[0:00] All right.

[0:02] Thank you.

[0:03] Thank you.

[0:06] We just concluded a special meeting at 6 p.m. closed session, and there were no reportable items from that meeting.

[0:18] Moving on.

[0:20] I'd like to welcome you all here, and thank you for joining us for tonight's meeting of the

[0:32] the room for those who wish to use them. I would like to ask our clerk to call the

[0:40] speeding to order and do our roll call. Okay, Councilen Bridgie. Here,

[0:46] Councilen Bihauksi. Here, Councilen Bihauksi. Here, Councilen Bihauksi. Here.

[0:48] Here. Vice Mayor Iverson. Here. And here. Well, Connie. Here. Thank you. And now,

[0:56] everyone please stand and join us in the pledge of allegiance.

[0:58] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God in Israel with liberty and justice are all.

[1:20] Thank you. Next on our agenda is to adopt our agenda.

[1:26] and I know that we had one public comment on item F3, which is on our consents calendar,

[1:37] but aside from that, Madam City Manager, are there any changes to the proposed agenda?

[1:44] Honorable Mayor, there are no changes proposed to the agenda.

[1:47] So do I have a motion in a second to adopt the agenda?

[1:52] So moved.

[1:52] I'll second it. All in favor. Aye. The agenda is adopted. Next we have items for the good of this city and today we have a recognition to present to light up a window. And I would like to ask Carol

[2:18] Bravelli and Kim Wurtstrop who are co-leaders of this project to, if you are here, to the end of the podium, there you are.

[2:36] And before, you know, we'd love to hear from you about light up a window, but before we do that,

[2:43] I just wanted to say, I think this comes from the entire city council, this recognition,

[2:48] because what your organization did to literally bring joy and light to our community during the holiday season was truly wonderful.

[3:06] I cannot tell you how many comments of appreciation I heard throughout our community.

[3:11] And to have a vision like this and then just carry it through and also to carry it through in a way that is sustainable for years to come is quite an accomplishment.

[3:24] I can only imagine how many hours of work it took to make this happen.

[3:32] But it's just really the right you bought us, is something that's going to be appreciated.

[3:39] Was really appreciated by visitors, residents, alike, generationally children, you know, seniors, everyone,

[3:49] and would be felt for years to come. So thank you. And I know maybe other council members want to say something.

[3:54] I did. Well, I'm just thrilled by what you guys accomplished it. Thank you started it in the spring and you said you're going to get it done by November. And I thought, wow, this thing don't move that quickly with the city.

[4:09] But you guys did it and I'm just so pleased and it's just a lasting gift you've given to all of us individually into the city. So thank you so much.

[4:19] Yeah, it was so exciting and so lovely to be at the, you know, the opening and and have so many people there it was it was an incredible sense of community and it was just it was just amazing and I and I just like the mayor said the comments have just been marvelous it's been really nice to hear how many people enjoyed it and appreciated it.

[4:43] I'm also just so impressed with the work you did to raise the funds to do it so quickly

[4:48] and to bring so many community members together to do that,

[4:52] behalf of the entire community was stellar.

[4:55] Really a wonderful job and thank you for the work that went into that.

[5:00] Okay.

[5:01] And I will tell you that I've heard both,

[5:04] I also, our city manager really wanted to also do this

[5:09] and was part of the impetus behind.

[5:11] Recognizing you, so I thank her for that.

[5:14] I do want to read our Certificate of Recognition

[5:17] is presented to light up a Rinda

[5:19] and recognition of your vision and hard work

[5:22] to make the community beautification project

[5:25] to wrap trees and downtown Rinda

[5:27] with white LED lights during the winter season

[5:30] and hosting a tree lighting ceremonial event

[5:33] a huge success.

[5:35] We thank you for making a Rinda

[5:37] such a special place to live.

[5:39] Thank you.

[5:40] Thank you.

[5:46] Thank you.

[5:46] I don't know if you wanted, we'll take a picture, but I don't know if you wanted to say anything

[5:50] you're welcome to, you're not required to.

[5:53] Well, thank you very much for your support.

[5:56] We appreciate it.

[5:57] And we are looking forward to expanding the program next year and we'll be continuing to

[6:02] try to raise money in order to be able to do that.

[6:05] So we're grateful for your support.

[6:07] Thank you.

[6:08] Thank you.

[6:09] The comment that we had pretty much, it was 100% people from Arinda somehow associated

[6:16] with Arinda who were the donors.

[6:19] So between businesses, residents, realtors, it was just very exciting to see the enthusiasm.

[6:28] Great.

[6:29] And I will ask the council to join me here with you for a picture.

[6:50] Good to see you.

[6:54] Thank you.

[7:02] Thank you.

[7:03] Thank you.

[7:04] This is a really nice to be on.

[7:07] Well, thank you.

[7:08] That's all we're going to call you.

[7:10] We're on.

[7:13] See.

[7:14] Good to see you.

[7:22] Good to be here.

[7:23] Okay.

[7:33] And next on our agenda item E is public forum. And we have the public forum is an opportunity for members of the public to address the council on items that are not on tonight's agenda. Additionally, speakers have the option of addressing the council on an item listed on the agenda. If you won't be present when that item is taken up.

[8:00] And so I know we have a couple other speaker cards here for public forums.

[8:06] So I will call those speakers to the podium, and if anyone else wants to speak, please

[8:13] fill out a speaker card, which is over here.

[8:16] Mr. Warnoff.

[8:21] Good evening.

[8:22] I'd like to speak tonight to some items that are not on tonight's agenda.

[8:29] First, Madam Mayor, when you were ran for office in 2022, one of the items in your campaign,

[8:38] one of your campaign, proposals was to hold town halls, and my memory isn't what

[8:48] it was when I was younger, but I do not recall the council holding any town halls.

[8:55] the last town hall. The closest thing I recall, I think, was when council member G was mayor

[9:03] and there was a quasi-town hall on the private roads and drains issue, which was very productive.

[9:11] The benefit of a town hall is that unlike the public forum or even unlike commenting on

[9:18] a agenda item, there's no back and forth when we comment here at a public forum, but in

[9:24] town hall, they can be some back and forth, obviously it has to be moderated, but I would

[9:30] urge you to do a lot of issues that a lot of residents have concerned about, and I would

[9:37] urge you to set up one or more town halls.

[9:42] Turning to another subject,

[9:47] evacuation, the environmental impact report, the update to the

[9:54] safety element or had a literal laundry list of evacuation, mitigation ideas, virtually

[10:06] all of which were to work. It's also in the documents. We're going to be studying, considered,

[10:13] evaluated. But what has been done? I think the Council owes it to the community to provide

[10:21] periodic status report updating the community on what is being done. You just take the laundry

[10:30] list, you have three columns. What we've done, what we're going to do, and when we're going

[10:36] to accomplish it by it. It's not that complicated. Most of all of you have managed companies,

[10:42] departments, people, it's a basic management 101 and third relating to housing. I think we

[10:54] are all old and update on what's happening with the CalTrans parcel. It is, in my opinion,

[11:01] as I have been saying too many times over the years, it is the key to unlock future housing

[11:09] development and no one knows what's happening with. I can tell you that I have gotten no response,

[11:17] whatsoever from the person who was identified as the person in charge. And I don't know if

[11:24] who's in charge of following up among the city staff, but I have sent emails, love, voicemails,

[11:33] etc., or to no avail. I would urge you to please provide an update. Thank you.

[11:37] Thank you for your comment.

[11:44] For public forum, next we have Michael Brown.

[11:58] Thank you.

[11:59] I wanted to come and speak to you tonight about the situation with the public safety as

[12:06] pertains to the leadership provided by the City Council.

[12:12] This is a subject that seems to have been kicked around from committee to committee.

[12:18] Ever since I've been here in the last 25 years.

[12:21] It'll go for a while and then the committee will get shut down, it'll get rolled into another

[12:28] subcommittee. The latest one, I believe you guys, the public safety subcommittee of the City Council,

[12:36] you shut down at the last City Council meeting two weeks ago, because of lack of civic engagement.

[12:47] But going back in the last four years, there've been a total of five meetings.

[12:51] Money, you know, basically just a report from the police department about what they did.

[12:58] You know, how many interactions they had, how many burglars, blah, blah, blah, blah.

[13:01] But no real outreach or leadership into the community.

[13:05] And I think that kind of, I guess,

[13:10] is sort of, we can see that in, you know, how our homeowners are adopting

[13:19] view and mitigation home hardening. And I think I would like to see more focused effort.

[13:27] I will say I've seen some amazing stuff coming out of the city. I think the people that

[13:35] are in the city hall, they know their stuff,

[13:39] they understand what the responsibilities are,

[13:43] and they are really interface to the police department,

[13:47] and they're interface to the fire department,

[13:49] but I think the citizens are getting left out

[13:51] of this conversation of the understanding

[13:53] of what really should be expected of them,

[13:56] and how they can be partners in their own survival

[13:59] so that we are not in that list of Northridge

[14:04] I'm Linda Maraga and wherever it is in the South Bay that was also in Michael Laura's report.

[14:11] So I'd like to see more active engagement on the part of the city council and leadership in that area.

[14:18] Thank you.

[14:20] Thank you.

[14:25] For public forum next we have Sineo Roger on.

[14:37] Hi, thanks for taking my comment.

[14:40] I think I'm here to talk about fire safety in general.

[14:43] I'm sorry, this microphone's a little bit low for you.

[14:46] I think there's three issues that are being

[14:49] conflated at once.

[14:51] One is mitigation, one is what happens

[14:53] the event of a disaster, and what happens with insurance.

[14:57] And I think it kind of benefits all of us

[14:59] to separate the...

[15:00] It was three, but I just want to express to the council that I think no one kind of knows what's happening with all three. And to next point, I think some very clear direction on what's happening would really help the community because I think there are a lot of worried people right now.

[15:17] And we're turning to you for leadership on this. So on the event of disaster side, I wouldn't be able to tell you what our evacuation routes are.

[15:27] I doubt any one of my neighbors would be able to tell you what they are.

[15:31] We'd all be in some serious trouble and we learned from the paradise fire that there

[15:35] were unclear evacuation routes, which led to the, led to the disaster there.

[15:42] On the mitigation side, we learned from tubs that power lines were the issues, main issue

[15:47] there.

[15:47] But there are other things that we're learning in real time about palicades.

[15:51] I'd love to see, you know, what we've learned and some sort of quick turnaround on, here's

[15:56] be plan on doing over the next few weeks because there are a lot of worried people out there

[16:01] with internet connections who have all of a sudden to come fire experts, don't leave it

[16:05] in their hands.

[16:06] You have to really take control of this issue in my opinion.

[16:11] And on the insurance issue, it does feel like there's stuff that can be done here proactively

[16:17] working with insurers on community mitigation measures to somehow bring down premiums.

[16:23] So it seems like there are a lot of people in the community

[16:28] who want to be activated on this issue and are willing to volunteer

[16:31] to remove harmful brush from things like schools, hospitals,

[16:36] whatever the city needs.

[16:37] So I guess my comment here is we really need your leadership right now.

[16:41] Clear direction and clear expression of what's going to happen over the next like

[16:46] three, six weeks before we head into the heart of fire season.

[16:49] So ask Cumberley for that as soon as possible.

[16:55] Thank you as well.

[16:57] Thank you, I'll feel a thoughtful comment.

[17:00] Do we have any, I don't see any other speaker cards for public forum.

[17:03] Would anyone in the audience also like to speak on public forum?

[17:10] OK, hearing none, I will close the public forum section of our agenda.

[17:18] Next, we have the consent calendar item F on our agenda.

[17:25] The consent calendar section of the agenda consists of items that are acted on in one motion,

[17:31] unless a council member or member of a public request that the council removed an item from the consent calendar for discussion.

[17:39] We have had a request to remove item F3 on impact fees from the agenda, so I'm going to request that that be done.

[17:49] Do I, or are there any other items from the consent, may I, I would like to just make a brief comment on F6, please?

[17:56] On F6, F6.

[17:59] And that's the one I wanted to pull as well.

[18:02] Okay.

[18:03] Other than F3 and F6, are there any other consent items that any council member wants to pull?

[18:13] Hearing none,

[18:15] Is do I have a motion and a second to adopt the consent calendar as amended, which would only include items F1, F2, F4 and F5?

[18:31] Second. Second. All in favour? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Then I think next on our agenda we

[18:45] would discuss item F3. Item F3 is the 2024 Impact fee report. AB 1600 and the recommendation

[18:53] is to receive and file the city of Orlando annual report of development impact fee funds for the year

[19:00] ended June 30, 2024. And I know we have a public comment on that before that, do we have a

[19:08] staff report or we could certainly, I could quickly do one, unfortunately Doug LSEO is home ill,

[19:15] he's on Zoom. He could potentially talk about it if that's your desire or if you just want to take

[19:21] the public comment on the item. I didn't know if there's any council member comments or questions about this item.

[19:28] Okay. If there are any, if there are no council member questions, then we will are there at this time.

[19:33] I had a question about the park dedication fees. Can you help me understand what those are and what they could be used for?

[19:43] So I'm going to take a, I wasn't here for when this was placed together, but typically what

[19:48] park dedication fees are is when you have new development that triggers the need for additional

[19:55] park facilities as a result of their development, then you would be collecting a fee to pay

[20:00] for those future facilities, and they would be paying their fair share of those, so they're not

[20:06] and can't be used for work to existing facilities, it's only for future facilities.

[20:13] You could use the fees for work that either expands or improves beyond current conditions,

[20:22] facilities that help to mitigate impacts of new development. So you could use them on existing

[20:30] facilities provided that it's about expanding the use of that facility. Thank you.

[20:37] Okay. Are there any other council member questions?

[20:44] Okay. Hearing none. I would like to call Mr.

[20:48] Warner. Would you be a public comment on this?

[20:54] I'm not as close to Neil.

[20:58] My comment is about what is, is about something that is not in the impact report,

[21:07] impact fee report. We are a city as we all know of very limited income, very limited sources

[21:17] of income. And my question is whether we are getting the maximum legal amounts of impact fees from

[21:31] developers. I raised this last year, probably raised it the year before, but I don't remember

[21:39] that far back, but it probably requires a nexus study. What I recall, I guess the head of administrative

[21:51] services is not here tonight did I hear that earlier, but I believe what he said last year when I

[21:58] this is that we had done one five years ago, four years ago, whatever he said, which doesn't

[22:07] really address the question of whether we're getting the maximum impact fees. The fact that we may

[22:16] be complying with AB whatever it is that means we're doing it legally, but I would urge someone

[22:28] to look into whether we are maximizing the impact, because once a preliminary application

[22:39] for a development is filed and a preliminary application isn't much more than some scratching

[22:47] on the back of an envelope, once that is filed everything that applies to that project

[22:54] is what was in place on that day. And if someone comes in with some project, you can't

[23:04] then say, oops, we wish we'd read, we had raised the impact fees. So I will once again

[23:10] make my plea to do what needs to be done, and be sure we are maximizing our fees. I think

[23:21] It's sort of obvious that if we're relying on a study that several years old and given the

[23:28] rate at which everything is getting more expensive, I think it would be safe to say it is

[23:35] unlikely we are maximizing our fees.

[23:39] Thank you.

[23:40] Thank you.

[23:47] I don't see any other public comment speaker cards for item F3.

[23:52] Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on this agenda item?

[23:59] Seeing none, I will close public comment and bring it back to the council for discussion.

[24:09] I guess I have now what is maybe more of a question, which is,

[24:18] do we know if we are maximizing the impact fees in other ways?

[24:25] Do we have the ability to raise those fees for developers?

[24:27] and if we don't know about now, then I guess the question would be, is that something that can only

[24:34] can be done at any time or can it be done? So I think that we have three fees that we're talking

[24:40] about here. I don't know, the transportation impact fee is a regional fee, is that correct? And so

[24:46] the question we could find out whether or not they're charging the maximum fee as provided in their

[24:54] But I know they're also working on a feet update coming up as well, and so I don't know,

[24:59] see that if you can address whether or not they're charging the maximum fee.

[25:03] On the transportation impact fee and while see those walking up to the podium,

[25:06] we'll just comment on the park dedication fee.

[25:08] That's done.

[25:10] It's actually a quimbee fee.

[25:12] I don't want to explain quimbee fees that I can have.

[25:14] Oh, so try to explain them if you'd like.

[25:16] But basically you assess you take a look at the land value and that land value gets updated annually

[25:21] and then you assess your feed based on this formula that assumes land value.

[25:26] So that typically is that it's maximum.

[25:30] But I'll leave it over to Steven to talk about transportation.

[25:34] Thank you. We didn't make it in constant numbers.

[25:37] So for the transportation impact feed, we do have a separate

[25:42] finance authority, LFA, committee. We call it LAMONO NFI and finance authority. And through that,

[25:46] But whatever we collect, we collect fee, we collect, it's based on an access study that

[25:51] was done in 2017, that was the last update.

[25:56] So the committee has actually shown interest in revisiting that due to some of the recent

[26:00] improvements, so that is something they will be looking at this year as a possibility of either

[26:06] updating it or doing an access study.

[26:09] And that study determines how locations happen to 50% of the fee that's collected in the

[26:17] lower-end area, all the agencies put 50% of the money we collect into the regional

[26:21] part and then the other 50% gets spent locally, and that committee owes these those information.

[26:27] So I'm happy to answer any questions here.

[26:29] Okay.

[26:30] Are there any other types of fees we could charge or is there anything else like a wildfire

[26:34] mitigation fee or an evacuation plan fee or any other kinds of fees we're allowed to charge.

[26:41] Typically, there's based on projects that are expected to are anticipated in the coming years.

[26:48] This study, the last one, I believe they looked there at that time up to year 2040.

[26:53] But of course, things have changed quite significantly in the last few years.

[26:57] So, as far as defining parameters, they usually bring out a consultant on both to assess

[27:02] and provide guidance to the committee, so I think they will be looking at all those information, like we.

[27:09] I'll turn off the typical projects.

[27:14] I know a little bit about it since I said on the committee.

[27:18] Can you explain, again, that the fees are charged as Lama Indez.

[27:24] So the three communities are charging it.

[27:27] Can you explain a little bit about how it then gets sent back to,

[27:31] whether it's Lafayette or Render or Marag.

[27:34] Yeah, so like I said, the 50% of the fee we collect goes to the regional point and LaFair

[27:39] is the sign treasure for that, so they manage all the fees that collect gets collected

[27:43] by all three cities and the idea is to use that collective fund towards the project that will benefit

[27:51] the lumber in area.

[27:52] So one good example that we are working on right now is the upcoming signals update project,

[27:58] that is there is two components to it like a previous explain in one of four meetings is the

[28:03] Now only component we are getting some support from the transportation authority, but there

[28:07] is also a longer-indocomponent, but all of our 3 agencies are operating all of our signals.

[28:13] So the match funds for the federal funding we are receiving is coming from this 50% savings

[28:19] we put aside.

[28:21] Now, as far as who gets how much, the next study defines it actually, they assess it based

[28:27] on a complex formula, so how much development is going on, how much is it expected to collect

[28:32] and how the distribution builds.

[28:36] Okay, thank you.

[28:37] Any other question or discussion?

[28:42] So it sounds like we really can't do anything about these fees

[28:44] until or unless there's a new next-to-study.

[28:48] Typically, you don't have any, you don't modify your fee.

[28:51] Your fees get updated annually based on some index,

[28:55] whether that's the engineering news record index

[28:57] or CPI or something.

[28:59] They try to account for the change in construction costs

[29:02] because all these are typically related to capital projects.

[29:06] But ultimately, you have to revisit these fees every five to seven years typically.

[29:11] And you do that when there are significant changes in your environment,

[29:15] whether that's your capital project plan and or your population estimates,

[29:20] which I think, in this case, many of the agencies

[29:23] have had to go through updating their housing elements.

[29:25] And so you want to account for those new potential populations that you're zoning for

[29:31] and make sure that your fee is reflective, and your projects are reflective of the improvements

[29:36] that are going to have to be done to support the new populations.

[29:39] That is correct, yeah. So for the, there's on the current next story, the guidance is that we use the

[29:46] construction cost index data and that is something that gets updated every year. This year,

[29:54] I think we will be bringing that item for a consulate update next month.

[29:59] Let's come here.

[30:00] So for example, so this year is actually the fee is going down a little bit. I do not remember

[30:07] the exact value, but because of it's based on how much the CCA adjust itself on a certain

[30:14] month in a year. For so this is one time where actually because of the recent inflation,

[30:19] we are actually having a negative impact. So the fees are actually going slightly lower, very,

[30:24] Okay, but the next study isn't different thing, right?

[30:28] We're redoing the next study, and that we don't have,

[30:33] do you know when we'll have the results of that,

[30:34] did you say in the next month or two?

[30:36] No, no, that is, the committee will be reviewing that this is so staff will, yeah,

[30:42] the LFFA will get input from staff, and our understanding of this point

[30:48] is we will likely have an outside consultant brought in, that will be the first step,

[30:52] and then they'll work with staff and the committee to update the study.

[30:58] And historically, when we've read down the next study,

[31:02] has it usually resulted in the fees increasing in that transportation impact fee?

[31:07] You know?

[31:08] I do not have enough background.

[31:09] I mean, the fee is ultimately a function of how many projects you're loading into the fee program, right?

[31:15] So, if you're keeping your program, your fee is the same,

[31:19] maybe you've gotten some grant funding to offset some of the capital costs you potentially could

[31:24] see go down. I'm not very familiar with a lot of feet programs that go down over time. They typically

[31:29] increase over time because there's usually more projects you start adding into your feet program.

[31:37] Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? Oh, just that it seemed like the city manager had covered

[31:43] park and transportation. Do you have any comments on the development fee?

[31:48] Which one, I'm sorry, the drainage and the development field is one of the three that we addressed.

[31:53] You talked about the first two, but there's been no, you didn't address the development fee.

[31:58] Next is study update potentially, or any potential changes to the development impact.

[32:02] So three here that which all, in their totality or development impact fees, right?

[32:08] So the part dedication fee, drainage impact fee and transportation impact fee.

[32:12] I might missing, are there any other fees that we're charging?

[32:17] Those are the three that we charge, as part of the sum of the development impact fees out of it.

[32:22] Yeah,

[32:24] thanks.

[32:26] And what's your recommendation on whether or not we should get a new Nexus study?

[32:34] So you typically want new studies done every five to seven years,

[32:37] unless you have in that intervening period of time any major changes.

[32:41] But it's seven years, right?

[32:44] So, yes.

[32:44] So, LFFA is going to be updating and doing a new nexus study.

[32:47] You are doing that.

[32:48] That is correct.

[32:49] They are working towards getting an update done for the transportation

[32:53] impact fee.

[32:55] The impact dedication fee doesn't necessarily need it because it's based

[32:58] on land value.

[32:58] So, I guess the only other one we would need to consider is the drainage

[33:01] impact fee and see that I don't know when the last time was.

[33:04] We did an update on the drainage impact fee.

[33:06] But you might know.

[33:07] And I don't know how substantial that fee is.

[33:09] I apologize, I could look bad up and find out.

[33:13] Yeah, I know, sorry, but at least not, since I've been here, at least not in the last five years,

[33:18] but it's kind of-

[33:18] We'll take a look at that.

[33:19] But that could probably go to that small background on there and first.

[33:21] And does the transportation fee include the wear and tear on the roads from our

[33:27] hollers, no, which fees that.

[33:30] That's the vehicle impact fee that's associated with the recycled smart program.

[33:37] But that doesn't come into this section.

[33:41] But the next study can help.

[33:43] Can focus on that as well, can't you?

[33:45] So yeah, typically when those that fee tries to get adjusted,

[33:50] they will conduct some sort of nexus analysis.

[33:53] It takes a slightly different form.

[33:55] It talks about impact that those vehicles have on the roads and what impact

[33:59] that has on the asphalt.

[34:00] But would it make sense to do both at the same time?

[34:06] These fees and that fee, it doesn't, they don't have to be connected, no.

[34:11] No, because the impact fees that he's charging are not for repair to existing road race and the fee that you're referring to is about repair.

[34:19] And it's not subject to AB 1600 rules.

[34:22] Okay, but I think it's been, you know, seven years, for so since we did it for vehicle.

[34:26] Yes, and we will be doing it again as part of, in terms of the recycled smart conversation.

[34:31] So that will be happening. I believe David said that that's scheduled to be evaluated next year.

[34:38] 2026. Okay. I think the concern there though is that it may be going the wrong way.

[34:47] That's a big part of why we haven't pushed any harder on that, because one of the components of the garbage impact is the amount of money you're spending on capital projects.

[34:58] And because we repaired all the roads, our expenditures have gone down.

[35:05] So I think there's some concern that a new nexus study on that is not going to be in our favor.

[35:15] Any other discussion on item F3?

[35:24] Thank you, city engineer for filling it.

[35:28] And if he wants to stay up there.

[35:32] I'm told you might want to stay close for their next item.

[35:35] Okay, so that concludes our discussion of F3 and moving on also from we will move on to item F6, which is to accept work and approve record plans for the San Pablo Creek Colbert repair project and city project member for 187 and authorizes city clerk to sign and file a notice of completion with the contricost accounting clerk recorder.

[36:06] And the recommendation is to adopt a resolution number 225 to accept that work and approve those plans.

[36:17] With that, do we want to have a staff report?

[36:22] Are there questions from the council?

[36:23] I just had a comment.

[36:24] So if council member do you want to do first?

[36:26] I just had a quick.

[36:28] Yeah.

[36:28] I just had a comment to the reason I went to progress.

[36:30] Before a comment, can I just see if there's any public comment?

[36:33] I don't have any cards for item of sex,

[36:36] but I just, is there any member of the public here

[36:39] who would like to speak on item of sex?

[36:42] Okay, seeing none, I will close public comment.

[36:46] How's the number G?

[36:47] I just wanted to pour it this item,

[36:50] see for you in Scott and the department

[36:52] because I'm not sure how often people realize how rare it is

[36:58] to have a public works project

[37:00] that not only comes in on budget, but slightly under budget.

[37:04] than I, and I know that to me, this was a job of very, very good proactive planning by what

[37:14] you had in the documents, you know, making provision for things, which part of the reason

[37:20] the price went down is you didn't need to use it, so that showed, you know, good forward

[37:24] thinking.

[37:25] But I think it's important.

[37:26] I think it's important to call out and let our residents know on occasion what a good

[37:32] You know, we are doing and delivering things and how good of stewards that we're being with the money.

[37:39] So I just wanted to take the moment to complement all of you because bringing a project in, you know,

[37:46] on budget and even slightly under budget is really to be commended because it is, as you know,

[37:51] not a common occurrence in the public works world.

[37:53] The first thing that usually happens on day one of any public works project is something is different than what was expected.

[38:00] And so it's very hard to do.

[38:02] So I just wanted to say thank you.

[38:05] And the men do for doing such a good job.

[38:08] Thank you.

[38:09] Well, I had the exact same comment, except I qualified it.

[38:13] Because I am always so jaded when I see a 20% contingency

[38:17] and I'm always saying, you know, it seems like the numbers

[38:19] are always padded, construction costs always go up.

[38:22] And you brought this in 60,000 under the quote,

[38:27] plus you use none of the contingency for a collective

[38:30] savings of $366,000 of taxpayer money, but we can now use

[38:36] on other stuff. So I'm just so grateful that you guys were so

[38:40] respectful of taxpayer money to save money every chance you got

[38:45] and to not use the contingency. So thank you. Thank you. I can't take

[38:49] too much credit for this. I'm starting here. Oh, I've got it.

[38:53] Yeah, the team being me is already dead. We had some amazing staff actually

[38:57] very, like you said, I'm concerned number, they were very proactive because this project actually

[39:03] involved a lot of easements that we had to secure. There were a lot of strategies that

[39:08] were put in place and time spent ahead of time before we got into construction, along with

[39:12] a good contractor, I should credit the contractor to, they were very willing to work with us,

[39:18] very ahead of like their schedule and kept to their work. So everything came into place. So thank

[39:23] is on much further appreciation. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Councilmember Gianfist Mayri

[39:31] Richardson for the recognition. I think it's very well deserved and it's important to,

[39:35] you know, to recognize when the planes land well, not just when we have something that goes,

[39:41] because the way we don't want it. Any other discussion on item F6? Okay. And so, in that case,

[39:51] Um, do we have a motion to adopt resolution number to 25 to accept the work and approve

[39:59] record plans for the San Pablo Creek Covert Repair Project to say it in the agenda?

[40:05] I'll move approval of resolution 0 to dash 25.

[40:09] Well, second. Okay. All in favour? Aye. Any opposed?

[40:16] Hearing none, that vote is unanimous, and the city clerk reminded me that I did not call for a vote on item F3, so I'd like to go back and do that.

[40:26] And the recommendation is to receive and file the city of a Render Annual Report of Development Impact Feef funds for the year ended June 30, 2024.

[40:36] Do I have a motion to do that?

[40:40] So moved.

[40:41] Second.

[40:42] Okay.

[40:42] All in favor?

[40:43] Hi.

[40:44] Any opposed?

[40:46] And that also passes unanimously.

[40:51] Next, that moves us on to item G, which is public hearing.

[40:55] And since there are no public hearing items tonight,

[40:58] that moves us right into our policy matters.

[41:02] The first policy matter is H1, which is the final design concept for Crossroads Park,

[41:11] CIP project number 4103, and related actions.

[41:19] And so I will ask for the staff report.

[41:24] On both Mayor, we're going to turn it over to Todd Trimble. He's going to our Parks Director. We'll be taking this item tonight for the team.

[41:33] Thank you very much. Good evening. Mayor, City Council for the record. Todd Trimble Parks and Recreation Director.

[41:40] I know not alone, completely. For sure we have Eric. Eric is here from Gates and Associates in Scottish. I think on soon as well to answer any questions.

[41:50] And just make sure that we can all hear you to lean a little bit more into that microphone.

[41:56] So our whole audience can hear you.

[41:58] Thank you, Director.

[41:58] Check one two.

[42:04] Well, we have, we don't have a specific outline to know what we have as a series of visuals that we can reference and look at.

[42:12] As needed, what we're just going to briefly go through.

[42:15] We call a couple of meetings ago we have this item on and we didn't have time to get to it.

[42:21] So I'm just going to go back and kind of briefly bring this up to speed and I have to

[42:27] say that we've been talking about this project for a long time, Eric's even been dealing

[42:33] with it longer than I have, but at the previous meeting we did talk about the,

[42:45] what we're

[42:45] that, which was going to be basically just a little bit of removal of some hard

[42:51] scape with no replacement, a little bit of adding of landscaping and the gateway

[42:57] site. We brought that up. We had some discussions. We looked at it again and the

[43:02] recommendation was to go back and come back with a more expanded landscape plan.

[43:07] Similar to the original concept several years ago, continue with the removal and

[43:14] replacement of that portion of the side, what you see in green, and then do the complete

[43:20] replacement and removal of the replacement of the irrigation and the landscaping. Including

[43:26] even the original design included some screened trees along the back. They're approximately

[43:30] 10 to 14 trees along the back side there. And no changes at that point to the hard-scape. So that's

[43:39] So we landed,

[43:42] and so we're about to back now, we also had some discussion regarding the

[43:47] sign and the original phone design that we had looked at, we looked at a variety of kind

[43:53] of kept going through the years of different options that we're looked at and presented

[43:57] in.

[44:00] And most recent meeting, the reference to the recommendation was to look at the fin sign.

[44:06] So we're back to kind of answer any questions.

[44:10] We can go through and verify and confirm the concept of this,

[44:17] this most recent design and then answer any questions you might have

[44:20] about the sign, or things that I've mostly said funding and so on.

[44:25] So we also have a couple of numbers of the room to garden club in addition

[44:29] to Janet here today to answer any questions you may have regarding that.

[44:37] I would just, first of all, thank you Todd for the summary overview, I think one of the things we wanted to try and address between the last meeting when it got continued to now is really try to get the commitments sort of solidified from the two groups that have expressed interest.

[44:54] They were into community foundation which is committed funding and then the garden club and I think that.

[45:00] A conversation with the Garden Club sort of started to evolve and expand some and we wanted to see about them getting more engaged in this process and having them be a partner in helping us with the plant selection for this area.

[45:13] Of course, anyone who drives out there can see that most of that landscaping has reached the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced in its entirety. It would really help to do that and do so in partnership with the Garden Club.

[45:26] working with gates on trying to, you know, cite the plants and select those plant materials.

[45:34] And then, of course, on the sign design itself, you know, that was, you know, that's gone through

[45:41] many iterations. There's certainly members in the community who would like to talk about it as a

[45:47] piece of public art that's certainly an option for the council to consider. I think in the staff report,

[45:52] we just wanted to note that if you do want to go down that path, I think that is a different

[45:56] process and we can sort of have a place folder there for when we can get to moving forward

[46:02] with a public art piece if that's so what you desire. In the meantime, you know, we can still

[46:07] look at moving forward with a gateway monument feature. If the sort of shape of the sign is

[46:15] satisfactory to the city council, we can sort of look at that. But if you're interested in changing

[46:19] perhaps the color of the concrete or the fonts that are being used, we can dabble around

[46:26] little bit more with that and come back to you with other options. But we wanted to make sure we were

[46:30] bringing you something that was a little bit more comprehensive. We have commitments now. We've talked

[46:36] with the Garden Club and I know that they really want to help put this project together and I think

[46:41] for those that might be here representing them if they want to come up and talk a little bit about that.

[46:45] We'd certainly appreciate it. And we look forward to putting this to bed soon or rather than later.

[46:51] And I'm sure you don't disagree with me because we've been talking about it for quite some time.

[46:55] And we can try and move on to the next step of getting making this happen, so that's all I have to say. Thank you.

[47:03] Okay.

[47:04] Council questions. I know that we got funds.

[47:08] Council member.

[47:09] I have one question.

[47:10] Can you because I keep forgetting to look, is the fountain intended to operate?

[47:16] Is it back to operating?

[47:18] It's been operating for a few months.

[47:21] And it's intended to operate as part of this plan, right?

[47:24] Yes, no change to the hard scape including the ballot.

[47:29] Is there a safety reason for removing the sidewalk there that just

[47:36] beautification?

[47:37] I think it's a combination of safety, visibility.

[47:41] It's always been PG&E's intent as well to do whatever we

[47:48] can to ensure just straight traversing through that area and not

[47:53] lingering and stuff even though they've taken it down from two, there's two pathways through

[47:59] their, or you might know. So I think it was more of, I think, on our and more of a visibility

[48:06] aspect to remove the sidewalk, that would be a front of the gateway sign and have just

[48:11] better overall site too.

[48:16] Any other other questions about this? I was still trying to understand the

[48:20] So there's the cost projection that $317,000 estimate or the sign and the concrete removal and new plants and is that the total cost of the project and what we are understanding is that the $50,000 donation would go towards that.

[48:49] What about donations of plant materials with that reduce this cost at all?

[48:54] There's potential for both of those unless Scott corrects me.

[48:59] That is the estimate of the design and construction.

[49:06] It does not include the potential donations and in kind types of services that could come late.

[49:14] In this $120,000 for signage, that includes this gateway sign with the mosaic sign be more

[49:22] than this gateway sign.

[49:23] You don't have an estimate on what the public art sign would cost at this point.

[49:27] But presumably, I believe in the original submittal that the artist made.

[49:33] She referenced her sign being 50,000 that didn't take into account the structural components

[49:38] that would then put it up.

[49:40] design and any engineering work that soft costs that would go along with that.

[49:46] So.

[49:47] And so this would come out of this city's.

[49:52] What budget of the cities would the money to do this come from?

[49:56] This would come out of budget funds 700.

[49:59] And I think Doug could be more.

[50:02] Probably better suited to discuss its general fund.

[50:06] I think there is a CIP. I'm sure the city manager is correct there.

[50:13] So the program program project has assumed a certain amount of funding.

[50:19] We're obviously seeking additional funding so that we can complete the project.

[50:24] The revenue that we would receive from either the R into community foundation or the in kind

[50:29] cost associated with the plantings,

[50:32] select, you know, the actual plants would come in.

[50:36] We would book that as a revenue against the expenses.

[50:38] So we would still say that the expense that we're showing in this report is the expense

[50:43] we're expected to make, but we would have offsetting revenue that would then.

[50:49] And how much has been set aside in the capital improvement project budget or this item?

[50:55] I'll let Todd answer your question.

[50:58] I'm sorry.

[50:59] I'm sorry.

[51:00] I could answer that.

[51:02] Todd, this is Scott.

[51:03] If you'd like.

[51:05] Truth.

[51:05] Scott, you have it.

[51:06] I'm on in Scott.

[51:07] Oh, OK.

[51:08] Good.

[51:09] Good evening, city council.

[51:11] So the current budget does have this available balance of

[51:15] 106,000, which includes the presumption of

[51:20] 50,000 from the Arinda Community Foundation.

[51:26] So that's, if you look at the table,

[51:28] reflected as that available balance is 106,000.

[51:32] So if you take that away from the estimated cost

[51:36] to complete a 363,000, that's where we come up with

[51:41] this shortfall at 257,000.

[51:45] And the source of that money could either be

[51:49] completely from funds 700, the CIP project fund, which is appropriated each year, typically

[51:57] there's a contribution that we recommend, and it's usually from the general fund in fact

[52:04] is where it comes from, and that then would be reduced further from any donation we get

[52:13] commitment we get from the Garden Club or perhaps additional donations from the OCA from the

[52:20] Rinda Community Foundation, or as was brought up possible in-kind plan contributions.

[52:28] So the worst case would be that entire amount would come from the city's CIP fund number 700

[52:36] is the Capital Improvement Project Fund.

[52:41] So, I'll share.

[52:43] It's got a little bit confused,

[52:45] because I thought the 106 did not include any of our private donation groups,

[52:52] but it sounds like you just said,

[52:54] the commitment for 50 from the community foundation is inside the 106,

[53:00] but the other ones, the Garden Club and other groups would be outside it.

[53:03] Did I hear that correctly?

[53:05] That's correct. Yeah, it does include 50,000, which we don't have it in pocket, so to speak, but we have confirmed that commitment.

[53:15] And we had in the past, which is why we kind of inked it in as a donation.

[53:21] The portion from the community foundation that may possibly come about is if they decide to increase their donation,

[53:30] which they weren't willing to commit to, based on TOS, most recent conversation with them.

[53:41] Okay, so I'm sorry. Any other questions?

[53:46] Okay, so it seems like 120,000 of the 257,000 shortfall is the sign itself, not the rest of the work.

[54:00] Is there any way to do the sign in a less expensive way?

[54:08] That's a Scott question Scott, do you have any health?

[54:12] There's always ways to reduce costs for things like signage.

[54:19] You know, we could do a really bare-bone sign, but based on the council meeting back in October,

[54:27] You know, there was a pretty great interest in the signage as kind of the central part of the project was really at that point in time.

[54:37] The signage was the key thing, even more so than the landscape.

[54:41] Now, you know, I realize as people digest this project more that that sentiment may have changed, it seems to.

[54:50] Again, the housing dollars includes the foundation and the wall itself that the sign would be kind of made into, even with what we consider the least costly sign option being the so-called fin design that we depicted in the slides there, so to speak.

[55:14] So, I mean, you know, that could be reduced some with a less complex sign.

[55:22] You know, that's not a very elaborate sign, but I mean, there's ways to make it less costly.

[55:28] I don't know how much you'd save and, you know,

[55:32] Eric might even be able to speak it out a little further.

[55:35] I know that Gates and Associates has pretty, I'd say, extensive experience

[55:41] experience and monument signage like that. I believe they may have done one for possibly

[55:48] Pittsburgh within the last few years. So if you like Eric might speak to that more.

[55:58] I mean, the short answer is, yeah, you can always do something cheaper just the question of what's

[56:02] going to be deemed acceptable and what he wants. For a sign of roughly that scale, I don't think you

[56:08] get it for much less than say 50, 60,000, obviously, depending on the materials of this, we are

[56:13] going to be somewhat limited and what the materials are because of the overhead transmission

[56:17] lines, basically no metal. Other materials would be optional.

[56:23] So, yes, but we would just need to

[56:26] understand what you guys want.

[56:32] One thing that it appeared to me from the communications from

[56:36] artist was that if the prior estimate of the most they

[56:47] signed was at 170,000 and the artist wrote an email saying that

[56:53] is not my estimate, it's 120,000 more than my understanding is

[56:59] that the approximate, again, we don't have an exact estimate, but the

[57:03] approximate difference between a thin like sign,

[57:08] or the estimate in this budget,

[57:10] which includes only foundation and wall,

[57:12] and the mosaic sign would be about 50,000 more

[57:15] to do a mosaic sign, is that a fair assumption?

[57:19] I wasn't 100% clear on the quote from the RSA,

[57:21] exactly what that entails.

[57:23] So we had a couple of months ago

[57:25] when he provided several options for signs.

[57:28] I kicked that to a sign company,

[57:29] you know, hey, rough costs, how much would it, you know, would it cost me to get us to build

[57:34] these different types of walls. One of them being, um, one of these walls with a

[57:40] mosaic option kind of kind of by the artist, right? And so we put that 50,000 on top of what

[57:47] the sign manufacturer would put together. Now, how those two milled together was not 100% clear

[57:53] to me. Okay. Any, I have one more question, but are there any other questions?

[57:59] my colleagues. So my other question is, I assume that the plantains and the sign with the plantains

[58:09] will be fire savvy in consistent with the plant's first high-of-savvy landscape that the garden club

[58:17] developed and that the sign would also be of materials and that in generating this is something

[58:25] we're talking to chief Isaacs about, or I'm off to.

[58:30] Yeah, I believe that the sign would be constructed

[58:32] of some concrete material, which should be.

[58:35] Yeah, almost, I mean, almost not a percent

[58:37] it would probably be concrete.

[58:38] Okay, thank you.

[58:41] Any other questions?

[58:43] Okay.

[58:45] If that concludes the staff report,

[58:47] then I'll move into public comment

[58:50] and for item H1, we have Mr. Warnoff.

[58:59] Did any of you actually read the stuff that was submitted, did you read?

[59:06] The Judge Hammond submission where he said, the council needs to distinguish between the really nice and the really critical.

[59:18] Have you sat through this meeting?

[59:20] We had this gentleman in the back begging for some leadership on public safety.

[59:25] We had Samir Rajaraman explaining the three aspects of the community right concern about wildfire,

[59:38] you hope for me.

[59:40] And we're spending all this time, month after month,

[59:46] on something that's all only of interest to some landscape architects and some bureaucrats.

[59:53] Nobody gives a rat's behind about this park. Nobody works through there during people who say,

[1:00:00] May it are the two cars stopped in front when the light is red. I mean, I've been through there. You've got the new

[1:00:07] no right turn on red sign that if you know the person blinds you $10,000 on that sign, you know how

[1:00:15] that that installed because someone said had a TSOC meeting that he saw a near collision. And the next

[1:00:24] you know the city spending $10,000 on that. I can't believe this is funded in the CIP with

[1:00:32] really important unfunded stuff in there. There's a saying you all have heard it. Don't throw

[1:00:38] good money after bed. But a lid on this. You've got a sign already there. You've got whatever's there.

[1:00:46] Let's talk about and spend some money on something important.

[1:00:49] Instead of wasting time and sitting money on this, this is an absolute disgrace, we are in an existential crisis and you are worried about whether there is some mosaic on some sign, folks ought to be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself.

[1:01:08] yourself collectively.

[1:01:16] Okay, is there any, I do not see any other speaker cards for this item?

[1:01:22] Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on that?

[1:01:34] Thank you.

[1:01:36] Michael Brown, correct?

[1:01:37] I just identified so there.

[1:01:39] Thank you.

[1:01:40] So, Nix, I'm not going to add to his passionate comments on this particular thing,

[1:01:49] But personally, I have a couple of thoughts

[1:01:51] that I don't know if anybody's brought up before,

[1:01:55] but I do think I've walked through that park.

[1:01:59] It's miserable, I don't think there's anything you do

[1:02:02] to make it not miserable with everything that's around it.

[1:02:07] It is, unless you're going to take out

[1:02:09] communal Pablo, the exit from the freeway,

[1:02:11] the power lines and the stop light,

[1:02:13] it's never going to be anything but a miserable petageer.

[1:02:17] And I'd like having a sign for Rinda, but I think you need to consider a sign that's disposable because the likelihood of a car coming through there and putting a giant dent in our $120,000 sign. This is welcome to a Rinda.

[1:02:32] I mean, there's almost 100% likelihood of that happening. So I definitely think you need to consider that any money that you spend on this park is disposable and you can replace it tomorrow like that and it will be a bother to you because it's going to happen.

[1:02:47] So, thank you.

[1:02:50] Thank you.

[1:02:52] Did we have any other public comment on item H1, the crossroads of any park?

[1:03:01] Seeing none, I will close public comment.

[1:03:03] I will note for the record that we did get received several written items of public comment

[1:03:10] some that are in the communications packet and some that were received after.

[1:03:16] Can I ask another question?

[1:03:18] But do I? Well, I'll open it up for discussion. Okay, Mike's my colleagues and Councilmember Hocksy. So what could we do with the garden clubs help in the $50,000 donation?

[1:03:30] To beautify that corner because it does look kind of ugly right now, but not actually spend additional resources of the city. Is that possible?

[1:03:40] Perhaps it wouldn't involve a big sign. I do worry about that sign sticking out too close to the roadway and it could be hit. I agree with Mr. Brown.

[1:03:47] And it's also not that easy to see.

[1:03:54] Is there some other way to achieve the benefit of improving that corner without spending additional city resources?

[1:04:04] Does anyone want to?

[1:04:05] There is a somewhat of a long history of trying to upgrade this many park that goes back.

[1:04:17] I think precedes even most of us here on the council in that years ago, there was funding

[1:04:27] donated or anticipated and

[1:04:33] I think there's a sense that this has been pending for so

[1:04:40] long.

[1:04:41] I guess what I'm saying is a question you're asking now is sort of questions that I think

[1:04:46] have been revisited in the past and after a lot of studies,

[1:04:50] it seems like it's really come down to there.

[1:04:53] Isn't really a way to do this?

[1:04:58] We either have to do it or not.

[1:04:59] Like we can't just, if we do it cheap,

[1:05:02] it's not gonna look good.

[1:05:03] If you go there and I walk through there this weekend

[1:05:06] and anticipation of this.

[1:05:11] The landscape is a lot of it's dying.

[1:05:16] it looks really bad, you know.

[1:05:18] So, I mean, it does have to be upgraded, and these are the funds.

[1:05:22] We've gotten so many estimates on this, and so this is where it's sort of landed at,

[1:05:25] I don't know if anyone else wants to chime in on them.

[1:05:31] I guess I would say that it's been around long enough that we actually have reduced the

[1:05:36] potential investment in it quite substantially.

[1:05:41] So, I mean, we can certainly continue along the lines of do nothing, but the reality is

[1:05:49] We're not going to get a whole lot for, I mean we've already downsized it significantly and we took so long that we actually the community foundation was going to invest 250,000 in it and pulled the money away. We waited so long so.

[1:06:04] That's unfortunate.

[1:06:06] Yes, very unfortunate.

[1:06:10] I, I feel hopeful that there's more money out there that, um, I mean, did you just look

[1:06:17] at our two, uh, light up a rinda fundraisers? I mean, they put together a lot of money very

[1:06:23] quickly for a community cause. And if there is that similar effort where somebody, or lots

[1:06:30] of people are joining together the Garden Club, we haven't mentioned rotary. I mean, we should

[1:06:34] approaching rotary as well as the community foundation.

[1:06:39] So, I'm in the private money, Carol and Kim got tons of private money, so not, you know,

[1:06:47] organization money.

[1:06:48] So I feel like there's more out there if we set up this programmer project as it is where donations

[1:07:00] is coming later and it reduces the actual cost in the end.

[1:07:04] I mean, it's a scary number right now, but if you bring in a couple hundred thousand dollars

[1:07:08] over maybe a couple years, maybe it doesn't come in the next few months, you're looking

[1:07:13] good.

[1:07:14] It's a reasonable cost.

[1:07:16] And then the other approach is that I'm thinking of is a phased in approach or, and I don't

[1:07:26] how you do that, where do you start in the front, where do you start in the back?

[1:07:35] You know, what is it that's going to, I don't know, make a difference initially because I think

[1:07:42] this all has been, people have been unhappy about the way it looks because they took away the

[1:07:48] screen of the building. It's really ugly to look at and it's where we enter our city. It's a gateway.

[1:07:54] So maybe you've put in the trees first so that you start growing your trees to shield the buildings.

[1:08:00] I don't know. Those are just my thoughts. We could face in it. We can get more money.

[1:08:04] We can find some big dynamo fundraisers to help us coordinate several sources out there.

[1:08:13] Other comments?

[1:08:15] I would agree on council member Rowley. I do think this probably more private money that would be willing to donate.

[1:08:21] What I would love to see happen is with the Garden Club's assistance to me this could be like really what you said madam mayors

[1:08:29] We need to use our fires have a plants. We need to make it like a demonstration garden. I would love to see the plants that could be the most blooming the most beautiful

[1:08:39] And again, just it's just it's not really a park. It's a focal point. I do think the trees are important because the screening has really what been

[1:08:48] the massive thing that's changed that corner.

[1:08:52] On the sign, I would suggest, and I don't know if this is possible,

[1:08:57] and offer a lot of the public art in this community has been donated.

[1:09:01] I don't know if there's a way that part of the cost of having a better sign than what's out there

[1:09:08] would be, you know, that perhaps there's somebody in the artistic community that would want to contribute

[1:09:14] part of it in some way, shape or form.

[1:09:16] I don't know.

[1:09:17] And I don't know if that's what our Parks and Rec and Urban Art Committees were considering

[1:09:23] or not.

[1:09:24] But I'd be open to thinking about that.

[1:09:28] I don't think, I completely hear what people are saying, it's certainly very very important

[1:09:36] that we focus on a lot of key things that we're going to be talking about when it comes

[1:09:40] to evacuation.

[1:09:41] Fire, all the things the community is very focused on and rightfully so.

[1:09:46] But that doesn't mean that we drop every single other aspect of our community and I think finishing this off and

[1:09:54] and I think what's out there right now does look particularly sad and you know it and and quite frankly

[1:10:01] have going to almost every community in the county. We are about the only community that doesn't have a fairly decent gateway.

[1:10:09] Even communities that would be considered substantially different from a Renda have much, much better looking gateways to their community.

[1:10:20] It's always been a real source spot with me that we seem to have so little civic pride in that area.

[1:10:27] So I certainly think doing the landscaping part, really using it as a great demonstration of what can be done landscaping wise

[1:10:36] And then maybe evaluating whether there are options for the sign.

[1:10:41] So I don't think the sign, I would like to see something nice,

[1:10:46] but you know, and I do think that Council Member Riley's correct.

[1:10:49] I mean, when I look at how much money was amassed so quickly over the light up Arinda,

[1:10:56] I'd be hopeful that, you know, as much as the community is very focused on,

[1:11:01] very important issues, more important issues than focal points.

[1:11:03] But still, I think there's some desire to have our community be a nice looking place.

[1:11:14] So.

[1:11:14] Councillor Stroud.

[1:11:15] Can we talk a little bit more about the public art challenge and the, you know, the issues that come down the road if we use an artist.

[1:11:27] Sure. So I think one of the things that in communities that want to use public art in very visible places has to consider is that there's intellectual property rights that.

[1:11:37] with the artist would maintain.

[1:11:42] So if you ever wanted to change anything about it,

[1:11:45] you'd have to go through a process with the artist

[1:11:47] to figure out any modifications to that piece of art.

[1:11:52] The maintenance of those pieces of art typically has to

[1:11:57] engage and involve the artist on an ongoing basis.

[1:12:00] So you need to make sure you keep connected with the artist

[1:12:03] over time and sometimes artists leave the area.

[1:12:07] they moved to different countries and then you're trying to track them down to get their involvement

[1:12:11] in the maintenance of it. Is it possible, though, that you can have an agreement where they

[1:12:20] sort of relinquish that to you or whatever?

[1:12:27] Yes, you can, but there are limits, right? So as an example,

[1:12:36] You couldn't change the look of it in a way that the artist would disagree with, right, that would misrepresent their artistic vision.

[1:12:45] So it can all be contracted through, it's just more complicated.

[1:12:49] The other thing that I think the same Andrew is probably about to say is that it's appropriate to do a competitive process.

[1:12:57] You typically, that's what's done in situations like this and we haven't had that process yet.

[1:13:05] So, okay.

[1:13:07] Well, the public comment or are we doing our conversation?

[1:13:11] Yeah, I think we're doing our conversation.

[1:13:14] I'd love to just say a monetary word about the art question because I...

[1:13:18] It's one I've given a lot of thought too.

[1:13:20] I thought the letter from the artists that we got after our last meeting was really impactful.

[1:13:25] She made a lot of good points.

[1:13:27] I spent a lot of time looking at our whole portfolio and thinking about the points that she made in the art

[1:13:33] and the direction that she was specifically given.

[1:13:37] But as we've now have gone through the process,

[1:13:40] I have come to the conclusion

[1:13:41] that this is not the appropriate occasion

[1:13:45] for a public art piece.

[1:13:48] I actually love our art and public places committee.

[1:13:51] I think they've made public art a signature feature

[1:13:55] of the Rinda community.

[1:13:56] And so it's gonna be a reason

[1:13:58] why we would make an exception

[1:13:59] and have a piece of public art.

[1:14:01] But this is our, it's our monument, it's just our sign.

[1:14:06] It is not, I don't think the right place for art

[1:14:09] and especially not to try to get something donated

[1:14:12] where there's even less creative control.

[1:14:15] I'm fine with something that is classic and timeless,

[1:14:20] and just does the job of the sign.

[1:14:22] I think we're in the right direction

[1:14:23] and I really like what was presented

[1:14:25] and I'd be thrilled if the mosaic that was presented

[1:14:29] by the artist shows up somewhere like a community park.

[1:14:33] I thought it was beautiful.

[1:14:34] I just thought that a mosaic was not the right thing

[1:14:38] for our front door.

[1:14:43] And, okay, go ahead.

[1:14:44] The only thing I actually have no problem with this sign

[1:14:47] except one thing, and that is, I don't think the contrast

[1:14:51] between the color of the metal and the brown background.

[1:14:55] I want it to have more contrast so that it stands out more.

[1:15:00] Right. And it's hard to see. And I am concerned about the length of the sign and how close it is to the street from a safety perspective. And then go ahead. No, I was just all those things could be discussed as part of bringing back a few different alternatives. But getting directions here tonight is to what you'd like to see different about what the proposals a gateway money would be very helpful. And then we can come back with some tweaks to it.

[1:15:30] Councilmember Alexey, did you have something else you wanted to add?

[1:15:34] Well, I'm also concerned about staff time, right?

[1:15:38] Has been pointed out through lots of important things that we need to be working on.

[1:15:44] But I assume that those sorts of items would not take so much of your time that you would not have

[1:15:49] enough time left over for the most important items.

[1:15:53] The person that would be committed to doing this would be Gates and Associates, primarily,

[1:15:57] to come back with modifications to eat this for you to consider.

[1:16:02] And they wouldn't otherwise be working on fire safety.

[1:16:05] They would not be working on other issues,

[1:16:07] and the cities be half.

[1:16:09] Go ahead and can't remember, I like this sign.

[1:16:13] When we first looked at a few months ago,

[1:16:15] and I still like it, I like the feel,

[1:16:18] but I would like to see alternative color,

[1:16:22] backing and lettering.

[1:16:25] I'd like somebody to, you know, really question what's there and think about whether or not it pops with it and you can read it.

[1:16:34] Not sure. We're right on top of, you know, I'd like it to be a little louder. I feel like it's subtle and since it's a drive by experience.

[1:16:45] It's not like I'm going to sit and look at this sign. I want to be able to read it really well easily.

[1:16:51] I can't read a window, but I can't read what's above it.

[1:16:55] Yes, as welcome to.

[1:16:56] I know.

[1:16:56] I know what it says, but you don't see it.

[1:16:58] Right, and I don't think that.

[1:16:59] Maybe you don't need welcome.

[1:17:00] I don't think we don't.

[1:17:01] You're welcome.

[1:17:02] But not everyone's welcome.

[1:17:03] Most of the designs did not include that.

[1:17:07] And again, that version Scott was going to way back in the beginning.

[1:17:11] We plopped it in this.

[1:17:12] The existing landscaping, right?

[1:17:15] I mean, all that would would change.

[1:17:17] And I think to Councilmember Hoaxie's point too, the sidewalk, we feel that the sign is far enough back.

[1:17:25] It's certainly further back than any polls or signal polls or anything.

[1:17:29] And it would be less inclined.

[1:17:31] If you had a sidewalk there, we feel that more likely a car could pop the sidewalk and go on to it,

[1:17:36] as opposed to having landscaping up to that point and not being confused with the street or sidewalk.

[1:17:42] I mean, it's, I don't only want to get back into the original location of the sign way

[1:17:47] back when, which was right on the corner between the signal poles and difficult to see.

[1:17:52] So, I mean, this is, I think that'd be a city manager alluded to.

[1:17:56] I mean, it's difficult, it is difficult to try to get a sense of it in this scenario with,

[1:18:03] you can see the existing scene on the right, plopped in the sign with the existing lanes,

[1:18:09] Maybe all that would change, theoretically, with new landscaping and lower landscaping and light it up writing and whatever colors and fonts and size of letters and all that.

[1:18:26] Okay, so I had a couple comments on it.

[1:18:33] I'm pretty sure I've thrilled about that the Garden Club is involved.

[1:18:41] I have great trust in their work based on sort of what's been done around the library and the library

[1:18:48] Plaza and would love to see go all in actually with the idea of creating a fire

[1:18:57] savvy plant landscape as a demonstration garden. I think that could have value in this

[1:19:03] community when we're trying to educate and promote culture change about what our

[1:19:12] relationship with our landscape and our yards and the aesthetics needs to look like and

[1:19:18] to the extent we can incorporate even rocks or something like that. I think that would be great.

[1:19:26] And I, with regard to the sign, I don't want to just sort of acknowledge and recognize

[1:19:33] the work over many, many years that our Pucks and Reck Commission, but then in our

[1:19:39] public places committee put in and we did get some, you know, communications that came

[1:19:44] and after the, this communications from the public packet was able to be developed, but, you

[1:19:50] You know, from a couple folks on our commission, including, you know, I think a chair, still

[1:19:58] a chair, I don't know if she's still a chair, but Aaron Jots, and also Steve Danziger,

[1:20:02] who I know both spent a lot of time working on this, and, you know, one of the suggestions

[1:20:10] was to get the feedback and get the feedback on the sign, but also not completely close

[1:20:19] and what the sign was, and not I think it's sort of my view for a couple of reasons.

[1:20:23] One is, I don't love this sort of demo of the FinSign, and I recognize we haven't seen other colors in what, you know, you can do a lot with concrete.

[1:20:37] But I do like the idea for the music. I also looked at that artist, you know, renditions, and I think it could be very beautiful.

[1:20:47] And so I do sort of recognize the work of that committee and commission in putting that forth and perhaps what sign we go with in terms of additional costs will in part be that decision may in part be made or I'm proposing it might be made based on how much we can raise from the community right how much community funding and whether we can we can make up the shortfall that's needed.

[1:21:15] The real donations I am also optimistic that a lot of folks in our community will donate

[1:21:21] people donated to a light up or in there, people donated a few years ago to an effort

[1:21:28] to provide meals for essential workers and so we have had a couple of fundraising drives

[1:21:34] in our community that have resulted in sizable donations quickly and so I'm optimistic

[1:21:38] that if this allocation is made, that that will happen, that our, that, you know, this has been pending for so long.

[1:21:47] I feel like if we make this allocation, we will move forward.

[1:21:52] But, so I guess the direction I would, I would be willing to vote for this in favor that the, with the direction that we really should try to launch a, you know, widespread community fundraising effort to the extent we can to try to make a part of that shortfall.

[1:22:08] So I'm totally in favor of asking for more money from the community, but I think we've learned

[1:22:17] that we've got to have the program or the project launched. We can't just let 200,000 sit

[1:22:24] on the books from the Rindic Community Foundation because they walked away because they think,

[1:22:27] why would I give money to a group that's not going to do anything? So you got to get started

[1:22:32] and then meet that people will come and support it. Okay. And I agree with that. I think that

[1:22:38] anticipating or fundraising quickly and getting this done. We need to approve and go and then ask

[1:22:45] my only concern is fundraising takes someone who actually is in charge of doing it

[1:22:50] and so I would worry about who's responsibility it would be to do that fundraising.

[1:22:57] I would just say that I would be electing Todd to take that lead. Todd would be taking that lead on

[1:23:04] helping to figure out and I would Todd and I would sit down and talk about if it's the consensus

[1:23:09] of the council that you want us to pursue additional opportunities with the community, to

[1:23:14] fundraise for this project. We could look put our heads together and figure out different ways in

[1:23:18] which we could potentially raise funds by the project. Including calling up Carol Brvelli and Kim.

[1:23:28] They would be helpful.

[1:23:32] And I'm sorry.

[1:23:32] There's one other comment I want to make in discussion on this, which is that just to echo council member G's comments to those of you who are understandably and rightfully very, very concerned about emergency preparedness and evacuation and you know, wildfire mitigation efforts.

[1:23:52] We're talking about this part is not mutually exclusive from addressing those issues, okay?

[1:23:58] And I want to thank everyone who's made, you know, there's some very thoughtful ideas that have been expressed here,

[1:24:05] and that have been expressed to all of us we've gotten.

[1:24:08] I think all of us have gotten a lot of public comment.

[1:24:10] I've spent probably a good 40 hours plus each week over the last couple weeks discussing these issues with folks.

[1:24:18] And it's not on our agenda tonight from not going to go into it anymore.

[1:24:21] I said, you turn you will tell me to be quiet, but your concerns, your worries, your suggestions are being heard and listened by all of us.

[1:24:35] And we are acting on them and some has been acted and needs to be communicated in some anyhow.

[1:24:42] So I just wanted to sort of put that out there to reassure folks.

[1:24:48] I'm confused because I thought part of this spirit of moving this forward was narrowing issues

[1:24:55] and giving directions so that we can get this project on a process, but you made a comment

[1:25:02] that you wanted to go back to the art versus monument question. I was prepared to say I fully

[1:25:11] support this being a monument in time that Gates works on and comes back with some treatments

[1:25:17] of a monument in time that Gates does. If you want to go back to the art process, I think we

[1:25:25] should get consensus or figure that out, because I do think that one of the questions I was

[1:25:29] for us to get a consensus direction. And I think you and I might be having a different opinion.

[1:25:38] I mean, I think I prefer the art process and the mosaic sign, but that's because of what we're looking at in this light rendition.

[1:25:47] So I just can't say I like it, but I also don't have strong feelings on that.

[1:25:52] I'd like to hear from everyone.

[1:25:55] I mean, I'm not saying we can't reach consensus.

[1:26:00] I'm most concerned about cost.

[1:26:02] I haven't been part of this process for the past few years.

[1:26:05] I'm new to it. I hear loud and clear the concerns of our community and I do like the idea of a demonstration garden that can show people to fire wise plants that we can use in our community safely and that look nice.

[1:26:20] I do think it is important that we not have a dead sort of entrance to the city that really doesn't look very nice.

[1:26:31] And on the other hand, I don't want to spend city resources to achieve that and very concerned that we need to put our city resources towards safety and other issues that are facing our city.

[1:26:44] So, so, in terms of where are you on the fine for that for kind of.

[1:26:48] Because of the cost, I would go with the sign as a monument sign because I think it will be less expensive and sort of the purpose of telling people where they are when they get off the freeway.

[1:27:01] Yeah, I'm fine with moving forward with the monuments on with some options that I think would be perhaps better contrast or more attractive.

[1:27:12] You know, if we wanted to, you know, I, and part of my reasoning for that is not that I don't think the public art was, you know, beautiful or couldn't be a real showpiece or something like that.

[1:27:24] But given that this project has dragged on for 12 years and we're concerned about costs and we're concerned about other priorities and all that, you know, I'm not that worried about the vehicular accident part of it, but the reality is, I think it would simply be easier, more straightforward for the staff, you know, I think it could be made very attractive and we have a lot of other opportunities for public art in the community.

[1:27:57] Anything else to add, council member, I think?

[1:28:00] About the sign.

[1:28:05] I guess I'd like to ask if you have some suggestions right off the top of your head.

[1:28:10] The colors we might see on the concrete.

[1:28:14] I think the options are almost endless.

[1:28:18] I mean, some of you from the 12 years, as Councilman would you said,

[1:28:24] way before, my time, I can count probably a half a dozen different iterations that we've

[1:28:29] gone through from the same in single letters to the, to the, to the, the fin sign to the,

[1:28:35] kind of the, the wavy hills, kind of vision, but,

[1:28:39] using this monument signs, what, what, what could you bring back,

[1:28:42] I'm going to bring back.

[1:28:46] I think in Eric could get out to it,

[1:28:48] I think we would probably be looking at something

[1:28:50] with a lighter background and then a darker,

[1:28:53] more visible letters type thing.

[1:28:57] That's easy to light up light in the evenings.

[1:29:02] I mean, that's, I'm certainly not an artist or a designer,

[1:29:07] but something like that.

[1:29:09] but there's really nothing limiting that.

[1:29:16] Okay.

[1:29:18] I'm not wedded to the Mozaic sign.

[1:29:20] I think we could reach consensus.

[1:29:22] I think we've been enough time on this.

[1:29:24] I'm so forward with a gateway monument sign

[1:29:26] and we'll go ahead and we'll take a look at some options

[1:29:29] to bring back and an upcoming meeting.

[1:29:32] We'll try to move through that very swiftly.

[1:29:35] And you know, well, I'll even test staff

[1:29:38] to look at an option for a lesser expensive sign

[1:29:40] that you could consider as part of a monument sign

[1:29:43] in addition to color changes to the sign.

[1:29:47] Todd and I will work on future fundraising

[1:29:49] and strategy for that.

[1:29:51] Okay, thank you.

[1:29:52] And the action item here was just to provide feedback.

[1:29:56] There's a few, actually, there's a few action items

[1:29:58] on this one, including.

[1:30:00] And approval for the contract amendments for Gates and Associates. I apologize, my computer.

[1:30:07] Okay, so do we have a motion then to approve the revised design concept, the amendment number two to the contract with Gates and Associates and approve budget change for number 5-25.

[1:30:28] The move. Okay. A second. All second. All in favor. Aye. Any opposed? I'm opposed.

[1:30:39] The motion passes for one.

[1:30:48] And I will call item H2, which is an overview of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Transit Oriented Communities Policy in a Windows Compliance Status.

[1:31:03] On number one, members of the Council, Darren Hughes is going to be presenting a report to you tonight on the TSC policy and related guidance that we're receiving from NTC.

[1:31:30] Good evening, Mayor.

[1:31:31] Members of the City Council and members of the public.

[1:31:34] My name is Darren Hughes.

[1:31:35] I'm an associate planner in the planning department.

[1:31:38] So tonight, I'm going to be going over the metropolitan, metropolitan,

[1:31:42] metropolitan transportation community. Excuse me, I'm sorry. The metropolitan transportation

[1:31:50] commission which I'll refer to as MTC here on transit oriented communities will refer

[1:31:56] to that as TOC policy. One thing that I do want to bring up right now at the very beginning

[1:32:03] of this is that MTC TOC policy is something that is a little bit more recent in association

[1:32:10] with the Plan Bay Area 2050 by MTC.

[1:32:15] There's another term PDA, the priority development areas,

[1:32:21] that Arinda was a designated as in 2008 timeframe.

[1:32:26] This is some policy, it's kind of parallel to that,

[1:32:29] and sort of taking over that.

[1:32:32] That was something that was opted in by many communities around station areas.

[1:32:36] This one automatically applies to station areas and I will go over some of the potential requirements.

[1:32:46] Let's see.

[1:32:48] That is not the...

[1:32:54] Is it just those?

[1:32:56] Okay, thank you.

[1:32:59] Okay, so agenda for tonight overview of the MTC TOT policy and then I want to describe

[1:33:05] in this status with the TOC policy and how we conform to it. One thing that I want to highlight

[1:33:11] at this particular point, TOC policy is fully elective. It is not something that we are actually

[1:33:17] required to conform to. We are going to have a lot of options as a community going forward

[1:33:24] and how we want to actually approach TOC policy. But this is an overview because we got the administrative

[1:33:30] guidance from MTC in 2024, in September, they released that particular guidance, which gave us a

[1:33:37] lot more information on what types of policies they're looking at and how they're looking

[1:33:41] at this. I will reference the downtown precise plan and the objective design standards at certain

[1:33:46] points tonight. I want to reiterate that the downtown precise plan is currently rescinded and

[1:33:52] the objective design standards for the downtown were only ever adopted in draft format. So when I

[1:33:58] I'm basically talking about those as potential vehicles for carrying out some of the policies that we do see in this, that we will be bringing to city council and future iterations in order to get some additional feedback and guidance.

[1:34:13] Tonight is just about giving you this information so that we can make some initial.

[1:34:18] We can look for some initial guidance and feedback on what policies staff might want to look into.

[1:34:22] All right,

[1:34:27] so the TSE overview, this was adopted by MTC to support the region's transit

[1:34:33] investments and advance the goals of Plan Bay Area 2050, which is the region's long-range

[1:34:39] plan for transportation, housing, economy and environment. TSE policy applies to the half-mile

[1:34:46] area around existing and plan fixed-guid way transit stops, so the VARC station for Arinda.

[1:34:53] In these areas, the TLC policy establishes requirements related to thorough components.

[1:34:59] Land use density, affordable housing, parking management, and complete streets and multi-model access.

[1:35:09] So again, TLC policy compliance is fully voluntary.

[1:35:13] So why would a Rinda want to be compliant with TLC policy?

[1:35:18] The two primary reasons for this would be one, TLC, the guidance from NTC right now is that

[1:35:26] adherence to TLC policy and being found to be substantially compliant with TLC policy

[1:35:32] will make us more eligible for OBEG funding going forward. So that's one Bay Area grant funds that are

[1:35:48] forth cycle and get some additional guidance on the forth cycle funding,

[1:35:53] and we have received

[1:35:54] overback funding in the past, but in order to maintain competitive status for this funding

[1:36:01] in the future, we would be looking at some form of compliance with TOC policy.

[1:36:07] The second reason is we are going to be implementing rezoning through the housing element

[1:36:13] in one way shape, perform in the downtown area.

[1:36:16] The policies that are given as a toolkit within the TLC policy would ultimately help support

[1:36:23] increased density, and support policies, and protections for residents that would be moving

[1:36:29] into a renda in association with those, with those rezoning.

[1:36:37] Okay, so one bay area grant over the past three cycles, MTC and these are four-year cycles,

[1:36:43] MTC has distributed over 941 million, a window received just under 1.3 million directly,

[1:36:52] and just under another 700,000 as part of a regional effort. I'll go over that on future slides.

[1:36:58] The next funding cycle is scheduled for 2026, and as stated, the consistency is going to be

[1:37:04] looked at consistency with TOC policies going to be looked at as a meaningful factor.

[1:37:10] This is a slide showing a graph breakdown that is provided by MTC at the moment to show

[1:37:16] exactly where we may stand at for when we're applying for grant funding through OBAD funds.

[1:37:25] Non-compliant jurisdictions, so if the community were to opt to just say we're not going to pursue compliance

[1:37:30] for this particular cycle, would still be potentially eligible for limited funds through OBAD grants.

[1:37:38] It's just that they would be very limited and we would be non-competitive as compared to substantially

[1:37:44] compliant jurisdictions, which would be eligible for most funding.

[1:37:49] Compliant jurisdictions seems that MTC expects that this will make up the smallest contingent

[1:37:56] of jurisdictions would be eligible for all funding and there will be some set aside funding

[1:38:02] and additional funding sources for those jurisdictions.

[1:38:05] And then there are non-TOC jurisdictions that can also apply for these funds.

[1:38:11] They would be eligible for most funding.

[1:38:13] Likely they would be a little bit less competitive

[1:38:17] than substantially compliant jurisdictions.

[1:38:22] So, past Orinda or bad projects,

[1:38:25] we have received three different grants.

[1:38:30] The first two that are listed here in approximately

[1:38:33] 2015 timeframe sidewalk improvements and street preservation for IV drive. Those were received during

[1:38:43] the O-Bag 1 cycle and then the 2019-2020 20-erando way pavement rehabilitation funds were received through

[1:38:51] O-Bag 2 cycle. No funds were received directly during O-Bag 3. This brings the total that we've received

[1:38:59] So far as a community to $1.27 or $1,200,000,000.

[1:39:07] Other funding sources, however, so in the third cycle,

[1:39:10] a Rinda did receive $657,000 that was given to a Rinda

[1:39:17] through CCTA's Smart Signals Project.

[1:39:19] So that was part of a regional effort that a Rinda essentially

[1:39:22] had a slice of.

[1:39:24] I did talk today to a point of contact at MTC,

[1:39:29] because there's curious about how TOC compliance could potentially affect this sort of

[1:39:34] funding since it wasn't something that we had a directly applied for. And the guidance

[1:39:39] that we got was that the TOC compliance was also going to be used to assess a community

[1:39:44] is access to funding even through regional projects like this. So these funds are also potentially

[1:39:51] subject to future TOC considerations. We also received technical assistance. This was as a

[1:39:58] I had talked about PDAs before, one thing that I do want to point out is that all the guidance for PDAs now states that TOC compliance is also going to be a factor for any PDA grants.

[1:40:11] So if there's ever any distinction in the future between PDA grants and TOC grants, they're still going to be TOC compliance, they're going to have that requirement to be looked at.

[1:40:23] So that's another 557,000 bringing arindas total to approximately 2.1 million over the past about 10 years.

[1:40:35] So this is the TOC station area.

[1:40:37] Just includes all of the downtown on the southeast side, on the village side, about half of the downtown,

[1:40:45] as well as the residential districts, which technically are within the PDA and our assessed, and we'll look at that.

[1:40:53] a little bit on one of the upcoming slides.

[1:40:59] So, the TLC compliance is broken down into four categories.

[1:41:03] There are density requirements.

[1:41:06] So minimum and maximum density is for housing and offices.

[1:41:10] Affordable housing and commercial stabilization policies.

[1:41:13] There are four categories that will go over.

[1:41:16] From each of those categories, we would be expected to choose two

[1:41:20] Particular policies, with the exception of the commercial stabilization policies we would

[1:41:25] only need one from that.

[1:41:27] Parking management,

[1:41:30] this has a few different requirements, parking maximums and minimums,

[1:41:35] bicycle parking, shared parking, allowing unbundled parking, curb management and looking

[1:41:40] at the various parking policies that we have in effect and how they could support better management.

[1:41:48] Transit Station Access and Circulation is the fourth part.

[1:41:52] This is, we would show that we are compliant with this by showing what policies we have on the books and what we have been pursuing over the past couple of years to prioritize active transportation.

[1:42:03] Then we'll go over all of these individual.

[1:42:05] I'm going to break them down on these next few slides.

[1:42:09] So the first one is the density requirements.

[1:42:12] So, Arinda is the, each of the communities is tiered one through four with gradually decreasing

[1:42:21] requirements for would be for the smallest communities.

[1:42:24] Arinda is subject to tier three requirements for the purposes of commercial office densities.

[1:42:30] It's subject to tier four requirements because we have fewer than 30,000 people for the residential density requirements.

[1:42:39] So, right now on what that requires of us, looking at the residential side of the house, is that we would need to push for 25 units per acre as a minimum requirement, so someone coming forward with a development would have to propose at least 25 units per acre, and this is an average across all of the districts.

[1:43:01] this is not something that is on any one specific project, this is just we look at all of the

[1:43:07] different districts where we have potential for housing and have to average make an average

[1:43:12] density requirement of calculation across the board. It would be 35 units or more for the density

[1:43:19] maximum. Those are the numbers that we're used to seeing where we say okay we're proposing in the

[1:43:31] So as part of this calculation, have to take into account any single family, residential,

[1:43:36] leasoned parcels that have not yet been developed.

[1:43:39] And there are a few of those in Arrinda.

[1:43:42] They overall do bring down the overall average that we could be pursuing.

[1:43:48] So status with those right now.

[1:43:50] We don't have any minimum density is on the books for maximum.

[1:43:55] If you do a calculation across all of the parcels that are eligible for this,

[1:44:00] right now we're estimating that we're at about 5.4 units per acre, so clearly much

[1:44:06] very shy of that 35 plus units per acre. In this last column I have the proposed downtown

[1:44:12] precise plan standards, so these are the standards that if the downtown were resounded it's

[1:44:17] entirety, this is approximately what we would see, so therefore moving towards that substantial

[1:44:23] compliance. The residential density minimums are set to 20 and that is a housing element program

[1:44:32] or a housing element action that's required. The residential density maximums would average

[1:44:38] to around 27. So it would be about 29 except we have those single family residential undeveloped

[1:44:46] that are also pulling down this overall average. The commercial office density minimums,

[1:44:53] this is probably one of those categories based off of the various requirements that were listed by

[1:45:00] D.C. in their T.O.C. guidance that we may end up just having 2-4 go. I don't think there are many staff recommendations

[1:45:08] to push towards building heights of 65 feet. Basically, these floor area ratios that are set are, you know, right now, we are very not compliant.

[1:45:21] We have minimum of two plus floor area ratio and we don't meet, we just have zero on the books.

[1:45:31] And for commercial office density maximums, they're looking at four plus floor area ratio.

[1:45:38] What that would essentially mean is you have a lot and someone who has to develop on that can develop up to four times the overall area of that lot.

[1:45:50] And even with the downtown precise plant standards based off of the calculations that are offered within the TOC administrative guidance, we would only get to 1.5 for a ratio.

[1:46:05] All right.

[1:46:06] So moving on into the policies, we have the first category.

[1:46:10] It's the production housing policies.

[1:46:12] So again, this is just simply a list of policies that Rinda has options to choose from.

[1:46:19] for the purposes of this report staff has gone through and identified various policies on this page

[1:46:27] and the next few categories as well that we are either already pursuing or would potentially

[1:46:34] be suitable for a Rinda in order to pursue. So these are considerations that we have on the books

[1:46:40] right now. The production housing policies, there are two policies, policy one and policy five

[1:46:47] that we are already working towards with the housing element.

[1:46:54] These are required actions.

[1:46:55] One is an inclusionary housing ordinance.

[1:46:58] And this would be requiring at least 15% of affordability for new projects that are 10 plus units.

[1:47:08] So that is something that a Rinda staff has already put out a request for a proposal for the

[1:47:17] the responses that we got for that. And then ministerial approval, this is also a housing

[1:47:24] element program, although it's slightly different. In the housing element, we are required

[1:47:30] to just ministerially approve without any sort of discretionary review or design review or

[1:47:35] conditional use permits. Any housing projects that conform to the objective design standards

[1:47:42] and have at least a 20 percent affordability rate. In the MTC policy that would be lowered

[1:47:51] to 15 percent so there is a minor disparity there.

[1:47:57] So preservation housing policies. There are

[1:48:01] two policies here that are highlighted by staff. Policy two is tenant community opportunity

[1:48:08] to purchase, so that would provide tenants or mission driven non-profits the right of first

[1:48:14] refusal to purchase a property at market rate price when offered for sale.

[1:48:20] And the second policy

[1:48:22] here that we've highlighted condominium conversion restrictions require that rental units

[1:48:28] converted to condominiums be replaced one to one with comparable rental units unless they're

[1:48:33] purchased by current long-term tenants or converted to permanently affordable housing with

[1:48:38] protection for existing tenants.

[1:48:40] So these are policies that don't have a broad extent of a

[1:48:43] applicability in the downtown right now, however, these are

[1:48:46] policies that we could in theory have on the books, whether we're

[1:48:50] pursuing DOC policy or not, in order to provide future protections

[1:48:56] to anyone who would become a resident of downtown,

[1:49:01] moving on.

[1:49:02] So, a protection housing policy is to hear there's highlighted legal assistance for tenants.

[1:49:11] So, some of these policies do have a funding commitment that the city has to essentially

[1:49:15] state that it's going to be able to commit to for a four year OBAX cycle.

[1:49:20] In this particular case, the funding commitment would be $200,000 for legal assistance.

[1:49:27] So policy three, this would be investments or programs that expand access to legal assistance for tenants facing displacement.

[1:49:36] Good range from a right to council to dedicated public funding for tenant legal assistance.

[1:49:42] This would also include eviction and pre-election legal services for low income tax.

[1:49:48] And then policy 7, so preventing displacement from substandard conditions and associated code enforcement activities.

[1:49:58] The portion of this that we're highlighting that we're already essentially doing.

[1:50:03] Establish an Amnesty program to wave fines and fees for property owners with occupied units constructed without the proper permits and exchange for bringing the unit into compliance with health and safety codes.

[1:50:13] We don't have very many instances of this occurring.

[1:50:18] We've had one ADU that we had to go through this process within the last year.

[1:50:24] But essentially, the way that our Indostive currently processes,

[1:50:28] applications, or works with people who we find to have built something that's non-conforming or not permitted,

[1:50:34] is where our goal is to just get those projects to legal status

[1:50:38] and to try to minimize barriers towards that.

[1:50:41] The portion that we will have to work with could potentially require a zoning amendment

[1:50:48] because right now, Title 15 does require the building department to double fees when someone

[1:50:54] is approaching them and has not secured the proper performance prior to performing the work.

[1:51:02] So in these instances, we would need to work with the building department in order to

[1:51:06] reduce this.

[1:51:08] They're in really quick on this item, just confirm the

[1:51:11] confetti commitments are for a four year period of time as that corrects.

[1:51:15] So if you're talking about 200,000, you're not talking about 200,000,

[1:51:19] annual you're talking about 200,000 over a four year period.

[1:51:23] Correct. That is not money that has to be spent and

[1:51:27] discarded by the city. That is simply funding that has to be

[1:51:35] to use that. So it's not something that ultimately we spend that $200,000 in these access to that.

[1:51:43] It could be rolled over and all of the rules about funding commitments that are highlighted in the

[1:51:48] administrative guidance do state that funds can be rolled over from previous cycles.

[1:51:58] And commercial stabilization policies. So these are related to small business.

[1:52:03] The one that basically the city is already doing is small business advocate office, so we would

[1:52:10] do a little bit of work in formalizing this and putting out information on the city website,

[1:52:15] but this is essentially handled through the associate planner position that I hold within

[1:52:20] the city, as well as the city manager at Lindosmith.

[1:52:27] All right.

[1:52:27] Moving on to parking policies, this table just breaks down what policies would be required

[1:52:34] for the city of Arinda, we are meeting virtually none of these, we have, I think it's been acknowledged in the past that the parking requirements that we have within the zoning code are a bit out of date and have been preventing some businesses from being able to open up in certain spaces for which we've had those fee holidays in the past applied to downtown.

[1:52:59] We also have, we're also facing, this is the TOC area, it's all within a half mile of the

[1:53:05] BART station, so applicable within that half mile are the AB 2097 requirements that essentially

[1:53:14] make it so that the community can't require parking minimums within that half mile radius

[1:53:20] for all development projects with some minor exceptions, one of those being certain hospitality

[1:53:26] services such as hotels. But for the purposes of MTCTOC requirements, we would be looking

[1:53:35] at basically codifying the idea and this could happen within the ONC or within objective

[1:53:42] design standards for the downtown codifying the nominumums that are work currently subject

[1:53:51] to be a AB 2097.

[1:53:54] We would also be looking at maximum residential parking,

[1:53:57] so you could set maximums at up to one space per unit.

[1:54:02] So this is basically saying that if a developer were

[1:54:04] to come forward with 25 units in a building,

[1:54:07] we could require or they could propose a maximum of 25 units

[1:54:12] in that particular case, and then that would be combined

[1:54:15] if it were a mixed use building that would be combined

[1:54:19] with these spaces that are required for commercial space, there are also minimum bicycle parking

[1:54:25] requirements and unbundled parking requirements. So unbundled parking requirements just means

[1:54:33] that we would have to allow developers who are renting out units to rent out parking spaces separately

[1:54:44] from that if they chose to do so. So all of these for the most part are items that could be

[1:54:51] carried out through objective design standards, making simple updates within the draft odies.

[1:54:59] Station access and circulation, this is the last component of this. Basically, we are on the hook

[1:55:06] for complying with all of this. Should we pursue TLC compliance? One adopted a jurisdiction

[1:55:14] why complete streets policy. We do have that that's required by state law. So that was

[1:55:20] last updated in 2014 and remains compliant to today. Prioritized implementation of active transportation

[1:55:28] projects in the TOC areas, this is just showing a body of evidence that we have pursued these types

[1:55:34] of projects. There was an RM3 grants that was recently applied for to study a multi-modal path

[1:55:41] along Maraga Way to connect the south side of Urinda

[1:55:44] and Maraga to Urinda Park.

[1:55:46] And then also preparing the city's preparing

[1:55:48] a feasibility study for trail alignments,

[1:55:51] so connecting wilder to the downtown

[1:55:53] via a bike or pedestrian access trail.

[1:55:57] Florida climate here, a complete an access gap analysis

[1:56:01] and capital improvement program for station access.

[1:56:04] We do have connector into 2018

[1:56:06] we're not 100% sure at this point,

[1:56:08] whether that would be deemed compliant

[1:56:10] with this particular item. And same for the next one, identify mobility hub planning and implementation

[1:56:17] opportunities into the areas. So we have these policies, the bike trails, the walkways,

[1:56:23] master plan, which is going to be, I understand, undergoing an update in the near future,

[1:56:28] connect a Rinda, and the rescinded downtown precise plan. These are documents that could be used

[1:56:33] to show that we have worked towards these particular goals. But we would want to explore if there

[1:56:39] for the criteria that we would be subject to here.

[1:56:45] So, just to recap, this is a fully

[1:56:52] elective set of policies.

[1:56:54] It is something that we are going to, as I said,

[1:56:57] be bringing back in future discussions,

[1:57:01] particularly around what is happening with the

[1:57:04] IR and the downtown precise plan.

[1:57:06] Ultimately, this compliance would enable us to remain competitive for feedback funding and technical assistance fundings.

[1:57:15] So today, we're just looking to provide you with this information and receive any initial feedback on these policies.

[1:57:21] And with that, I will turn that over. Thank you.

[1:57:25] Thank you.

[1:57:27] City Manager, do you want to add any exciting stuff, isn't it?

[1:57:32] And a lot of technical policies and of course, you know, our objective here is to ensure

[1:57:37] that we're still, you know, competitive.

[1:57:40] We rely heavily in this community on grants to help fund improvements, particularly transportation

[1:57:46] improvements.

[1:57:47] And so to the extent that we can find ourselves to be compliant, we'd like to figure out

[1:57:53] a way to do that.

[1:57:54] And of course, the area that we pointed out where we don't feel like we're going to be able

[1:57:57] find compliance is in that commercial office area and I think for reference a 2.0 FAR means

[1:58:05] you're putting two stories on an entire parcel covering it 100%. Let's assume that you don't want

[1:58:12] to cover your property 100% with building it two stories. Let's see, you want to do half of your

[1:58:16] property, you have to go to four stories. And let's see, you don't want to cover your building, your

[1:58:20] property, and 50% coverage. You want 25% coverage that means eight stories. And so those are,

[1:58:25] That's how a 2.0 FAR is determined, so I'm just giving you in context for that.

[1:58:30] That's not generally within the character of what you've got in your downtown area, and

[1:58:36] so I think that would be the most complicated one for us to try and figure out, but I think

[1:58:41] we've spent months now trying to come up with plan for a way that we can best try to comply,

[1:58:48] and that's what you have in front of you today, and I give a lot of credit to Darren

[1:58:51] machine for working closely over the last several months trying to figure out how to bring

[1:58:56] up this conversation because it's not an easy one to have and of course this does tell

[1:59:02] somewhat to some extent with the downtown precise plan and figuring out if you do give us

[1:59:07] direction to try and find ways to comply how do we reconcile those two things and so I think

[1:59:13] we'll have to talk a little bit more about that as we move on here but I wanted to just sort of

[1:59:18] frame it, thanks staff for all that work, and turn it over to the council for any questions

[1:59:23] or thoughts that you may have.

[1:59:26] Sure, there's questions, councilmember J.

[1:59:29] I'll start.

[1:59:31] I recognize that this is, I want to re-emphasize what you said, Darren, that the PDA designation

[1:59:39] has nothing to do with the TOC.

[1:59:41] If we somehow got rid of the PDA designation tomorrow, which I understand is maybe not that easy to do,

[1:59:50] it wouldn't matter in terms of this issue, right?

[1:59:53] They're not connected directly.

[1:59:55] That is correct.

[1:59:56] They're not connected directly except for the fact that both of them have this.

[2:00:02] Next question is, this is all relatively news. So it hasn't been all that implemented, correct? So one of the first questions that came to my mind trying to digest all of it was, it's a lot like the housing element in the sense of what if you do enough, somehow, through some combination, to quote, substantially, comply,

[2:00:30] Then nothing happens, because maybe nobody wants to build anything that fits into that category.

[2:00:36] Or maybe, as you mentioned, so many of those categories are very obviously San Francisco and Oakland oriented kinds of things.

[2:00:45] You know, we don't have a lot of rental disputes with, you know, disadvantaged people and orinda and things like that.

[2:00:53] So some of those things would virtually, we could adopt them, but they would never come to

[2:00:59] pass.

[2:01:00] So one of the questions that comes to mind is, what if you do it, and it kind of never

[2:01:05] happens, is there like any, I didn't find anything in their written document that says,

[2:01:11] oh, well, if you do this, but nothing happens in five years, then you're not compliant again,

[2:01:16] or something like that.

[2:01:17] So I don't think there's anything that guidance for that.

[2:01:22] Right. We don't have a ton of guidance on that. Like I've stated with the 2020 or the upcoming

[2:01:28] Oback 4 cycle. There are still a couple of things being worked out. We don't know what, for instance,

[2:01:35] in the past we have this number 85% compliance. So 85% demonstrate substantial compliance.

[2:01:41] There's nothing that is a solid marker of what 85% means and it's going to ultimately be a case

[2:01:49] case basis where MTC staff is probably looking at individual communities and trying to make a

[2:01:55] determination on how much effort they have put into this and where they're going with their compliance

[2:02:00] rating. And in terms of how that translates to future cycles, we don't know what that's going to

[2:02:07] look like ultimately. I don't think that setting up all of this for the next cycle is going to

[2:02:19] that cycle. I think the implications of what you're bringing up are going to be a little bit more

[2:02:23] important to consider on future cycles. But my general understanding is it's going to be somewhat

[2:02:30] similar to the housing element, where housing element ultimately is a vehicle to show that we have

[2:02:36] the capacity for additional units and we have actions that we are following through with. That doesn't

[2:02:43] necessarily mean that we're building those units,

[2:02:48] however, with TOC compliance. Yes, it's perfectly

[2:02:53] plausible that we put this into effect and nothing really comes of it. We don't know what that

[2:02:58] will look like in the future.

[2:03:01] If I could, I know, see if I wanted to make a couple of comments related

[2:03:04] to O-Bag before we move on. Thank you. Yeah, just I had the presentation breakdowns. I thought I have

[2:03:12] some background on the OPEG funding side

[2:03:14] because I do closely with our transportation

[2:03:16] at our 10MTC on that.

[2:03:20] Just to give a little history on OPEG,

[2:03:22] as Darren mentioned, we all know about EXICAL 3.

[2:03:25] The first two cycles, it was a little bit more straightforward.

[2:03:29] MTC kind of allocates a bit pool of money,

[2:03:33] and I'm going to some little bit more numbers

[2:03:34] on the three cycles.

[2:03:35] But the first two cycles, whatever funding they had,

[2:03:39] they typically break it into two major pieces,

[2:03:41] one they call the regional component and the other one they call the county and local

[2:03:45] component. And it used to be allocated based on population and other statistics,

[2:03:52] Tamil or based allocations. But for Cycle 3 they actually made some changes and they made

[2:03:58] it all competitive basically. So the end for, what about 3 which was, which is going to end in

[2:04:11] of money that MTC allocated of that 375 outright got split for regional

[2:04:17] component. And within the regional component there is multiple categories

[2:04:20] there is various sizes. And the funding that Devon mentioned that $200,000

[2:04:25] we received was one component of that regional fund. And reference to the wilder trail

[2:04:33] I believe month or two ago I made a small presentation on with a $40,000 we got from MTC.

[2:04:40] that is also coming from that regional component of it.

[2:04:44] The local and county component is where we got the money for the signal

[2:04:50] project share.

[2:04:53] The reason we had to take that approach is because,

[2:04:56] far away by three MDC came up with a new criteria stating that,

[2:05:00] they'd more and more are going to allocate based on population,

[2:05:04] 10 students, so they basically said,

[2:05:07] every county within the area,

[2:05:09] of the nine counties, the 370 familiar and the maximum account you can get will be their share

[2:05:16] of like whatever 370 or the nine is and if they only have projects that qualify for it.

[2:05:24] So if a county didn't have enough qualifying projects then they will lose that money and

[2:05:29] some other county can potentially get more than they originally were about allocated for.

[2:05:35] So, all the transportation authority ratio, all the regional cities and came with this collective

[2:05:41] project for the Sigma's Continuate Signal Upgrade Project project, because communities

[2:05:45] like us, we do have a little bit of struggle because there's various criteria requirements.

[2:05:50] For example, one is having an equity priority community, which one that does not have, and the VMTC does is they scroll their applications based on that.

[2:05:58] So, we always lose points on those kind of things.

[2:06:01] But when you came up with the county,

[2:06:03] we actually, on the full county scale,

[2:06:06] we do qualify for certain things.

[2:06:08] So that's one approach we took.

[2:06:10] I mean, which really wouldn't also apply for a grant

[2:06:12] to develop one of our pathways,

[2:06:15] but unfortunately we were not too successful

[2:06:17] even at the county level,

[2:06:19] that alone empty sea level.

[2:06:21] Because the,

[2:06:21] these policies basically empty sea users

[2:06:23] to establish criteria.

[2:06:27] And my understanding has been

[2:06:30] that having the policy in place puts us qualifies as to apply for those grants,

[2:06:37] there are usually some checks and balances that they come through.

[2:06:40] For example, the measure J fronts that we deal with our transportation authority,

[2:06:45] they require us to report every other year, and that is something I present to the council

[2:06:50] when I take it over there.

[2:06:52] We just follow back saying, this is how the funds were spent.

[2:06:55] These are the policies that relate to that and the city is still in compliance.

[2:07:00] are we are still working towards compliance? That's typically the approach they take. So just wanted

[2:07:04] to share the background and I'm happy to answer any questions we have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank

[2:07:10] you, Siva.

[2:07:13] Can we move on to questions now? Okay. I have a lot of questions. Okay, but

[2:07:20] I have a lot of questions. How important are these O-Bag funds to the city of Arinda? Are there

[2:07:26] resources for funding these sorts of projects is that I just don't know

[2:07:29] I'm new. So just trying to understand sort of the scale of the importance to the city.

[2:07:37] And while you're answering that I'll ask one of my questions, which is it

[2:07:41] looked from there were a couple slides actually that we had it. It looked like the

[2:07:44] dollar amount was actually not simply the, you know, if you count in the smart

[2:07:50] signals and you count in the multimodal path and the grant and if we if we told it all

[2:07:58] up it's I was doing the math as we were going through the slides in the number was I thought

[2:08:05] you were doing dollars for okay wasn't it even okay I thought it was even more well we have

[2:08:10] the multimodal path grant to potentially anyway if you could go through it I'd so the grant

[2:08:16] you're certainly looking to obtain with the town of Maraga for Maraga way improvements. That's also an

[2:08:23] MTC grant is that part of this process? No that is slightly different that's the regional measure

[2:08:28] 3 so they call it the RM3 grant that comes from the toll funds basically I do not know exactly

[2:08:35] which pockets of funds MTC taps into other than the toll funds for that money but this is usually

[2:08:42] federal money that comes down through MTC, so they, again, I apologize, I don't know the

[2:08:49] specifics of how they come up with it. Basically, one way to look at it is, all the

[2:08:53] money is their MTC is responsible, disposing from this one. That's where the 750 million

[2:08:58] comes and MTC has our regional MPO, as since policies and their policies guided based on the

[2:09:08] area of 2050 documents. They're planned. We shouldn't document this.

[2:09:15] And Councilmember Hawks.

[2:09:19] I don't know if I can provide more contact. I mean, see that there is really no other.

[2:09:24] I mean, MTC is our primary funding source, because they pass through money to the local

[2:09:28] to the regional CCTA as well, right? Right.

[2:09:32] So they are a regional organization and then it comes down to CCTA, which is our local transportation,

[2:09:41] current transportation authority and then locally gets distributed.

[2:09:45] Now there are other funds, but the main federal funds, the source comes through and

[2:09:50] see for what all money they have controlled.

[2:09:53] OK, so the main benefit to a Rinda, if we choose to work to comply, is that we would

[2:10:02] then be eligible for these grants and funding through MTC, or through O-Bag for projects

[2:10:11] for sounds like roads and traffic mitigation and things like that.

[2:10:17] I don't know how far the guidance requirements have been put in place for a back-for-yet,

[2:10:25] but looking at the history, I wouldn't be surprised if they carried over in a similar fashion.

[2:10:32] So, one example would be like the Wilder Trail project.

[2:10:35] We more than likely will be looking at a back-for grant, competitive grant to apply for,

[2:10:43] and having, you know, all the document or process in place that qualifixes will definitely

[2:10:50] benefit us.

[2:10:52] Have we been denied grants in this third cycle that we've applied for?

[2:10:57] We have been, so like you mentioned, so that after money's that the county got about $50

[2:11:04] million, I don't know exactly, I don't think they exact value, the county's flooded two

[2:11:10] And they wanted to come up with a project that's 25, roughly 25 million dollars worth and that's where the signals project came in.

[2:11:18] The other 25 million dollars, they actually asked us to submit projects that we were going to submit towards over three.

[2:11:27] They did a first level competitive selection for the first 24 million.

[2:11:31] And then together with their countywide sickness project they submitted their MTC and then those got evaluated on a regional basis.

[2:11:40] So it's no more that we are designated to get a 50 million dollar project and we will get as long as there's a project.

[2:11:48] Now we are competing regionally for money is against other cities who have

[2:11:53] We're able to show much more larger projects,

[2:11:57] like a much more larger dollar value support,

[2:11:59] match funds, community needs and priority needs and all that.

[2:12:06] So, we simply want to, yeah, we will definitely need funds like that.

[2:12:11] And our project, although, by cycle three,

[2:12:15] we submitted a individual project, hoping that we will get some grants to go

[2:12:18] on resolving a part on communal Pablo,

[2:12:24] but we, other grant was not competitive enough,

[2:12:26] so it didn't get submitted to even MTC.

[2:12:29] So it, there are much more competitive pros

[2:12:31] if it's in the county level that actually are called fairness.

[2:12:35] And I heard you say you thought

[2:12:36] to be substantially compliant would be 85%.

[2:12:39] But it's unclear to me of 85% of white.

[2:12:42] So if we're not at all compliant

[2:12:44] in the commercial area, for instance,

[2:12:46] does that knock us out altogether?

[2:12:48] So we don't like why are we bothering with the rest or I'm just unclear as to the substantial compliance and what it would take for the city of Arinda to be substantially compliant

[2:12:59] I know Darren's probably had more conversations with the NTC staff that's been liaising with us on that

[2:13:06] Yes, we simply just don't have guidance on that right now. I think is ultimately what it comes down to

[2:13:12] The discussions that were brought up in the past were ultimately that there's it's going to be very hard to quantify this because a lot of these are policy based.

[2:13:23] And and just depend on how far the communities are pushing these.

[2:13:27] So so the guidance right now is that it's going to they're roughly putting out 85% to roughly putting out this idea of substantially compliant.

[2:13:38] We're not ultimately going to know whether or not we're considered substantially compliance until we have additional guidance from MTC.

[2:13:47] We do expect that to happen at some point in the spring time as they start to develop their O-Bag force cycle requirements.

[2:13:54] The why wouldn't we proceed with the policies and things that we think would actually benefit

[2:14:01] Rinden and current Rinden residents and wait and see what MTC says about those actions.

[2:14:09] I'm thinking of the inclusionary housing policy, which I think we could argue.

[2:14:14] You might benefit Rinden to have our design reviews standards, which I think would benefit

[2:14:22] are in to to have them place, like why don't we work towards those policies that we as a community

[2:14:28] might agree we need to have them place and wait and see on the rest what MTC tells us.

[2:14:35] So I think if if if if that's the question we'll do that but otherwise if we're a okay

[2:14:40] more discussion. If it is a question I want to make sure it's answered. I'm just trying to understand

[2:14:46] from a planning commission perspective,

[2:14:51] what the recommendation is for Rinda to pursue

[2:14:56] versus all of these issues.

[2:15:00] So we included on the policy side we bolded the ones that we thought that staff level thought would be relatively benign, easier for us to implement, and ones that were consistent with things that we already had to do.

[2:15:15] Okay, so we're going to continue to pursue the inclusionary zoning. We're going to continue to pursue the ministerial approval updates that we need to make in order to be consistent with the housing element.

[2:15:25] But there were other things on that list that went beyond sort of the requirements from the current certified housing element.

[2:15:34] And so that's what we were looking to sort of get some feedback on.

[2:15:38] I mean, there's a lot of areas where you can pick from and we were trying to come up with the things that we thought were probably most appropriate for the community.

[2:15:47] But we may have got it wrong. You might have different thoughts about that.

[2:15:50] So we want to hear what your thoughts were about that, and then generally around these issues

[2:15:55] of density, which I know are a little bit different than what is currently being proposed

[2:16:02] as part of the downtown precise plan.

[2:16:05] So if we have additional questions, I just want to before we get into standing discussion,

[2:16:11] we still have public comment, and then we'll come back for discussion in terms of process.

[2:16:15] So I know I had a couple some questions, do you want to go ahead?

[2:16:18] I'm interested to hear.

[2:16:21] Okay, I have a lot of comments.

[2:16:22] I have a lot of comments.

[2:16:24] Question, please.

[2:16:28] What is the estimated cost to the city?

[2:16:33] I know that there was that one item that 50,000 a year.

[2:16:37] Yeah.

[2:16:38] So we do have the $200,000 commitment for a four year cycle.

[2:16:43] Other than this, the cost would be largely within staff time.

[2:16:48] staff time, some consultant time, we have applied for technical assistance funding.

[2:16:54] So there's no result on that yet, so we don't have anything to report on that.

[2:16:58] But that's dealing with some of the parking management policies and how we can approach

[2:17:01] parking management in downtown Arinda.

[2:17:05] A lot of these aren't going to require a lot of funding commitments, for instance, looking

[2:17:10] at the preservation policies to and for both of those, that's the providing tenants, first

[2:17:18] right of refusal and also the requirement for condominiums to be replaced with comparable

[2:17:23] rental units.

[2:17:25] Those are policies actually that MTC has pledged to provide sample or model ordinances in May of

[2:17:32] 2025.

[2:17:34] So some of these policies that we are looking at that we're already not pursuing or that we

[2:17:40] are currently not pursuing, we would continue to get assistance from MTC. We also have access

[2:17:46] they do have, or they have higher consultants that they have assigned to the cities. So we

[2:17:51] are in contact with some of the consultants that they have in order to get additional assistance

[2:17:56] and that is free to the city.

[2:18:01] Can we get numbers to support all those possible consultancies or technical assistance?

[2:18:08] I think we can do some rough estimates of sort of the time and the value of that time and

[2:18:16] the results.

[2:18:17] Yeah.

[2:18:17] Is it 200?

[2:18:19] Yeah.

[2:18:19] We can do that.

[2:18:21] It'll be an estimate.

[2:18:23] Yeah.

[2:18:23] We can grasp.

[2:18:27] Other questions?

[2:18:32] I had a couple.

[2:18:34] From the presentation, it looked like

[2:18:40] something in my correct and understanding, if a jurisdiction

[2:18:47] is not substantially compliant, could it jeopardize our ability to either participate

[2:18:55] originally in application for grants under CCTA or receive money from CCTA?

[2:19:01] That was the guidance that we got today from MTC staff was that CCTA, ultimately, is taking

[2:19:08] guidance from MTC on what products they fund, so they are also essentially looking at the

[2:19:14] TOC policy and how compliance the jurisdictions that are supporting it to that more.

[2:19:20] Okay. And for, and could that have an impact then on the regional wide evacuation,

[2:19:34] grant funding that we're looking at through CCTA?

[2:19:38] Like, could TSC compliance be a factor in that application?

[2:19:41] No, no, the answer to that. We would have to double check that, but that is a CCTA grant.

[2:19:46] That's a CCTA grant. I don't know where it's funding

[2:19:50] came from initially, if it was generated from CCTA, source of soil,

[2:19:56] or if it was a pass through from NTC.

[2:19:59] And then the other, because it was mentioned in the slideshow,

[2:20:03] I mean, the PowerPoint, the RM3 grant was regional measure 3,

[2:20:08] and that's the multimodal path, and that's a joint grant

[2:20:11] between the Rindenmaraga that we are seeking, right?

[2:20:16] Okay, sorry, because my, is that the same grant that we've been talking about that if could potentially allow us to, because it's about improving pedestrian and bike access correct.

[2:20:33] There is a little bit of strategy involved in that, but if I were to collect it correctly,

[2:20:40] I think all three also has different categories.

[2:20:43] The categories we used was connecting to transit and to the greater area.

[2:20:50] So basically the idea was connecting a community like Maraga,

[2:20:54] have more access to bar and sunset or more access to bar. Other than mostly depending on driving

[2:21:02] and limited counting and action right now. And then I'm loving them eventually to access

[2:21:08] like the Bay Trail and San Francisco area and all that. Creators on Francisco. So I don't

[2:21:14] recall the exact name of that category you invented but that was the strategy we used. But it's

[2:21:19] It would allow, is that the same one that would allow for more bicycle and pedestrian access and also potentially would give us opportunities to have more.

[2:21:31] If it were carried out in its ideal vision it would potentially also allow us to have greater access to use in an evacuation.

[2:21:43] Yeah, an auxiliary lane for evacuation.

[2:21:45] Yeah, absolutely. The study itself, I mean, I mentioned what category of the grant we applied in, but the study's goal is basically they're one, they're less

[2:21:55] to know the feasibility of building a pathway, either a great separated or adjacent, and a class one bike, basically. So it's like 10 to 12 feet wide path, connecting basically.

[2:22:08] Muroga, the Lafayette Muroga Trail, along Muroga, we are touring about that's the goal for

[2:22:16] that project study and a part of that size emergency vehicle will be able to access the

[2:22:24] during the event.

[2:22:25] Thank you.

[2:22:25] That's what I know.

[2:22:26] And then the tenant legal assistance program that was average, that was the one that had

[2:22:35] dollar figure of 50,000 per year. I thought I read in here maybe you said in the presentation

[2:22:40] that it isn't, it's an allocation or do we know, in other words, is that money,

[2:22:51] a pot that's been required to be set aside in hopes it'll be used but if it's not used,

[2:22:59] then we retain, is that correct?

[2:23:01] That is correct. I believe, and I think this is a nuance that would have to be explored.

[2:23:07] I believe that we would ultimately be, we would probably be contracting this out to an organization that provides these services.

[2:23:15] So chances are there's going to be some administrative overhead funding.

[2:23:19] I don't know if that counts towards $200,000, or if that's going to be an addition to the $200,000.

[2:23:25] And would it be fair to say that because these guidelines are being developed, we're going to learn more about what 85% compliance means and what a lot of this means over the next year.

[2:23:37] Is that, well, I mean, I think that the MTC is seeking,

[2:23:43] information on whether the agencies wish to comply by January of 2026. So during this

[2:23:50] period of time, I'm sure going to be additional guidance being provided as they

[2:23:55] work through some of those issues. I think a lot of agencies are going to struggle

[2:23:59] with the 85% compliance when, of course, there's no measurement for how to do that. And so

[2:24:04] hopefully they'll refine that over the next 12 months, and that'll be easier for us to determine.

[2:24:09] But, you know, and that's not going to leave us a lot of time to talk about a lot of these programs and policies, and so we thought we'd get ahead start on it, especially since decisions about this could inform things that we might need to look at with respect to the downtown precise plans.

[2:24:25] So we wanted to make sure we got a tube as early.

[2:24:28] Got some input and feedback, and if we needed to come back and talk about it more, we had time to do that.

[2:24:32] And if the answer to any decisions that you guys want to take relative to the DPP.

[2:24:39] Okay, those are my questions for any other question.

[2:24:45] One more.

[2:24:48] Is this federal funding like pretty stable?

[2:24:51] This comes, this, we have the same amount available all the time.

[2:24:55] Every year doesn't fluctuate.

[2:24:59] I mean, I'm just, can it dry up?

[2:25:01] Or, you know, because of political reasons it's not.

[2:25:05] I don't know the answer that.

[2:25:06] I don't know.

[2:25:06] See if it has any answer to that.

[2:25:07] If it wasn't.

[2:25:08] I'm willing to answer that.

[2:25:09] I think I wonder.

[2:25:12] I can answer that well enough for you, Janet, federal funding fluctuates greatly.

[2:25:21] I think you can believe in the new administration that federal funding for California is going to see as many cutbacks as possible.

[2:25:29] However, for the flow down of what we're talking about for Arinda, you know, what we have

[2:25:37] the option to tap into through MTC, I think you can consider it very stable because we're

[2:25:44] talking about a million dollars or two million dollars, or, you know, we're talking about

[2:25:49] levels of money that are going to be there under any scenario you create.

[2:25:54] If you were, you know, the city of Los Angeles, and you needed, you know, to brilliant, that's a different category, okay?

[2:26:02] So for our purposes and our thinking, I think you can assume the amount of possibility for us is pretty stable.

[2:26:11] Okay, thanks.

[2:26:14] Okay, and the other questions before we move into public comment.

[2:26:21] Okay.

[2:26:22] I will call public comment.

[2:26:25] I have three speaker cards and the first one does not have a name, but it looks like the handwriting

[2:26:34] looks like maybe this is Mr. Warnoff did you fill out?

[2:26:39] Oh, thank you Mr. Warnoff.

[2:26:41] I have a speaker card with no name, but it looks like your handwriting.

[2:26:44] So I believe.

[2:26:46] Okay.

[2:26:47] Thank you.

[2:26:47] Thank you, Mr. Warnoff.

[2:26:54] I believe that the city of Arinda should abandon this program and I plead guilty to

[2:27:03] calling it PDA and not TOC but everything I said applies equally to the TOC.

[2:27:11] The benefits of this program are entirely speculative and I could not disagree more with

[2:27:19] But Councilmember G said about our funding being small, so it's going to be assured.

[2:27:26] I don't know what you folks were doing yesterday, but based on what I saw on television,

[2:27:33] California's funding is going to be slashed, and the little people at the bottom, like us,

[2:27:39] we're going to be completely cut off, but whether I'm right or whether Councilmember G is right,

[2:27:44] The benefit is speculative, but the harm to a render is certain and permanent, and it's not the staff time, it's not even $200,000.

[2:28:00] It's the increase in density.

[2:28:03] Once you upzone for the speculative benefit and things get built, and then the money isn't

[2:28:12] there for some benefit, the buildings are there, they're not going to come down because

[2:28:18] the federal funding didn't come through.

[2:28:24] The central tenant, if you look at the girls on page 13 of the packet, the girls are

[2:28:31] about increasing density. And that is exactly what we cannot have. That is an existential

[2:28:38] issue in a render, an existential issue in a render. And although it may be true that the

[2:28:48] $200,000 doesn't have to be spent, some of it may get spent, but it has to be set aside

[2:28:56] and that's $200,000, you don't have it's $200,000, you could be spending on

[2:29:03] control flow from a rug away, it's $200,000 you could be spending for the

[2:29:09] cut-through for access to Eastbound 24 for evacuation, but it's $200,000 you

[2:29:16] won't have. There's a policy consideration,

[2:29:20] legally, as I have shown, you are legally compelled to adopt or feasible mitigations because

[2:29:31] you have a finding of a significant impact on emergency evacuation. You are legally

[2:29:38] compelled to do everything you can to mitigate the impact of adding housing and to do

[2:29:45] This is going in the opposite direction of mitigation here.

[2:29:49] You're making the matter even worse and worse and worse.

[2:29:53] And you cannot legally do that.

[2:30:00] You then should use the opposite of trying to solve the problem, and it's not warranted here for a speculative benefit.

[2:30:08] Thank you.

[2:30:09] Thank you.

[2:30:13] Next, we have Peter Levine.

[2:30:21] Peter Levine.

[2:30:28] Owen Murphy.

[2:30:38] Good evening, too long evening. I have followed this matter. We're 17 years here in Arinda, since the original 2008 PDA Flurry.

[2:30:50] I commented many times back in those days and less frequently in the interim.

[2:30:55] It's back.

[2:30:57] I'm here tonight to strongly support Mr. Warnoff's January 20th email to all of you on

[2:31:06] this subject and his comments tonight.

[2:31:10] Mr. Warnoff has spoken to Stephen and in prior occasions on many subjects, I strongly urge

[2:31:16] You're not to tire of listening to his voice, especially on a matter of this important.

[2:31:24] Oh, look, I learned you are a bowels in your eyes, but I have a tough job ahead of you

[2:31:30] to balance the implementation of the housing element with the fire, wild fire evacuation

[2:31:38] implementations.

[2:31:39] Valence is the key work.

[2:31:41] You understand that your citizens can be educated to understand the need for that balance

[2:31:48] 50 signals and care about that balance.

[2:31:50] A bag doesn't care about that balance.

[2:31:53] They're all about how we're into a tiny degree of transportation, which should be focused

[2:31:58] on.

[2:32:00] I don't know how to say it on the other way, but I just encourage you to make your own decisions

[2:32:04] and not be blamed by having to implement all this overhead and uncertainty that currently

[2:32:13] exist with this TRC remodel of the P.A.

[2:32:19] For the disclosure, I grew up with an F-mail of a bird station.

[2:32:23] I have in that good area that was in the slide I was shown earlier.

[2:32:28] I have been in the atmosphere of being here, if that was the actual subject of the discussion tonight.

[2:32:35] Actually, I have to say the CV, that's interesting.

[2:32:37] What kind of it's also, I hope, you know,

[2:32:40] and take the time and read them.

[2:32:42] I wish any more of your time tonight.

[2:32:44] Thank you.

[2:32:46] Thank you.

[2:32:46] And I just want to show you that we did receive your written comments.

[2:32:50] So thank you as well as some others.

[2:32:54] Is there any other members of the public

[2:32:56] that would like to speak on this item?

[2:32:58] Who are here tonight?

[2:33:04] I think a little bit different.

[2:33:05] Yeah.

[2:33:06] If you can.

[2:33:07] If you don't need to fill out a card.

[2:33:15] You can come here, if you'd like, ma'am, and speak into that microphone, we would just need to hear you in a microphone.

[2:33:26] And if you could, if you could introduce yourself, and then.

[2:33:30] My name is Judy Eben, I live on Tahoe's Road.

[2:33:33] We live there for 50 years and have had state farm insurance for 50 years.

[2:33:39] We're not going to be renewed.

[2:33:42] We have some beautiful oak trees that the fire department might want us to take out city of a room that has different rules.

[2:33:53] And what I'm concerned about is when are you two going to get together and come up with rules that will please both of you because I hesitate to do anything.

[2:34:05] State Farm said, oh, do you have trees?

[2:34:09] We would have never, we would have never,

[2:34:13] ensured you if we knew you had trees,

[2:34:15] a window, 50 years ago.

[2:34:17] So one of our trees is all over a hundred years old.

[2:34:21] This is a conference's way beyond a window's rule that.

[2:34:26] And yet it's close to the house.

[2:34:29] So what do we do?

[2:34:31] I'm going to wait and not do anything

[2:34:33] until we find out that Maraga, Fire District, and Arinda are on the same page of what we should do.

[2:34:42] Have you done any research into that?

[2:34:45] Because I can't get this straight answer from both, you know,

[2:34:51] I have the call to the hall of call, fire wise, chairman, and things like that, so that's my main concern.

[2:34:58] So hopefully you'll think about that.

[2:35:00] I don't know if you any of you are in this position but it's really scary to not be able to get insurance.

[2:35:07] Yeah.

[2:35:07] Thank you.

[2:35:08] And we're not allowed to respond to public comment directly with that.

[2:35:15] So that's the process.

[2:35:16] That's why we didn't respond to others.

[2:35:19] But thank you for making this aware.

[2:35:20] I think we are aware.

[2:35:22] And I want to commend Nick for trying to fill the whole community in on some very, very important things.

[2:35:30] that some people never even think about

[2:35:32] in helping, I think it's helping to render a lot,

[2:35:35] to have an opinion like that,

[2:35:38] for when Con, but I think he's great,

[2:35:41] and Peter, whoever supported him, I agree to.

[2:35:46] So, you know, I'm kind of, should ignore,

[2:35:48] we're proactive, but I'm really fired up about this.

[2:35:52] So, thank you, Paul.

[2:35:54] Thank you for your comment then.

[2:35:59] Okay, did we have any other members

[2:36:01] of the public that would like to come in on the side of

[2:36:06] them.

[2:36:06] Seeing none, I will close public comment and bring this back to the council for discussion.

[2:36:13] Do we know what our neighboring cities, Moraga and Lafayette are doing vis-a-vis this TOC?

[2:36:21] Well, I guess I don't know if staff has had the opportunity to talk with them yet.

[2:36:27] I know a lot of jurisdictions are now trying to grapple with the TOC policy and how to potentially

[2:36:32] implement it.

[2:36:33] I would suggest morog and may not be subject to it.

[2:36:39] Correct, given their proximity, or lack their F2 ad.

[2:36:43] Love, yeah, most certainly is.

[2:36:46] May I, yes, the highest mayor?

[2:36:49] Pick my neck out.

[2:36:50] And try to see if I can put a positive framework on this,

[2:36:53] because this was presented to us about six or nine months ago,

[2:36:58] and it was really scary.

[2:37:00] It was framed as more, you know,

[2:37:05] impossible burdens before we had even met the last impossible burden, and rules that were so poorly fit

[2:37:13] to our facts that we had no chance of complying. I thought this presentation was really

[2:37:19] got up to the core mission in philosophy of what MTC is trying to accomplish, and I feel like the way

[2:37:26] it's being framed as there's more carrots and sticks. Unlike the arena where if you don't meet

[2:37:32] every single check on the checkbox, there's horrible consequences.

[2:37:37] Here I feel like, these are good grants.

[2:37:40] I want these grants, but these are not life or death if we don't get them.

[2:37:44] And a lot of times we don't get them.

[2:37:46] I read this in the spirit of, we have a BART station, and MTC, their mission is to

[2:37:55] see maximum mixed use office retail and residential as dense as possible around transit resources

[2:38:05] and equity for that organization is a primary goal.

[2:38:11] So these rules are their way of trying to create maximum compliance with their mission.

[2:38:18] I didn't read this as we're going to lose everything if we don't comply.

[2:38:22] I actually read it in the spirit that to the extent we are doing things that are compatible,

[2:38:28] just as Councilmember Hoxy said, let's try to show that we also respect affordable housing

[2:38:37] and equity and putting density closer to the transit resources. But let's not turn ourselves

[2:38:43] upside down, change what we're doing. We have to comply with a housing element in the arena.

[2:38:48] And to the extent this is compatible, I like a lot of the things that I see about the, you know, not having global congestion where everyone is doing a single occupancy vehicle everywhere they're going.

[2:39:03] Planning for parking that makes sense when things do get more congested.

[2:39:07] I think there are a lot of good ways to show good faith compliance, but I did not see this

[2:39:16] as the initial threat of fear of loss, so hopefully we can take it in that spirit.

[2:39:25] Thank you.

[2:39:26] Heather, come on, councilmember.

[2:39:28] Yeah, I have a lot to try to continue myself.

[2:39:31] So I absolutely care very much about not going overboard on density, okay?

[2:39:39] I think this is a fine line, try to weave it together, take what we already have, because

[2:39:47] I have another aspect of this that I think is extremely critical, and that is I think a lot

[2:39:55] this is trying to weave together and not to not eliminate ourselves while we do other things.

[2:40:06] And I disagree that this OBEG funding isn't important to us.

[2:40:11] It's super important because we don't have any way to backstop it and it's just going

[2:40:16] to get worse and worse.

[2:40:17] I'm looking at seeing it because he understands because the notion of transportation funding

[2:40:23] today's environment is to go all competitive and we are already at a huge disadvantage and some

[2:40:32] of the things that you mentioned, things like the pavement to make morag away, essentially

[2:40:37] three lanes for things like evacuation, things that can connect that provide more routes.

[2:40:45] All the kinds of these things tie into the biggest most important issue, right?

[2:40:51] And as far as the fact that yes, the whole community has, as there are number one,

[2:40:57] priority, fire safety, and getting out of here if the worst case scenario happens, right?

[2:41:03] That ought to make it perfect sense.

[2:41:06] But that doesn't mean everything else in this community is going to go away.

[2:41:10] Okay?

[2:41:11] We're right here.

[2:41:11] I've gotten 15 emails in the last month about very many others with kids walking to school

[2:41:18] that want more crosswalks. We're just where we get the money to plan for those crosswalks.

[2:41:24] Okay? And this is the only source of it. We can say we can take it out of our own pocketbook,

[2:41:28] but then that's taking one way from the number one priority as well. There is a lot of,

[2:41:35] there is a lot of thinking and strategy that goes with transportation funding, and it's only becoming worse.

[2:41:43] So trying to get out of the game, I think this is a, this is a careful weaving together without going overboard because I don't want to go overboard.

[2:41:54] In fact, I'm ready to go the other way in terms of really being very concerned about not overdoing the density issue.

[2:42:01] I'm very willing to look at that.

[2:42:04] But if there's one place where a property does belong, it's closest to the part station and that's probably where we can again tell the best story.

[2:42:11] But I think the most critical element to everything is the one that hasn't come up tonight, although I did discuss it with the city manager this afternoon, and that is why gosh, we need to be out there robbing 15C by my count, and I don't even have the right number at the top of my head, has a minimum of 16 commissioners, there are a lot of new incoming commissioners that since the T.A.

[2:42:33] but the real important part is the NTC Commissioners,

[2:42:36] they'll turn the lobby, they'll turn the lobby hard,

[2:42:40] and they should be rather hard in the aftermath

[2:42:42] of this further situation in LA,

[2:42:45] than some of the communities in the Bay Area,

[2:42:48] like Aurora, but shouldn't be at the mercy

[2:42:52] of every aspect of this T.O.C. policy

[2:42:55] because of our vulnerability to fire.

[2:43:00] Okay?

[2:43:01] This TRC policy can be changed tomorrow by MTC.

[2:43:05] This is a completely brought together.

[2:43:08] This is part of how I want the talented people and the Lafayette Maragawa Render Coalition.

[2:43:14] And just telling you, getting our bets out, because first of all, two of the MTC commissioners

[2:43:21] said on CCTA, one of them, the least one is Candice Anderson.

[2:43:29] Okay?

[2:43:30] from who took Amy's place from President Hill, both of them are incredibly clear to

[2:43:35] possibilities for understanding that a community like Aurenda and Lafayette are not

[2:43:41] the kinds of communities that should be subject to the kinds of things you want to build

[2:43:47] in Oakland and San Francisco, okay?

[2:43:49] And I think we have got to add that into the mix.

[2:43:53] Do you define the answer in the short term because losing the couple million dollars a year

[2:43:58] that we get, there's no replacement for a folks,

[2:44:02] we just, that's not gonna come from anywhere else.

[2:44:04] And I don't wanna see us lose access to all that money,

[2:44:08] because some of that money does relate.

[2:44:09] I mean, the smart signals program, that part of that's open money.

[2:44:13] If we had gotten turned down for that,

[2:44:15] the smart signals program does relate to evacuation.

[2:44:20] It's not the primary component of it,

[2:44:22] but it's related to it.

[2:44:24] It could be very important at a certain moment time.

[2:44:27] So I don't want to take that off the table, but I want to lobby hard that they have got to get this cleaned up to make more sense.

[2:44:34] And I would suggest that we have got to lobby with our other small city crowd in the Bay Area too, because it's not just us.

[2:44:44] I had a long talk with a very intelligent person that was very in the know about this this morning.

[2:44:48] And there aren't places like no valley and other places that are subject to these requirements.

[2:44:54] Maybe not always because of a boat station, but because of some other transit facility that we need a...

[2:45:00] Now, we need a coalition that's a little bit more building of the willing of the small cities, for this policy really belongs in Oakland and San Francisco and San Jose and you know, maybe a Palo Alto or, you know, someplace where what makes some greater sense.

[2:45:17] But I think we've got the best argument in the world right now over the fire safety issue. So, through the dance, we'll leave it in the short term and do the dance for the longer term that makes it a more believable.

[2:45:29] in the area for us.

[2:45:31] We're not going to get rid of the bird station.

[2:45:33] I once upon a time, I thought the bird station

[2:45:35] was one of the most valuable assets in a render.

[2:45:38] In recent times, it's become one of our biggest

[2:45:40] liabilities.

[2:45:41] So I think that the reality is, we've got to work with keeping

[2:45:46] it as much of an asset as we can and work through this.

[2:45:50] And also, we have the ability part of the reason

[2:45:53] I wanted to see us bring on advocacy was, it's not just

[2:45:56] lobbying the MTC commissioners, but it's also

[2:45:58] lobbying our legislators. So those are my comments.

[2:46:04] Thank you. Council members, Rally, Hockfeet, do you want to?

[2:46:10] Well, I'm obviously new to all of this and just trying to take it all in and

[2:46:15] understand the dance as you so aptly put it.

[2:46:19] I think we have to look at everything from the lens of what benefits

[2:46:23] And that's why I asked the questions about the funding and what we use that funding for and what we need that funding for and where else we could get that funding.

[2:46:34] It seems clear that there aren't a lot of other sources.

[2:46:38] It also seems clear that what council member G said is absolutely true.

[2:46:42] We need to get MTC to change some of these things in light of the wildfire risk that we all acknowledge and understand we face.

[2:46:51] But we still need the funding.

[2:46:54] So as I started to say earlier during the question period,

[2:46:58] I feel like we need to look hard at the things

[2:47:02] that we can already do and are trying to do

[2:47:06] and policies that would benefit a rinda to adopt

[2:47:09] possibly an inclusionary housing policy,

[2:47:12] possibly the design reviews standards.

[2:47:15] Well, not doing the things that would be negative for a rinda.

[2:47:19] to the extent that we can avoid it and, you know, the other thing I'm beginning to learn

[2:47:26] is that, you know, zoning and allowing doesn't necessarily equate to building, so that even

[2:47:32] if we adopt policies, that doesn't necessarily mean people are going to come in and build

[2:47:37] to those standards, so those are the things I've been thinking of.

[2:47:43] Okay, and I just, it is 954, so before I have to interrupt someone in the sentence, can we have a motion to extend the meeting by, I don't think we have a separate point in the council member or that might take a couple minutes, so I'm going to propose until 1020.

[2:48:08] I don't have to extended 1020.

[2:48:11] Do I have a second?

[2:48:12] Okay. All in favour? Hi. Any opposed? Thank you. All right. I just before we wrap up, I wanted to

[2:48:21] pass along two more comments. One is that innate in the MTC policy is the idea that bark transportation

[2:48:30] will be usable to evacuate. All of this not allowing any parking within that half mile or even

[2:48:36] putting maximums of parking assumes that people are, you know, that these are urban environments

[2:48:42] like San Francisco or Oakland where people will live without a car. In order to do that,

[2:48:48] if there were an evacuation, people would have to know that they could get out on bark. And from all

[2:48:54] of the public comments we've gotten, I don't know one person in Arinda who would rely on bark to

[2:48:59] evacuate. And so I just want to address that disconnect because all of their parking requirements

[2:49:05] are fundamentally in conflict with today's reality that nobody has any

[2:49:11] trust and confidence. It will be there for them in a situation like that.

[2:49:17] On the other hand, I do think a Bart Lot is one of our kind of... I forget what the word is.

[2:49:21] It's like a refuge of gathering spot. So the Bart Lot itself might be safe, but the

[2:49:27] Bart Transportation System as of today, they're asking us to do the impossible.

[2:49:33] The only other comment is for the staff to look at page 9 of 61 in the packet, production policy for public lands for affordable housing.

[2:49:44] And again, this is like armchair land use planning, but as I read the specific language of the purpose of that policy and the relevant state law being the surplus lands act,

[2:49:57] I think we don't have to be the owner of that policy.

[2:50:02] It seems to me like activating surplus lands owned by any public agency, accomplishes that

[2:50:10] goal and that would apply to the cow-trans site even more so than ultimately the bar

[2:50:14] site.

[2:50:15] But if you look at some of the things about it's for places where land is not very available,

[2:50:19] will land very expensive that we are affordable housing won't happen unless a public land

[2:50:26] owner makes that land available with deed restrictions for affordable.

[2:50:30] That all felt like it was talking to the kind of opportunity we have at the Cal

[2:50:35] Transite.

[2:50:36] And I would just ask you to talk to MTC and CF, that might be one of these over and

[2:50:41] above compliance is that would save us some of the more technical stuff if we are

[2:50:47] activating that type.

[2:50:48] And that was everything.

[2:50:50] And I don't want to be a lot of really great points that I have the way, but I genuinely

[2:51:02] agree that we should to the extent it is consistent with our housing element and other things

[2:51:09] absolutely make an effort to substantially comply because we do need these funds.

[2:51:14] And more importantly, I think this ties in pretty critically with our planning for evacuation,

[2:51:25] because it is in a Rinda problem, but it is a regional problem, right?

[2:51:32] And we are, you know, the smart signals is cute because it allows us to synchronize those signals

[2:51:39] in the event of an evacuation or an emergency,

[2:51:43] and that's a regional effort with the regional,

[2:51:46] you know, with grants.

[2:51:51] And also, you know, the multi-notta pop on Marag away, I think,

[2:51:57] could be hugely critical in it if we're able to get that funding in the event of evacuation,

[2:52:02] because it could allow for third grade, which, together with Contraflow, could be maybe helpful in an area that is, you know, geographically otherwise limited, right?

[2:52:13] So, and I think that in general, we need to be looking at evacuation and emergency preparedness on a regional level and a county-wide level.

[2:52:21] and that's why that's why this is important. So it's not, it is actually to me, it

[2:52:28] beyond definitely meeting the money in terms of the funding for these projects because there's

[2:52:35] really isn't another sort of, you know, and I think Council Member G, you know, reference this.

[2:52:40] This is actually to me goes hand in glove with being well prepared. In the event of

[2:52:47] in emergency. Well, fire earthquake or otherwise, right? So,

[2:52:57] beyond that, the only specific

[2:53:00] thing, there was a question about density and there was, you know, in terms of residential

[2:53:06] density, there was a slide we saw that showed that the residential density in the DPP was 20,

[2:53:13] I think, and to the extent that is what's required by the housing element, right?

[2:53:20] or what is, you know, I guess I would like to see

[2:53:24] best do what we need to do to be substantially compliant. But again,

[2:53:29] we need to think about time of climate change

[2:53:31] and the realities of that and so to extent that that would allow,

[2:53:36] you know, as we learn more about what substantial compliance means, I guess we'd

[2:53:39] have to, but I also think we need to be aware of

[2:53:45] of keeping that, again, consistent with what we need to do to have our

[2:53:49] Not as an element, but not necessarily going to the recommendations here seemed a little higher.

[2:53:59] And I do think the commercial density is just, I agree with the staff sort of, you know,

[2:54:04] you run that being a really very difficult for some a place like Miranda as opposed to more urban environments.

[2:54:17] I'd like to at least wrap this up with finding out whether they're support from my idea of lobbying MTC.

[2:54:25] I'm more than willing to be directly involved, but I think it would be important that we have sort of an action plan that staff helps us with,

[2:54:33] And maybe taps into our advocate, but obviously we, you know, well, some of the MTC commissioners

[2:54:41] and like I said, the time is ripe because there is a big turnover, maybe the biggest

[2:54:46] turnover in years on the commission.

[2:54:49] So it's a lot of new faces, a lot of new years, and I think it's important.

[2:54:54] I agree with that 100%.

[2:54:56] And they make them absolutely great.

[2:55:00] unanimous consensus on that. That was on my list of things just to make sure as we wrap up this

[2:55:04] discussion and move on to the next discussion. So it sounds like there's general desire to

[2:55:11] try to comply with the letter here and try to weave compliance together in a way that makes sense

[2:55:18] for this community and I think that's what will continue to work on and we'll look forward to

[2:55:23] to pressing on some of our new representatives on MTC to see if we can make some modifications

[2:55:31] to these guidelines to reflect the conditions that some communities are faced with, including

[2:55:36] a Rinda.

[2:55:38] Did I miss anything on that to capture everything?

[2:55:44] Well, I think so.

[2:55:44] Thank you.

[2:55:45] It's a continued conversation.

[2:55:47] So, you know, we'll over the next several months, I'm sure we'll be talking about again.

[2:55:50] I don't know if we need to come back at the next meeting.

[2:55:52] I think we were kind of plugging in but maybe we'd have to come back and talk to you again

[2:55:57] right away but it sounds like we've gotten some clear direction. So appreciate that.

[2:56:01] Yeah, I think we appreciate that. So I mean, in terms of policies that we were sort of recommending

[2:56:06] your kind of, there's not a lot of issues with what that, although we'll look into the public trust

[2:56:12] issue a little bit more that vice mayor brought up. Okay. Yeah, I appreciate staff bringing this to us

[2:56:20] as sort of in real time so that we can provide this input,

[2:56:25] you know, on how it input.

[2:56:29] Okay, then moving on, we have H3,

[2:56:34] which is a city council committee appointment list.

[2:56:37] Please, on list for 2025.

[2:56:47] May I answer?

[2:56:48] City manager, if you want to start or should I set?

[2:56:51] Honorable Mayor, members of the council.

[2:56:53] So at the previous meeting, you adopted

[2:56:58] assignments for many of the regional boards. We at that meeting discussed changes to the

[2:57:05] proposed to the subcommittees. We got that clarity from you. And so after that meeting,

[2:57:11] I believe that the mayor took the time to go through and make her recommendations for those

[2:57:16] subcommittees. And then we had the two carryover items that liaison that weren't addressed

[2:57:22] the last meeting, the Calshakes liaison that was inadvertently omitted and then the chamber

[2:57:30] liaison to assure that it was connected with the selection for the subcommittee.

[2:57:37] So I wanted to bring that forward. I think another thing maybe to chat about briefly because I

[2:57:42] know it's getting late is whether or not the Calshakes literally is on should continue to be called

[2:57:48] Calshake State theater liaison or rather maybe change that to a more general name because of the circumstances that we now find Calshake's is no longer around for us to talk about.

[2:58:01] And as to that last point, the idea was that it could be called the cultural art liaison and could liaison with Calshake,

[2:58:13] So I've the entity that takes over the Calshakes location in addition to the Lomerate

[2:58:19] Arts Council and perhaps I'm in the theater.

[2:58:25] So that is concludes of report.

[2:58:28] If there are there any questions, otherwise we do have one public comment.

[2:58:33] No, I think it's fine.

[2:58:34] So in the interest of time with the, the nomenclature change of Calshakes as described,

[2:58:42] I'm willing to move that we approve the list.

[2:58:45] Okay, before we do that, we, we, we, we probably want to make sure we have a public.

[2:58:52] Okay.

[2:58:53] Um, to give

[2:58:58] you, give me, give me a little more Connie, council members, city staff, and members

[2:59:03] of the public.

[2:59:05] I'm speaking tonight as the Vice President of the Render Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors.

[2:59:10] And so we'd like to take the opportunity to thank Miramal Connie for serving as our liaison

[2:59:16] and we certainly look forward to the opportunity to get to know Council Martin Hocksey

[2:59:21] better and having her as our liaison.

[2:59:24] We also appreciate the continued support of all the Council members as well as our

[2:59:28] close relationships with staff and wanted to acknowledge that.

[2:59:32] We also wanted to thank City Clerk Smith for making the correction of our meeting

[2:59:38] time so that we reflected appropriately moving forward.

[2:59:43] Thank you.

[2:59:44] Thank you. Thank you.

[2:59:50] Okay, back to the council for discussion or perhaps a motion.

[2:59:54] Okay, my motion still stands.

[2:59:57] I'll second it.

[3:00:00] Okay, so for clarity, is the motion to change the, yeah, my motion.

[3:00:10] Now shakes dearly, is on to cultural, I'd say, is that acceptable council member?

[3:00:17] Okay, yes.

[3:00:22] I guess some other language in there that's not just limited to the three organizations we've just said,

[3:00:29] because the things evolve. I mean, I can't remember what the rind of play,

[3:00:35] the starlight player. I mean, I mean, should that, you know, I mean, so just make it a little

[3:00:38] broader and other art. Yeah. Yeah. We don't not technically have a description. I don't

[3:00:45] think of the ways on, but I think this discussion is for the minutes for the minutes. We have consensus

[3:00:52] that it would be broader. So the motion is to approve the appointment list

[3:01:08] as proposed with the one

[3:01:14] Consumant was amended with the cultural arts liaison title, replacing what is currently in

[3:01:24] the city's accounts, shakes theater.

[3:01:28] Great.

[3:01:30] And we had a second, so all in favor.

[3:01:34] Any opposed?

[3:01:36] Okay.

[3:01:36] So that passes unanimously.

[3:01:39] That takes us to council members reports.

[3:01:46] Do we have, I have some stuff to share, but I don't know if others do.

[3:01:52] Okay, otherwise I'll be brief.

[3:01:57] As we saw tonight, there's, I've received a lot of public comment about concerns

[3:02:02] And that, you know, one of the things I started talking to our county supervisors about an idea which is to have a regional working group focused on wildfire and perhaps also earthquake,

[3:02:28] a legislative preparedness and evacuation,

[3:02:31] and that it would be a role of your sleeves,

[3:02:35] you know, made twice a week.

[3:02:38] Everyone does homework, working group,

[3:02:41] and it should be a public and private partnership

[3:02:44] to the extent that it is a, you know,

[3:02:48] local jurisdictions and government along with our utilities

[3:02:52] and also transportation, right?

[3:02:55] And the county does have an office

[3:02:57] of emergency services, and they do do these regional, and I think that are sitting there

[3:03:01] to contact one of this, because this is just such way, and to consider manager reports,

[3:03:06] but they do, regionally, but the presentations are more general, those understandably, a lot

[3:03:14] of concerns in a focused on other areas of contact, so county, we have refineries here, we have

[3:03:19] a lot of things that sort of, you know, but sit into emergency preparedness.

[3:03:23] And right now, I think we need more.

[3:03:26] We need something that's, you know, stuck, LSAP,

[3:03:31] and meets regularly, like 12th month, and just,

[3:03:35] so that, because we don't have our own emergency

[3:03:37] prepared as plans, but, you know,

[3:03:40] and I know this has been raised in East O'Mod since we

[3:03:42] have the water in the pressure and all that.

[3:03:44] So this is maybe not the best example anymore,

[3:03:46] but I want to make sure that I think we all want, you know,

[3:03:52] the questions about water pressure or whatever else it is, we need to be brainstormed now

[3:04:00] because in an emergency we all know things will go wrong, right? And there are no guarantees,

[3:04:06] but we at least have to try to do our best. And I really think it's a county issue to address.

[3:04:12] So sitting in the energy and I are going to try to meet with the good news is I supervise

[3:04:16] seen responsive, at least informally. And so we'll see. And so we're going to turn it up on Supervisor

[3:04:24] Anderson's office to just follow through on that. And so that's one thing. And then there

[3:04:33] have been a couple of folks that have responded. One of them was Samir who was here and I think

[3:04:41] He's going to be needing a view and city manager about this and another, you know, I've gotten couple responses from, that they might be a possibility that insurance companies, some might be interested in writing insurance for communities or neighborhoods that are running to, you know, voluntarily a dot sort of the IBHS guidelines insurance industry guidelines.

[3:05:07] And so we'll see if that plays out, but you know,

[3:05:11] if things come to me, it's not,

[3:05:13] if not many of us have sort of been agenda items or acts,

[3:05:16] anything that we actually control or anything,

[3:05:18] then it's just advocacy to cancel an engine's point

[3:05:22] about where we just need to be continuing to advocate.

[3:05:25] So, then I know this is step that all of you have worked on,

[3:05:27] so I just wanted to share that.

[3:05:30] Does this have some ideas?

[3:05:31] May I ask a question about that?

[3:05:36] I read what is sent to us about the latest developments in the States Insurance Regulation,

[3:05:43] but it's very hard to know how to answer citizens who are trying to deal day by day with

[3:05:49] not being able to find insurance and so they're saying, well, they're working on it.

[3:05:53] It's coming, they're ch- so I'm wondering if there would be a way that we could get somebody

[3:05:58] within the City Manager's orbit to maybe give us a briefing every other meeting just a quick sort

[3:06:07] of practical interpretation of developments, what does it mean that modeling will affect

[3:06:18] wildfire pricing? Just like that if there was any way that we could get informed in a more

[3:06:24] practical way I would I would appreciate that. I'll have to noodle on how to do that not be

[3:06:32] I mean there's not a lot of change in a very short period of time with respect to regulations

[3:06:38] I mean obviously the one thing that we're counting on happening soon is release of the very high

[3:06:47] fires of air these on maps by the state and so we need to we don't know what those look like yet

[3:06:53] But we've heard is that we expect 200 more communities in areas to be added.

[3:07:02] So I mean, think about it, there's 430 or so communities in California they're going

[3:07:08] to add 200 more to the list, so that's pretty substantial.

[3:07:14] So there probably will be an update at some point around that, and we could try to find someone

[3:07:21] update on insurance, but I think maybe in update I know there's a lot of things going on in Sacramento now

[3:07:28] with respect to responding to the wildfire disaster and also probably to address insurance issues.

[3:07:36] So maybe we can work on whether Casey can join us either once a month or every other month to give

[3:07:42] us those updates from a legislative perspective, but also anything we can obtain about when these maps

[3:07:48] going to come out and how it might impact communities that have these maps, because I think that

[3:07:54] will be the bigger, bigger issue.

[3:07:56] I mean, certainly having KC come and talk to us, right, could be to the, especially now, right,

[3:08:08] as we're having, could be helpful, Townsend, right, I care less about me being on the cutting edge

[3:08:16] knowing and more having practical talking points that I can give to citizens who are working through

[3:08:25] this because I know all of us get calls and letters and so to the extent we are hearing

[3:08:30] about people that are doing coverage if we hear about actual changes that are going to be

[3:08:36] in. It was more that. It was more that because the rate of hopefully solutions coming is relatively

[3:08:43] quick, something just like a once a month up. So it was it was more the practical what we

[3:08:48] to help people in the community so we can be part of the solution. Okay, I will try to think about

[3:08:54] how to best do that and maybe you can do it as part of city managers or parts, but let me think about it.

[3:09:00] Okay. One thing that I've learned recently getting a house ready for sale is that the

[3:09:08] know what insurance companies are doing business in

[3:09:14] Sleepy Hollow. And I'm sure it's going to be renamed as

[3:09:19] high severity area. I just got to believe it right next to

[3:09:24] Brioani's. So anyway that's one tip to talk to our

[3:09:27] realtors and I can tell you one or two.

[3:09:33] Okay. And I started it by but we don't want to get into a

[3:09:39] I have a discussion on these issues, but councilmember reports.

[3:09:42] Is there anything else that anyone wants to report on?

[3:09:45] We are going to the council cities, more academies, starting early tomorrow and Sacramento.

[3:09:52] And councilmember Hockey and I will be attending along with our city manager.

[3:09:57] And then there is there are council cities, policy committees, meeting on Friday, among the

[3:10:03] community affairs committee, but I did reach out to the public safety and ask them what

[3:10:13] they're doing about wildfire and evacuation.

[3:10:17] Much as if they're missed because I feel like the squeaky, I know that Councilmember

[3:10:24] G was squeaky as mayor last year and I think that I'm going to continue to be squeaky

[3:10:30] and as I know we all will, just keep that for front.

[3:10:40] City managers report?

[3:10:41] Okay, I'll keep a brief,

[3:10:42] but I think one of the things that I think is on everyone's mind

[3:10:46] and we continue to talk about it

[3:10:48] is wildfire preparedness and disaster preparedness.

[3:10:51] And I think there's things that we could be doing

[3:10:54] to help improve our communication

[3:10:57] and trying to wrap my head around how we can do that

[3:11:00] effective way, but I hope to be back to you with some suggestions around that in a couple

[3:11:06] meetings from now. In the meantime, I've been meeting with various parties. I'm going to be meeting

[3:11:12] and sitting down with Chief Isaacs to figure out a way that how we can work together on sort of

[3:11:18] community education series, ways in which we can be out in the community and listen in here from

[3:11:26] people and kind of try to address concerns that residents might have.

[3:11:30] There's been a lot of public discussion, as you've seen the San Francisco Chronicle article

[3:11:35] about sort of a renders position being a place that is a great concern long-term for wildfire

[3:11:44] risk.

[3:11:45] As you may mind, his issued notifications to inform the public about its fire prevention and

[3:11:49] routine maintenance, so we can make sure that that is shared.

[3:11:52] We've tried to share that on our platforms.

[3:11:53] We've tried to make improvements to the Arinda Outlook to have a whole section dedicated to emergency preparedness disaster preparedness and so we're working on that and I think our chipper program continues to be very effective and we just need to and we have of course right on our home page under the meetings list is the preparedness list. I think we're going to spend a little bit more time trying to organize that page and figuring out and maybe talking with chief i6 on maybe.

[3:12:23] a way to jointly communicate what's going on

[3:12:26] in both of our jurisdictional areas.

[3:12:31] Our focus a lot on fuel reduction and incentives

[3:12:36] and evacuation and them on the efforts

[3:12:39] that they're putting forth with their residents

[3:12:41] in the community and also looking

[3:12:43] at the nonprofit partner.

[3:12:44] So I feel like there's some improvement that we can do there

[3:12:47] and I'm gonna be working towards doing that

[3:12:49] and hopefully be back to you with a comprehensive approach

[3:12:53] But in the meantime, I think education is going to be important.

[3:12:55] And I'm going to talk to Chief Isaacs about whether or not we can start working together on some outreach meetings with the community.

[3:13:02] Okay. Thank you.

[3:13:04] And I'm going to, we next as matters initiated.

[3:13:07] I have one that I can propose in 30 seconds, which is spawned by, I think, the public comment from the resident who, after 50 years, got non-reneed because of an oak tree.

[3:13:23] And what I'd like to do is have our tree ordinance come back to our council to revisit it to see if there's ways that we can

[3:13:34] re-examine it in a what manner to make it more consistent.

[3:13:38] And more encouraging of reduction of fuels because right now if you have a oak tree within five feet of your house or four feet of your house you still have to get a permit.

[3:13:49] is the understanding. So, so, I don't know if anyone else is interested in bringing that back,

[3:13:56] I'm hoping so, but I did ask a question about that earlier today and I thought there was an

[3:14:02] exception or an exemption from the ordinance if it was something that the fire district required.

[3:14:08] Yeah, so right now there is no requirement because there is no zone zero provisions. So if you're

[3:14:13] looking to create defensible space around your home, you still would have to get a permit.

[3:14:18] Can I ask a motion just to extend the meeting by one minute till ten or two minutes till ten twenty-two high?

[3:14:28] Yeah, second

[3:14:28] All in favor. Hi, any opposed. Okay, so I

[3:14:34] Wait, right now we're not discussing it's just a question of do we want to bring it back?

[3:14:37] I'm not I think it's good to review it. Okay, so is there and I'm making a motion that we we revisit the three ordinance bring it back to the council

[3:14:45] So we need a second if we wanted to come back. So we'll second that. All in favor.

[3:14:51] Hi. Hi.

[3:14:52] Any opposed?

[3:14:54] Okay.

[3:14:56] And with that, are there any other matters?

[3:15:01] I appreciate the city manager sharing with us that she's planning educational opportunities with

[3:15:07] M.O.F.D. We heard loud and clear that people want a town hall or some sort of community meeting.

[3:15:15] And I'm not 100% sure what you're recommending is what I'm thinking of as a community meeting.

[3:15:20] But feels like we need to have a community meeting with M.O.F.D.

[3:15:25] and perhaps these famous, perhaps PG&E,

[3:15:28] all present in one form for people to ask questions

[3:15:31] and get answers, and it's not just educational,

[3:15:36] but to have some dialogue, and I don't know if we need

[3:15:40] to have a motion to ask staff to work on that,

[3:15:43] or if that's already, you know, being done.

[3:15:47] I like,

[3:15:49] do you want to address that?

[3:15:51] I don't know that we need a motion on it.

[3:15:54] Don't know if you need a motion. I'll just, I'll see what I can do if that's the will of the council to try and engage all the other agencies as well. I think that might make it more challenging to put something together in a timely fashion, but if I think starting with MOFD since the primary roles of what we do is.

[3:16:16] Right, I think starting with them all, I think we are, we're going to have to extend again if we want to discuss it more, we could, but I'm just putting that out.

[3:16:25] If we don't need a motion, that's fine. I just, I think starting with MOLFD, and then to the extent other agencies could be present would be great but not necessary to make it successful.

[3:16:35] Okay. So do I have a motion and a second to adjourn? Well, we're going to adjourn with closed session. Okay.

[3:16:44] So adjourn. May you have a close session item. I'm hoping we can still.

[3:16:49] Yes, we're going to be adjourning to close session. Sorry. But if there's any public comment on the closed session item,

[3:16:56] list on the agenda that now would be at the time here in the public comment.

[3:17:02] We'll close public comment. Thank you.

[3:17:06] So we are joining to close session.

City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript