mayor Anderson and Vice Mayor Tatzin Appointments to the Old Library Reuse Task Force Recommendation: Appoint members to the Old Library Reuse Task Force. Mayor M. Anderson said the Old Library Reuse Task Force consists of Planning Commissioner Karen Maggio, DRC Member Tom Lee, there is no one from the Chamber of Commerce, Parks and Recreation is a shared responsibility of Abbey Fateman and Allan Horn, and Kathryn Schofield from the Senior Services Commission. Vice Mayor Tatzin noted from the School District is Art Kapoor, Ellen Polling, Jim Cervantes, Kathleen Ham, Joe Darrell, and two public members will need to be interviewed to appoint. There are 8 interested members and Mayor M. Anderson stated staff will be arranging interviews and returning to the Council. He noted slots are filled except for the public candidates and a representative from the Chamber of Commerce. They will begin meeting on January 9 th and he thinks it will be a great group. ACTION: It was M/S/C (Tatzin/Reilly) to continue the matter to December 9, 2013 to review and make appointments. Vote: 4-0-1(Ayes: B. Andersson, Reilly, Tatzin and M. Anderson; Noes: None; Absent: Mitchell). D. Councilmember report on activities and consideration of matters a councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda. Vice Mayor Tatzin stated he and the Mayor reported they were at the opening of 4 th bore of the Caldecott Tunnel. There were many speakers including the Secretary of Transportation, head of Caltrans, several elected officials, the head of the Transportation Authority, MTC, and Medallion winners were from Lafayette, the ribbon was cut and the next morning the tunnel opened for traffic. It was completed on time and under budget. Councilmember Reilly said she attended the East Bay Leadership Council luncheon and the guest speaker was Congressman Swalwell, who is the junior Congressman from Dublin and a very charismatic speaker. A point of interest of his is the Veterans Affairs and of concern is that Oakland VA is the worst as far as backlogged response. He also discussed getting funding for BART with the Trans bay Tube, and it was an interesting luncheon. Councilmember B. Andersson said he was out of the country and returned early this morning. 15. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from Jeff Peacock resigning from the Parks, Trails & Recreation Commission effective December 31, 2013 Recommendation: Accept with regret and schedule recognition. City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 13 November 25, 2013

14 ACTION: It was M/S/C (Reilly/Tatzin) to accept with regret and schedule recognition. Vote: (Ayes: M. Anderson, Tatzin, B. Andersson, and Reilly; Noes: None; Absent: Mitchell). 16. ADJOURNMENT 8:35PM APPROVED: ATTEST: Don Tatzin, Mayor Joanne Robbins, City Clerk City of Lafayette Regular City Council Meeting 14 November 25, 2013