Lafayette Planning Commission: Public Art/Sign Ordinance and SB 9 Permanent Ordinance – October 3, 2023

[Note: The posted agenda was dated Monday, October 2, 2023, but the meeting timestamp provided for this summary is October 3, 2023.]

The Lafayette Planning Commission met to consider two public hearings: MCR04-23, a city-initiated update to the Public Art and Sign ordinances, and MCR05-23, an ordinance making the city's interim SB 9 provisions permanent. The Commission voted unanimously to forward both items to the City Council with recommendations to approve them. The Commission also adopted the agenda unanimously and approved the consent calendar for the August 7, 2023 meeting minutes.

Consent Calendar

• August 7, 2023 Meeting Minutes: Approved with 4 yes votes, 0 no votes, and 3 abstentions. Vice Chair Radnich abstained because they were not present for that meeting and could not locate the minutes online; Chair Labange and one other commissioner also abstained.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Non-agenda public comments: None were offered.
• Item 6a (Public Art & Sign Ordinance Update): No public speakers commented on this item.
• Item 6b (SB 9 Permanent Ordinance): Stefan Schnitzler, a Lafayette resident and in-house counsel, raised concerns about the permanent ordinance, including the city's interpretation of the four-foot setback rule, alleged SB 330 conflicts, and the clarity of the "two primary dwelling units" language. He asked the city to correct these issues before adoption. Planning staff responded that his written comments arrived after the public comment deadline and would be reviewed prior to City Council consideration; they noted that his earlier comments on the urgency ordinance had already been reviewed by the City Attorney.
• Libby Henry spoke in strong opposition to making the SB 9 ordinance permanent. She argued that SB 9 was written to benefit developers, would encourage developer activity in single-family neighborhoods, and that, in Southern California, up to 10 units are being built on split lots. She opposed the permanent ordinance for Lafayette.

Public Hearing: MCR04-23 Public Art & Sign Ordinance Update

• Staff liaison Jenny Rosen presented the proposed changes on behalf of the Public Art Committee. The update would:
  • Add a definition of "mural" to the Sign Ordinance (LMC Chapter 6-25) and allow murals only as permitted under the Public Art chapter.
  • Distinguish between "public art" generally and "public art for projects," which is art installed to meet development requirements.
  • Expand the definition of public art to include temporary works.
  • Broaden the Public Art Committee's advisory role to include the city's public art program and administration.
  • Authorize a separate public art program fund, distinct from the existing public art-for-projects in-lieu fund.
  • Remove the sunset provision for the Public Art Committee.
  • Add a city murals program permitting murals funded or sponsored by the city on public and private property.
• Commissioner questions focused on the proposed density-bonus public art minimum of $25,000 or 0.1% of construction costs; staff clarified that change is not part of this ordinance and would be considered later with density bonus law updates.
• Staff also clarified that "public space" means space accessible to the public at all times, that murals can be placed on leased private walls, and that the new program fund could be supported through grants and other non-General Fund sources.
• The Commission voted unanimously to forward the ordinance update to the City Council with a recommendation to approve it.

Public Hearing: MCR05-23 SB 9 Permanent Ordinance

• Staff presented Ordinance 689, which would make permanent the city's SB 9 implementation ordinance, LMC Chapter 6-38. The proposed changes include:
  • Clarifying that no more than two primary dwelling units and four dwelling units total, including ADUs and JADUs, are allowed on a parcel that has used the SB 9 housing development provisions.
  • Replacing detailed water-efficient landscape ordinance (WELO) language with a reference to the city's WELO at LMC Section 6-24.5.
  • Correcting minor formatting and numbering errors in the written ordinance.
  • Deferring the requirement for a preliminary soils or geotechnical report for lot-split-only applications until actual development is proposed.
• The ordinance was determined to be exempt from CEQA under Government Code Sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n).
• During discussion, staff clarified that WELO requirements apply to new or refurbished landscaping that is actually being touched. They also explained that an SB 9 lot split cannot be used again serially on the resulting parcels, and that a recorded declaration would provide notice to future buyers.
• Commissioner Farsan asked about Mr. Schnitzler's setback concerns. Staff responded that the city can impose objective standards until those standards would prevent construction of two units of at least 800 square feet each, at which point state law would preempt local standards.
• Vice Chair Radnich expressed concern that an email from Mr. Schnitzler was received after hours and shared with only one commissioner, and that the Commission should not base its decision on materials that had not been publicly distributed or addressed by staff.
• The Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt Ordinance 689.

Key Outcomes

• Adopted the meeting agenda unanimously.
• Approved the August 7, 2023 consent calendar minutes with 4 yes votes and 3 abstentions.
• Recommended City Council approval of MCR04-23, the Public Art & Sign Ordinance Update, by unanimous vote.
• Recommended City Council approval of MCR05-23 / Ordinance 689, the SB 9 Permanent Ordinance, by unanimous vote.
• According to the Planning Director's report, both items were calendared and advertised for the City Council meeting the following week. No Planning Commission meeting was scheduled for October 16, 2023.
• In Commissioner reports, Commissioner Mason noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear a case challenging California development fees, potentially affecting future fee and nexus standards.