City of Lafayette Lafayette Regular and Special City Council Meeting Code Enforcement Appeals Hearing Board Creeks Committee MINUTES

Transcription

1 City of Lafayette Lafayette Regular and Special City Council Meeting Code Enforcement Appeals Hearing Board Creeks Committee MINUTES Lafayette Library and Learning Center August 11, Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Tatzin called the regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: Mayor Tatzin; Vice Mayor B. Andersson; Councilmembers M. Anderson, and Mitchell Councilmember Reilly Steven Falk, City Manager; Tony Coe, City Engineer; Lindy Chan, Senior Planner; Michael P. Cass, Associate Planner; Adam Foster, Code Enforcement Officer; Christopher Diaz, Assistant City Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk 3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA ACTION: It was M/S/C (Mitchell/Reilly) to adopt the agenda. Vote: (Ayes: Tatzin, B. Andersson, M. Anderson, and Mitchell; Noes: None; Absent: Reilly). 4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Yolanda Vega led in the Pledge of Allegiance 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None 6. PRESENTATIONS A. Recognizing retired Circulation Commissioner Yolanda Vega Recommendation: Receive and file. Mayor Tatzin, on behalf of the City Council, recognized retired Circulation Commissioner Yolanda Vega for her commitment and service and presented her with a plaque. Ms. Vega recognized Leah Greenblat for her support and assistance during her time on the Commission as Chair, as well as current Commission members. Lynn Hiden, Circulation Commissioner, said the Commission misses Ms. Vega and regarded her as the best. B. Code Enforcement Appeals Hearing Board Annual Report Recommendation: Receive and file. Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 1 August 11, 2014

2 Greg Meronek, Board Member, introduced Boardmembers Clyde Long and Don Anderson and reported that the Board held no hearings this year and stated things were running very smoothly. C. Creeks Committee Annual Report on Goals and Accomplishments Recommendation: Receive and file. Will Elder, Chair, recognized in attendance Peter Gutzwiller, Vice Chair, Jeffrey Gilman and Michael Marchetti. Chair Elder presented a brief PowerPoint illustrating their FY 2013/14 accomplishments and upcoming goals, as follows: Accomplishments: Attended meetings and contributed comments for Downtown Design Guidelines Hosted a workshop on best practices for creek restoration and planning for City Council and Commissioners, City staff, and interested parties from the community. Completed design and installation of two interpretive panels funded by CCC Fish and Wildlife Committee grant. Signs were installed along pervious path on Mt. Diablo Boulevard by Will Hirsh as a Troop 224 Eagle Scout project. Scouts also removed ivy and other invasive plants along the Lafayette Creek Corridor. Staff an informational booth at Lafayette s Earth Day celebration. Held successful Creek Cleanup and Education Day with over 60 attendees who removed invasive plants and trash from along Las Trampas Creek at Leigh Creekside Park. Provided letter of support for Clean Water Program grant to fund a Walnut Creek Watershed coordinator. They are receiving coordinator time again this year to help out with creek-related activities. Developed an RFP to hire a consultant to create the Downtown Preservation, Restoration and Development Plan. Participated in the Walnut Creek Watershed Council. Major Budget Expenditures Matching funding for CCC Fish and Wildlife grant for production of interpretive signage. Support for installation of riparian viewing areas along Lafayette Creek by Lafayette Community Garden and Outdoor Learning Center group. Goals for FY Obtain funding and execute the RFP to hire a consultant to create the Downtown Preservation, Restoration and Development Plan. Work with consultant to obtain public input and develop plan. Provide proposals for riparian habitat enhancement projects in Lafayette in response to the Walnut Creek Watershed County request proposals. Hold workshop on bioengineering technics for Lafayette citizens in collaboration with the California Urban Streams Partnership. Put on a Creek Cleanup Day on September 28 and work with Jennifer Stearn, Walnut Creek Watershed Group Coordinator, on further community development to revitalize Friends group. Revise Creekside Homeowners Guide and publish on City website. Participate in the Lafayette Station Parking Lots Improvement Project as an engaged stakeholder. Project will include low impact development improvements and interpretation of Happy Valley Creek in area. Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 2 August 11, 2014

3 Prepare a summary of existing creek protection measures including City policies, programs, and ordinances, and other agency regulations including California Department of Fish and Wildlife, NPDES, Army Corps of Engineers, and CCC Flood Control that can be used to guide development along creek corridors. Based on the summary, develop a checklist to be used by City planners for development projects along creeks. Mayor Tatzin noted that when the Commission made the request to fund the Creeks Study, the Council did not fund it at the time, but said if revenues came in higher than anticipated they would review it at the mid-year budget review. They know property taxes and sales taxes are coming in higher than expected and chances of funding are reasonably good. Vice Mayor B. Andersson added that as the RFP gets refined, he suggested talking with the Creeks liaisons of himself and Councilmember M. Anderson and return it to the City Council. Councilmember Mitchell asked how the RFP process is moving along and he asked if they are able to quantify needs at this time. Chair Elder stated they believe they have a complete proposal. They received some figures which mirror what they had said at the time. Once visioning is done and they find an alternative, they will run hydraulic models to ensure it is in compliance with flood control, which could cost an additional $10,000 to $20,000. Councilmember Mitchell stated if funding comes through, he asked and confirmed with Chair Elder that they will be able to hit the ground running. Councilmembers voiced appreciation for the work of the Creeks Committee and look forward to the Creeks Study results. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Tatzin reported receiving a request to remove Item 7C. ACTION: It was M/S/C (Mitchell/B. Andersson) to adopt the Consent Calendar Items A, B, D, E, F, G and H. Vote: (Ayes: Tatzin (abstained on Item A), B. Andersson (abstained on Item A) M. Anderson, And Mitchell; Noes: None; Absent: Reilly). A. City Council Minutes July 28, 2014 Recommendation: Approve. B. Resolution Approving the Tax Levy for Payment of Interest and Principal on Series 2002, Series 2004 and Series 2011 General Obligation Bonds for FY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution D. Resolution Eliminating a Parking Space North of the Driveway Serving 971 Dewing Avenue Recommendation: Adopt Resolution E. Resolution No Parking Anytime Zone on the North Side of Old Tunnel Road Immediately East of Olde Creek Place Recommendation: Adopt Resolution Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 3 August 11, 2014

4 F. Plaza Park Shops Tenant List pursuant to section 5.3 of the Poy Agreement Recommendation: Approve tenant list. G. Ordinance 633 ZT04-14 City-Initiated Zoning Text Amendment to amend Chapter 6-17 Tree Protection of the Lafayette Municipal Code Recommendation: Continue to September 8 th. H. Housing Element Update & Density Bonus Ordinance: Key Concepts and Status Report Recommendation: Receive and file 8. OLD BUSINESS A. Tony Coe, City Engineer Resolution Lafayette Community Center Manzanita Room Building Project Determine a Sole Source to Supply Pre-Engineered Metal Building Recommendation: Adopt Resolution City Engineer Tony Coe said staff is requesting that the City Council adopt Resolution to determine a sole source to supply the pre-engineered metal building for the Manzanita Room Building Project and reasons for this determination are outlined in his staff report. In the attached resolution he provided background on the findings that would be necessary to make this determination and said he was available for questions of the Council. Councilmember M. Anderson said he was not concerned about the language or the need to go with sole source, but stated that the last time the Council heard this item they were waiting to see what the overall cost for bids was going to be for the project. He does not see a way out of this commitment for the building if the Council decides they cannot afford it because the costs overall are too high. He asked why the item should be undertaken now as opposed to waiting until they have the package. Mr. Coe said legally the City Council needs to make the sole source determination before bidding the project, and commented that the City Attorney could further clarify this point. In terms of cost, Mr. Coe stated the Administrative Services Director and Director of Parks and Recreation prepared a staff report identifying the cash flow for the project which indicated the City has the means to fund the project as it was conceived. In terms of value engineering later on, Mr. Coe noted that Councilmember M. Anderson was correct. They would not be able to value engineer the pre-engineered metal building component. In the staff report previously staff outlined a number of other items that would be available for change orders, but they would drastically change the design and staff did not recommend any to pursue at that point. The metal building is the very basic component of this project. Mr. Coe stated that even if they were to go and look to value engineer the design, this would not be the first thing they would reach for. Mayor Tatzin said assuming that the Council decides not to pursue the project he asked what obligation the City has to this firm. Mr. Coe said none. Councilmember M. Anderson said he would like to make sure this is very clear because he looked through the findings and this was not mentioned as an option and suggested making it clear that the City is not obligating itself to build the building. Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 4 August 11, 2014

5 Mr. Coe confirmed with Assistant City Attorney Diaz that such language could be added into the resolution. Councilmember Mitchell referred to fiscal impacts and he asked Mr. Coe to describe what the City is getting for $100,000. Mr. Coe said they are getting the pre-engineered metal shell of the building which includes all major structural columns, girders and elements which form the shell of the building. It will be pre-fabricated off-site and this will be set down on the site. All cladding and roof panels and walls will go on top of this. Mayor Tatzin asked if the $100,000 includes erecting the shell on the site, and Mr. Coe said no, just the components. Mayor Tatzin opened the public comment period. Public Comments: JORGE TORRES, asked the Council to reject the project because he thinks $2.2 million is an outrageous price for the project. He stated that last year in the fall he attended a meeting where it was discussed the project would cost $1.8 million and that this would be the best way to go instead of rebuilding the Manzanita Room for $1 million. He said referred to an article in the Lamorinda Weekly where Mr. Coe is quoted and reminded people that a survey was conducted and the majority of people want soccer fields and a dog park, and not a community center. He suggested this money be channeled to the Terraces project which includes a potential soccer field and dog park. He was also opposed to borrowing money from future revenues from development projects and asked the Council to look into obtaining estimates from a general contractor to rebuild the walls, install air conditioning and not spend $2.2 million on an architecturally significant structure. JIM BURNS, cited chaos and cost overruns during the construction of the Library and Veterans Hall. He supported comments of the previous speaker and asked that the Council not allow similar experiences with this project. Mayor Tatzin suggested that the Council ask staff to revise the resolution to cover Councilmember M. Anderson s points. He said that when the City sends out the bid package, bidders will be told to contract with a firm and that the cost of it is $100,000 so this would be a fixed item in each bid and it does not commit the City to accept any bids for the whole project. Assistant City Attorney Diaz suggested language in the resolution to read, In adopting this resolution, the City Council is not making a commitment to the project and reserves the right in the future to not undertake the project in its sole and absolute discretion. He stated that by adding this language the Council will have the option in the future that, if cost is a factor or other concerns arise, to reject the bids and not undertake the project. ACTION: It was M/S/C (M. Anderson/B. Andersson) to adopt Resolution , as modified, to indicate that the City Council is not making a commitment to the project and reserves the right in the future to not undertake the project in its sole and absolute discretion. Vote: (Ayes: Tatzin, B. Andersson, M. Anderson and Mitchell; Noes: None; Absent: Reilly). 9. STAFF REORTS A. Steven Falk, City Manager Request by Friends of Lafayette Library to Use Substandard Parking Space at the Lafayette Library and Learning Center for Used Book Storage Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 5 August 11, 2014

6 Recommendation: Deny request. City Manager Steven Falk stated that at its first meeting in July, the City Council discussed the scope of responsibilities it would delegate to the Aesthetics Committee and which responsibilities it would retain for itself. The Council indicated it wished to retain issues relating to space allocation in the Library upon a recommendation from the Aesthetics Committee. The Aesthetics Committee, made up of the Librarian, Executive Director of the Lafayette Library and Learning Center Foundation, and the City Manager, is focused on aesthetics only. In this instance there has been a request made by the manager of the book store to convert a substandard parking space into book storage. The Aesthetics Committee reviewed the request and felt that a transparent cage filled with used books and other boxes and bags would not be aesthetically consistent with the quality of the Library. The Committee therefore could not make a unanimous recommendation to support the request. Mr. Falk noted that today at noon the City received a letter from the President of the Friends of the Lafayette Library requesting that this item be deferred so that the Friends could work with the Aesthetics Committee to develop an alternative solution. He noted, however, it is not in the purview of the Aesthetics Committee to make determinations about space allocation, which is reserved for the City Council. He therefore recommended that, based upon the letter received today, the Council appoint a committee of Councilmembers to work with the Friends of the Lafayette Library and perhaps include the Aesthetics Committee s input to help resolve the issue. Councilmember Mitchell referred to page 2 of the staff report which shows stalls 44, 45 and 46, and he asked if 44 and 45 also substandard. Mr. Falk said they do not appear to be; they are far enough away from the turn that even when a large car is in the space it does not appear to cause any problem for drivers coming down the ramp. Councilmember Mitchell referred to page 4 of the staff report and noted that one bullet point states, The cage would block access to the fire protection pipes. He asked if this were true would a cage be installed there at all. Mr. Falk stated they have not asked for an opinion from the Fire Department, but they can make this inquiry. Councilmember Mitchell referred back to page 2; the mechanical equipment room. He asked if there is a way to enlarge that so it could become a multi-function room and still be more aesthetically in keeping with the desires of the library. Mr. Falk said he believes access needs to be retained to the fire pipes and therefore, it is not recommended that expansion of the mechanical equipment room occur. Mayor Tatzin opened the public comment period. Public Comments: RUTH THORNBURG, President of the Friends of the Lafayette Library and Learning Center, said she was present to provide an explanation of their need and what they will do if they do receive approval to expand the space they are using. Last year, their donations amounted to $140,000 and all funds are raised through sales of books. In averaging that the price of each sale would be $1.50, this equates to 80,000 books sold through the shop. This is a stack of 8 multiplied by 8,000 which is a lot of space. In breaking this down further they sell about 1,600 books in a week s time. They receive quite a lot more books than they can actually sell in their space and this requires that they give a large number away. Each week they prepare donations that are sent out to Pacific Rim, a company that takes those donations to other organizations Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 6 August 11, 2014

7 that can use them. This week 450 books are being set aside for donation to Pacific Rim and this is just what came in over the weekend. They are a very convenient place for people to donate their books and they are very happy to receive these donations because they are getting better and better at identifying the high value items. She noted that they are now selling more books on Amazon which requires a different use of space. For each book they are selling on Amazon they must store it in a back room on a shelf. They currently have about 1,500 books for sale on Amazon. They set a minimum value of $25, but many sell for over $100. In order to sell all of these books they must research them individually. Books with potential value are identified, are boxed up and labeled to be checked. She said they need to be stored somewhere until volunteers can go through them. Ms. Thornburg said what they would like from the Council is for the item to be deferred and that it be recommended that the Aesthetics Committee and/or another committee get together and work with Friends to identify options that meet their needs, while also considering the safety and aesthetics of the library. Councilmember M. Anderson said if they move forward with some investigation he asked if the Friends of the Library are willing to fund the cost of bringing someone in and look at what the options might be, draw up plans of how it might be done, research the access needs to the mechanical room, and the fire sprinkler system. Ms. Thornburg said she thinks they would definitely be willing to put together a complete proposal for a new option of storing the extra books. If there is some cost associated with that she thinks the Friends of the Library would consider this as important. Mayor Tatzin asked if this was the only space the Friends looked at. Ms. Thornburg said this was the only space they included in the proposal, but evidently there are other options available and they would like an opportunity to consider any space available in the library. She said it is nice if it is convenient to be able to get the books there. They are not lightweight but there may be other spaces in the reconfiguring of the bike room which might open up an opportunity they would be very interested in. SHARON LINGANE, Manager of the Friends Corner Book Shop, added that the appeal of this particular location is convenient to the shop. Most of their volunteers are senior citizens with bad backs and lugging books all over the building far away could be difficult for them. She said this is why they were looking at this particular space at this time. Councilmember M. Anderson said the first question is whether or not the space would be allocated to this use, and this is the Council s purview. He is willing to consider it be used for this use but suggested some investigation of the code requirements related to the sprinkler system, access to the mechanical room, and what could be done to improve the aesthetics related to a cage versus actual walls. He stated someone should go out and spend some time and determine this, and then have it return to the Council to see if there is a possibility of using this space in this fashion. Right now, he stated the Council does not know. Vice Mayor B. Andersson said that because the bookstore is so uniquely integrated into the Library both historically and currently some solution should be able to be found. If there are other options for space within the Library, the Council should look at this, as well. One thing that struck him with the space is that it is not a good parking space even if it were designated for a small car. If not used for the Friends bookstore or a parking space, he suggested that one solution might be to take the south part of that away from the mechanical room and stack books Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 7 August 11, 2014

8 in a locked cabinet. This would not block the pipes or permit cars or trucks to back into the pipes so aside from losing a parking space, this might be a solution. Councilmember Mitchell concurred with fellow Councilmembers and supported research. Mayor Tatzin supported this direction and said he would want the committee to look at other possible spaces as part of their work. He understands there are advantages to convenience or possibly offsetting advantages to other spaces and his sense is that the Friends of the Library can nominate their members to serve on this committee and he asked for Council interest. Vice Mayor B. Andersson and Mayor Tatzin both volunteered to serve on the committee. ACTION: It was M/S/C (B. Andersson/M. Anderson) to continue the item to September 8, 2014 and form a committee with staff, representatives from the library, comprised of Vice Mayor B. Andersson, Mayor Tatzin and members of the Friends of the Library to research options. Vote: (Ayes: M. Anderson, B. Andersson, Mitchell and Tatzin; Noes: None; Absent: Reilly). B. Christopher Diaz, City Attorney and Joanne Robbins, City Clerk 2014 Elections Update Recommendation: Receive update. City Attorney Diaz stated the City Council ordered and called a General Municipal Election to fill two City Council seats and requested the election be consolidated with the statewide General Election on November 4, The terms of Mayor Tatzin and Vice Mayor B. Andersson will expire this year and at the close of the nomination period last Friday, August 8 th, no other candidates filed nomination papers. Pursuant to Elections Code 10229, the City Council has the option at a future City Council meeting to appoint two incumbents to these offices in lieu of holding the election. Elections Code also requires that the City Clerk publish or post notice of these facts after the close of the nomination period and 5 days after publication or posting, the City Council can then consider whether to appoint the two incumbents to those seats. This would have to take place next week and the City Clerk has polled the City Council to determine availability for a special meeting next week for that purpose. No action is required at this time, as official action would take place at that special meeting. Councilmember M. Anderson congratulated the two incumbents. Mayor Tatzin said if the Council chose this option, he asked if there was a financial impact on the City one way or the other. Mr. Diaz said yes; it would be a cost savings mechanism and this is why the legislature authorizes this action. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Lindy Chan, Senior Planner, Michael Cass, Associate Planner and Megan Canales, Planning Technician Ordinance 629 and Resolution Amending Chapter 6-2, Article 5 Design Review of the Lafayette Municipal Code (LMC) and Establishing Downtown Design Guidelines Recommendation: 1) Re-introduce Ordinance 629 and Resolution , which includes the following actions: Certify the Addendum to the Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; Approve the modified Zoning Text Amendment to Chapter 6-2, Article 5 Design Review of the Lafayette Municipal Code; Adopt the Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 8 August 11, 2014

9 Downtown Design Guidelines. 2) Refer the modifications to the Planning Commission on August 18, 2014 for report and recommendation. 3) Continue the matter on consent to the City Council on September 8, 2014 for second reading and adoption. Planning Commission Vice Chair Tom Chastain stressed to the City Council that the item needs to be moved onto approval. Every day the guidelines are not in place is another day that the Design Review Commission does not have all of the tools it needs. He said he was available to answer questions. Senior Planner Lindy Chan gave the staff report, stating that at the July 14, 2014 City Council meeting, the City Council expressed questions about height exception finding 1b and asked staff to return to provide response to questions. Notably, the Council requested to have staff compare what the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) provided by way of finding 1b and what the current proposal is, and also to provide some examples of what might be compelling reasons that could be used for finding 1b. Staff has provided a comparison in the report which shows what the DSP states. The table has a side-by-side comparison as well as the full section from the DSP and all height exception findings so the Council can obtain a full comparison of both. What the Council will find is that very few changes were made to the draft findings from the DSP. Essentially, staff modified the way it was written so the formatting is more consistent with how other findings were drafted. But the wording is essentially consistent. Secondly, the City Council asked staff to develop some compelling reasons to consider finding 1bsome ideas but stressed that none of these examples by themselves are reasons that the City Council would have to grant a height exception. These are just some ideas and, coupled with the right project and the right design and the ability to make all of the design guidelines and findings, could be potential reasons to consider finding 1b. Staff outlined four main categories: Ground floor quality retail. They noted that as times have changed, so has the standard for plate heights. Plate heights used to be a standard 8-feet for residential and for office, this is now increased to typically 9-feet. The market standard for ground floor retail has increased. Staff has found that the standard for ground floor retail is now in the ballpark of feet. If it were to be a mixed use project, it would be very difficult to make that 35-foot height limit work. If it were a compelling project in the right location and met all other findings, then the Council might want to consider that. While this is an economic interest, staff also argues that there are benefits to the community. It affects design, transparency at the ground level, draws better tenants which also provides for better additional uses in the downtown and a synergy of complementary uses. There is a public benefit to having that high quality ground floor retail. Parking is another example. Structured parking in and of itself would not necessarily impact the height, but if it were subterranean parking and it had necessity for ventilation that would increase the finished floor or if there were parking lifts, this also affects the plate heights. Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 9 August 11, 2014

10 There are also site constraints. While Finding 1a speaks to topography and backdrops to mitigate the apparent height, those are site opportunities. Finding 1b really speaks to site constraints and those might include topography, narrow lots, creeks, trees, and other constraints that limit the developable area and would actually necessitate taller buildings; and Uses. There are potential uses that are public or quasi-public that could require higher volumes. Staff does not necessarily know if these uses may come to Lafayette. The City likely did not anticipate that the Lafayette Park Hotel would be something that would come to Lafayette. The City may have other things such as museums, civic uses, fire stations, high quality athletic or auditoriums. Finding 1b provides the ability to consider these on a case-by-case basis. Above and beyond this, the Council did not ask staff to provide for some additional modifications, but suggested that they could potentially strengthen the finding. Staff arrived at alternative potential language for the Council s consideration. On page 4 of the staff report, proposed new language is listed for the finding. Ms. Chan called out the two changes that were added to it, stating there are 3 tests in finding 1b. The first test is that the project is rare and exceptional. The second test is that it is designed to mitigate the apparent height, and the last test is what was there previously, which is necessity based on compelling reasons as to why the height exception finding is sought. Staff suggests it is stronger language that is otherwise there but it provides better direction for the City Council to rely on it if need be. But otherwise, it is already inherent in the findings and the Council can see it in the introduction to the findings. Staff continues to believe on a caseby-case basis that the City Council can grant the exception. An applicant seeking a height exception will have met with the City through multiple hearing bodies as well as with City staff to negotiate the net public benefit, allowing ample opportunities to manage expectations if it is not something that would be a supportive project and again, it would be at the discretion of the Council for those rare and exceptional circumstances. With that, staff recommends that the Council reintroduce the ordinance and resolution which would include certifying the Addendum to the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, approve the modified Zoning Text Amendment and adopt the Downtown Design Guidelines. Staff recommends the Council refer the modifications back to the Planning Commission which is scheduled to be heard on August 18 th as there are modifications to the zoning text that would have to go to the Planning Commission for comment, and to continue the matter on the Consent Calendar for September 8, 2014 for second reading and adoption. The public hearing was opened. Public Comments: Guy Atwood spoke in favor of the recommendation by the Planning Commission to add a program to look at the density. Secondly, regarding the idea that this would be reviewed in two years, there is nothing in writing about this and he suggested it be included as it was a recommendation of the Subcommittee. Lastly, he encouraged the Council to do everything possible to make the findings as strong as possible and approve them, as the guidelines will be very helpful to everybody in the future. The public hearing was closed. Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 10 August 11, 2014

11 Councilmember Mitchell stated he thinks the City Council will continue to get pressure from applicants for bigger buildings and pressure from the state to accommodate more density. He thinks finding 1a does a great job of accommodating that. The reason he says this is when going to Exhibit 1, staff shows the seven buildings in Lafayette with heights greater than the 35- foot height limit, and he would say that five of the seven would all fall under the exemption of finding 1a in that almost all, except for two, are against backdrops that provide the visual relief they are looking for. Even the 2 that do not work could have been modified in a way to make them work. With regard to the provisions of finding 1b, Councilmember Mitchell said he has always had a problem with the words rare and exceptional in that most applicants feel that their application is rare and exceptional. If it is not solely an economic reason, then the applicant likely has the ability to make modifications to an application and comply with the height limitation. So he continues to recommend removing finding 1b because he thinks finding 1a provides the flexibility the Council is looking for. Vice Mayor B. Andersson said he likes finding 1b. He thinks most applicants would claim that their projects rare and exceptional. Fortunately, it is the reviewing body that gets to decide that. Rare and exceptional suggests it is not an ordinary building, but something presumably better. Therefore, it does give some subjectivity to the reviewing body, but one cannot anticipate all scenarios that might happen, so some discretion must be left with those appointed to deal with issues, and he thinks the same applies here. Therefore, he is happy with the revised finding 1b. Councilmember M. Anderson said he can support the revised finding 1b. He thinks there is an opportunity for someone to interpret, but this is probably what they should be doing in many cases. He thinks there is a need to have the flexibility built into this. He also likes the fact that staff did a very nice job of relating this to the findings that were in the DSP and the language is already there, so the two marry up nicely. Therefore, he supported staff s recommendation. Mayor Tatzin said when this was last discussed Councilmember Reilly was expressing many of the same concerns as Councilmember Mitchell has. He was not sure how she would respond this evening, but he thinks the revised finding 1b is better. It is a finding that will be harder for the Planning Commission, the Design Review Commission and the City Council to make, which is good. As he looked at Attachment 1, he concurs with Councilmember Mitchell that several of these comply with 1a because they certainly would not have been approved by him under 1b. Therefore, he would hope staff will convey that message to applicants who think that those kinds of designs are what qualifies under 1b. He is prepared to support the revised finding 1b. He also concurs with what Mr. Atwood said which is, while it does not need to be part of the ordinance, the Council should return to review this in approximately 2 years or after a certain number of applications have been received to have some sense of how it is working in practice and see what the Council likes and does not like about it. ACTION: It was M/S/C (M. Anderson/B. Andersson) to re-introduce Ordinance 629 and Resolution that will certify the Addendum to the DSP EIR, with the revision to 1b; approve the modified Zoning Text Amendment, and adopt the Downtown Design Guidelines; and refer the modification to the Planning Commission on August 18, 2014 for report and recommendation and continue the matter on the Consent Calendar to the City Council meeting on September 8, 2014 for second reading and adoption. Vote: (Ayes: Tatzin, B. Andersson, and M. Anderson; Noes: Mitchell; Absent: Reilly). Vice Mayor B. Andersson stated Mr. Atwood mentioned a Planning Commission recommendation on density issues. He asked if Commissioner Chastain had a response to this. Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 11 August 11, 2014

12 Commissioner Chastain said he thinks Mr. Atwood was referring to the Housing Element which the Subcommittee discussed at the last Planning Commission hearing. Mayor Tatzin said this is included in the Housing Element report which was adopted by the Council and which implies the Council agrees. 11. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT C. Renewal of City Manager s Employment Agreement Recommendation: Direct Mayor to execute the City Manager Employment Agreement. Mayor Tatzin referred to correspondence from Ms. Eames and Mr. Roberts. He responded to both of them during the course of the day and in his second or third iteration of correspondence with Ms. Eames, she asked that the item be removed from the Consent Calendar and indicated she could not be present tonight. She asked if it could be taken up at a September meeting. He indicated to her that he would make this request but the Council would make the decision as to what action to take. He said in his view, Mr. Falk s salary is not $324,000 which is total compensation, but approximately $221,000. She had asked a few other questions which Mayor Tatzin answered, but she did not respond other than to thank him for the information. He therefore considers her request to be outstanding, and he said he never heard back from Mr. Roberts. Vice Mayor B. Andersson asked if there was a resolution of comparing apples to oranges, and Mayor Tatzin said he explained this to Ms. Eames and she cited a source where it said it included some fringe benefits. The City Manager sent him a table which was a little different than what was in the staff report that she was using where it was slightly different, but he did not have a lot of time to study it. Vice Mayor B. Andersson said as he understands and noted that the salaries Ms. Eames was comparing was from 2010 and it had gone up since then. Mayor Tatzin said she had acknowledged this as well as salaries do not look at total compensation for the other people, noting that with the exception of the Danville and Orinda City Managers, all other City Managers are PERS members. So it is not clear how they would report the value of the contribution of retirement. City Manager Falk stated that the City Manager s compensation package is broken into two parts. The City Council reserves the right to approve a salary resolution annually and then every three years it reviews the City Manager s employment agreement, which contains all of the other items other than salary. The City Council has already adopted the salary resolution for this year in July and what is before the City Council tonight is the City Manager s employment agreement. The agreement is essentially unchanged from how it has been for about the last 12 to 15 years. There is one minor change to the threshold for the automobile lease, but it is the only substantive change to the agreement before the City Council. Mayor Tatzin noted that he had summarized this to Ms. Eames in his second to her. Mayor Tatzin opened the public comment period. Public Comments: JIM BURNS, said he appreciates what was said because it was not clear to him that this was the employment agreement only and this is where most of his questions lay. He said Mr. Falk s Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 12 August 11, 2014

13 agreement has not changed for years, voiced opposition to the following: a $10,000 housing allowance, the automatic renewal of the agreement every 18 months, an 18 month severance package, the $33,000 medical and dental allowance, the 15% 401K contribution, the three weeks sabbatical which can be turned in for money. He questioned fiscal responsibility, and asked for Council s scrutiny. ANN BURNS ceded her time to Jim Burns. Mr. Burns noted he had summarized his concerns and asked for response. Mayor Tatzin referred to the housing allowance and said when the City retained Mr. Falk as City Manager the City Council at the time wanted him to live in Lafayette. He and his family were living in Walnut Creek at the time and were happy there. As an incentive to have the Falk s move to Lafayette which was done for Bob Adams, the City Council agreed to pay a substantial portion of the initial cost of the home of $100,000 in value at that time. In order to get him to stay, the Council stated he could earn 5% of the City s share of the value of his house every year for the next 20 years. So they are now working down the final 15% of that amount. In 2-3 years, the next time they renew the contract this will be gone. Regarding the severance agreement, it covers situation where the City Council relieves the City Manager for reasons other than for cause, which is legally defined and it is not something the City pays if he resigns. The value of the severance agreement is 18 months of salary. Mr. Burns reiterated his opposition to a severance package of 18 months of salary, and Mayor Tatzin briefly described comparable CEO plans. Mr. Burns concluded, re-voiced his opposition to the agreement and urged the Council to not move forward. JORGE TORRES stated that the median income of a Lafayette household is between $80,000 and $100,000 which is one third of what the City Manager makes. He referred the 18 month severance and suggested that it would serve as a Lafayette benchmark. He spoke of his hiring practices of engineers and suggested the Council seek a new City Manager for less salary. He questioned the City Manager s talents, the City s due diligence, fiscal responsibility, and vision. Councilmember M. Anderson said he thinks that people who are concerned about the process the City Council went through to evaluate this contract need to understand that this Council does, in fact, look at comparable people, salaries, and other locations, looks at what the City Manager has done each year, and have found consistently that he has done a very good job. They also have an opportunity through other associations such as the Solid Waste Authority and the Mayors Conference to interact with other City Managers in other cities and it is very helpful in this evaluation process to do that. He said that what happens is that they get a better sense from the Councilmembers and City Managers as to what these people experience on a day-to-day basis. To Councilmember M. Anderson, Mr. Falk is a very good City Manager who has done an excellent job for Lafayette. He has a lot of vision for the City and there are many things he has done that make this City unique and special. He continues to carry this forward even as the years go by. Most city managers last about 5-6 years and are replaced because someone is unhappy, but the Council has not had that issue here. They have felt very good in terms of services from him and he supports the salary, as well as the contract as it is written today. Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 13 August 11, 2014

14 Additionally, he commented that there are a flight of executives in the public sector who make very large salaries and this is what is benchmarking all of this. The first group that wants to decide they want to go for less gets to have those people who do not have as much experience, do not have the abilities, could not get the job at these other locations, and he does not want to risk the City s situation in this manner. He wants someone experienced, who knows what it takes to run a city of this size, and to address problems they have. It is not about getting a low price, but getting the right individual with the right talents and chemistry that can do the work. In this case, he feels the City has that in Mr. Falk and he was ready to approve the agreement. Vice Mayor B. Andersson addressed Mr. Torres s comment about hiring engineers and their vast comparisons in education and experience. He said he agrees with everything Councilmember M. Anderson stated and, in addition, when talking to other Councilmembers and City Managers, He noted that Mr. Falk has a huge amount of respect from many people all around both Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Councilmember Mitchell explained that the Council takes this issue very seriously. The Council conducted a lot of analysis, had statistical information from additional sources and he said he thinks Mr. Falk is doing a good job. The noted that the compensation Mr. Falk receives through the employment agreement provides a retirement benefit that is more like a 401K style. If Mr. Falk were to be hired under a CalPERS city, his retirement would be significantly larger. The Council is not proposing this but believes it puts together a retirement package that is fair. Mayor Tatzin concurred with fellow Councilmembers and added that as he speaks to many other Councilmembers and City Managers of cities and other public agencies, and Mr. Falk is among the best. He said he also has a chance to meet and talk with many citizens in Lafayette who interact with this City in a variety of different ways. The general reaction is that people are very pleased with the work he is doing. While this is not universal, from his perspective he speaks to many people and hears far more compliments than complaints which is important. Mayor Tatzin also pointed out that people have sometimes said they should not benchmark against other public agencies but against what is going on in the private sector. He concurs with this and when doing the last round of general employee salary reviews, he encouraged the Council to include private sector positions and for a variety of reasons they did not proceed with this. The City Manager is not really the CEO of the City because the City Council sets the policy direction. He is clearly the Chief Operating Officer or Chief Administrative Officer, and if somebody was in any private company and had someone of Mr. Falk s capabilities, they would either be on a substantial bonus program or they would have partial ownership of the company, or stock options. The City does not do any of these things, so the compensation package they have is what they do and it is still less than what others of his caliber in the private sector by a long shot. Therefore, he supported the motion. ACTION: It was M/S/C (M. Anderson/B. Andersson) to direct the Mayor to execute the City Manager s employment agreement. Vote: (Ayes: Tatzin, B. Andersson, M. Anderson, and Mitchell; Noes: None; Absent: Reilly). 12. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS A. Councilmember report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda Mayor Tatzin reported that last Thursday evening the City hosted the Mayors Conference at the Lafayette Reservoir and heard about water issues from John Coleman of EBMUD and Joseph Campbell of the Contra Costa Water District Board. Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 14 August 11, 2014

15 Councilmember M. Anderson reported that he enjoyed the Mayors Conference and complimented staff on their excellent work. Vice Mayor B. Andersson stated he attended no public meetings in the last two weeks as he was out of the country. B. Mayor Tatzin and Councilmember M. Anderson Resolution Appointing a member to the Planning Commission Recommendation: Adopt Resolution Councilmember M. Anderson reported that he received a call from Mr. Atwood who expressed his concern about individuals being considered. The subcommittee held a meeting some time ago and put together a strategy for filling this new position to replace Rick Humann. A public meeting was held with the Chair, Vice Chair, Mayor and himself and talked about how to go forward. It was decided at that time that there was a pool of candidates used before and that they would continue to review as the source for this appointment. It was decided they would nominate Peter Gutzwiller to the City Council to fill the Planning Commission vacancy left by Rick Humann, and he made a motion to this effect. Vice Mayor B. Andersson seconded the motion. Councilmember Mitchell said it seemed like last time it was Kathryn Lyddan and Mark Higgins and there was a lot of discussion between those two candidates. He listened to the audio for the interviews and he asked if the subcommittee was departing from this route. Mayor Tatzin stated that the fact is that subsequent to that, they appointed Mark Higgins to the Environmental Task Force and in the second round of interviews for some of the committee, Mr. Higgins did very well, but not quite as well as the first round of interviews. In the discussion, his name did not come up except to note that he was appointed to the Environmental Task Force. His inference to this was that he was no longer people s top choice. He said he also received comments from a citizen that were not favorable of the nominee that Councilmember M. Anderson suggested and he also spoke with Councilmember Reilly before she left on a trip and she identified some people she did not want to see nominated and Mr. Gutzwiller was not on that list. She liked him but had concerns about his work as a broker. Mayor Tatzin opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers. Vice Mayor B. Andersson stated he observed Mr. Gutzwiller and his work on the Creeks Committee and has always been impressed with his dedication, grasp of issues, and he is supportive of the motion. Councilmember Mitchell said he does not know Mr. Gutzwiller, but he may have to recuse himself quite a bit, given his professional work. After listening to Mark Higgins on the recording, he was impressed with his answers and he would be supportive of Mark Higgins. Councilmember M. Anderson referred to the recusal issue and said it was very apparent to all members who considered Mr. Gutzwiller that this would be the case. However, Councilmember Mitchell came off of the Planning Commission, Rick Humann recused himself regularly, and he thinks if they pull from professionals who work in the community, they will need to be sure that if there is a sense of a conflict of interest, they will need to recuse themselves. In this case, the skills Mr. Gutzwiller will bring to the table will be worthwhile. Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 15 August 11, 2014

16 Councilmember Mitchell noted that he does not doubt Mr. Gutzwiller at all, but he is just concerned about recusal and the public perception of this. He also believes he will recuse himself as necessary, but it also seems there will be many opportunities where they will be lacking his judgment. ACTION: It was M/S/C (M. Anderson/B. Andersson) to adopt Resolution appointing Peter Gutzwiller to the Planning Commission. Vote: (Ayes: Tatzin, B. Andersson, and M. Anderson; Noes: Mitchell; Absent: Reilly). Mayor Tatzin noted he anticipates that, based on conversations he has had, that there will be other members stepping down from the Planning Commission later this year or early next year so this topic will return. C. Mayor Tatzin Final Draft of the Lamorinda Action Plan within the Draft Countywide Transportation Plan Recommendation: Discuss and provide comments on the Lamorinda Action Plan and accept the document as amended. Councilmember M. Anderson referred to the section relating to Pleasant Hill Road on page 2-159, and said he likes Items 11 and 12. On page there is the definition of the interjurisdictional routes which he also likes, but when getting to the MTSO s on 2-164, listed on item 4 is to maintain a peak hour level of service of a good D. He was not sure the Council ever talked about this, but under the inter-jurisdictional routes, they are looking for a level of service of a poor D. He wondered if this should be reflected for Pleasant Hill Road. Mayor Tatzin said in going back in history, the poor D reflects current conditions in the downtown area on Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Moraga Road and they had established a good D for areas outside the downtown because they did not want to let them become a poor D or worse and if a poor D is acceptable, applicants will say they are within the City s guidelines with their project that affects that area. Councilmember M. Anderson said the whole gateway constraint question is the other side of a coin where they should be trying to keep a constraint on traffic, but the question is to what level this can be done. Mayor Tatzin said they are trying to keep the constraint in so it is at least a good D. Councilmember M. Anderson acknowledged this understanding. Councilmember M. Anderson then referred to 2-204, Gateway policies for specific routes, and it deals with Pleasant Hill Road about halfway through the page, and talks about the two southbound thru lanes, but it does not mention the northbound. Mayor Tatzin said they are only talking about Pleasant Hill Road north of Highway 24, so northbound it does not do the City any good to create a constraint within Lafayette, which is all they could do because this would back up traffic in Lafayette. Councilmember M. Anderson noted that one of the issues is people going east on Highway 24, getting off and then going north on Pleasant Hill Road to bypass the I-680 interchange and backup that occurs there. Mayor Tatzin said at this point, their general sense has been, the backup that grows by creating a gateway constraint going north is simply backup that keeps Lafayette residents from getting to their homes as fast or getting to the high school as quickly. Code Enforcement Appeals Board & Creeks Committee 16 August 11, 2014