Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Design Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lafayette launches second phase of objective design standards, seeks balance between prescription and flexibility
Summary
City planners and consultants opened Phase 2 of Lafayette's objective design standards on June 23, outlining a citywide code chapter, schedule to finish by year'end and extensive public outreach; commissioners and councilors urged more Design Review Commission involvement and attention to streetscape, stepbacks and waiver rules.
City planners and consultants on June 23 told the Lafayette City Council and planning and design review commissioners that Phase 2 of the city's objective design standards (ODS) will create a new, ministerial pathway for multifamily and mixed'use projects and be adopted as a new chapter of the development code by the end of 2025.
Senior planner Stephanie Cervantes opened the presentation by saying the kickoff is intended to launch a community-led process, not to deliver final recommendations: "this is the beginning of a process, not the end. We're not coming to you today with recommendations or determinations," she said.
Why it matters: Lafayette's updated zoning now allows higher densities and heights in new zones (including RB60, SRB60 and C60), and the city needs objective (non‑subjective) design standards that match that increased building envelope while providing predictable, ministerial review for housing projects. The standards, consultants said, will shape how larger buildings address massing, street walls, upper story stepbacks, parking configuration, open space and facade articulation.
The consultants from Lisa Wise Consulting said the standards must be "objective" under state law and verifiable by an external benchmark. Monica Sidlick summarized the legal framing: "objective design standards are standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion." The team said it will prepare a code-style chapter (suggested chapter 6.39) that applies citywide to multifamily and residential mixed-use developments and will include illustrations and a public survey, an open house and adoption hearings.
Council members and commissioners pressed staff and consultants on several recurring topics: timetable, review process, and how prescriptive the standards should be. Vice Mayor Enduri and Council Member McCormick said they want the work completed quickly to avoid a run of projects approved under the old, thinner checklist. Several commissioners and community speakers urged stronger Design Review Commission (DRC) engagement early in the process rather than—by their view—waiting until drafts are near final. The team agreed DRC and the Planning Commission will be part of hearings and suggested additional meetings could be added if the council requests them.
Design priorities discussed: commissioners and commissioners candidates repeatedly returned to how new buildings will relate to the public realm. Speakers urged rules that favor coherent streetscapes over piecemeal articulation, and that require upper-story stepbacks, consistent street-level setbacks or landscape buffers where appropriate. Design Review Commissioner Richard Stanton said the city's current point-based checklist "doesn't work at all" and urged a different approach that avoids awarding points for minor items while failing to address large-scale massing. Design Review Commissioner John Gray said standards should prioritize the public space the buildings create, recommending "uniform setbacks at the street and at certain upper stories" to help the street feel coherent.
Interactions with state law and incentives: staff clarified that state law provisions such as AB 2097 (which limits parking requirements within a half-mile of transit) and SB 330 constraints still apply. The team said the ODS will not set parking minimum ratios (those remain in the municipal code or are governed by state law) but will regulate how any parking is configured and accessed. Commissioners asked how the ODS would interact with density bonus concessions and the related waiver authority; consultants said unlimited waivers can undercut some design requirements and suggested the council consider whether to adopt separate menus or approaches for density bonus projects, while recognizing waivers can in theory be requested for any physical standard.
Process and outreach: the consultants said they will run a visual preference survey and an online questionnaire, hold an open house and present draft standards at public hearings. Council members and commissioners recommended a stronger early technical review by DRC and the Planning Commission, and multiple speakers urged the team to provide clear, plain-language guidance on what the city can and cannot require under state law.
What's next: staff and the consultants plan to draft code language and illustrations, return to the commissions for review and aim to complete the standards by the end of the year. The team invited written comments via the project website and said additional hearings with DRC or a joint session could be scheduled per council direction.
Ending note: the discussion repeatedly balanced two goals—providing clear, objective standards that speed ministerial review for housing applicants while not over-prescribing design to the point that new projects all look the same.
