[0:06] right now. I think

[0:09] >> I think I would say maybe um

[0:12] » I think I would say maybe um

[0:12] >> because right now it's just going to be

[0:14] » because right now it's just going to be

[0:14] >> it's just what

[0:15] » it's just what

[0:15] >> it's just going to be council member

[0:16] » it's just going to be council member

[0:16] Hawky.

[0:16] >> Yeah, maybe put it on since she's there.

[0:18] » Yeah, maybe put it on since she's there.

[0:18] Yes, that'd be great. Thanks for asking.

[8:12] » [sighs]

[9:08] » Good evening and welcome. Sorry we're

[9:10] starting a minute late. Um to tonight's

[9:14] March 3rd regular meeting of the Arinda

[9:15] City Council. I'll ask the city clerk to

[9:17] please uh call the role. And we have um

[9:20] one remote uh hello council member

[9:24] Hawky. Sorry for the uh the tardy start.

[9:27] >> It's all right. Hello.

[9:28] » It's all right. Hello.

[9:28] >> So, note for the record that all council

[9:30] » So, note for the record that all council

[9:30] members are present.

[9:32] >> Actually, we have

[9:33] » Actually, we have

[9:33] >> Well, except the one that you just noted

[9:34] » Well, except the one that you just noted

[9:34] who's

[9:35] >> and the excused absence.

[9:36] » and the excused absence.

[9:36] >> Oh, so I'm so sorry. [laughter]

[9:40] » Oh, so I'm so sorry. [laughter]

[9:40] >> So, we are missing Janet tonight.

[9:43] » So, we are missing Janet tonight.

[9:43] >> Yes,

[9:43] » Yes,

[9:43] >> she has an excuse absence.

[9:44] » she has an excuse absence.

[9:44] >> Yes, she does.

[9:45] » Yes, she does.

[9:45] >> Okay. Thank you. And so, note that.

[9:48] » Okay. Thank you. And so, note that.

[9:48] >> Thank you. And with that, um we will

[9:52] » Thank you. And with that, um we will

[9:52] please stand for the pledge of

[9:53] allegiance.

[9:56] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[9:59] United States of America of America, the

[10:02] republic for which it stands,

[10:04] >> one nation,

[10:07] » one nation,

[10:07] >> indivisible, liberty and justice for

[10:10] » indivisible, liberty and justice for

[10:10] all.

[10:11] >> Thank you.

[10:15] The next um item is to adopt the agenda.

[10:19] And I will once again um suggest that we

[10:22] do the council member I mean uh city

[10:25] manager and council member reports um

[10:28] before we go to the regular business. So

[10:30] that would be after public forum and

[10:32] consent calendar. Um with that proposal,

[10:35] do I have a second?

[10:38] >> I'll second it.

[10:40] » I'll second it.

[10:40] >> All in favor?

[10:42] » All in favor?

[10:42] Hi.

[10:43] >> All right. So, unfortunately because we

[10:44] » All right. So, unfortunately because we

[10:44] have a member has a by roll call

[10:47] tonight.

[10:53] » Council member uh Hawky.

[10:57] >> Yeah. I

[10:58] » Yeah. I

[10:58] >> council member Marani.

[10:59] » council member Marani.

[10:59] >> I Vice Mayor G.

[11:02] » I Vice Mayor G.

[11:02] >> I mayor Iverson

[11:04] » I mayor Iverson

[11:04] >> I. Thank you. With that we have an

[11:06] » I. Thank you. With that we have an

[11:06] agenda. We'll move on to items for the

[11:08] good of the city. Uh our first item is

[11:10] to introduce uh two new employees uh

[11:14] Cole Heslip and Estella Ramirez. Do we

[11:16] have uh some people to come and

[11:18] introduce them? I it will be me uh

[11:20] introducing Cole. Cole, would you mind

[11:21] standing up to the public podium? And

[11:23] I'm delighted to introduce you to Cole

[11:25] Heslip who joined the city as this our

[11:28] assistant to the city manager. Man, uh

[11:31] Cole uh is I'm sorry. Cole most recently

[11:35] served as a senior management analyst

[11:37] with the city of Wheatidge, Colorado,

[11:38] where he led the city's innovation team

[11:40] and implementing operational

[11:42] improvements and served as staff liaison

[11:44] to the community partners grant program

[11:46] committee and the legislative advocacy

[11:48] program. He was also a key member of

[11:50] their budget team and collaborative

[11:52] collaborated across departments to

[11:53] support a variety of citywide

[11:55] initiatives. Prior to working in

[11:57] Wheatidge, Cole worked for the city of

[11:59] Vanetta in Oregon in the city manager's

[12:02] office where he led economic

[12:03] development, emergency management, and

[12:05] social media communications. His

[12:07] professional background includes the

[12:09] roles in the city of Aspen and served as

[12:12] a management consultant with CA

[12:15] University Public Management. That's

[12:17] correct. That's correct.

[12:18] >> Uh he earned his mers in public

[12:20] » Uh he earned his mers in public

[12:20] administration from the University of

[12:21] Kansas, his bachelor in political

[12:23] science from Humbult. And while Cole has

[12:25] recently [clears throat] relocated to

[12:26] join us, he's very familiar with

[12:28] California territory. He grew up in

[12:29] Humboldt and he has family in nearby

[12:32] Moraga. So, if you could join me in um

[12:35] uh joining uh I don't know why I can't

[12:37] talk tonight. I apologize, Cole. Uh in

[12:40] welcoming Cole to the city of Arinda.

[12:48] » Cole, welcome. I know we've got a big

[12:50] pile of work for you to do. I'm pretty

[12:52] excited to have you start. Did you want

[12:54] to say a few words?

[12:55] >> Yeah, I just want to say thank you so

[12:57] » Yeah, I just want to say thank you so

[12:57] much for the opportunity to join the

[12:59] team here at the city of Arinda. Uh like

[13:02] you said, uh Linda has got a lot of

[13:05] projects ready for the city to take on

[13:07] and I'm excited to get started on some

[13:10] of them, join some of the ones that are

[13:12] already ongoing and uh continue to

[13:14] support the community and the

[13:15] organization here. So, I look forward to

[13:18] working with the council and the

[13:19] community for

[13:21] >> Thank you. We're looking forward to

[13:22] » Thank you. We're looking forward to

[13:22] working with you as well.

[13:25] >> Thanks, Cole.

[13:26] » Thanks, Cole.

[13:26] >> Thank you.

[13:27] » Thank you.

[13:27] >> And then next up will be Estella

[13:31] » And then next up will be Estella

[13:31] and Scott will do her introduction.

[13:34] >> Good evening, city council. Scott

[13:35] » Good evening, city council. Scott

[13:35] Christie, public works director. I'm

[13:38] also pleased to introduce Estella

[13:40] Ramirez, who joins us as our new

[13:42] management analyst in the public works

[13:44] and engineering department. So, we're

[13:46] excited about this position because it

[13:48] kind of combines some of the engineering

[13:51] technician tasks with management

[13:53] analysts and u those sort of related

[13:57] tasks, you know, including records

[14:00] management, responding to public records

[14:02] requests. a lot of things that engineers

[14:04] have typically done, you know, in

[14:06] addition to helping us out with some of

[14:08] the administration of the clean water

[14:10] NPDES program from the standpoint of

[14:12] helping coate reports, provide reports

[14:16] to the uh state water board, etc. help

[14:19] us with grant administration, the

[14:21] capital budget and things like that. So,

[14:25] Asella comes to us from the city of

[14:27] Pleasanton where she handled some

[14:30] administrative tasks in the business uh

[14:33] development area. Also, again, she

[14:36] handled some of the same tasks that I

[14:38] mentioned there for for their

[14:40] department. Also, she's worked with the

[14:42] city of San Leandro in the engineering

[14:45] department there. So, she's wellversed

[14:48] with, I believe, what we do and we're

[14:50] looking forward to having her help us

[14:52] out. And then she's also worked in the

[14:55] past with the city of Oakland and also

[14:57] the county of Marin. She has a

[14:59] bachelor's degree in business

[15:01] administration with an emphasis in

[15:03] public administration. So with that,

[15:06] I'll um introduce Estella.

[15:09] >> Hi. [laughter]

[15:14] » Thank you. Thank you so much for the

[15:15] warm welcome. Um, just really grateful

[15:18] to be part of the team and I'm eager to

[15:21] contribute. Um,

[15:25] Scott, Doug, and Linda already have me

[15:28] diving right in. I've been busy my last

[15:30] two weeks, and I just look forward to

[15:32] bringing my skills to um improving our

[15:36] processes, streamlining so that we can

[15:38] better serve the community with greater

[15:40] efficiency. And yeah, I look forward to

[15:43] supporting council initiatives and

[15:46] priorities in any way I can. So, thank

[15:48] you again. Oh, and I do want to note I

[15:51] was an executive assistant to the um

[15:54] council in San Leandro. So, I want to

[15:56] thank you very much for your service. I

[15:58] know it's a lot more than just two

[16:00] meetings a month. So, thank you for

[16:02] that. [gasps and sighs]

[16:04] >> Thank you. It sounds like you have an

[16:05] » Thank you. It sounds like you have an

[16:05] incredible background for this position.

[16:07] So, thank you for joining and we look

[16:09] forward to working with you. Does anyone

[16:11] else have anything? We'll um Yeah,

[16:14] welcome. Welcome to both of our new

[16:16] employees. Thank you so much for

[16:18] serving, Arinda.

[16:20] >> Thank you. And with that, we'll move on

[16:22] » Thank you. And with that, we'll move on

[16:22] to our next item uh for the good of the

[16:24] city, which is a certificate of

[16:26] recognition for American Red Cross

[16:28] Month. Um we do have a representative

[16:31] tonight, Eva Marquez, uh from the Red

[16:33] Cross. I'm going to do I'm going to talk

[16:34] for um just a minute with some of the um

[16:37] the really cool uh just introductory

[16:40] notes that were shared with us and then

[16:42] um we'll do the certificate and see if

[16:44] you'd like to say a few words as well.

[16:47] Um the American Red Cross volunteers

[16:49] have stepped up to deliver relief and

[16:51] care across our country and around the

[16:52] world, bringing out the best of humanity

[16:54] in times of crisis as Clara Barton,

[16:56] founder of American Red Cross did over

[16:59] 140 years ago. The volunteers, blood and

[17:01] platelet donors, and supporters shine a

[17:03] beacon of hope in people's darkest

[17:05] hours. Delivering shelter, food, and

[17:07] comfort during disasters, providing

[17:09] critical blood donations for hospital

[17:11] patients, supporting service members,

[17:13] veterans, and their families, and saving

[17:15] lives with first aid, CPR, AED, and

[17:17] other skills. With 1,148

[17:21] volunteers in Contraosta County, the

[17:23] American Red Cross assisted or responded

[17:25] to 101 disasters assisting 190 families

[17:29] through their sound the alarm program.

[17:31] Um, and through the sound the alarm

[17:34] program, the American Red Cross

[17:35] installed 778 smoke alarms, making 241

[17:39] homes safer, and trained 425 students

[17:42] through the youth preparedness programs.

[17:45] In addition, Contraosta County residents

[17:47] donated 18,299

[17:50] units of life-saving blood, hosted 530

[17:53] blood drives, and trained 12,164

[17:56] citizens in first aid, CPR, AED, and

[17:59] aquatics, and provided 463 case services

[18:02] to military members and their families.

[18:05] This work to uplift our community is

[18:06] made possible by those who selflessly

[18:09] answer the call to help whenever and

[18:11] wherever it is needed. We hereby

[18:13] recognize this month of March in honor

[18:15] of their remarkable service. And we ask

[18:17] everyone to join in their commitment to

[18:19] care for one another. And um with that,

[18:22] I will bring the certificate and or do

[18:25] you want to do you want to say a few

[18:26] words first and then we'll um do a

[18:28] photo?

[18:29] >> Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor, Vice

[18:31] » Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor, Vice

[18:31] Mayor, Council Members G. Good evening.

[18:34] My name is Eva Marquez. I'm the

[18:36] volunteer engagement manager for the

[18:38] American Red Cross. I handle Contra

[18:41] Costa Alamita and the entire North Bay

[18:45] and I've been with the organization for

[18:46] about 35 years. And so I'm I'm so

[18:49] grateful that I have the opportunity to

[18:51] be here tonight and we're so um

[18:54] delighted that we're partnering with the

[18:56] city of Arinda. Um it's been truly an

[18:59] American Red Cross joy to able to

[19:02] partner with the city of Orinda. um and

[19:06] to continue our commitment because of

[19:08] your support that we're able to be there

[19:10] and respond to disasters whenever it's

[19:12] needed. And we've already partnered with

[19:16] some of the employees and they got

[19:18] trained in sheltering um and in hope

[19:21] that when there's a large disaster in

[19:22] Contra Cara that we are prepared and to

[19:25] be there for the community whenever it's

[19:27] needed. So, thank you so much for that

[19:29] and we look forward to working with you.

[19:31] And if there's anything that we can do,

[19:34] preparedness, handsonly CPR or blood

[19:38] drive or even volunteering to build our

[19:40] capacity so that we can be there right

[19:42] away when something happened. Um, let me

[19:46] know because again, I'm in volunteer

[19:48] services. So, we're always building our

[19:50] capacity to respond right away when

[19:53] there's a need. So, thank you so much.

[20:03] there an opportunity for public comment

[20:06] on this?

[20:07] >> Sure. Why don't we do the certificate

[20:08] » Sure. Why don't we do the certificate

[20:08] and then we'll take public comment.

[20:09] >> Thank you.

[21:10] And with that, we'll ask if uh there is

[21:12] public comment on this matter. It

[21:13] appears we have uh one speaker.

[21:19] » Good evening. [clears throat] For

[21:21] forgive my attire. I just came from my

[21:23] oldest granddaughter's softball

[21:25] practice, so I'm a hodgepodge of a dress

[21:28] shirt and other clothing.

[21:32] I just want to say, as I said last year,

[21:35] I have no issue with the uh American Red

[21:39] Cross and I have no issue with our local

[21:44] people who spoke here.

[21:47] But I think it's important for the

[21:49] public record that people understand

[21:53] that the local Red Cross is different

[21:57] and independent from the abomination

[22:00] known as the International Red Cross,

[22:03] which most notably didn't lift a finger

[22:07] or pay any visit to any of the Israeli

[22:11] hostages captured

[22:14] during the terrorist attack of October.

[22:17] 7, 2023.

[22:19] And as the council made clear last year,

[22:24] honoring the local Red Cross folks

[22:30] uh is not any,

[22:32] [clears throat] excuse me, endorsement

[22:35] or honoring of the National Red Cross.

[22:39] I'm not here to ask you to condemn them.

[22:42] I condemn them, but I just want to be

[22:44] clear that we're just because they share

[22:47] the name quote red cross unquote quote

[22:51] in their names that nothing that is

[22:53] happening here tonight is honoring

[22:57] the very awful people running the

[23:00] International Red Cross. Thank you. My

[23:02] name for the record is Nick Warrenoff.

[23:06] I've lived in Arinda for over 23 years.

[23:09] Thank you.

[23:11] >> Thank you.

[23:12] » Thank you.

[23:12] Uh is there anybody else who would like

[23:13] to speak on um either of the items for

[23:16] the good of the city?

[23:18] Seeing none, we will now go to the

[23:20] public forum. The public forum is an

[23:23] opportunity for members of the public to

[23:25] speak on any item within the

[23:26] jurisdiction of the city that is not on

[23:28] the agenda. In addition, uh a speaker

[23:30] has the option of addressing the council

[23:32] of an on an item that's listed on the

[23:34] agenda if the speaker will not be

[23:36] present when the agenda item is taken

[23:37] up. Um, we ask that people limit

[23:41] comments to three minutes and I'll ask

[23:42] if we have anyone for public comment. I

[23:44] have I mean uh for public forum. I have

[23:47] not checked. Yeah, we have um at least

[23:50] one which is uh Emily Pulkari for public

[23:53] forum. Please come on up.

[23:56] And actually we have a second one as

[23:57] well. [clears throat]

[23:59] >> Hi, thank you. Um I wanted to make sure

[24:02] » Hi, thank you. Um I wanted to make sure

[24:02] that you all got my email about the

[24:05] serious accident on Coral. Um it was

[24:08] very jarring to have that happen a week

[24:10] after we had been discussing the safety

[24:13] measures. Um I don't want to,

[24:17] you know, there was a young person

[24:19] involved. I don't want to go into um

[24:21] anything too detailed, but um I'm

[24:24] requesting that you expedite do whatever

[24:26] you can to expedite bringing that up for

[24:29] a vote, the safety measures on Coral and

[24:32] whatever you can um in terms of

[24:35] instituting temporary safety measures

[24:37] like the temporary sidewalk. If we could

[24:40] get some enforcement out there, that

[24:43] would really, I think, go a long way. I

[24:45] know that um safety at the elementary

[24:48] schools is important and I've seen

[24:50] myself that that's effective. Um but

[24:53] some circulation I think would really

[24:55] help. Um

[24:58] and that's it. Thank you. Oh, one other

[25:00] thing. If you are I don't know exactly

[25:02] what the plan would be for the sidewalk.

[25:04] I don't like if it would be like the

[25:06] sidewalk on Moraga Way which only takes

[25:09] up street or if it would um go into

[25:12] people's yards. But this neighbor who I

[25:16] don't know should probably know before

[25:18] they go about fixing their property um

[25:21] if it's going if a sidewalk is going to

[25:23] go in there. Um so thank you.

[25:28] >> Thank you. And while we cannot comment

[25:30] » Thank you. And while we cannot comment

[25:30] on that, I would just note for the

[25:31] record that we had several letters this

[25:33] week on the same topic and appreciate

[25:34] you coming to speak in person about it.

[25:36] >> Okay. Thank you. Um we also have a I'm

[25:39] » Okay. Thank you. Um we also have a I'm

[25:39] sorry. Did you have any questions or

[25:40] comments? Okay. Um, we also have Shaheen

[25:44] uh Tons and I hope I'm uh pronouncing

[25:46] your name correctly. Come on up.

[25:48] >> Ton, thank you.

[25:54] » Good [clears throat] evening.

[25:57] >> Uh, I'm here to talk about the agenda

[25:59] » Uh, I'm here to talk about the agenda

[25:59] item H2 actually because I won't be here

[26:02] when it comes up on the agenda.

[26:05] Um this was an item to do with revising

[26:08] the private road acceptance policy that

[26:11] was uh instituted a few years ago and

[26:14] which has been a focus of the uh

[26:16] infrastructure subcommittee.

[26:19] Uh I sent a communication earlier today

[26:21] to to the board uh to the council sorry

[26:25] and I hope that you all get a chance to

[26:27] read it at some point.

[26:29] Um but when I did that there was one

[26:31] point I forgot to mention and one of

[26:34] those points was authorize the city

[26:36] engineer to grant exceptions.

[26:39] Uh I feel that's a very bad idea and

[26:41] it's nothing to do with Scott. Um what

[26:44] will happen if you do this it will make

[26:47] the whole policy effectively toothless

[26:50] because the city engineer will be

[26:52] allowed to grant exceptions to it. The

[26:54] engineer will become he or she will

[26:56] become subject to political pressure and

[26:59] be put in a very uncomfortable

[27:00] situation.

[27:02] And also once an exception is granted

[27:05] other people will want exceptions

[27:08] which might be similar but not quite the

[27:10] same. They might claim discrimination if

[27:12] they're not granted the exception at

[27:14] that point.

[27:16] Uh that's all I have to say on that and

[27:19] uh I know that there's going to be a

[27:20] vote on this uh revision to the policy

[27:23] soon. Uh I'd like the council just to

[27:25] remember

[27:27] to my knowledge Orinda is the only city

[27:29] really going down this path. uh many

[27:32] other cities have considered it back in

[27:34] 2017 18 and they all after a while

[27:38] rejected doing anything about it and

[27:40] Arinda is pretty much the only city

[27:42] going ahead with it and is that a good

[27:45] idea or is it raising red flags if

[27:47] everybody else isn't doing it so that's

[27:50] just something to consider um so that's

[27:53] all so please read my communication

[27:56] perhaps speak to councils from the other

[27:58] cities um get some second legal opinions

[28:03] from people you know and um then decide.

[28:07] Thanks.

[28:09] >> Thank you and thank you for coming to

[28:10] » Thank you and thank you for coming to

[28:10] speak tonight. Uh it looks like do we

[28:13] have another speaker on public?

[28:19] » Thank you and good evening.

[28:24] Over

[28:26] the last couple of years,

[28:29] there have been movements

[28:34] uh such as United Against Hate,

[28:39] Californians Against Hate,

[28:43] and the like. And as some of you may

[28:47] recall, I have opposed those for a

[28:50] variety of reasons.

[28:55] » [clears throat]

[28:56] >> My worst fears have been realized

[29:00] » My worst fears have been realized

[29:00] because at

[29:03] the most recent meeting of our local

[29:08] high school board, the Alkalani Union

[29:13] High School District,

[29:17] people

[29:21] spoke up

[29:24] asking the board

[29:27] to ban

[29:30] a student club

[29:35] called Club America,

[29:37] which is an outgrowth of Turning Point

[29:40] USA,

[29:43] founded by the late Charlie Kirk.

[29:47] And

[29:49] this is a community that

[29:52] this when I say this I'm talking about

[29:54] Lamarinda is a community that prides

[29:57] itself ostentatiously as being in

[30:01] support of diversity and inclusion.

[30:05] But what happened at the high school

[30:07] board meeting was that several people

[30:10] spoke at the public forum

[30:13] [snorts] asking the board to ban

[30:17] Club America

[30:20] because they did not like the fact that

[30:22] it was a conservative organization

[30:26] and they

[30:29] pretended

[30:31] that there that this that it was a hate

[30:33] organization.

[30:36] And as you all know, the first amendment

[30:39] provides for freedom of speech and

[30:41] association,

[30:43] freedom for the thought and the speech

[30:45] we hate. Hate speech is constitutionally

[30:48] protected.

[30:50] And when these people spoke against Club

[30:54] America,

[30:56] the people in the audience applauded the

[30:59] speakers asking that that group of

[31:01] students be banned.

[31:04] and Superintendent Nickerson and the

[31:07] members of the school of the high school

[31:09] board did not have the courage

[31:13] to stand up to those people and tell

[31:15] them no, the first amendment allows them

[31:20] to to be a c an onampus club. So I just

[31:26] urge you

[31:28] next time you think about

[31:31] your United Against Hate campaign to

[31:34] reel it in. Thank you.

[31:37] >> Thank you. Is there anyone uh first of

[31:39] » Thank you. Is there anyone uh first of

[31:39] all any comments on that or which I

[31:42] guess we can't really comment. Um

[31:44] anybody else for public for public

[31:45] forum?

[31:47] Great. Seeing none, um we will move to

[31:50] our modified agenda. We're going to do

[31:52] council member and city manager reports

[31:56] uh just to do announcements before we

[31:58] get into the main agenda. Uh does anyone

[32:00] have any meeting or uh other updates

[32:03] they'd like to share?

[32:07] » You you

[32:12] have a little bit of a list. So if you

[32:14] think of one uh hold up your hand by the

[32:15] time I'm done. [laughter]

[32:17] First of all, I just came from the

[32:19] Lamarind to Sunrise Rotary Good

[32:21] Character Awards. Um, you may know those

[32:24] from the newspaper where they take three

[32:26] um standout middle schoolers from each

[32:28] of our middle schoolers, Stanley, um,

[32:32] uh, JM and OIS and uh, and give awards

[32:37] for what they think is outstanding

[32:39] character and um, it was just a

[32:41] wonderful chance to recognize some of

[32:44] our young citizens. Um, we did coffee

[32:47] with the mayor on February 25th where we

[32:50] talked a lot about what's going on in

[32:51] our business community, economic

[32:53] development, some changes in our small

[32:56] business community, and just answered

[32:57] some questions. Um, they did ask

[32:59] questions about what's going on with the

[33:00] BART um funding, and it was just a

[33:03] really nice uh interactive forum. On

[33:06] Saturday this past week, we did our

[33:08] commission and committee interviews uh

[33:10] and look forward to um welcoming some

[33:13] new faces onto our city commissions and

[33:14] committees soon. Um we also got a

[33:18] legislative update from Cal Cities uh

[33:21] last Thursday where we had senators

[33:23] Grayson Mcernney and Rahab come and talk

[33:26] about some of the bills that are coming

[33:27] along this year and um take some

[33:29] questions from people about uh what to

[33:32] expect and what their priorities are.

[33:34] So, it was nice for um I think everybody

[33:36] here tonight was there to hear firsthand

[33:38] what's coming along from Sacramento. Uh

[33:41] and finally, we um I had not done a

[33:45] certificate, but it is Women's History

[33:47] Month in the month of March. And so, uh,

[33:50] since we learned today that the Myati

[33:52] Gym is officially being named the

[33:54] Sabrino, um, UNESCO, uh, gym, I've asked

[33:59] that it be put on our agenda for our

[34:00] next meeting, uh, the second meeting in

[34:02] March to do a little bit of an

[34:04] acknowledgement for what a cool moment

[34:06] that is in women's history to have

[34:08] somebody so special that we get to honor

[34:09] with renaming our gym. Uh, with that, is

[34:12] there anything else that anyone forgot

[34:14] [clears throat] or would like to add?

[34:16] I'll ask the city manager for her

[34:18] reports as well.

[34:19] >> Uh thank you honorable mayor, members of

[34:21] » Uh thank you honorable mayor, members of

[34:21] city council. Uh just a couple of quick

[34:23] updates. Uh this past couple last week

[34:27] we had uh training sessions for Ladis,

[34:29] our evacuation planning tool for

[34:32] residents uh in the audience and those

[34:34] potentially watching at home. You can

[34:35] visit arinda ready.com and um use our

[34:39] evacuation modeling tool to take a look

[34:41] at over a hundred different scenarios

[34:43] for evacuation. Uh the model itself is

[34:46] going to be updated. Uh the consultant

[34:50] Ladress, the company that uh offers the

[34:53] program is making updates to its

[34:55] modeling including embercasting. And so

[34:57] over the next couple of weeks, we'll be

[34:59] including that as part of the public

[35:00] portal as well.

[35:02] Just a quick update on the information

[35:05] related to BART. Uh we did receive some

[35:08] correspondence from BART that after

[35:09] their last work session uh the BART

[35:12] board determined that they were going to

[35:15] apply what they're calling the

[35:16] alternative service framework. A little

[35:18] bit different from what we reported at

[35:20] our last meeting in so much that they

[35:22] are not uh they won't be looking at

[35:25] station closures in the first sort of

[35:28] round. If there is no um revenue measure

[35:32] that either is placed on the ballot or

[35:34] passed in November, they will be looking

[35:36] at service cuts first and then looking

[35:39] to 2027 2028 for station closures. And

[35:43] they've changed their language around

[35:44] station closures to to say that the

[35:46] board will make those decisions about

[35:48] station closures. I think part of what

[35:50] it I've heard is that they really want

[35:53] to see what impact writership impacts

[35:56] there might be from some of those

[35:57] service cuts before they make any

[35:58] decisions about station closure. So, I

[36:00] just wanted to give that update for the

[36:02] public and for the council that that is

[36:04] in fact um what they've reported back to

[36:06] the city. Uh and I will leave it at

[36:10] that.

[36:11] >> Thank you very much. Um

[36:13] » Thank you very much. Um

[36:13] >> mayor, and again I I see that we're

[36:16] » mayor, and again I I see that we're

[36:16] going to have a member of the public who

[36:17] wants to comment on these items. I was

[36:18] just going to ask if we had public

[36:20] comment.

[36:24] » Thank you. Nick Warrenoff speaking.

[36:28] The record should reflect

[36:32] Oh, let me say initially I am pleased to

[36:35] hear that Ladress is going to update

[36:40] their modeling to take into account

[36:42] ember casting.

[36:45] The record should reflect that between

[36:48] the release to the public of the Ladress

[36:51] software and tonight,

[36:54] I have been an extremely vigorous

[36:59] critic of the initial iteration of Ladis

[37:03] specifically because it did not include

[37:08] ember casting.

[37:10] ember casting being that a wildfire

[37:13] casts

[37:15] embers a mile or two ahead of itself.

[37:20] And of course, then those embers start

[37:22] spot fires which can render

[37:26] one or more evacuation routes unusable.

[37:31] And and when that information

[37:35] came to light, I very publicly,

[37:38] frequently,

[37:40] and harshly criticized

[37:44] that product. So I am very glad to hear

[37:48] that that law, which is only one of

[37:52] several, is being remedied.

[37:56] And I [clears throat] am sure that

[37:57] before I get back to my seat in the rear

[38:00] of this auditorium,

[38:02] [snorts] the city manager will tell you

[38:04] that my criticism had absolutely nothing

[38:07] to do with changing

[38:10] with Ladress changing its software.

[38:12] Thank you.

[38:20] Um, with that there are no other

[38:23] comments on the council member and your

[38:26] board said that earlier. Uh, I'm sorry.

[38:30] >> Mic was off. Um, my first uh question is

[38:34] » Mic was off. Um, my first uh question is

[38:34] if anybody has any changes to the items

[38:36] on the consent calendar. Anything you'd

[38:38] like to pull for discussion?

[38:40] >> Mayor, if I could just mention that uh

[38:42] » Mayor, if I could just mention that uh

[38:42] we do have item 5.2 two, which is the

[38:45] ratification of the fire code update. I

[38:46] mentioned I just wanted to mention that

[38:48] Chief Isacs is here in the audience if

[38:50] you had any questions for him prior to

[38:53] the adoption or if you wanted to have

[38:55] him come up and speak quickly. I'm

[38:58] putting him on the spot. He but if you

[39:00] wanted to make any comments about the

[39:02] changes to the fire code. I

[39:05] >> thank you for that opportunity.

[39:07] » thank you for that opportunity.

[39:07] Given that we have the chief here, um I

[39:11] would just love to pull F2 so we can

[39:14] simply give him an opportunity to speak.

[39:16] It's a it's a joy to have him. He's in

[39:20] the upper right corner trying to hide.

[39:22] >> I was [laughter] You knew he wouldn't

[39:24] » I was [laughter] You knew he wouldn't

[39:24] miss that. Um real quickly, uh Chief

[39:27] Isaac, we're going to vote on the other

[39:29] consent calendar items and then we're

[39:30] going to do your F2. Uh a few words,

[39:34] please. Um, so with that, uh, do I have

[39:37] a motion on, and I would just note for

[39:39] the record that we did get a public

[39:40] comment on F2 in writing. Um, if items

[39:44] F1, F3, and F4, do we have a motion to

[39:47] adopt? So moved. Do I have a second?

[39:50] >> Seconded.

[39:51] » Seconded.

[39:51] >> Roll call vote, please. City clerk.

[39:55] » Roll call vote, please. City clerk.

[39:55] >> Council member McConnie.

[39:57] » Council member McConnie.

[39:57] >> I. Vice Mayor G.

[39:59] » I. Vice Mayor G.

[39:59] >> I.

[40:00] » I.

[40:00] >> Council member Hawky.

[40:02] » Council member Hawky.

[40:02] >> I. Mayor Iverson.

[40:04] » I. Mayor Iverson.

[40:04] >> I thank you. And with that on I will

[40:07] » I thank you. And with that on I will

[40:07] bring item F2 up and we'll uh invite

[40:09] Chief Isacs to please uh just say a few

[40:11] words.

[40:14] >> Mayor, council members, thank you for

[40:15] » Mayor, council members, thank you for

[40:15] the opportunity to speak tonight. Every

[40:18] 3 years, the state of California updates

[40:20] the fire code. They require that we um

[40:24] make any modifications to the fire code

[40:26] and then we update it. because we're a

[40:28] fire district, we have to take it to

[40:30] both the city and the town as well as

[40:32] the county for ratification. Um, we do

[40:35] make amendments to our local fire code.

[40:38] Uh, the majority of those amendments

[40:40] have been in place since 2020. Um, the

[40:43] only changes we really made to it where

[40:45] we took some of the stuff out where the

[40:47] state fire code has caught up to us. The

[40:50] other um big item or topic for the fire

[40:53] code this year is the adoption of the

[40:55] California WOOI code. So traditionally

[40:58] the WOOI standards were found in three

[41:01] of the code books, the building code,

[41:03] residential code, and fire code. So, the

[41:05] state finally kind of got smart and they

[41:08] pulled all those requirements out of

[41:10] those individual code books and placed

[41:13] it into uh one code, the wildland urban

[41:17] interface code that is before you this

[41:19] evening. That is a new code. Um we did a

[41:22] couple um modifications to that just to

[41:25] streamline some language. It deals with

[41:28] construction standards. It deals with

[41:31] access uh water standards and also

[41:33] defensible space standards. Once the

[41:36] state finally decides on what they're

[41:38] going to do uh with zone zero, the fire

[41:40] marshall worked uh very closely with

[41:43] town and city staff as well as the

[41:45] county fire marshall group to make sure

[41:48] that we were aligned in as many areas as

[41:51] we could countywide. And that's the

[41:53] document that you have before you this

[41:55] evening. Um happy to answer any

[41:57] questions that you may have.

[42:01] I had one question. Um, there's the

[42:04] general principle that our local code

[42:07] can be more restrictive but not less

[42:08] than restrictive than the state code.

[42:11] Was there anything in these amendments

[42:12] where we opted for something a little

[42:14] bit uh different or more restricted

[42:16] restrictive than the state recommended

[42:18] standards?

[42:19] >> Uh, yes ma'am. all the modifications

[42:22] » Uh, yes ma'am. all the modifications

[42:22] that we put into the code uh road with

[42:24] standards. Um and I'm sorry I forgot to

[42:27] bring our code with us or with me this

[42:30] evening, but there were certain areas

[42:32] that we do go a little more restrictive.

[42:34] The one that really uh two that jump out

[42:36] at me, the under eve uh sprinklers for

[42:38] new construction and the road with uh

[42:41] the state code is 20 foot for a new

[42:43] road. We go 28 ft because we use that

[42:46] road as a fire break um in areas of the

[42:49] district. So we also allow for

[42:51] modification. So if a developer was

[42:54] coming in and said, "Hey, for X reasons,

[42:57] I can't meet that 28 foot road width."

[42:59] We can work with them to grant

[43:01] modifications.

[43:05] » And just for clarity, uh first of all,

[43:08] thank you Chief Isaac for being here. Um

[43:10] and just for clarity, because I know

[43:12] there's been a lot of talk and a lot of

[43:14] buzz in our community about when is zone

[43:17] zero coming, what will it mean locally?

[43:19] Um these amendments so far there have

[43:23] been no modifications to MOFD's fire

[43:25] code around zone zero. Is that correct?

[43:27] >> That is correct. Uh ordinance 2303 and

[43:30] » That is correct. Uh ordinance 2303 and

[43:30] 2303 or 2308 still stand. We have not

[43:34] made any changes. We have the two-foot

[43:36] non-combustible zone, not the 5- foot

[43:39] that uh the state's going to implement

[43:41] with zone zero. We have no update when

[43:43] the state's going to pick that topic

[43:45] back up.

[43:46] And but potentially if the state were to

[43:50] require it, that would mean changes

[43:52] locally as well.

[43:54] >> Potentially.

[43:54] » Potentially.

[43:54] >> Potentially. Yes. And

[43:56] » Potentially. Yes. And

[43:56] >> I'm saying this because our residents

[43:57] » I'm saying this because our residents

[43:57] may be looking to landscape and in when

[44:00] folks are doing that, you know, I would

[44:02] hate for someone to landscape keeping in

[44:04] mind a two twoft barrier and then, you

[44:07] know, six months or a year later have to

[44:09] rellandscape. So it's something I I

[44:12] assume we should be thinking about.

[44:13] >> Yes, ma'am.

[44:17] Uh, were there any other comments or

[44:19] questions? With that, I would and thank

[44:21] you very much for taking the time to be

[44:23] here tonight, Chief. Thank you.

[44:24] >> Um, do we have a motion to adopt F2?

[44:29] » Um, do we have a motion to adopt F2?

[44:29] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, do we have any public

[44:31] » Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, do we have any public

[44:31] comment on F2?

[44:34] >> Seeing none, do we have a motion to

[44:36] » Seeing none, do we have a motion to

[44:36] adopt F2?

[44:38] >> I'll move adoption of item F2.

[44:41] » I'll move adoption of item F2.

[44:41] >> Do I have a second?

[44:44] » Do I have a second?

[44:44] Council member Hawky, we're cold calling

[44:45] you. Would you like to

[44:46] >> second? Yes, absolutely.

[44:47] » second? Yes, absolutely.

[44:47] >> Make sure you're keeping your mute on.

[44:50] » Make sure you're keeping your mute on.

[44:50] Great. Roll call vote, please. City

[44:52] clerk. Council member McConn.

[44:56] Hawky

[44:57] >> I.

[44:58] » I.

[44:58] >> Gee,

[44:59] » Gee,

[44:59] >> I and I. Thank you. And with that, uh,

[45:02] » I and I. Thank you. And with that, uh,

[45:02] the consent calendar is now fully passed

[45:04] and we will move on to policy matters.

[45:08] Item H1 is our city of Arinda 2026

[45:11] legislative platform. And I'll ask the

[45:13] city manager if this is her category.

[45:15] >> Yes. Um um honorable mayor, members of

[45:17] » Yes. Um um honorable mayor, members of

[45:17] the council, this one from a staff

[45:18] perspective would be very quick. Last

[45:20] year, the council adopted its first

[45:23] legislative platform. Uh it's time for

[45:25] updating uh that platform for the new

[45:28] year. Uh the city worked with its

[45:30] consultant towns uh public affairs to

[45:33] put together an updated uh framework

[45:36] that's pretty or platform rather. It is

[45:39] very similar to last year's platform

[45:41] with a few redline changes that we're

[45:43] showing as an attachment to your staff

[45:45] report. But to summarize some of the

[45:47] areas where we were trying to refine uh

[45:50] some of our support and opposition

[45:52] positions, the first being supporting

[45:54] limits on the application of builder's

[45:56] remedy once a housing element has been

[45:58] certified.

[45:59] Supporting tools to address long-term

[46:01] vacant commercial properties.

[46:04] promoting pedestrian and ebike safety,

[46:06] including helmet and age appropriate

[46:08] operation requirements and supporting

[46:10] clarification of local authority to

[46:12] assess service related fees for street

[46:15] maintenance and supporting the

[46:17] sustainability enhancement of BART

[46:19] service at the Arinda station and

[46:21] opposing any service reductions,

[46:23] changes, or funding reallocations that

[46:25] would adversely affect the current level

[46:27] of service at that station. So, with

[46:29] that, I will turn it back over to the

[46:31] city council. See if you have any

[46:33] questions for me. I believe that Casey,

[46:37] our representative from Townsen Public

[46:38] Affairs is joining us via Zoom. If you

[46:40] have any questions for Casey, I'll note

[46:42] that the legislative session has uh the

[46:45] bill introduction period has concluded.

[46:47] Uh Casey and the Townsen team and the

[46:50] city staff will be working to go through

[46:53] uh the pieces of legislation that have

[46:55] been proposed and determine the city's

[46:57] position based on

[46:58] the council's adoption of this updated

[47:01] legislative platform.

[47:03] And with that, I'll turn it back over to

[47:04] the council for any questions.

[47:09] » Does anyone have any uh questions or

[47:10] comments that Well, actually, let's do

[47:12] questions, then we'll do public comment.

[47:15] Yes, please.

[47:18] Um my question is um thi this is

[47:21] Arinda's legislative platform but I want

[47:24] I'm assuming that it it mirrors to some

[47:28] extent the

[47:31] um the lawinda effort of working

[47:35] together.

[47:36] >> Yes. So earlier uh I believe right

[47:38] » Yes. So earlier uh I believe right

[47:38] before the beginning of the year we

[47:39] brought you a a lawinda framework that

[47:41] the council took a look at. It's more

[47:44] narrow than what we're proposing for the

[47:47] citywide platform uh and reflects the

[47:50] cooperation and and the mutual um areas

[47:54] for the three cities town and city of

[47:57] Lafayette and town of Maraga. And um so

[48:00] that that effort is underway just

[48:02] getting kicked off because Moraga took

[48:05] their framework back to the council at

[48:07] the end of January. So, we're just

[48:08] kicking off the regional um efforts with

[48:12] KC at Towns and Public Affairs as well.

[48:14] Um there's no conflicts between the two

[48:17] lists uh from what's on the platform and

[48:19] what's on the framework, but certainly

[48:21] this is more exhaustive than what's on

[48:22] the framework. The framework really

[48:23] tries to hone in on sort of core

[48:25] regional issues. transportation, housing

[48:27] are the ones I can come off the top of

[48:29] my head, but um just in case the

[48:32] community was curious, there's there

[48:35] might be certain overlap, but there's no

[48:37] nothing that's conflicting between the

[48:40] two platforms.

[48:44] This is maybe a little bit more of a

[48:46] comment but sort of a followup to the

[48:48] question and that is given the timing

[48:50] and I know that when we had the the

[48:52] Lamarinda framework it hadn't really

[48:55] happened yet but I I think it it would

[48:58] be good um in my opinion if if the

[49:03] Lamarinda framework would also um

[49:07] support the BART um part of what's in

[49:11] the platform.

[49:13] I'll have to take a look and see if

[49:14] there's broad enough language in there.

[49:17] The thought of trying to recirculate

[49:18] this to three elected bodies for

[49:21] readoption, it doesn't

[49:23] >> Yeah, I I'm

[49:24] » Yeah, I I'm

[49:24] >> something I would be looking forward to,

[49:25] » something I would be looking forward to,

[49:25] but let me see if there's a way to

[49:27] incorporate it under the current

[49:29] framework.

[49:29] >> It would certainly be nice to um have

[49:32] » It would certainly be nice to um have

[49:32] our combined support. I'm sure I know

[49:34] from talking to um everyone that we do,

[49:38] but it would be nice to make it um you

[49:41] know codified. So,

[49:43] >> okay. Are there any other questions?

[49:46] » okay. Are there any other questions?

[49:46] >> Yes, please.

[49:49] » Yes, please.

[49:49] >> Uh let's go. Uh Council Member Hawky and

[49:51] » Uh let's go. Uh Council Member Hawky and

[49:51] then uh Mel County, please.

[49:54] >> I'm wondering if you could tell us more

[49:56] » I'm wondering if you could tell us more

[49:56] about any legislation that's been

[49:58] introduced on the vacancy uh issue.

[50:02] I'm sorry, I didn't hear the on what

[50:04] issue.

[50:04] >> If any legislation is uh being

[50:07] » If any legislation is uh being

[50:07] introduced or considered about vacancies

[50:09] and what what can be done about vacant

[50:11] storefronts?

[50:12] >> I don't I'd have to ask Casey. We

[50:14] » I don't I'd have to ask Casey. We

[50:14] haven't done our deep dive yet on the

[50:16] bills that were introduced in the LA by

[50:18] February 20th. So, um I don't know Casey

[50:22] if you can think of any bills that have

[50:24] addressed long-term vacancies.

[50:27] >> Yeah. Uh Casey Elliott with Towns and

[50:29] » Yeah. Uh Casey Elliott with Towns and

[50:29] Public Affairs. um based on the bills

[50:33] that were introduced as of last of as of

[50:35] the 20th. I'm not aware of any that

[50:38] directly speak to the vacancy rate. I I

[50:41] would have to double check though. Um

[50:44] just to confirm. Additionally, there are

[50:46] about 600 spot bills. So, um probably in

[50:51] the next 2 to 3 weeks, we'll have a

[50:53] little bit better of an idea of all of

[50:54] the those policy proposals as they get

[50:57] fleshed out. But uh I'm happy to take a

[50:59] look at that and and get the information

[51:00] to you through staff.

[51:02] >> Thank you.

[51:04] » Thank you.

[51:04] >> Thank you. And council member Malcani,

[51:06] » Thank you. And council member Malcani,

[51:06] actually council member Hawky, did you

[51:07] have any other questions?

[51:08] >> No, thank you. Not this.

[51:10] » No, thank you. Not this.

[51:10] >> Council member Malcani. Yeah, there were

[51:12] » Council member Malcani. Yeah, there were

[51:12] I was just hoping that Casey or someone

[51:14] could speak to why there were some items

[51:17] that were removed

[51:20] and whether that was to be consistent

[51:22] with sort of and I was sort of wondering

[51:24] is that in terms of the changes which

[51:28] ones are consistent generally with sort

[51:30] of Cal City's platform or was it a

[51:35] regional effort? um or you know

[51:38] sometimes I see I see some things are

[51:40] sort of to keep up with existing

[51:43] uh bills in law.

[51:46] >> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm happy to take a a stab

[51:48] » Yeah, I'm I'm I'm happy to take a a stab

[51:48] at that. Council member, um several of

[51:51] the items that um are are stricken, for

[51:54] example, in the parks and community

[51:55] services section, those were actually

[51:58] repurposed and put into the public works

[52:00] section and and just some areas that

[52:02] felt maybe a little bit more appropriate

[52:04] for the specific items. um some of the

[52:06] the um SP 1383 items um just got shifted

[52:10] around. So So that was kind of more of a

[52:13] a formatting cleanup than um than than

[52:16] the substantive change. Um there were a

[52:18] couple of additional changes um where

[52:21] the platform uh spoke to maybe more of a

[52:24] federal or a state local or excuse me a

[52:27] state impact and not as much impacts on

[52:29] on the on the city. So those are some of

[52:32] the more uh kind of um surgical red

[52:35] lines if [clears throat] you will where

[52:36] it it those are more kind of some of the

[52:38] language modifications. Um so I think

[52:42] that covers the bulk of the strikeouts.

[52:46] I don't think that there was um anything

[52:50] that was pulled out because legislation

[52:54] addressed it. Um I think it's more just

[52:57] all kind of formatting and structural.

[53:00] >> Okay. And then what about there was it

[53:02] » Okay. And then what about there was it

[53:02] was removal of language

[53:05] in the community and economic

[53:08] development section. Maybe it was put

[53:10] elsewhere and I I failed to recognize

[53:12] that. But um item 11, it aims to achieve

[53:15] fair and proportionate representation on

[53:17] countywide and regional boards. Was that

[53:19] a legal update or no? No,

[53:23] >> I'm trying to find it.

[53:28] I'm looking at a strikeout on on I think

[53:32] it's

[53:35] H1 packet page 132. 132.

[53:44] My recollection is is that was one that

[53:47] kind of felt fell into the category of

[53:51] not necessarily being as city specific,

[53:53] but to the to that more more regional

[53:56] and countywide, I I don't believe there

[53:58] was a specific

[54:01] conversation about about broader than

[54:04] that of of that necessitated the removal

[54:06] of that item.

[54:12] » Yeah. I don't I don't recall why we took

[54:15] that out other than we didn't

[54:18] um

[54:22] we weren't sort of monitoring the I

[54:24] guess the states

[54:26] >> countywide and regional. So it would be

[54:27] » countywide and regional. So it would be

[54:28] >> regional and countywide boards process.

[54:31] » regional and countywide boards process.

[54:31] So I guess I just want to confirm that

[54:32] by taking it out the the understanding

[54:35] there is is more that it's it's

[54:38] something that extends to a jurisdiction

[54:41] beyond Arinda as opposed to a com we're

[54:44] not saying that we're not committed to

[54:46] fair um representation on countywide and

[54:49] regional boards because that was I think

[54:51] is something that's very important but

[54:52] it would be something that would be

[54:53] addressed through for example the

[54:54] Contraosta mayor's conference or um you

[54:58] know but but we do make our own

[54:59] appointments and so for that reason. I

[55:01] guess I would like to leave it in. But

[55:03] okay,

[55:06] but I don't have, you know, I could be

[55:08] persuaded, but I I could be persuaded as

[55:11] long as we are recognizing that it is a

[55:13] priority. I don't know that it needs to

[55:15] be in the legislative platform, but I do

[55:17] think it should be a priority.

[55:19] >> Um, we're still doing questions, so not

[55:22] » Um, we're still doing questions, so not

[55:22] going to comment on that yet. Um, are

[55:23] there any other questions? Um, uh, I had

[55:27] one, um, for Casey there. There was some

[55:30] advocacy letters that we got recently

[55:32] and I I didn't really do much to forward

[55:36] them but about uh landslides being

[55:38] included in uh disaster relief. Uh that

[55:42] that would be a category that could be

[55:44] covered in some cities in Southern

[55:45] California were trying to maybe get um a

[55:48] coalition of cities who were similarly

[55:50] uh potentially affected. Is that

[55:53] something that is somewhere in this

[55:55] platform or should we consider adding

[55:57] that?

[56:02] » Um

[56:05] there are there is a broad category

[56:08] under public health and safety. Um it's

[56:11] it's under funding opportunities but

[56:14] relates to disaster large scale disaster

[56:17] preparedness initiatives. Um, but I

[56:20] don't believe there's anything in here

[56:21] that gets quite down to the level of

[56:23] specificity related to um, landslides

[56:27] other than kind of broadly being in in

[56:29] disaster preparedness measures.

[56:33] >> Okay. Um, with that, um, I think we'll

[56:37] » Okay. Um, with that, um, I think we'll

[56:37] go to public comment and then we'll

[56:38] bring it up for discussion.

[56:41] Looks like we have, um, at least one

[56:43] public comment. I don't have any written

[56:44] speaker cards.

[56:46] I did not have time to fill out a

[56:49] speaker card because I was late getting

[56:51] here from my oldest granddaughter's

[56:53] softball practice. Sorry. I'll notify

[56:57] the clerk of my contact information.

[57:03] My public comment is that I would

[57:06] request that tonight somebody give us an

[57:10] overview

[57:12] of the process of

[57:15] how Towns and works for the city

[57:21] and particularly [clears throat] in

[57:22] terms of the communication. So for

[57:24] example, Madame Mayor, you mentioned you

[57:26] received some position letters. I'm just

[57:30] wondering if those are if if there's any

[57:33] public notice process or if that's to

[57:37] whatever if if they're publicly

[57:40] available.

[57:42] Uh if there's some place on the city

[57:44] website where somebody can uh see what's

[57:48] going on, someone who wants to keep up

[57:50] with legislation. So for example, if

[57:53] towns and note alerts the city that

[57:57] Scott Weiner has introduced some new

[57:59] bill to deincorporate Arinda,

[58:04] would Town Townsen notify the city and

[58:09] would that be a matter that someone

[58:12] could just sign up for an alert like we

[58:15] get alerts for meetings or do we have to

[58:18] do a weekly public records act request

[58:21] to see what's come in over the transom.

[58:25] I would just like and I think other

[58:27] people might be interested in how the

[58:30] process

[58:32] works. Do they draft the position

[58:34] letters and send them to you for

[58:36] signature? Is there collaboration?

[58:38] Uh how does the whole thing work? That

[58:42] is my request, my public comment is that

[58:45] someone give us a threeinut speech on

[58:48] how it works and what's available and

[58:50] where. Thank you.

[58:54] » First, I'll ask if there is any other

[58:56] public comment on this item.

[58:59] With that, we'll close the public

[59:00] portion of this and bring it back for

[59:02] discussion. I'd ask if the city manager

[59:03] would like to address anything that's

[59:04] been brought up so far.

[59:05] >> Um, first I'll start with Vice Mayor G's

[59:08] » Um, first I'll start with Vice Mayor G's

[59:08] question about the framework. Uh, the

[59:11] current lawinda framework as it relates

[59:13] to transportation and related

[59:15] infrastructure talks about two things.

[59:18] one it says the coalition looks to

[59:20] encourage and support federal and state

[59:22] actions that invest in local public

[59:25] infrastructure projects with regional

[59:27] benefits. Uh it also goes on to note

[59:31] that uh the framework would ex uh

[59:34] support expanding local transit

[59:37] microtransit bus services and emerging

[59:39] transit opportunities. So I think under

[59:41] that heading in that context that would

[59:43] be enough for the region to talk with

[59:47] one voice on the matter related to BART.

[59:51] Uh if the council is interested in me

[59:53] doing what the public speaker asked

[59:56] which is just a summary of how um we

[59:59] work with towns and I'm happy to do that

[1:00:01] as well.

[1:00:02] >> I think that would be for the public

[1:00:03] » I think that would be for the public

[1:00:03] benefit if you wouldn't mind just

[1:00:04] quickly addressing um how this all

[1:00:07] works.

[1:00:07] >> Sure. So, the towns and public affairs

[1:00:10] » Sure. So, the towns and public affairs

[1:00:10] team, Casey in particular, and I meet

[1:00:13] every other week uh via uh teams um

[1:00:16] online meeting uh where we talk about a

[1:00:19] variety of topics including bill

[1:00:21] introduction, timing, we talk about the

[1:00:23] appropriations process. Uh we talk about

[1:00:27] uh support and oppose matters uh when

[1:00:31] legislation is in front of us. Uh we

[1:00:33] discuss the regional group. and we

[1:00:36] discuss um

[1:00:40] trying to think what else we discuss.

[1:00:41] Those are the kind of the core pieces of

[1:00:43] advocacy visits to Sacramento. Uh that's

[1:00:46] also on the list and in fact uh there

[1:00:48] will be the city summit in April and we

[1:00:52] would be up in Sacramento and we're

[1:00:55] looking to plan an advocacy day up there

[1:00:58] as well. Uh the letters are largely

[1:01:02] crafted from towns and any support and

[1:01:04] opposition letters sent over to city

[1:01:06] staff for review. Staff reviews the

[1:01:08] letters and then we send them to the

[1:01:10] mayor for consideration of signature. Uh

[1:01:13] if I'm unable to get a hold of the mayor

[1:01:15] in a timely fashion uh that I'm

[1:01:17] authorized under the framework to or

[1:01:19] under the platform to sign those letters

[1:01:21] myself. So in some cases that at least

[1:01:25] one case that's happened. Um and then we

[1:01:29] submit those to Casey. Casey submits

[1:01:31] those to the portal and the state for

[1:01:33] the various committees that are

[1:01:35] reviewing bills uh so that our positions

[1:01:38] are on record.

[1:01:41] That'll do my summary. Thank you. And

[1:01:44] with that, I'll ask if there um if

[1:01:46] anybody on the council would like to

[1:01:47] lead off with their comments.

[1:01:51] We will cold call the remote person if

[1:01:53] uh if one's jumping in. [clears throat]

[1:01:56] That's fine. Um I I think it's a good

[1:01:59] platform. I like um particularly the

[1:02:02] BART uh bullet point and the vacancies

[1:02:06] bullet point. I think we have discussed

[1:02:08] the ebike issues and I'm glad to see

[1:02:11] that that is going to be addressed at

[1:02:13] the state level because it seems

[1:02:15] difficult for us to address it at a city

[1:02:17] level without some state changes in

[1:02:19] legislation. Um so I think this is a

[1:02:22] good platform for this year. I'm in

[1:02:23] favor of it.

[1:02:26] Thank you. Uh, Council Member Malcani, I

[1:02:28] think you were

[1:02:29] >> Yeah, I mean, I did think there were a

[1:02:31] » Yeah, I mean, I did think there were a

[1:02:31] couple provisions where it went into a

[1:02:33] specificity that I you don't usually see

[1:02:36] on a platform like when we already talk

[1:02:39] about ebike safety. Of course, safety to

[1:02:42] me means helmets and safety equipment,

[1:02:45] but to specifically mention it in the

[1:02:47] platform seemed um unusual. I guess I

[1:02:52] maybe it's more of a question for you

[1:02:53] know for Casey from Townsend. Is that

[1:02:55] something that we typically see in

[1:02:56] platforms? Is that to be consistent with

[1:02:59] sort of Cal? So, some of the changes

[1:03:01] surprised me and again I I don't really

[1:03:04] see the reason to I mean I I was I guess

[1:03:08] you know for the community and economic

[1:03:11] development former item 11 we had I mean

[1:03:15] again this is like you know parsing out

[1:03:17] the details now but um we were given a

[1:03:20] red line so um

[1:03:24] item 11 was removed and it previously ly

[1:03:30] said that it was part that, you know,

[1:03:33] staff recommends that city support state

[1:03:36] or federal legislation

[1:03:38] that aims to achieve fair and

[1:03:41] proportionate representation on

[1:03:42] countywide and regional boards. And I

[1:03:44] would think we would want to continue

[1:03:45] supporting that. So, I would want to

[1:03:46] leave it in. So, that's the only thing I

[1:03:49] like the two items that sort of stood

[1:03:51] out to me. I also thought the BART the

[1:03:53] BART thing is really important to our

[1:03:55] region. So, I'm fine with including it,

[1:03:56] but it also seemed, you know, it's very

[1:03:58] it's very specific and I think the prior

[1:04:00] platform included it. So, I guess the

[1:04:03] level of specificity

[1:04:05] I I just

[1:04:07] um

[1:04:10] thought is atypical of what I've seen in

[1:04:12] alleged platform before, but I'm not

[1:04:14] opposed to what it says specifically, so

[1:04:16] I don't have a a problem with what's

[1:04:18] stated.

[1:04:21] Vice Mayor Chief.

[1:04:23] >> No, I I'm I'm fine with it. I mean, I

[1:04:25] » No, I I'm I'm fine with it. I mean, I

[1:04:25] think overall for what it is and what

[1:04:27] it's intended to be in terms of our

[1:04:29] priorities, I'm I'm supportive. I think

[1:04:32] it captures a lot of the, as Council

[1:04:34] Member Hawky said, I think it captures a

[1:04:36] lot of the key items that have been, you

[1:04:39] know, raised lately and fall into this

[1:04:41] arena. So, I'm supportive.

[1:04:44] >> Thank you. Um, I have a few notes. Um, I

[1:04:48] » Thank you. Um, I have a few notes. Um, I

[1:04:48] had a million questions and red lines on

[1:04:51] this when I first read it and the city

[1:04:54] manager explained uh to me and it it

[1:04:57] really helped me understand that, you

[1:04:58] know, because I felt like our priorities

[1:05:00] were getting subsumed in all of this

[1:05:03] laundry list of any issue that might

[1:05:05] come up. And and the way the city

[1:05:06] manager explained it is by having this

[1:05:09] list, anything that comes in asking for

[1:05:11] us to just give our support at the state

[1:05:13] or county level, they know that they can

[1:05:16] write a letter of support because it's

[1:05:18] in this laundry list. So, you know, in

[1:05:22] the the frequent meetings and and

[1:05:25] check-ins between towns and and the city

[1:05:28] manager and um and other groups that

[1:05:31] represent us, they know the priorities.

[1:05:33] They know the top three. And so the fact

[1:05:35] that this is kind of the whole kitchen

[1:05:37] sink, it is not getting lost about where

[1:05:39] our focus and priorities are. And it was

[1:05:41] just that if we don't include something,

[1:05:43] it might have to come to us um to ask

[1:05:47] what our position is. So that helped me

[1:05:50] relax. And in the spirit of I think Vice

[1:05:52] [clears throat] Mayor G's comment of

[1:05:53] like this is good. I don't want to go

[1:05:56] messing with the red line because if you

[1:05:57] open up that red line, I'm going to have

[1:05:59] a lot more things that are not ainda

[1:06:02] issues. there's state issues and there's

[1:06:04] all the specificity on things that are,

[1:06:06] you know, representative of ours that

[1:06:08] are their agendas and we support them

[1:06:10] because we support them. But I I really

[1:06:13] don't want to start getting the red pen

[1:06:14] out. Um the other comment I would make

[1:06:16] though is I don't want this to be like

[1:06:17] the tax code where we only add and we

[1:06:20] never subtract. And so I don't want to

[1:06:21] be afraid of something maybe was a

[1:06:25] specific issue last year or the year

[1:06:26] before. It was maybe some legislation in

[1:06:28] progress that got done. Um, so I I am

[1:06:34] inclined to trust the recommendations

[1:06:36] that came from towns and the city

[1:06:38] manager on what is added and subtracted.

[1:06:42] Um, that's just my inclination as we

[1:06:44] look at this.

[1:06:45] Um, and I would just mention that the

[1:06:47] landside uh re as disaster relief um

[1:06:51] might be something um to look at uh to

[1:06:55] talk to our friends in Southern

[1:06:56] California because I remember when we

[1:06:58] had a landslide issue here, the disaster

[1:07:01] relief uh was not available um at least

[1:07:05] without some uh insurance stuff. So,

[1:07:07] that's just something that it's not a

[1:07:09] live issue, but maybe a longer term one.

[1:07:12] Um were there any other questions or

[1:07:14] comments? Uh, and if not, do we have a

[1:07:16] motion?

[1:07:17] >> I guess I just if I don't know if if

[1:07:19] » I guess I just if I don't know if if

[1:07:19] that one item did Casey, do you have any

[1:07:22] insights on why we're taking that out?

[1:07:28] » So, yeah, that

[1:07:32] >> not beyond kind of the regional nature

[1:07:33] » not beyond kind of the regional nature

[1:07:33] of the of the measure. I don't think

[1:07:34] there was a specific

[1:07:36] >> That's fine.

[1:07:38] » That's fine.

[1:07:38] >> We we have a long agenda with [laughter]

[1:07:40] » We we have a long agenda with [laughter]

[1:07:40] it. If there is a if there I let me just

[1:07:43] ask this because this is the time to

[1:07:44] talk about it since it's before us. If

[1:07:46] there is any state or federalation

[1:07:48] federal legislation pending that deals

[1:07:51] with the issue of having fair uh

[1:07:54] representation on on you know regional

[1:07:58] boards. Can you make sure that uh the

[1:08:00] city of made aware of it so we have an

[1:08:02] opportunity to chime in as to whether or

[1:08:03] not we'd support it because I don't want

[1:08:05] it to not be on our radar because we're

[1:08:07] deleting it from our platform.

[1:08:10] That's all. But with that, I would move

[1:08:14] to adopt the if there's unless there's

[1:08:16] more discussion. I don't think there is.

[1:08:18] So, uh, I think we have a motion. Do we

[1:08:20] have a second?

[1:08:21] >> I'll second.

[1:08:23] » I'll second.

[1:08:23] >> Great. Uh, may we [clears throat] have a

[1:08:24] » Great. Uh, may we [clears throat] have a

[1:08:24] roll call vote, please? Congi.

[1:08:27] >> Oxy.

[1:08:28] » Oxy.

[1:08:28] >> I.

[1:08:29] » I.

[1:08:29] >> G.

[1:08:30] » G.

[1:08:30] >> I.

[1:08:30] » I.

[1:08:30] >> And Iverson.

[1:08:31] » And Iverson.

[1:08:31] >> I. Thank you.

[1:08:32] » I. Thank you.

[1:08:32] >> Motion passes unanimously and we go to

[1:08:35] » Motion passes unanimously and we go to

[1:08:35] item and uh, thank you Casey for joining

[1:08:37] us tonight. Uh we'll go to item H2, the

[1:08:40] infrastructure committee report on

[1:08:42] activities including the framework for

[1:08:43] acceptance of private roads. Um I am not

[1:08:46] sure who is presenting this. Is the

[1:08:48] subcommittee going to present or the

[1:08:49] city manager?

[1:08:50] >> So I'll kick us off and then I'll turn

[1:08:51] » So I'll kick us off and then I'll turn

[1:08:51] it back over to the infrastructure

[1:08:53] subcommittee. So

[1:08:57] >> So before uh we get started um council

[1:09:01] » So before uh we get started um council

[1:09:01] member Hawky wants to make a statement.

[1:09:04] >> Thank you. I wanted to take a moment to

[1:09:06] » Thank you. I wanted to take a moment to

[1:09:06] note for the record that the home my

[1:09:09] husband and I own in Arinda is located

[1:09:10] on a privately maintained road. That

[1:09:13] road is a culde-sac serving

[1:09:15] approximately seven homes. We are not

[1:09:18] part of an HOA. Historically, we and our

[1:09:21] neighbors have cooperated as needed to

[1:09:23] arrange and fund maintenance of our

[1:09:25] road. Our road was not offered for

[1:09:27] dedication to the public when it was

[1:09:29] created by subdivision map and was never

[1:09:31] accepted for maintenance by the city or

[1:09:34] county. Because the city's policy

[1:09:36] regarding privately maintained roads

[1:09:38] could ultimately impact my property, I

[1:09:41] considered carefully whether I should

[1:09:43] participate in this discussion. I

[1:09:45] learned that the FPPC has something

[1:09:48] called the public generally rule,

[1:09:50] regulation 18703,

[1:09:53] that allows officials like me to take

[1:09:54] part in a governmental decision that

[1:09:56] affects their financial interest,

[1:09:59] provided that the effect on the

[1:10:00] officials interest is indistinguishable

[1:10:02] from the effect on the public generally.

[1:10:05] This standard is met if a significant

[1:10:07] segment of the public is affected and

[1:10:10] the effect on the official is not

[1:10:11] unique. where as in my situation the

[1:10:14] financial issue interest at issue as a

[1:10:17] primary residence the phrase significant

[1:10:19] segment of the public means at least 15%

[1:10:22] of residential property within the

[1:10:24] jurisdiction

[1:10:25] I worked with city staff to evaluate my

[1:10:27] parcel's private road situation and

[1:10:30] found it is relatively common in Arinda

[1:10:33] for example approximately 22% of

[1:10:36] Arinda's residential properties are on

[1:10:38] privately maintained roads of various

[1:10:40] types approximately ly 19% of Arinda's

[1:10:44] residential properties are like mine on

[1:10:46] privately maintained roads that were not

[1:10:49] dedicated for public use on a

[1:10:51] subdivision map and approximately 20% of

[1:10:55] Arinda's residential properties are like

[1:10:58] mine on privately maintained culde-sac

[1:11:00] roads not through roads considering

[1:11:03] those characteristics of my property I

[1:11:06] believe it satisfies the 15% threshold

[1:11:08] for applicability for the FPVPC's public

[1:11:12] generally rule. So, I've concluded that

[1:11:14] I may generally participate in the

[1:11:17] council's policy discussions regarding

[1:11:19] private roads. I plan to do so while

[1:11:22] staying alert to potential conflicts of

[1:11:25] interest that might arise depending on

[1:11:27] how the council's discussion proceeds.

[1:11:29] For example, at this point, I do not

[1:11:32] know whether my neighbors and I would

[1:11:34] ever request that the city accept our

[1:11:36] street into the its publicly maintained

[1:11:38] system, but if such a specific request

[1:11:40] were to come before the city while I am

[1:11:43] on the council, I would recuse myself.

[1:11:46] Similarly, I would recuse myself if the

[1:11:48] council discusses whether the city's

[1:11:50] policy should differentiate between

[1:11:53] privately maintained roads based on

[1:11:55] whether they are serviced by an HOA or

[1:11:57] homeowners association or other similar

[1:11:59] entity. As I noted, my property is on a

[1:12:03] privately maintained road not serviced

[1:12:05] by an HOA. City staff have calculated

[1:12:08] that approximately 13% of residential

[1:12:11] properties in Arinda share that in

[1:12:13] common with mine which is below the

[1:12:16] FPPPC's 15% threshold for the public

[1:12:19] generally rule which raises a problem

[1:12:22] for tonight's conversation because of

[1:12:25] bullet point two in the staff report

[1:12:28] which differentiates those roads on an

[1:12:31] that are maintained by an HOA and those

[1:12:33] that are not. So, what I'd like to do,

[1:12:36] mayor, if it's all right with you, is

[1:12:38] recuse myself at the beginning of the

[1:12:40] conversation while you discuss that

[1:12:42] particular point regarding HOA

[1:12:45] maintained roads versus all of the

[1:12:48] privately maintained roads, and I'll

[1:12:50] wait for a city manager or city attorney

[1:12:53] to text me and tell me I can rejoin the

[1:12:55] conversation. Does that sound

[1:12:57] reasonable?

[1:12:59] >> Maybe. Um, I know this is the

[1:13:02] » Maybe. Um, I know this is the

[1:13:02] recommendation of the city attorney, but

[1:13:04] I am not aware at this point uh of

[1:13:08] whether there will be a general

[1:13:09] presentation and be because there are

[1:13:13] we're it's not just like we're voting on

[1:13:16] A and then we're voting on B as we did

[1:13:18] with the um some of the housing element

[1:13:20] stuff. Um it's not as distinct in my

[1:13:23] mind the HOA question among all of the

[1:13:27] other questions. I would like to know if

[1:13:30] there is anformational part that council

[1:13:33] member Hawky could listen to before we

[1:13:36] sever um this forum for discussion

[1:13:40] purposes. So the answer is yes. Uh

[1:13:43] Council Member Hawky can hear the staff

[1:13:45] report. She can hear questions about

[1:13:48] that staff report. Although I'd

[1:13:49] recommend you not ask questions about

[1:13:51] the HOA issue. You can hear public

[1:13:53] comment. And then when it comes to

[1:13:56] deliberation, I think that's where the

[1:13:57] council should determine basically

[1:14:00] whether the segmentation approach that

[1:14:02] we sometimes take, whether it can be

[1:14:04] applied in this situation.

[1:14:06] >> That's really helpful and that would be

[1:14:07] » That's really helpful and that would be

[1:14:07] my preference if that's all right with

[1:14:08] you, Council Member Hawky.

[1:14:10] >> Yes, that's fine. I'd like to

[1:14:11] » Yes, that's fine. I'd like to

[1:14:11] participate as much as I can. Um, but

[1:14:14] recognizing the potential conflict.

[1:14:18] >> Thank you. Um, and with that, let's

[1:14:19] » Thank you. Um, and with that, let's

[1:14:20] proceed and then we'll ask you um to

[1:14:23] just uh leave and come back to the zoom

[1:14:24] when we are ready to discuss anything

[1:14:26] having to do with the HOA issue.

[1:14:29] >> Thank you, city manager.

[1:14:31] » Thank you, city manager.

[1:14:31] >> Honorable mayor, members of the council,

[1:14:32] » Honorable mayor, members of the council,

[1:14:32] I'll just do a brief back brief

[1:14:34] background on the infrastructure

[1:14:36] committee. It was established in

[1:14:38] February of 2024.

[1:14:40] Uh in June of 2024, the council reviewed

[1:14:43] the committee's work program which was

[1:14:45] refined in July of 2024 and work uh

[1:14:49] began in earnest at that point with the

[1:14:52] committee meeting to discuss uh that

[1:14:55] program that was adopted by the council.

[1:14:58] Uh in January of 2025,

[1:15:01] >> [snorts]

[1:15:01] » [snorts]

[1:15:01] >> uh the terms of the infrastructure

[1:15:04] » uh the terms of the infrastructure

[1:15:04] committee were amended and restated and

[1:15:07] extending the term until the end of

[1:15:09] 2025. And then in April, the council

[1:15:12] approved funding requests for the

[1:15:14] committee to conduct the private roads

[1:15:16] questionnaire which was consistent with

[1:15:18] the work program. And in November of

[1:15:20] 2025, the council extended the term of

[1:15:23] the committee to end in December of

[1:15:25] 2026.

[1:15:26] The committee has been working now for

[1:15:28] more than a year and a half with the

[1:15:30] assistance of staff to try and finish up

[1:15:33] the work plan. Uh at its most recent

[1:15:36] meeting in January, the committee had a

[1:15:38] very substantial agenda including many

[1:15:41] topics. The topics included research on

[1:15:45] other agencies that provide funding for

[1:15:47] the maintenance of roads, additional

[1:15:49] background on the Arinda Woods

[1:15:51] maintenance agreement, and a discussion

[1:15:53] about a proposed framework for the

[1:15:55] acceptance of private roads. uh that

[1:15:58] following that discussion, the committee

[1:15:59] requested additional information which

[1:16:01] we'll be bringing back to their next

[1:16:03] meeting and that included more

[1:16:05] information regarding the program in

[1:16:07] Sanelmo uh that was related to the grant

[1:16:11] funding uh for private road maintenance.

[1:16:14] Uh so I wanted to turn it back over to

[1:16:17] the committee uh because at that meeting

[1:16:20] we did discuss the framework and thought

[1:16:22] it was an appropriate time to come back

[1:16:24] and discuss it with the city council

[1:16:26] since uh some of the things that were

[1:16:28] being proposed are are fairly

[1:16:30] substantive and uh so I'll turn it back

[1:16:33] over to the vice mayor and to council

[1:16:36] member Malcani who can maybe comment a

[1:16:38] little bit about the work of the

[1:16:40] infrastructure committee and how far

[1:16:42] we've come and Uh, you know, this is

[1:16:45] really a pivotal point for moving to the

[1:16:47] next phase of trying to work through any

[1:16:49] policy changes that the council may want

[1:16:51] to consider.

[1:16:54] >> Vice Mayor, you want to kick it off and

[1:16:55] » Vice Mayor, you want to kick it off and

[1:16:55] then I'll I'll add. Yeah, I think uh and

[1:16:58] again um city manager um Smith um you

[1:17:02] know, please correct anything if I don't

[1:17:05] phrase it quite correctly, but what I

[1:17:07] what I want everyone to know is that the

[1:17:10] key word really here for our discussion

[1:17:13] tonight is framework. This this in and

[1:17:16] of itself is not a written policy at

[1:17:20] this point. Uh what this is is a

[1:17:24] outgrowth of our year and a half of

[1:17:27] meeting with the public and um people

[1:17:29] that have been interested in the topic

[1:17:31] material. Uh we have a current policy

[1:17:35] 56-18

[1:17:38] that is about the acceptance of private

[1:17:40] roads and it has um I I guess my

[1:17:44] comments would simply be that it has um

[1:17:48] never had any um

[1:17:52] private roads uh attempt acceptance

[1:17:55] under it um without uh you know without

[1:17:59] providing um you know unne necessary

[1:18:03] commentary. It was never a policy in my

[1:18:06] mind and I was there that it was not

[1:18:09] really intended

[1:18:12] um to be

[1:18:14] um a tool that was really allowing

[1:18:17] people that lived on private roads to

[1:18:19] explore whether they wanted to offer

[1:18:21] them for acceptance to the public or

[1:18:23] not. Quite frankly, it was primarily um

[1:18:27] it was primarily drafted to again um

[1:18:34] continue the separation of public and

[1:18:36] private roads in a way that you know

[1:18:38] again was deemed um important to the

[1:18:42] city's physical situation. So it was

[1:18:45] never um you know it was it was deeply

[1:18:50] contested in some ways at the time and

[1:18:53] um it did not and I did not support it

[1:18:55] at the time but the reality is is it

[1:18:58] turned into our policy and it's been

[1:19:00] it's been kind of one of those things

[1:19:02] that sits on the shelf because it really

[1:19:04] can't be used for anything. um the way

[1:19:07] it's written, there is no private road

[1:19:09] in Arinda that can really, you know,

[1:19:11] apply to be accepted into the public

[1:19:13] road system under it and be accepted.

[1:19:16] It's just not going to happen. That's

[1:19:17] how uh that's how it's worded. So,

[1:19:20] obviously, that's been um uh you know, a

[1:19:23] troublesome point for a lot of our

[1:19:25] residents that contend with living on a

[1:19:27] private road. And again, I think it's

[1:19:30] important that our community remember

[1:19:31] that, you know, this is this is fully

[1:19:34] 20% of our community. This is not four

[1:19:37] or five homes and this is not just a

[1:19:40] handful of people. This is um if you

[1:19:43] look at the map of all of our private

[1:19:46] roads throughout the community, it

[1:19:48] touches almost every corner of our

[1:19:50] community. and um you know and some of

[1:19:53] them you know and the as people that

[1:19:55] have paid attention to this issue know

[1:19:58] the the description of our private road

[1:20:01] network is um

[1:20:04] is just a a maze of uh of differences.

[1:20:10] Some of them are very new such as I'm

[1:20:12] looking at uh some of our audience

[1:20:14] members. Some of them are very new that

[1:20:16] were the newer developments like Wilder

[1:20:18] and Arinda Woods and the Downs and um at

[1:20:23] the time, you know, they were uh part of

[1:20:25] development agreements when the city

[1:20:27] didn't have um the resources to maintain

[1:20:30] roads and um and they were and they were

[1:20:33] very formalized as part of the

[1:20:35] development agreement. Some of them are

[1:20:37] roads that date back into the you know

[1:20:39] 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s in which there's

[1:20:42] simply no um understanding at all of

[1:20:45] some of the reasons and rationale for

[1:20:47] why things um occurred. We certainly

[1:20:50] have a whole host of roads that were um

[1:20:54] offered for public acceptance and not

[1:20:57] accepted although the documentation as

[1:20:59] to why is completely lacking. We have

[1:21:02] other roads as council member Hawky

[1:21:04] mentioned that you know were never

[1:21:06] offered. Um we basically have one of

[1:21:09] almost everything somewhere that you

[1:21:11] could imagine. What we don't have within

[1:21:13] the whole system is um really any of our

[1:21:17] privately maintained roads that are not

[1:21:20] um open for public use. I mean quite

[1:21:24] frankly uh we have one little segment of

[1:21:27] one uh in North Arinda where

[1:21:29] occasionally they choose to gate it off

[1:21:32] but other than that little tiny piece um

[1:21:35] the you know vast majority of um all of

[1:21:39] these roads which which is uh you know

[1:21:43] quite a an extensive amount when taken

[1:21:46] together um are all being used by the

[1:21:49] public. Now,

[1:21:52] uh, granted, um, they're virtually all

[1:21:54] residential roads, so there may be very

[1:21:57] little traffic on some of them, but they

[1:21:59] are open for public use. So, as part of

[1:22:02] the subcommittee's work, um, the

[1:22:05] discussion of the policy of 56-18

[1:22:08] has been, you know, of great concern.

[1:22:11] Um, again, the subcommittee is not at a

[1:22:13] point. I mean, eventually our goal is to

[1:22:16] come back to the full council with again

[1:22:19] recommendations that we hope will um

[1:22:23] improve this situation in our community

[1:22:25] because it's been an incredibly and

[1:22:27] continues to be a very divisive issue.

[1:22:30] Even sometimes when we don't hear a lot

[1:22:32] about it, there's very strong opinions

[1:22:34] and feelings about it on both sides.

[1:22:37] Whether you live on public roads,

[1:22:38] whether you live on private roads,

[1:22:39] whether you think um we should do

[1:22:41] something about it, whether you think we

[1:22:43] shouldn't do something about it, uh we

[1:22:44] have opinions across the board in every

[1:22:47] category. Um our our hope as the

[1:22:50] subcommittee has been to continue to

[1:22:52] explore it. We've I uh believe council

[1:22:56] member Malcani agrees with me and

[1:22:59] probably even steady staff does is that

[1:23:01] we've had enormously

[1:23:04] um amazing um public conversations with

[1:23:08] our community in the subcommittee. Um I

[1:23:11] would say the participation of the

[1:23:13] public in our subcommittee has been the

[1:23:15] highest I've ever seen for any topic. um

[1:23:18] it remains you know of great concern and

[1:23:21] you know we have heard um amazing you

[1:23:25] know amazing feedback in every way shape

[1:23:27] or form. Um at this point in time I

[1:23:30] don't think where the subcommittee is

[1:23:32] not at a point where we're trying to

[1:23:34] recommend here is the solution and pick

[1:23:37] one thing even though we know there are

[1:23:39] very strong feelings about what that

[1:23:41] solution should be um by many of our

[1:23:44] residents. The reality is is again just

[1:23:48] like we don't have any private roads

[1:23:49] that are sort of one-sizefits-all,

[1:23:52] we're not sure that the solution is

[1:23:53] one-sizefits-all either. Um and and so I

[1:23:58] think what we're um what we've talked

[1:24:00] about is that over time we'd like to see

[1:24:03] the possibility that there could be

[1:24:05] better options than there are today. And

[1:24:08] what those all are going to turn out to

[1:24:10] be sort of remains to be seen. But the

[1:24:14] existing policy 56-18

[1:24:16] I this is a personal opinion. So it it

[1:24:20] only belongs to Darlene. But it is in my

[1:24:24] opinion it's a very adversarial policy.

[1:24:27] It is not intended to be um welcoming to

[1:24:32] a lot of members of our community in

[1:24:34] terms of um of what it's potentially

[1:24:37] offering and and in an area that I

[1:24:40] personally feel very strongly does fall

[1:24:43] into I I believe public works in all of

[1:24:45] its way, shapes and forms falls into the

[1:24:48] domain of why government exists. So I

[1:24:51] think that um you know all the

[1:24:53] conversations we have have been

[1:24:55] exceptional and I and I and this

[1:24:58] framework is um is a summary of so many

[1:25:01] things that we have talked about in a

[1:25:03] way that we could as we move forward

[1:25:07] tend to look for ways to um provide

[1:25:10] options that would um instead of being

[1:25:14] you know the 56-18

[1:25:17] policy of no you can't do this to maybe

[1:25:21] find ways that if it was acceptable to

[1:25:23] the city um that we could allow people

[1:25:27] to do this. So the key word again is

[1:25:30] framework that that it's not that

[1:25:33] everything on this list is an absolute

[1:25:36] given one way or the other and I do hope

[1:25:38] people understand that at this point but

[1:25:41] because there are so many key ideas here

[1:25:44] I think it was important that we bring

[1:25:46] it back for consideration by the whole

[1:25:48] council before we try to draft or have

[1:25:53] staff help us you know draft new

[1:25:55] policies. So, those are my comments and

[1:25:58] to the extent that council member

[1:25:59] Malcani, our other um representative on

[1:26:02] the subcommittee or the staff have

[1:26:04] comments about that, I would welcome

[1:26:07] having those added.

[1:26:11] » Well,

[1:26:14] there's someone quoted this to me

[1:26:16] recently, nothing has been said unless

[1:26:18] everyone on a committee says the same

[1:26:20] thing. I'm going to try not to do that

[1:26:22] now since you think you well summarized

[1:26:24] but I do want to emphasize at the risk

[1:26:26] of redundancy a couple things which is

[1:26:28] just um

[1:26:31] you know there was a lot of frustration

[1:26:34] with the old or the existing policy

[1:26:37] because it's really seen as something

[1:26:39] that just is impractical and essentially

[1:26:42] almost impossible and really serves as a

[1:26:44] roadblock right and so that engendered a

[1:26:47] lot of bad feelings and and I think you

[1:26:50] know uh resentment and bitterness and

[1:26:53] and frustration you know which frankly

[1:26:56] from my perspective was understandable.

[1:26:58] So what you know I do I do agree that

[1:27:01] this is simply a framework right and but

[1:27:04] what it represents really is um I think

[1:27:06] I think the reason um I think the

[1:27:10] infrastructure committee and staff

[1:27:12] really wanted to bring this to the full

[1:27:15] council is because it is it is a tone

[1:27:17] shift in a framework of you know don't

[1:27:21] talk to us about this issue to we do

[1:27:23] want to talk about this issue now do we

[1:27:25] have the solutions completely no we

[1:27:27] don't But it is a tone shift and you

[1:27:29] know it's it's a it's a tone shift in

[1:27:32] that it's a policy that's no longer

[1:27:35] functioning as a roadblock but is

[1:27:37] actually a real functional policy with

[1:27:40] an attempted objective criteria. You

[1:27:43] know the criteria is trying to address

[1:27:45] the varying circumstances with within

[1:27:48] Arinda and recognizing that neither the

[1:27:51] problem nor the solution is a

[1:27:53] one-sizefits-all. Um, and I had

[1:27:56] independently written that down from

[1:27:57] you. I know you just said that, Vice

[1:27:59] Mayor, but um, but you know, because of

[1:28:02] that and these factors, we felt it had

[1:28:04] enough form now that we could and wanted

[1:28:08] to bring it back to our colleagues for

[1:28:11] for input. And one thing to remember in

[1:28:15] this discussion is we aren't you know it

[1:28:19] it is a framework but again um

[1:28:24] it is a check-in point on a continuum of

[1:28:27] trying to address uh you know the

[1:28:32] problem multiaceted uh problems and

[1:28:35] challenges with privately maintained

[1:28:37] roads.

[1:28:40] Please.

[1:28:42] Uh I know that again uh one of the first

[1:28:44] questions almost everyone asks

[1:28:46] immediately and may be of uh being

[1:28:50] gotten ready to be asked tonight but um

[1:28:53] the obviously uh policies you know

[1:28:56] ultimately result in you know some

[1:28:59] potential impacts on costs and there's

[1:29:02] been no attempt at this point um I mean

[1:29:05] we've raised the issue that everything

[1:29:06] costs something but we there's no

[1:29:09] attempt to compare this or have this

[1:29:12] defined or if the question is what is

[1:29:14] this all going to cost? We don't have

[1:29:16] any answers to that right now. We've not

[1:29:18] tried to encapsulate that. We've not

[1:29:22] go down that road even though we know

[1:29:24] that ultimately that will be absolutely

[1:29:27] critical to a whole lot of things.

[1:29:28] Right? So it's not like we're, you know,

[1:29:31] being ignorant or naive or just trying

[1:29:33] to, you know, um have magical thinking

[1:29:37] here about how this all works. We know

[1:29:39] that this has you know serious you know

[1:29:42] cost implications whether it's to our

[1:29:45] residents whether it's to the city

[1:29:47] however it gets structured you know

[1:29:50] maintenance of roads and drains requires

[1:29:52] money so that will all have to continue

[1:29:56] to evolve but the framework itself is

[1:29:59] not attempting to say this is going to

[1:30:02] cost this much or that much so I just

[1:30:05] want to make sure that we're clear about

[1:30:06] that

[1:30:07] >> thank you very much council member

[1:30:08] » thank you very much council member

[1:30:08] Hawky, did you have questions?

[1:30:11] >> I think it would be helpful if um the

[1:30:14] » I think it would be helpful if um the

[1:30:14] vice mayor would just go over the

[1:30:16] framework that her committee is

[1:30:18] proposing at this time for the public

[1:30:21] and for everybody to think about.

[1:30:24] I would not only agree with that that it

[1:30:26] would help if you guys would sort of

[1:30:27] walk us through these, but when you get

[1:30:29] to the one about um 20 years versus five

[1:30:32] years because the current ordinance says

[1:30:37] 5 years before it needs maintenance and

[1:30:39] 20 years before it needs to be replaced

[1:30:41] and I'm I'm paraphrasing. Um

[1:30:44] the if you could go a little bit deeper

[1:30:47] on what you mean by what in five years

[1:30:50] uh was the one question I had as well.

[1:30:54] I mean, that was something that I think

[1:30:56] as staff was taking a look at resolution

[1:30:59] 5918, we noted that in order for the

[1:31:04] city to accept a roadway, it would need

[1:31:08] to not be maintained for essentially 20

[1:31:11] years, right? It would have to be in

[1:31:12] condition. And SA, I think you should

[1:31:14] probably come sit up here in case you

[1:31:16] get called up to talk about some of

[1:31:18] these things. Um but really uh the

[1:31:22] intention at least that staff had in

[1:31:24] proposing this framework back to the

[1:31:26] committee was you know what are the

[1:31:30] things that we've heard over time that

[1:31:32] have contributed to basically not

[1:31:37] receiving any sort of application and

[1:31:39] and you know gave threshold of up to 20

[1:31:43] years is a is a a perfectly maintained

[1:31:47] road I would say. I don't know SA if you

[1:31:49] want to comment on that but

[1:31:50] >> if I can just before you respond the

[1:31:52] » if I can just before you respond the

[1:31:52] exact wording in the current ordinance

[1:31:55] is um provide a pavement life of 20

[1:31:59] years the roadway shall be in a

[1:32:01] condition to not need surface

[1:32:03] maintenance treatment for 5 years. So if

[1:32:06] you can help clarify what you're

[1:32:07] proposing relative to that standard.

[1:32:10] >> Yeah. Um good evening madame mayor and

[1:32:12] » Yeah. Um good evening madame mayor and

[1:32:12] council members. Um

[1:32:15] the five years is

[1:32:18] In line with how we are approaching our

[1:32:20] current public street uh pavement

[1:32:22] maintenance um we go through as I've

[1:32:25] mentioned in prior sessions uh we use a

[1:32:28] um program that allows us to keep tabs

[1:32:31] on the condition of the pavement and uh

[1:32:33] do preventive maintenance. That's kind

[1:32:35] of our primary goal uh to extend the

[1:32:38] pavement life and that cycle roughly

[1:32:40] falls in that 5year time period. So one

[1:32:42] way to look at it is um

[1:32:46] more than likely a street will get

[1:32:48] surfaced with what we call like the

[1:32:50] minimum u surface treatments slurry seal

[1:32:54] um around 5ear cycles. Uh so that's the

[1:32:58] connection to this 5year that you're

[1:33:00] looking at.

[1:33:03] Again it's uh slightly different from

[1:33:05] the life of the pavement. So when you're

[1:33:07] talking about pavement life, it's a

[1:33:10] different context versus maintenance um

[1:33:14] which is worth the five years.

[1:33:17] And I'm not sure this is a question to

[1:33:18] you or I guess vice mayor when you walk

[1:33:20] through this frame framework if you

[1:33:22] could be very specific about what test

[1:33:25] you are proposing because I get that

[1:33:28] slurry seal is about every 5 years and

[1:33:30] replacement is different but I cannot

[1:33:32] translate the current ordinance to the

[1:33:35] proposed framework without little help.

[1:33:38] So can I chime in on something just for

[1:33:41] a suggestion? Um, and I'm just thinking

[1:33:43] back.

[1:33:45] So, in the infrastructure committee, we

[1:33:47] had the benefit of actually a staff

[1:33:49] presentation from our city engineer and

[1:33:51] our director about the framework. And I

[1:33:55] don't

[1:33:59] I don't know. I'm happy to let the vice

[1:34:03] mayor do that if she wants. I don't feel

[1:34:06] like I can go through and necessarily

[1:34:09] answer all your questions without

[1:34:11] turning to staff with all of them. Um,

[1:34:14] so maybe we could we could go through

[1:34:17] the framework with our city engineers

[1:34:20] um,

[1:34:22] uh, presentation or just walk us through

[1:34:24] it and we could chime in as

[1:34:26] infrastructure committee members. That

[1:34:28] might be one way to do it. And then the

[1:34:30] other thing is that a framework is

[1:34:34] simply you know this is a framework is

[1:34:37] guidance that can then be used to

[1:34:41] develop a new ordinance or a new

[1:34:44] resolution. So I don't know that we're

[1:34:47] from the framework we're not going to

[1:34:48] have exact language as to what a

[1:34:51] resolution would in other words any

[1:34:52] resolution my understanding would be

[1:34:54] brought back to the infrastructure

[1:34:56] committee first for some finetuning and

[1:34:58] then to the council but we didn't want

[1:35:01] to say to staff as an infrastructure

[1:35:03] committee take this policy framework and

[1:35:06] go develop a resolution without doing a

[1:35:10] check-in first with the full council.

[1:35:11] Does that make

[1:35:12] >> understood? I think what council member

[1:35:13] » understood? I think what council member

[1:35:13] Hawky asked for and what I agree is we

[1:35:16] would like for one of the two members of

[1:35:18] the subcommittee to literally just walk

[1:35:20] us through your nine bullet points and

[1:35:22] explain the rationale so that we can

[1:35:24] comment and we know we're just

[1:35:25] commenting.

[1:35:26] >> Okay.

[1:35:27] » Okay.

[1:35:27] >> Can I make one uh correction on the

[1:35:29] » Can I make one uh correction on the

[1:35:29] framework? Uh, I think it was a staff

[1:35:31] error. Uh, bullet two where it says

[1:35:33] eliminating the requirement for all

[1:35:35] property owners to sign an application

[1:35:37] when an offer for acceptance when an

[1:35:39] offer of dedication on the road already

[1:35:41] exists. That is inaccurate. The it's um

[1:35:45] that shouldn't be in there at all

[1:35:47] because it currently does not require

[1:35:49] that. So, that isn't a change. So, I

[1:35:51] just wanted to be clear about that. So,

[1:35:53] that bullet is um needs to be removed

[1:35:57] from the discussion.

[1:36:02] I think what staff was attempting to do

[1:36:04] in presenting these bullets to the

[1:36:06] infrastructure committee was to go

[1:36:09] through resolution 59-18 and try to

[1:36:12] identify areas where we could be more I

[1:36:17] guess less restrictive and more

[1:36:19] encouraging. And I think the the I would

[1:36:24] suggest unless uh OSA and SA have any

[1:36:26] other thoughts, the two kind of bigger

[1:36:30] items is the lowering of the pavement

[1:36:32] condition threshold because there was a

[1:36:33] lot of discussion about from when we

[1:36:35] were talking about staff level if we

[1:36:37] should come up with a PCI

[1:36:39] uh you know is this about maintenance of

[1:36:41] the roads. So um we right now it says uh

[1:36:47] that

[1:36:48] basically in order to accept the road

[1:36:50] the condition of the road has to be in

[1:36:53] good shape for a period of up to 20

[1:36:55] years

[1:36:56] and we're suggesting that that's a very

[1:36:59] high bar. I don't know what PCI that

[1:37:01] potentially could be equated to, but

[1:37:04] that that is one of the reasons why

[1:37:07] we're not seeing anybody step forward

[1:37:10] because and and we did do a PCI index of

[1:37:13] all the roads, including the private

[1:37:15] roads. So, we also have that information

[1:37:16] available to us and in many cases it was

[1:37:19] a lot better than we expected. In some

[1:37:21] it was exactly as expected, right? The

[1:37:24] PCIs aren't as great as we would want

[1:37:26] them to be. Um, the other piece of

[1:37:28] course is the current resolution

[1:37:32] restricts and prohibits

[1:37:34] communities that are served by

[1:37:36] homeowners associations from

[1:37:38] participating at all. And so I think

[1:37:40] those were kind of the bigger items uh

[1:37:43] of the bullets. And um we could talk a

[1:37:47] little bit about I mean obviously the

[1:37:48] final bullet under there is just

[1:37:50] shifting the tone to being one in which

[1:37:54] um the staff and the city are willing

[1:37:57] and supportive of requests that might

[1:37:59] come in to make changes. Um you know in

[1:38:04] looking these bullets there's a lot of

[1:38:07] requirements in resolution 59-18.

[1:38:10] I'm not going to sit here and say with

[1:38:13] any proposed framework to modify that

[1:38:17] resolution or this policy that it's

[1:38:20] going to be easy. It is definitely it's

[1:38:24] a very um involved process in order to

[1:38:27] take a road from being public I mean

[1:38:30] privately maintained to publicly

[1:38:33] maintained and the committee did take an

[1:38:36] opportunity to look at other ways to do

[1:38:39] that right it's a spectrum of choice

[1:38:41] there's uh the Arinda Woods model in

[1:38:44] which the city is playing a role in

[1:38:46] maintaining it um the the model Sanelmo

[1:38:49] is using in assisting their private road

[1:38:52] owners, which by the way, we could only

[1:38:53] find one program in the state of

[1:38:55] California, uh is really about providing

[1:38:59] grants to neighbors and residences. So,

[1:39:02] it was really trying to meet residents

[1:39:05] where they were at. Some residents want

[1:39:08] to maintain their roads and want to

[1:39:10] maintain private roads, but might seek

[1:39:11] some assistance. Um, you know, we have

[1:39:14] the the uh the Arinda Woods example,

[1:39:19] which I think when we brought that

[1:39:21] forward at the meeting, there was a lot

[1:39:23] of

[1:39:25] um surprise about how many other roads

[1:39:27] in Arinda Woods are actually public. Uh

[1:39:30] because I think when it's being

[1:39:32] discussed, everybody thinks that most of

[1:39:34] those roads are private, but in fact,

[1:39:36] there are very few that are actually

[1:39:37] private. Uh so that was a good

[1:39:39] discussion to have. Uh and then this is

[1:39:41] sort of on the other end of okay are we

[1:39:43] going to address policy. So again the

[1:39:46] committee is looking at the idea of

[1:39:49] grants programs uh supportive programs

[1:39:52] to help private road privately

[1:39:54] maintained property owners who are

[1:39:57] living on those roads and then looking

[1:39:59] at changes to the resolution that make

[1:40:01] it

[1:40:02] less challenging to move forward. So I

[1:40:05] think I just the framework is dealing

[1:40:08] with this one piece but I think the c

[1:40:11] the committee is trying to look at a

[1:40:14] broad range of options for which um they

[1:40:19] can make recommendations back to the

[1:40:20] council. I think when we wanted to bring

[1:40:23] the framework is simply because we don't

[1:40:25] want to spend more staff time digging in

[1:40:28] and researching and coming up with the

[1:40:31] financial implications of all this. If

[1:40:33] the council's not interested as a body

[1:40:36] in pursuing, you know, any major

[1:40:38] modifications 59-18,

[1:40:41] then we need to know that so that we're

[1:40:42] not spending an inordinate amount of

[1:40:45] time in infrastructure committee, a well

[1:40:47] attended group, a a very engaged group

[1:40:49] of residents. And so we wanted to take

[1:40:51] this opportunity as we, you know, have

[1:40:54] eight months left in this group to try

[1:40:56] and come up with some solutions. I don't

[1:40:58] know uh SA if you just want to talk

[1:41:00] through any of the bullets that are

[1:41:02] listed there in the proposed framework

[1:41:04] aside from the two that I've mentioned.

[1:41:06] Um

[1:41:07] >> um I was just looking a little closer at

[1:41:09] » um I was just looking a little closer at

[1:41:09] the particular question the mayor had

[1:41:11] and um just looking at the current

[1:41:14] resolution wording there is two

[1:41:16] components to that paragraph. Uh one is

[1:41:19] talking about the life of the pavement

[1:41:21] and then the second part of it talks

[1:41:22] about the maintenance component of it.

[1:41:25] Um the proposal is to not focus so much

[1:41:29] on the life of the pavement and rather

[1:41:32] change it focus on the PCI component of

[1:41:34] it. That's why the 5year term comes in.

[1:41:36] Part of the reason is um they are looked

[1:41:39] at in different manner uh to know the

[1:41:41] life of a payment. there's more invasive

[1:41:43] testing involved and uh reports that

[1:41:46] needs to be generated doesn't quite

[1:41:48] necessarily reflect how um we maintain

[1:41:52] the roads currently that are in place

[1:41:54] and also last year we did a uh payment

[1:41:57] management uh review of the private

[1:41:59] roads for the first time. So that gave

[1:42:01] some insight into what the current

[1:42:03] condition of the roadways are. So all

[1:42:05] those factors came into play to

[1:42:07] recommend that as one of the framework

[1:42:09] item.

[1:42:12] » Yeah. And um I'll add and I think it's

[1:42:15] important especially for the mayor and

[1:42:17] council member Hawky since you don't

[1:42:19] attend the subcommittee meetings and SA

[1:42:21] can correct me when I uh make a misstep

[1:42:24] into what I'm saying but when we did as

[1:42:27] you know we did the um assessment for

[1:42:30] the first time um of evaluating the

[1:42:33] pavement condition of the private roads

[1:42:35] throughout the community that and we did

[1:42:38] it in the same fashion that we do for

[1:42:40] our public roads. So, we were able to

[1:42:42] get the same kind of comparative data

[1:42:45] for the first time in this very long

[1:42:48] discussion. And I I guess what I would

[1:42:51] um and I'll have SA help me if I

[1:42:53] misstate something, but um the overall

[1:42:57] PCI rating if you took it all averaged

[1:43:00] together was around 69, right? Um it it

[1:43:04] was at was that

[1:43:06] >> I do not recolct the ex exact number,

[1:43:08] » I do not recolct the ex exact number,

[1:43:08] but it was over 60. Yeah, it was it was

[1:43:12] in the you know it was near

[1:43:15] collectively all of it being you know in

[1:43:20] pretty good shape overall but that was

[1:43:22] characterized after you split it out.

[1:43:24] Remember, you have the larger, newer HOA

[1:43:30] communities like Wilder and some of the

[1:43:32] other newest places in the city where

[1:43:36] the pavement is in excellent condition,

[1:43:38] both because it's relatively new and has

[1:43:41] never had any really serious maintenance

[1:43:43] problems. So, all of it is in excellent

[1:43:46] condition. And in fact, by far and away,

[1:43:48] probably the best condition of any of

[1:43:51] the roads in Arinda, even taking into

[1:43:53] account some of our pretty

[1:43:55] well-maintained arterials at this point.

[1:43:57] Then I would say there was probably a

[1:43:59] pretty hefty midsection of private roads

[1:44:03] that were in, you know, anywhere from,

[1:44:07] you know, pretty good to, you know, the

[1:44:12] upper ends of it. They certainly were

[1:44:14] not in terrible shape. they were not

[1:44:15] really falling apart. They had been

[1:44:17] maintained in some way, shape or fashion

[1:44:20] by the residents and um and then I would

[1:44:23] say there was a sector of probably much

[1:44:27] older and probably not particularly

[1:44:29] well-maintained and that probably

[1:44:32] drugged down a little bit of the overall

[1:44:34] average. So when you think of the

[1:44:36] universe of our private roads, by far

[1:44:38] and away um more, you know, the the

[1:44:42] majority of them are actually in in

[1:44:45] really good shape, okay? Because you

[1:44:47] have to, you know, easily take a look at

[1:44:50] at at the ones that are very new. Um and

[1:44:55] you know, they are not um they are not

[1:44:59] places that would, you know, require a

[1:45:01] lot of maintenance anytime soon. So the

[1:45:05] kind of remembering what that universe

[1:45:07] looks like and and again some are um um

[1:45:11] and there's just incredible differences

[1:45:13] across the board with how they do get

[1:45:15] maintained. So um but um again if you

[1:45:19] look at the whole universe of them you

[1:45:21] know once upon a time we always talked

[1:45:23] about them like every every mile of it

[1:45:25] was just you know turning to rubble.

[1:45:28] That that's not a good that's not an

[1:45:30] appropriate characterization. So,

[1:45:33] >> thank you. I know we have a lot of

[1:45:34] » thank you. I know we have a lot of

[1:45:34] people um who would like to speak on

[1:45:36] this from the public. Uh I did want to

[1:45:38] just ask there's one about uh

[1:45:43] sorry, removing zoning and subdivision

[1:45:45] compliance standards for adjacent

[1:45:47] properties. I just didn't understand

[1:45:49] that issue. Could somebody explain what

[1:45:52] the problem is with the current one and

[1:45:54] what you're hoping to achieve?

[1:45:57] anyone

[1:46:00] » sa I think you're the default if nobody

[1:46:02] else talks.

[1:46:03] >> Yeah, I mean I was we did get the

[1:46:05] » Yeah, I mean I was we did get the

[1:46:05] benefit of

[1:46:05] >> the might be able to chime in on that.

[1:46:08] » the might be able to chime in on that.

[1:46:08] >> Uh so the initial development of this

[1:46:11] » Uh so the initial development of this

[1:46:11] came from staff and was a framework that

[1:46:13] was presented to us. So um and we chimed

[1:46:17] in on it. So it may do you want the city

[1:46:19] engine it might be helpful for the mayor

[1:46:21] and

[1:46:21] >> does [clears throat] anybody know why

[1:46:22] » does [clears throat] anybody know why

[1:46:22] that is in my bullet point list

[1:46:24] >> to go through the rest of the ones we

[1:46:26] » to go through the rest of the ones we

[1:46:26] haven't talked about

[1:46:29] >> and then we'll try and

[1:46:30] » and then we'll try and

[1:46:30] >> I have a guess

[1:46:32] » I have a guess

[1:46:32] which is that we measure setbacks from

[1:46:35] pavement and from roadway and so this

[1:46:38] might have to do with uh in the old pol

[1:46:43] the existing policy requiring that

[1:46:45] setbacks be adequate

[1:46:49] Can you explain what the sentence is

[1:46:51] saying?

[1:46:53] >> So it says private development on the

[1:46:55] » So it says private development on the

[1:46:55] property fronting the road generally

[1:46:57] meets zoning and subdivision standards

[1:46:58] applicable to property on public roads.

[1:47:02] Right? So if you are on a privately

[1:47:04] maintained road and you would like to

[1:47:06] seek city acceptance, you will be

[1:47:08] measured,

[1:47:09] you know, you will be tested against the

[1:47:12] standards we apply to publicly

[1:47:14] maintained roads for zoning setbacks.

[1:47:17] >> And we don't think we should have that

[1:47:18] » And we don't think we should have that

[1:47:18] anymore because

[1:47:24] » you find it.

[1:47:25] >> I'm just having a hard time giving

[1:47:27] » I'm just having a hard time giving

[1:47:27] feedback when I literally don't

[1:47:28] understand what is being proposed. Um,

[1:47:31] and I

[1:47:31] >> mayor, what one thing is that the many

[1:47:34] » mayor, what one thing is that the many

[1:47:34] of the private roads are much narrower

[1:47:37] than many of our public roads and so

[1:47:40] those setbacks would mean that you know

[1:47:43] you're in the middle of someone's home

[1:47:45] if you have to measure from the

[1:47:47] pavement. Um, so it disqualifies a lot

[1:47:51] of private roads

[1:47:54] um because of the narrowness of many of

[1:47:56] them. And I and I think that was

[1:47:59] overall, mayor. Um,

[1:48:01] one of the points that's come up over

[1:48:03] and over and over again is that

[1:48:05] basically again the policy has always

[1:48:09] been focused on

[1:48:12] essentially holding the private roads to

[1:48:14] the very pinnacle standard that we would

[1:48:18] hold a public road to. and that we have

[1:48:20] many many public roads in this community

[1:48:24] that do not meet the standards that we

[1:48:27] are asking for in the existing policy.

[1:48:29] They just don't they're not as wide.

[1:48:31] They're not you know they don't have the

[1:48:33] same characteristics

[1:48:35] um you know evenly throughout the

[1:48:37] community. Many of them were built at

[1:48:39] completely different times. Some of them

[1:48:41] were you know not particularly built to

[1:48:43] what I would even call you know real

[1:48:45] engineering standards at the time. And

[1:48:47] so, um, again, the the feedback over and

[1:48:52] over for years has simply been that

[1:48:54] we're trying to hold everything to do

[1:48:56] with the private roads at a level that's

[1:48:58] here, whereas we have a lot of public

[1:49:01] roads that are down here. So, that

[1:49:03] that's what I think

[1:49:04] >> that's very helpful. And I think what

[1:49:05] » that's very helpful. And I think what

[1:49:05] count I mean unless I'm seeing a

[1:49:07] different body language from our staff,

[1:49:10] does that kind of make sense that what

[1:49:12] those setback rules were about was about

[1:49:14] kind of measuring from Center Road to

[1:49:17] where development happened?

[1:49:18] >> That's my understanding.

[1:49:20] » That's my understanding.

[1:49:20] >> Thank you. I I literally just didn't

[1:49:21] » Thank you. I I literally just didn't

[1:49:22] understand what the words meant. So, um

[1:49:24] if there are there any other questions

[1:49:26] or should we turn this to public

[1:49:28] comment?

[1:49:30] Uh with that, I would love to uh let the

[1:49:32] public um opine. We got quite a few

[1:49:36] written comments that are all in the um

[1:49:38] correspondence that's been shared. Um I

[1:49:41] have one speaker card for Bob Finch. So

[1:49:43] uh Bob, I'll ask you to come up and um

[1:49:45] it looks like Mr. Waroff might also like

[1:49:47] to speak and if anybody else would like

[1:49:48] to speak, please come on up after Mr.

[1:49:50] Kathy, after uh Mr. Waroff um we'll have

[1:49:52] you speak as well. Bob Finch and I'm on

[1:49:56] board of the Wilder HOA.

[1:50:02] » Thank you. I'm Bob Finch and I'm on the

[1:50:05] board of the Wilder HOA where funds for

[1:50:09] road maintenance are pre-colcted in our

[1:50:12] dues, but the dollars in that pot all

[1:50:16] come from the pockets of the residents

[1:50:18] just like on any other private road.

[1:50:21] My comment is that I simply want to

[1:50:24] thank the infrastructure subcommittee

[1:50:26] for its good faith,

[1:50:30] open-mindedness, and diligence over the

[1:50:32] last two years.

[1:50:35] And I would add as a member of the

[1:50:37] arendence for road fairness that we have

[1:50:41] been working for nine years to get to

[1:50:43] this point.

[1:50:44] I urge the city council to approve the

[1:50:48] proposed framework as a framework. Thank

[1:50:52] you.

[1:50:54] >> Uh thank you Mr. Waroff and then um

[1:50:57] » Uh thank you Mr. Waroff and then um

[1:50:57] Kathy Vinch will be after.

[1:50:59] >> Uh good evening Nick Warrenoff for the

[1:51:01] » Uh good evening Nick Warrenoff for the

[1:51:01] record. Initially I want to address Vice

[1:51:04] Mayor G. That was the most one-sided

[1:51:08] presentation of a complicated subject

[1:51:11] that I have ever heard and I think you

[1:51:13] should seriously consider stepping down

[1:51:17] from the infrastructure committee. You

[1:51:19] know, there are two sides to the issue.

[1:51:21] I don't have the time tonight or the

[1:51:23] inclination to go through the other

[1:51:25] side, but to make such a one-sided

[1:51:28] presentation is a disservice to the body

[1:51:32] on which you sit sit.

[1:51:35] Secondly, I want to address uh my

[1:51:38] friend, council member Hawky.

[1:51:41] That was a very thorough, well-reasoned

[1:51:45] and wellthoughtout presentation on the

[1:51:48] subject of the of conflict of interest.

[1:51:52] And I left my hat in the car, but if I

[1:51:55] were wearing it to keep my head warm, I

[1:51:57] would tip my hat to you because it was

[1:51:59] very thorough and carefully reasoned.

[1:52:04] However, and there's always a however,

[1:52:08] the very same city manager

[1:52:11] some years ago

[1:52:13] when Eve Phillips was on the council and

[1:52:17] was a candidate for reelection,

[1:52:21] the very same city attorney, if I said

[1:52:24] city manager, I misspoke. I apologize.

[1:52:26] The very same city attorney

[1:52:29] publicly advised

[1:52:32] our good friend Eve Phillips that

[1:52:35] because she lived on a private road, she

[1:52:39] could not participate at all in the

[1:52:43] discussion before the council

[1:52:46] and Eve,

[1:52:48] Miss Phillips,

[1:52:51] correctly followed the city attorney's

[1:52:54] advice.

[1:52:56] And these people who have been uh part

[1:52:59] of that group, I forget what it's

[1:53:01] called, fair roads or something. Maybe

[1:53:03] it's equitable roads these days. Who

[1:53:06] knows? But these people got together and

[1:53:10] publicly vilified her. Publicly vilified

[1:53:13] her because she followed the advice of

[1:53:16] the city attorney.

[1:53:19] and she and she was very pregnant with

[1:53:21] her twins at that time and she couldn't

[1:53:24] even campaign

[1:53:26] and and present her side that she had to

[1:53:29] follow the advice of the city attorney

[1:53:32] and it felt to me

[1:53:35] to go door to door and to post on social

[1:53:38] media a defense of her. So, I'm sure

[1:53:42] we're not going to hear from the city

[1:53:43] attorney some legal explanation of why

[1:53:46] the two situations are different, but as

[1:53:50] long as we've had this historical exesis

[1:53:52] about this issue, the record should

[1:53:56] reflect my opinion, speaking as a

[1:53:59] private citizen and not a member of any

[1:54:01] group, that Vice Mayor G has shown bias

[1:54:04] that disqualifies her from the committee

[1:54:07] and that I deplore the inconsistent

[1:54:10] positions.

[1:54:12] taken by the

[1:54:15] city attorney. Thank you.

[1:54:18] >> Thank you. Uh are there any questions or

[1:54:20] » Thank you. Uh are there any questions or

[1:54:20] comments before we go to the next public

[1:54:22] speaker?

[1:54:24] >> I just want to thank the vice mayor for

[1:54:26] » I just want to thank the vice mayor for

[1:54:26] her earlier comments and thank the city

[1:54:28] attorney for her continued expert

[1:54:30] advice.

[1:54:32] Um I I do have one comment which is the

[1:54:35] uh as I understood the conflict issue as

[1:54:38] the person running the meeting if the

[1:54:41] HOAs are potentially going to be counted

[1:54:44] that essentially dilutes the uh impact

[1:54:48] of the issue and makes it more general

[1:54:50] when we are talking about private roads

[1:54:53] without including the HOA included

[1:54:57] units. That would be a conflict and

[1:54:59] council member Hawky will recuse herself

[1:55:01] the same as E. Phillips did. So that's

[1:55:03] not the city attorney speaking, but

[1:55:05] that's how I went into this meeting

[1:55:07] understanding the way we should run the

[1:55:09] program. Uh, and Kathy, thank you for

[1:55:11] waiting. Uh, Kathy Finch, please. Uh,

[1:55:13] yes, my name is Kathy Finch, and first I

[1:55:16] want to thank the infrastructure

[1:55:18] subcommittee for um, well making 20% of

[1:55:23] the city just feel included by being

[1:55:26] part of the study. you know, I mean, I

[1:55:28] just think it's wonderful that um you

[1:55:30] can now and we can all now see the city

[1:55:34] as a whole, you know, all of the

[1:55:35] streets, whether they're public or

[1:55:37] private, whether you're going to

[1:55:38] maintain them or not, to see where they

[1:55:41] stand. Same thing with public drains. I

[1:55:43] think it's just such an important issue.

[1:55:46] Um never mind, you know, the financing

[1:55:49] of what's going to come. Uh it just, you

[1:55:52] know, makes us feel part of the city and

[1:55:54] be included. Um and I wanted to only

[1:55:58] address um the first speaker who seemed

[1:56:01] to think that you know you were taking

[1:56:04] over control of of private roads um

[1:56:08] which I know this is just a framework uh

[1:56:11] uh at this point but um he said that

[1:56:14] other East Bay cities you know it should

[1:56:17] be a red flag that all these other

[1:56:19] Eastbay cities have decided not to do

[1:56:22] anything about private roads. Um but as

[1:56:25] um Vice Mayor um uh G noted, Arinda is

[1:56:31] really different. Um it's unique in as

[1:56:33] much as we've got um 20 to 22% of the

[1:56:37] city on private roads. And you know, I

[1:56:41] mean, it's a really large group of

[1:56:43] people. Uh the other thing that I wanted

[1:56:46] to comment on is that the city itself

[1:56:49] required many of us to be on private

[1:56:52] streets because there wasn't enough

[1:56:54] money um at the time like 20 years ago

[1:56:56] when Wilder was being considered. Um you

[1:57:00] didn't have money to um maintain our

[1:57:03] streets. So, it's unusual, I think, that

[1:57:06] a city says you must um be private,

[1:57:10] that, you know, we are requiring you to

[1:57:12] be private. And um some people in our

[1:57:15] subdivision have said things like, you

[1:57:17] know, it's weird. I mean, what if they

[1:57:20] said, "Okay, you can live here, but you

[1:57:22] can't go to the public schools here."

[1:57:24] You know, I mean, they feel cut out um

[1:57:28] in just that way. So, um, because they

[1:57:30] were required and because it's such a

[1:57:32] large proportion of our members and also

[1:57:35] because the bond issues that the city

[1:57:38] has passed, um, they were fine when they

[1:57:42] were requiring everybody to pay for uh,

[1:57:45] arterials and collectors. But when they

[1:57:48] went to require people to pay for

[1:57:51] residential maintenance but barred

[1:57:54] private street residents from that same

[1:57:57] benefit of their tax dollars and also

[1:58:02] when they said that the private road

[1:58:04] residents

[1:58:06] um cannot benefit from the city's road

[1:58:09] damage impact fees that all of us pay.

[1:58:12] you know, those are um things that I

[1:58:14] don't believe are uh city are citywide

[1:58:18] or or um countywide. So, I think unique

[1:58:21] we're in a unique um situation. Thank

[1:58:23] you.

[1:58:24] >> Thank you very much. And uh Joe, I think

[1:58:26] » Thank you very much. And uh Joe, I think

[1:58:26] it's Bowman. Please correct me if I

[1:58:28] mispronounced, but uh we have one more

[1:58:29] speaker card and then we'll just see if

[1:58:31] anybody else would like to speak.

[1:58:36] » Yes, my name is Joe Bowman. I'm a

[1:58:38] resident of the um Bayage Homeowners

[1:58:40] Association where I've been a resident

[1:58:42] for about 30 years.

[1:58:45] [clears throat] Um I appreciated all the

[1:58:47] work that's gone into the framework.

[1:58:48] We've been observing along the way. Um

[1:58:53] the framework as I read it really is is

[1:58:56] an eitheror framework and maybe that's

[1:58:59] where it needs to be at this stage. It's

[1:59:01] it's either uh you are going to um as

[1:59:06] either a a homeowners association or

[1:59:09] members of private births either opt in

[1:59:13] to um be considered for the city's

[1:59:16] services or stay out. And I'd simply

[1:59:19] like to suggest that there's possibly

[1:59:22] another path that should be included uh

[1:59:26] if not in the detail maybe the framework

[1:59:29] and that's uh to take some model that

[1:59:32] like our homeowners associate

[1:59:35] association has done is I think it's

[1:59:37] been on the scale as just recently

[1:59:38] described as having better than average

[1:59:42] roads by our self-maintenance

[1:59:45] and it would be beneficial to encourage

[1:59:48] either homeowners ers associations or

[1:59:50] groups of homeowners to maintain on

[1:59:54] their own but be given some form of

[1:59:57] support to be able to do that. And I did

[2:00:00] not know about the San Andelmo model or

[2:00:03] even the Arena Woods model before coming

[2:00:04] up here, but uh I'd simply ask that the

[2:00:09] that [clears throat] the subcommittee

[2:00:11] take that into consideration before the

[2:00:13] framework is adopted.

[2:00:16] Thank you. Um I would like to ask if

[2:00:20] there's anybody else from the public who

[2:00:22] would like to speak before we close the

[2:00:24] public portion.

[2:00:26] Um and then I believe the best way to do

[2:00:29] this is to talk about the HOA inclusion

[2:00:32] or not first because that will determine

[2:00:34] uh council member Hawky's additional

[2:00:36] participation. So we will ask you to um

[2:00:39] pop off the Zoom uh please and we will

[2:00:42] have

[2:00:42] >> Thank you.

[2:00:43] » Thank you.

[2:00:43] >> the city clerk will text you when it's

[2:00:44] » the city clerk will text you when it's

[2:00:44] time to dial back in.

[2:00:46] >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[2:00:53] » So, as included in the framework, uh

[2:00:56] currently 59-18

[2:00:58] excludes HOAs from participating in any

[2:01:03] um process to move towards public

[2:01:06] acceptance. And so I think this is um I

[2:01:10] think a key piece of any changes that

[2:01:12] could be made to uh any program that the

[2:01:16] city would offer in the future. Uh so I

[2:01:19] think that's

[2:01:21] much of what infrastructure committee

[2:01:23] members were hearing at those meetings

[2:01:25] was around I mean there's a large group

[2:01:27] of folks that were living in HOA areas

[2:01:30] not just wilder but other areas as well

[2:01:32] that have uh hosienda streets the roads

[2:01:34] of hosienda I think was another one as

[2:01:36] well. Um, so it was really, oh, I'm

[2:01:40] happy to stop talking, [laughter]

[2:01:42] very happy. Um, to to really just have a

[2:01:46] conversation about, you know, if there

[2:01:49] is a desire to potentially include them,

[2:01:53] that doesn't mean yes, the answers

[2:01:55] tonight. But if there is a desire to do

[2:01:57] that, that would allow staff to go back

[2:02:00] and sharpen their pencils about impact,

[2:02:02] right? What does the impact look like?

[2:02:04] if um for example the Wilder community

[2:02:07] came forward and said we'd like all of

[2:02:10] our streets to be public and you know

[2:02:12] what sort of financial impact that could

[2:02:14] have to our road maintenance program

[2:02:15] over time. So I mean we could we just

[2:02:18] didn't want to as staff spend time

[2:02:20] researching all these issues unless we

[2:02:22] had some consensus amongst the council.

[2:02:24] These are the issues you want us to

[2:02:26] research. So um I'm going to turn it

[2:02:29] back over to the three of you to discuss

[2:02:31] and give us some feedback on that.

[2:02:34] If I may, because I'm I'm talking to two

[2:02:36] people who are already sort of

[2:02:38] advocating for [laughter]

[2:02:39] going to be a very short discussion. Um,

[2:02:42] I'd like to frame this because it's an

[2:02:44] issue I thought about a lot and I'd

[2:02:46] actually like to credit both Bob and

[2:02:48] Kathy Finch right when I got elected. um

[2:02:50] we had a a call to talk about private

[2:02:53] roads and I was just listening to these

[2:02:55] issues for the first time, but they

[2:02:56] really opened my mind um about the the

[2:03:01] considerations to get beyond the

[2:03:03] knee-jerk Prop 13 argument. Um

[2:03:08] you know, the way I think about HOAs is

[2:03:10] they do have well-maintained roads. They

[2:03:14] do have assessments that have already

[2:03:16] been collected. So, they've got reserves

[2:03:18] and after some number of decades, at

[2:03:21] what point does a subdivision just

[2:03:23] become part of the city and you need to

[2:03:25] stop treating it like the new

[2:03:27] neighborhood? That said, um the reason

[2:03:31] they were excluded is that Prop 13 is so

[2:03:34] different from the the way the rest of

[2:03:36] the country operates with subdivisions

[2:03:38] because we

[2:03:41] >> we cannot

[2:03:43] » we cannot

[2:03:43] uh collect assessments in more you know

[2:03:46] the the costs go up with inflation and

[2:03:48] our ability to collect against those

[2:03:50] costs is limited at that 2% as long as

[2:03:53] they stay in their HOAs.

[2:03:56] their assessments allow them to cover

[2:03:59] costs with assessments that actually

[2:04:02] keep pace with inflation. And that is a

[2:04:04] a really fundamental imbalance that we

[2:04:08] cannot correct for the non-HOAs, but you

[2:04:11] can correct inside them. And so the the

[2:04:15] first thing I would like to hear um the

[2:04:17] subcommittee address is do you

[2:04:20] affirmatively advocate including HOA?

[2:04:22] Have you formed your own position? And

[2:04:23] if so, how do you deal with that

[2:04:26] problem?

[2:04:32] » I guess I'll just chime in. Uh

[2:04:36] [sighs and gasps]

[2:04:39] the thought process,

[2:04:42] I don't know that I can address your

[2:04:43] exact question because it goes to the

[2:04:44] financing and Prop 13. And yes, this is

[2:04:47] why when you walk around Florida,

[2:04:51] there's roadways and infrastructure. And

[2:04:53] I look at their taxes and our taxes and

[2:04:56] you know, it doesn't make a lot of

[2:04:58] sense, but we have Prop 13. Um, that is

[2:05:00] true. But I will just address why I was

[2:05:03] going to mention they don't have a state

[2:05:05] income tax and we do,

[2:05:07] >> right? But still, anyway, there's a lot

[2:05:09] » right? But still, anyway, there's a lot

[2:05:09] of other things. But anyway, um

[2:05:13] the prior resolution has or the existing

[2:05:17] resolution I'm saying because we still

[2:05:19] have this this is still our our um says

[2:05:24] um acceptance of existing privately

[2:05:27] maintained subject to the following

[2:05:28] criteria. One says, "Except where the

[2:05:31] city council approves an exception,

[2:05:33] private roads for which a homeowners

[2:05:34] association or similar entity was

[2:05:36] established for subdivision street

[2:05:39] ownership maintenance are not eligible

[2:05:42] for acceptance by the city. Given the

[2:05:47] number of residents who have been

[2:05:50] participating for the last year and a

[2:05:52] half or however long it's been in this

[2:05:54] in the infrastructure subcommittee who

[2:05:58] either are members of an HOA or you know

[2:06:01] live in an HOA and and

[2:06:05] also even other residents who aren't

[2:06:08] part of an HOA who have who have

[2:06:10] expressed

[2:06:12] um

[2:06:16] some support that members of an HOA

[2:06:18] should I to me including this in the

[2:06:22] framework

[2:06:23] is to me taking the position that HOAs

[2:06:27] should not uniformly be excluded from

[2:06:31] this process right to the extent we're

[2:06:34] trying to adoption

[2:06:36] >> cannot be the criteria if you can't

[2:06:38] » cannot be the criteria if you can't

[2:06:38] address the financial

[2:06:41] reason why they were excluded to begin

[2:06:42] with. And I'm sorry, it's so hard to

[2:06:44] look both ways.

[2:06:45] >> No, no, it's I mean,

[2:06:46] » No, no, it's I mean,

[2:06:46] >> no. Well, let let me add one thing that

[2:06:49] » no. Well, let let me add one thing that

[2:06:49] and again, you know, staff can can

[2:06:52] provide you with a lot more detail, but

[2:06:54] again, remember, it's not that we don't

[2:06:56] take any of our uh road and

[2:06:59] infrastructure funding from our property

[2:07:01] taxes. We do, but the reality is is our

[2:07:05] transportation funding comes from a

[2:07:08] multitude of sources. And it's not all

[2:07:11] based on um on uh our property taxes.

[2:07:16] Okay? So remember that we've we've had

[2:07:18] road bonds, we have sales tax, we have

[2:07:20] measure R, we have return to source from

[2:07:22] our county sales taxes, we have state of

[2:07:25] California grants and and um I mean the

[2:07:29] the problem with transportation and um

[2:07:32] I'm looking at Scott and SA there there

[2:07:34] are days when I say I should have stayed

[2:07:36] in water and wastewater because it's a

[2:07:38] lot easier. Um, transportation is a

[2:07:41] nightmare and you have to have five

[2:07:42] kinds of colors of money to fund

[2:07:45] anything these days and it's just

[2:07:47] getting worse, not better. So, so

[2:07:49] remember that a as well as there's a

[2:07:52] whole multitude of other issues you're

[2:07:54] not raising when it comes to the

[2:07:55] difference between private and public.

[2:07:58] uh public is subject to all of the you

[2:08:00] know public works requirements and you

[2:08:03] know quite frankly private HOAs can

[2:08:06] maintain their roads cheaper than the

[2:08:08] public can. That's just a fact. Um but

[2:08:11] that doesn't again that's not trying to

[2:08:13] take this into consideration. This is

[2:08:15] trying to, as our city manager said,

[2:08:17] this is trying to move toward a tonal

[2:08:19] shift of we've had a lot of division in

[2:08:22] the community already over this topic in

[2:08:24] the broadest sense. And then to me right

[2:08:28] now, it makes no sense trying to create

[2:08:30] a new framework that we would still sort

[2:08:32] of try to separate out another group of

[2:08:36] people that represents a very, you know,

[2:08:38] broad swath of our community. and and

[2:08:41] there are different kinds of HOAs uh

[2:08:43] within our community as well. So again,

[2:08:46] they're not one sizefits-all. So I I

[2:08:49] just in the broadest sense of again this

[2:08:51] being a framework rather than a lot of

[2:08:54] details,

[2:08:56] I don't see the logic of what we're

[2:08:58] trying to accomplish to still want to

[2:09:00] segregate the HOAs out and say, gee, you

[2:09:02] can't participate because again, that

[2:09:05] just affects an awful lot of of people.

[2:09:09] How can you say you don't see the logic

[2:09:12] when private homeowners associations can

[2:09:16] assess consistent with inflation and the

[2:09:19] rest of the city cannot? I mean to lose

[2:09:21] the ability to assess commensurate with

[2:09:25] the need is huge. [snorts]

[2:09:28] And the prior city manager, you know,

[2:09:31] used to always say we could even if we

[2:09:33] look at the private road issue, we can

[2:09:35] never consider letting HOAs in because

[2:09:39] it would blow up the budget so

[2:09:41] dramatically to have the same Prop 13

[2:09:44] constraints apply to an additional 20%

[2:09:47] of roads. And I know they're in good

[2:09:49] condition today, but we're talking about

[2:09:53] a long long-term policy change. And I

[2:09:55] just I am concerned that the arguments

[2:09:58] I'm hearing are well gosh they really

[2:10:00] are participating and we should include

[2:10:02] them. This is not about inclusiveness.

[2:10:04] It is about an a financial burden the

[2:10:08] city could not bear. And if we say that

[2:10:11] we are going to change the framework to

[2:10:13] allow HOAs I think it would be

[2:10:15] incredibly naive to pretend like but we

[2:10:17] might not actually. I mean, I think if

[2:10:19] you're going to say HOAs can be part of

[2:10:21] it, we must be prepared to design a

[2:10:25] program that affirmatively

[2:10:28] includes and addresses and figures it

[2:10:31] out, which I'm still open-minded, but

[2:10:34] I'm not hearing any arguments other than

[2:10:36] inclusivity

[2:10:38] to deal with the big problem. Well,

[2:10:42] there's no doubt that over time

[2:10:46] there's an enormous amount of financial,

[2:10:48] you know,

[2:10:51] lens that has to be implied to anything

[2:10:54] that comes up. But remember, I I I

[2:10:58] sort of interpret that the way you're

[2:11:00] seeing this is this means that all of

[2:11:02] our private roads are are immediately

[2:11:05] going to become public or going to

[2:11:07] immediately all apply to become public.

[2:11:09] And that's not what the framework and

[2:11:10] the policy is in is intended to do. Some

[2:11:14] people feel in the community feel really

[2:11:16] strongly that they want to do that.

[2:11:17] Others don't.

[2:11:18] >> But could you address that comment

[2:11:20] » But could you address that comment

[2:11:20] specifically to the HOAs that are

[2:11:22] participating like Wilder, Arinda Woods,

[2:11:26] Arinda Grove, the kind of the three

[2:11:28] bigger ones? Which of those do you

[2:11:30] expect in and I don't mean in the first

[2:11:32] six months but in short order to uh

[2:11:36] request a process for integration?

[2:11:40] >> I I I don't honestly know Madame Mayor.

[2:11:42] » I I I don't honestly know Madame Mayor.

[2:11:42] I mean we don't know because there are

[2:11:44] so many other details of this that

[2:11:46] aren't outlined at this point. you know,

[2:11:48] we haven't really this sort of tonal

[2:11:51] shift of, you know, we could get there

[2:11:53] instead of continuing to say, you know,

[2:11:56] no, we can't look at our infrastructure

[2:11:58] in a more holistic manner is is

[2:12:02] relatively new. There's a lot of devil

[2:12:04] in the details that's not here yet, but

[2:12:07] um

[2:12:08] >> and and this isn't

[2:12:11] » and and this isn't

[2:12:11] okay. this

[2:12:14] when when you're asking about I I feel

[2:12:19] like the

[2:12:22] including them in the framework

[2:12:24] or not excluding them in the framework

[2:12:28] does not necessarily mean that they're

[2:12:30] going to apply for and be accepted as

[2:12:33] public roads in the next when you say in

[2:12:36] short order I don't know what that I

[2:12:37] view this pro I view this this issue

[2:12:41] as a

[2:12:44] many year issue for us to resolve.

[2:12:47] This is another step there. We simply

[2:12:50] don't have the finances to allow all

[2:12:53] these HOAs immediately to become public

[2:12:56] roads. We just don't have the budget

[2:12:59] now. However, to have on paper a

[2:13:03] resolution that excludes them from any

[2:13:07] possible path in the future to me is the

[2:13:09] problem. That's what we're doing here.

[2:13:11] we're not necessarily taking the next

[2:13:14] step in my mind and I'll ask you know to

[2:13:17] correct me if I'm wrong that

[2:13:20] that there will be this immediate

[2:13:22] acceptance of you know all HOA roads or

[2:13:27] even large HOAs cuz it it

[2:13:30] [clears throat]

[2:13:32] again we need to proceed with you know

[2:13:36] stepby-step

[2:13:37] careful nuanced solutions not an

[2:13:40] overnight

[2:13:41] dramatic sea change where we all became

[2:13:45] public roads. I mean, if we wanted to

[2:13:46] self- tax ourselves, you know, 5% sales

[2:13:49] tax, we could probably do it, but we we

[2:13:52] can't do it unless we we did that. And

[2:13:53] we're not I'm not by any means

[2:13:55] suggesting we do that. Our residents

[2:13:57] wouldn't want it. So, you said was super

[2:13:58] helpful. It may again, I think the idea

[2:14:00] is we're kind of workshopping here and

[2:14:02] and without two of our five, so it's,

[2:14:05] >> you know, get what you pay for. Um, but

[2:14:07] » you know, get what you pay for. Um, but

[2:14:07] what you said about a framework I think

[2:14:09] was incredibly helpful because and we'll

[2:14:12] kind of pull it back up. Um, I had two

[2:14:14] comments. One is when I was reading this

[2:14:16] before the meeting was it was it feels

[2:14:18] kind of touchyfey, right? This is a tone

[2:14:20] reset where we want to shift the

[2:14:23] conversation which would be fine if you

[2:14:26] weren't I I actually think the decision

[2:14:29] whether or not to include HOAs is the

[2:14:31] single most important fork in the road

[2:14:33] we're going to face in this

[2:14:34] conversation. And I don't want to make

[2:14:36] light of it and just say it's a tone

[2:14:38] shift. It's a monumental potential

[2:14:42] fiscal change and I'm still open to it.

[2:14:46] So I'm not

[2:14:47] >> I'm not saying we can never but I am

[2:14:50] » I'm not saying we can never but I am

[2:14:50] saying that is no tone shift. That is a

[2:14:53] massive policy decision that we cannot

[2:14:58] make without looking at how you pay for

[2:15:01] it. That is the decision. So, um, I

[2:15:05] actually really liked what I heard from

[2:15:08] the Finches when I was first elected

[2:15:10] about the the fact that their roads are

[2:15:13] really wellmaintained and we are solving

[2:15:15] this for the life of the city and they

[2:15:18] do have pretty good reserves already.

[2:15:20] So, I I still would like to explore HOA

[2:15:24] solutions. However, semicolon however

[2:15:29] inside the 5918 framework I think is the

[2:15:32] wrong place to do it because the 5918

[2:15:34] framework is an actual ordinance that

[2:15:37] says we shall

[2:15:39] uh you know this is how we will adopt p

[2:15:43] uh private roads into the public road

[2:15:44] system. And I when you say framework my

[2:15:48] other note here was like it's like

[2:15:49] tennis without a net, right? We're gonna

[2:15:52] have a framework and it's going to have

[2:15:53] no rules. That's not a framework. The

[2:15:56] framework is the 5918 ordinance, which

[2:16:00] is an existing law, which I agree

[2:16:03] um isn't going to work without some

[2:16:07] uh some modifications that make it work.

[2:16:10] But when I think about what the

[2:16:12] infrastructure subcommittee is doing,

[2:16:15] it's so much more than 5918. 5918 is not

[2:16:18] the framework. The framework is actually

[2:16:21] um this whole idea of coming back with

[2:16:24] something where it's not like the T-AC

[2:16:26] where a neighborhood is asking for a

[2:16:28] speed bump and they have to petition and

[2:16:30] figure it all out for themselves. This

[2:16:31] is the city figuring out how we

[2:16:37] can play a much bigger role. You know,

[2:16:39] the the figuring out the PCIs was a

[2:16:42] breakthrough, right? That was the

[2:16:43] ability to then look at things and say,

[2:16:46] "Hey, these are these are actually not

[2:16:48] that hard and we can help and we can

[2:16:51] help people organize for those that need

[2:16:53] some work. We can help people form an

[2:16:55] assessment district. We can help do the

[2:16:58] neighborhood organizing."

[2:17:00] And the idea would there would be a

[2:17:02] private infrastructure program that

[2:17:03] would over a long period of time

[2:17:07] create a path for anybody who wants to

[2:17:10] do it to do it. It's not neighborhoods

[2:17:13] self-organizing,

[2:17:16] but

[2:17:17] what was on tonight's agenda was this

[2:17:19] very specific list that felt like

[2:17:21] modifying 5913

[2:17:24] and it it felt sort of cart before the

[2:17:26] horse where we're talking about well,

[2:17:28] oh, let's take out the no subdivision

[2:17:30] restriction

[2:17:32] but with no plan for what we do if we

[2:17:36] say we will consider private road

[2:17:38] adoption of subdivisions.

[2:17:40] I think 5918 is not the framework. The

[2:17:42] framework is the framework.

[2:17:46] And so I I kind of felt like that bullet

[2:17:48] point list was misplaced relative to

[2:17:51] tonight's check-in.

[2:17:52] >> Okay. So just a couple thoughts and then

[2:17:55] » Okay. So just a couple thoughts and then

[2:17:55] I'll

[2:17:56] >> Okay. Um,

[2:17:58] » Okay. Um,

[2:17:58] one thing you reminded me of in this

[2:18:00] conversation is that we had a public

[2:18:01] comment about assessment districts. Um,

[2:18:04] and that there might be various ways and

[2:18:08] different communities or different

[2:18:09] neighborhoods might might want different

[2:18:11] things and that is very much still an

[2:18:15] opportunity and a possibility and

[2:18:17] different, you know, Sanel, there's

[2:18:19] different things we could still do. this

[2:18:24] um

[2:18:27] the I think it might be maybe not but it

[2:18:32] might be helpful to just currently 5918

[2:18:36] the first sentence of the resolution is

[2:18:39] it says the acceptance the acceptance of

[2:18:41] existing privately maintained roads into

[2:18:44] the city's public roadway network shall

[2:18:46] be by resolution of the city council and

[2:18:50] shall be subject to the following

[2:18:51] criteria. IA. So what it is is it's it's

[2:18:55] criteria and so what we're calling

[2:18:56] framework is criteria. It does not say

[2:19:00] if you meet all this criteria you are

[2:19:02] accepted. It is still by resolution. But

[2:19:06] what we are doing is we had a in my mind

[2:19:09] this is just how I view this. We had a

[2:19:11] resolution that included criteria and it

[2:19:15] said the only path is if you meet all

[2:19:19] this criteria and it's it's basically

[2:19:20] impossible to meet, right? Like you

[2:19:22] asked about the 20-year

[2:19:25] to have it's it's I remember now from

[2:19:28] the infrastructure discussion because we

[2:19:30] asked about that, right? And it was the

[2:19:33] response was that it was

[2:19:36] basically we weren't even sure how

[2:19:38] someone would show, you know, show that,

[2:19:40] right? So to this point the question is

[2:19:45] should the criteria say that HOAs are

[2:19:49] excluded and to me that's a lot more

[2:19:51] narrow and doesn't require us right now

[2:19:55] to say

[2:19:57] how are we going to pay for

[2:19:59] you know all the HOA privately

[2:20:02] maintained roads becoming public roads.

[2:20:04] We are simply saying that in the

[2:20:06] criteria we are not excluding them which

[2:20:08] is big. I'm not saying it's not huge. I

[2:20:10] don't want to minimize that. It is big.

[2:20:13] It's It is a very big policy change,

[2:20:17] but I do favor it. And I also

[2:20:23] absolutely underscore underline in bold

[2:20:27] to me

[2:20:30] removing this exclusion from the

[2:20:31] criteria doesn't mean and shouldn't be

[2:20:35] you know read as we are going to

[2:20:37] immediately be able to adopt all these

[2:20:40] roads as public roads

[2:20:43] because to do anything like that has a

[2:20:47] funding mechanism and a funding

[2:20:48] implication and that has to be accounted

[2:20:52] for because we don't overspend here. We

[2:20:55] maintain our reserves. So I do agree

[2:20:58] that that is a huge huge thing that has

[2:21:02] to be done but also view this resolution

[2:21:06] along those lines. I don't know if

[2:21:08] that's helpful or or not.

[2:21:11] Yeah, I agree. I in the sense that again

[2:21:16] what ultimately comes out of this um may

[2:21:20] be a lot of things but the the goal was

[2:21:24] not to at this stage just

[2:21:30] continue

[2:21:34] well I I think council member Malcanu

[2:21:37] said it well not not to just start

[2:21:39] excluding because first of all it's not

[2:21:42] it's not an immediate acceptance of

[2:21:44] anything, right? It's as well as the

[2:21:47] fact that we know from listening to

[2:21:48] people and we have listened over the

[2:21:51] last year and a half and we know both

[2:21:54] from lots of the written comments we've

[2:21:56] gotten, what we've heard in person, um

[2:21:59] what the city's dealt with over the last

[2:22:01] decade on this issue is, you know, we

[2:22:03] have people that are perfectly happy

[2:22:05] with their private road and don't want

[2:22:07] anything. They don't want anything from

[2:22:09] the city. they don't they they're

[2:22:11] perfectly happy with the situation. We

[2:22:13] know that we have people that are on the

[2:22:15] other side that believe for whatever

[2:22:18] combination of reasons that the city

[2:22:21] should um adopt their road into the

[2:22:24] public system in some way, shape or

[2:22:26] form. And we have, believe it or not,

[2:22:28] quite a few people in various categories

[2:22:32] in between. We have some people that

[2:22:34] really care about the ownership of the

[2:22:35] road. We have other people that just

[2:22:37] care about the finances of getting the

[2:22:39] road maintained. We also have some

[2:22:41] people that are not as not all that

[2:22:44] adverse to maintaining it, but they're

[2:22:47] having difficulties doing that because

[2:22:51] they don't have an HOA. They don't have

[2:22:53] a mechanism to get their neighbors to

[2:22:55] contribute. They just they have all

[2:22:57] kinds of other challenges that just make

[2:23:01] doing your own public works kind of

[2:23:03] hard.

[2:23:04] >> No. And I and I want to save some of

[2:23:05] » No. And I and I want to save some of

[2:23:05] those comments for when council member

[2:23:06] Hawky can come back. The the specific

[2:23:08] question here is where there is an

[2:23:10] assessment, you know, where there is an

[2:23:13] HOA. And I again I just I I I'm sorry to

[2:23:17] be so hard-nosed about this, but

[2:23:20] I feel what is being set forth is like a

[2:23:24] tone set and and I agree 5918 is is not

[2:23:30] working right. the whole but but again

[2:23:32] to talk about

[2:23:34] specific changes to this law in the same

[2:23:38] spirit as and you know somebody used the

[2:23:40] expression good faith right I think

[2:23:42] that's the the tone reset happened when

[2:23:44] we formed the subcommittee when we when

[2:23:47] we reupted I mean I I don't think we

[2:23:50] would be spending the resources we've

[2:23:51] been spending for years on the

[2:23:53] subcommittee if we were not committed to

[2:23:56] work together in good faith to find a

[2:23:59] better way to deal with private

[2:24:01] infrastructure. And so I I just again

[2:24:05] this it felt to me like you guys were

[2:24:06] trying to disassemble 5918 from the

[2:24:10] inside and leave nothing there but kind

[2:24:13] of an empty shell. And that's to me not

[2:24:17] the point. The point is to come back and

[2:24:19] say forget what's in 5918. We'll deal

[2:24:22] with that when we have the final the

[2:24:24] final program legal changes financing

[2:24:28] figured out. But what I was

[2:24:31] hoping would come back in a check-in is

[2:24:34] to say, you know, number one, HOAs,

[2:24:36] should we or should we not um should

[2:24:40] they be at the table or not at the

[2:24:41] table, which is I think what you meant

[2:24:44] with the HOA conversation, but then um

[2:24:49] go ahead.

[2:24:50] >> Sorry. The question is if we're

[2:24:53] » Sorry. The question is if we're

[2:24:53] developing criteria for potential

[2:24:57] in order to even be cons if we're

[2:24:59] developing criteria should HOAs be

[2:25:01] excluded from the crit

[2:25:04] is part of the criteria is one item in

[2:25:07] the criteria that HOAs are excluded from

[2:25:08] this resolution but that's the question

[2:25:10] the resolution that's my point not the

[2:25:13] resolution we are not

[2:25:16] >> sorry I'm not understand

[2:25:17] » sorry I'm not understand

[2:25:17] >> I as the person in this conversation is

[2:25:19] » I as the person in this conversation is

[2:25:19] the one of the three people who are not

[2:25:20] on the subcommittee.

[2:25:22] I am nowhere near prepared to uh to say

[2:25:27] that we should include HOAs in private

[2:25:33] road adoption until you have been able

[2:25:36] to address how we deal with uh the

[2:25:40] imbalance of assessments can adjust with

[2:25:42] inflation, property tax cannot.

[2:25:46] So, do I want to say they are not part

[2:25:48] of the subcommittee's charter? No, there

[2:25:50] absolutely should be part of the

[2:25:51] subcommittee's charter. First, you have

[2:25:54] to answer the question about if we can

[2:25:56] come. Is there a solution out there that

[2:25:58] works to include the HOAs?

[2:26:02] >> Well, I guess my feeling is we would

[2:26:03] » Well, I guess my feeling is we would

[2:26:03] never know that if we arbitrarily

[2:26:05] exclude them right now,

[2:26:10] » but do you

[2:26:12] >> Yes. I mean, I I understand your

[2:26:14] » Yes. I mean, I I understand your

[2:26:14] concerns, which I think,

[2:26:17] you know, come back primarily to cost

[2:26:22] ultimately, but we all know that. We all

[2:26:24] know that however this gets approached.

[2:26:27] And even the people that live on private

[2:26:29] roads in this community, no matter how

[2:26:31] strongly they feel one way or the other

[2:26:33] about various topics, all recognize that

[2:26:36] at the end of the day, it comes down to

[2:26:38] how could this be structured costwise?

[2:26:41] Um and and there are a lot of questions

[2:26:43] around that. Um, but I guess in my mind

[2:26:46] I don't want at this point to say

[2:26:50] because you're an HO part of an HOA,

[2:26:53] it means that you can't be again because

[2:26:57] I guess my sense of the goal originally

[2:27:00] was to find ways to keep this

[2:27:04] to find ways to bring this issue

[2:27:08] together more than letting it continue

[2:27:10] to be a very divisive, painful issue in

[2:27:13] the community. And to me, if you're

[2:27:15] right again, not allowing HOAs to be

[2:27:19] considered, then that's again

[2:27:23] just being divisive rather than finding

[2:27:25] ways to find solutions. Even though I'm

[2:27:28] I'm not disagreeing with you that there

[2:27:30] may be financial issues that, you know,

[2:27:34] may or may not be able to be overcome in

[2:27:36] the future.

[2:27:38] >> I go ahead. the the the

[2:27:42] » I go ahead. the the the

[2:27:42] actual language says that

[2:27:46] HOAs are not eligible for acceptance by

[2:27:49] the city. So it says under

[2:27:51] >> you are not hearing my feedback. So I

[2:27:53] » you are not hearing my feedback. So I

[2:27:53] want to try this one more time.

[2:27:55] >> As long as you're trying to reddraft

[2:27:56] » As long as you're trying to reddraft

[2:27:56] that law, I am not going to agree. We're

[2:27:59] not ready. As long as you're telling me

[2:28:02] because like Darlene on my right is

[2:28:05] saying

[2:28:06] the subcommittee the infrastructure

[2:28:08] subcommittee would like to keep working

[2:28:10] on potential solutions. I am on board

[2:28:13] with that.

[2:28:14] >> Then you're saying well 5918 says that

[2:28:18] » Then you're saying well 5918 says that

[2:28:18] HOAs are excluded. 5918 is a path to

[2:28:22] adoption and I'm not ready to put HOAs

[2:28:26] in the path to adoption until we can

[2:28:29] solve the big fiscal imbalance question.

[2:28:34] So I want I would like to see the

[2:28:37] subcommittee keep working on HOA

[2:28:41] inclusion

[2:28:43] if there is a way to do it. But every

[2:28:45] time you point to 5918, I'm going to say

[2:28:48] no because that is the that was actually

[2:28:51] something saying if you do these things,

[2:28:53] the city can adopt your road.

[2:28:55] >> That's not what it's

[2:28:57] » That's not what it's

[2:28:57] it says you're not going to be

[2:28:59] considered

[2:29:00] unless you do all these things. It's it

[2:29:04] it's disingenuous to say, "Oh, you could

[2:29:06] do all these things, but then we're not

[2:29:07] going to consider you because

[2:29:10] we can't afford you and you knew all

[2:29:12] along we could never afford you." I mean

[2:29:13] that it just if it's not possible for

[2:29:17] HOAs then it's not possible.

[2:29:19] >> I mean

[2:29:23] » I don't think that considering finances

[2:29:25] when you're looking at adoption is

[2:29:27] disingenuous. I think everyone knows we

[2:29:29] have to be looking at that as well. So I

[2:29:31] don't I I'm I'm not trying to I hear

[2:29:35] what you're saying. I just think that to

[2:29:38] me what is before us, right? What we're

[2:29:41] looking at is something very specific

[2:29:45] and

[2:29:47] the issue of whether there will be whe

[2:29:51] when and how

[2:29:54] there will be a financial

[2:29:57] um there will be funding basically to

[2:30:00] adopt any any private road in any

[2:30:03] homeowners association or all of them or

[2:30:06] one of them or is

[2:30:10] a very fact-specific inquiry that will

[2:30:12] happen at the time and may frankly

[2:30:14] happen way down the road because there

[2:30:18] isn't funding for it to happen now. So I

[2:30:21] am not trying to be say that we do this

[2:30:26] and then oh well we've already done it

[2:30:28] so everyone gets accepted right that is

[2:30:31] no that I mean I I guess I'm trying to

[2:30:35] be really clear about the understanding

[2:30:37] of what it means to rewrite the criteria

[2:30:40] in here right and that the expectation

[2:30:43] should not be and I and I think that

[2:30:45] those that have been attending the

[2:30:46] subcommittee meetings get that because

[2:30:49] there's been a lot to talk about. We

[2:30:51] keep one question that keeps coming up

[2:30:53] in the subcommittee, frankly, is well,

[2:30:55] what's the next step? How does this get

[2:30:57] happen? How does this get happen? And we

[2:30:58] keep having to say, we're not there yet,

[2:31:02] right? We're not we're not there yet in

[2:31:04] terms of refiguring out the funding.

[2:31:06] What we're trying to do is keep moving

[2:31:09] forward towards problem solving,

[2:31:12] recognizing that this is a really big

[2:31:14] problem that may take, frankly, I

[2:31:16] personally think years to solve.

[2:31:19] And that doesn't mean that this the

[2:31:21] infrastructure subcommittee will exist

[2:31:23] for for for staff purposes. I'm not

[2:31:25] suggesting that that needs to exist for

[2:31:27] years and years. But I think that the

[2:31:29] council will continue to,

[2:31:33] you know, be revisiting this issue for

[2:31:36] years in terms of especially when you

[2:31:38] get to funding. So, I'm not, you know,

[2:31:40] but if if this exclusion was maintained,

[2:31:44] the way I view it, and maybe I'm

[2:31:45] misreading it, but the way I view it is

[2:31:49] if this exclusion were maintained, then

[2:31:51] no matter what the circumstances, no

[2:31:54] road in any homeowners association, no

[2:31:58] residents living on a privately

[2:31:59] maintained road in any homeowners

[2:32:01] association

[2:32:03] could ever seek adoption.

[2:32:06] And that to me is different from

[2:32:08] everyone gets it and the same thing back

[2:32:09] and forth and everybody in the audience

[2:32:10] is thrashing in their chairs. So

[2:32:14] >> we can we can move forward with saying I

[2:32:19] » we can we can move forward with saying I

[2:32:19] I'm going to rephrase it the way Vice

[2:32:20] Mayor G said it, which is

[2:32:23] we are not going to say that HOAs are

[2:32:27] categorically cannot be considered off

[2:32:29] the table. I thought HOAs were in the

[2:32:31] charter of the subcommittee from the

[2:32:32] beginning and should be and for that

[2:32:35] purpose I would like to invite council

[2:32:37] member Hawky back in the conversation

[2:32:39] but every time you point to that law and

[2:32:42] you say

[2:32:44] change this sentence I am going to say

[2:32:47] no what I would like is for the

[2:32:50] subcommittee to come back with an actual

[2:32:53] program that says here's I mean yes this

[2:32:57] law basically says you can't be accepted

[2:32:59] is a public road unless you do all these

[2:33:01] things and you need to be darn near

[2:33:03] perfect. And I agree that that law as

[2:33:06] our one and only way to work didn't

[2:33:08] work. But what I expected from the

[2:33:09] subcommittee was something that that

[2:33:12] doesn't worry too much about what that

[2:33:14] existing law says, but says here's a

[2:33:17] program. Here's a solution. And I'm not

[2:33:20] hearing a solution. What I'm hearing is

[2:33:22] words smithing the existing law. So I I

[2:33:25] do want to get council member back.

[2:33:27] >> Can I ask you a question? Um I I think

[2:33:29] » Can I ask you a question? Um I I think

[2:33:29] that and again I I don't want to be

[2:33:31] overly presumptive but

[2:33:34] >> I think certainly a lot of members of

[2:33:36] » I think certainly a lot of members of

[2:33:36] the community um

[2:33:38] >> you know feel that ultimately if we can

[2:33:41] » you know feel that ultimately if we can

[2:33:41] come up with anything that is better

[2:33:43] than what we have today that 5918 would

[2:33:47] have to either be revised or replaced or

[2:33:51] one of the two that it we probably can't

[2:33:54] come up with solutions

[2:33:57] and then still have 5918 be exactly the

[2:34:00] way it is. I I guess my and so it's a

[2:34:02] question to you.

[2:34:04] >> Of course, of course. Of course. I think

[2:34:06] » Of course, of course. Of course. I think

[2:34:06] we wouldn't have formed the subcommittee

[2:34:07] if we were trying to just redline 5918.

[2:34:09] I think the idea was we need

[2:34:11] fundamentally new programs and

[2:34:13] approaches and it might be a grant

[2:34:16] program. It might be a maintenance

[2:34:17] contract. It might be a way that we work

[2:34:21] with any HOA or private road for

[2:34:24] something that changes the criteria to

[2:34:27] things that are PCI based and where we

[2:34:30] help people form assessments when

[2:34:33] because the whole thing about neighbors

[2:34:34] having to collect from their neighbors.

[2:34:35] I mean the the existing system

[2:34:37] affirmatively doesn't work and I'm

[2:34:39] excited to see things move forward. But

[2:34:42] I I yeah, I just think that the

[2:34:44] excessive focus on 5918 is not

[2:34:47] constructive and I know staff wants to

[2:34:48] spend their time as well as possible and

[2:34:52] so I would focus on more of the big

[2:34:55] picture solutions before we worry about

[2:34:57] what this bullet point says or that

[2:34:59] bullet point says. Um, I the reason this

[2:35:02] is before the full council right now is

[2:35:04] we didn't want to ask staff to spend

[2:35:07] time and effort into reddrafting

[2:35:09] something that was then

[2:35:13] totally out of whack with the policy

[2:35:16] desires of the full council, right?

[2:35:19] Because it's a lot of work and it's

[2:35:20] tricky and evidenced by the conversation

[2:35:23] we're having, right? It's a tricky thing

[2:35:25] to reddraft. So, we didn't want them

[2:35:28] staff to spend time reddrafting until we

[2:35:31] got this was this was one of these

[2:35:34] things where we looked at it and said,

[2:35:36] "Okay, some of this framework looks

[2:35:38] good. This looks good to us, right? But

[2:35:40] let's bring our colleagues in before

[2:35:43] staff spends time

[2:35:46] putting, you know, so I I'm not trying

[2:35:48] to wordsmith something. I'm just trying

[2:35:50] to tell you that on that point, that's

[2:35:53] what I think it addresses. I went back

[2:35:54] and looked on the other point and you

[2:35:57] know the removal of zoning and

[2:35:59] subdivision standards for adjacent

[2:36:01] properties. That also that also that

[2:36:03] bullet point appears to me to address a

[2:36:07] very specific

[2:36:08] uh clause in the current 5918 and

[2:36:12] frankly I made a note that when it goes

[2:36:14] back to the infrastructure committee we

[2:36:16] better understand that better. So that

[2:36:17] was a helpful feedback. So th that's the

[2:36:19] idea

[2:36:20] >> and I think in many respects madame

[2:36:21] » and I think in many respects madame

[2:36:21] mayor we're putting you in a really

[2:36:23] difficult position. I mean some of this

[2:36:25] may have to be redised when we have

[2:36:27] council member Riley with us and to

[2:36:29] whatever extent council member Hawky can

[2:36:32] participate. I think that's important as

[2:36:34] well because obviously we we sort of

[2:36:36] have a a tough situation where council

[2:36:39] member Mccani and I have sat through a

[2:36:41] whole lot that you haven't had the

[2:36:43] benefit of and our other two council

[2:36:44] members haven't either. So, I think it's

[2:36:46] probably important that we get

[2:36:48] >> No, this is a this is a really weird

[2:36:50] » No, this is a this is a really weird

[2:36:50] dynamic and it's it's really suboptimal.

[2:36:53] So, um I will say though, please and I'm

[2:36:58] I am only one person, but there are only

[2:37:01] three of us that aren't on the

[2:37:02] subcommittee. Do not reddraft 5918 until

[2:37:06] you have something that works figured

[2:37:09] out. Start with a solution and then

[2:37:11] reddraft the law. You're you're truly

[2:37:14] putting the car before the horse.

[2:37:16] >> I

[2:37:17] » I

[2:37:17] when you say some until you have

[2:37:19] something figured out, what what do you

[2:37:21] mean?

[2:37:22] >> Come to us and say here's what was

[2:37:24] » Come to us and say here's what was

[2:37:24] broken and here's how we're going to fix

[2:37:26] it. We think that the you know pick so

[2:37:29] you come to us with a presentation that

[2:37:31] says here were the constraints on

[2:37:33] getting roads adopted. The technical

[2:37:35] standards were too high. Mhm.

[2:37:37] >> The city was so concerned about

[2:37:40] » The city was so concerned about

[2:37:40] liability that they made impossible

[2:37:42] standards to pass. Neighbors had too

[2:37:44] hard a time uh some neighbors

[2:37:47] neighborhoods were well organized, some

[2:37:48] were poorly organized. Neighbors had a

[2:37:51] horrible time with the legalities of

[2:37:52] forming assessment districts and

[2:37:55] neighbors neighborhoods had a horrible

[2:37:56] time with knowing what to do to fix

[2:37:58] their roads. So, if you were to come and

[2:38:01] say, "Here's how we're going to deal

[2:38:03] with neighborhood assessments and

[2:38:06] organization and sort of the legal

[2:38:08] aspects and here's how we're going to

[2:38:09] deal with neighborhoods knowing what

[2:38:11] they need to do to get their roads up to

[2:38:14] an adoptable standard. And here's what

[2:38:16] we think an adoptable standard looks

[2:38:18] like. And here's what we're going to do

[2:38:19] about the fact that some roads are maybe

[2:38:22] have soil erosion issues that are really

[2:38:26] not good for city liability, but are

[2:38:28] also not good for homeowner liability.

[2:38:30] What do we do with things that have

[2:38:32] engineering flaws or problems? Here's

[2:38:35] what we think we should do about HOAs

[2:38:38] and the adoption criteria when an HOA is

[2:38:41] evolved. There's a couple things that we

[2:38:43] have talked about for years now that are

[2:38:46] the known kind of the big boulders of

[2:38:47] the issue. And so before we're talking

[2:38:50] about what the bullet point says about

[2:38:52] subdivision compliance, it's like well

[2:38:55] what's the solution?

[2:38:57] So that particular bullet I have a note

[2:39:01] to go back onto but with everything else

[2:39:04] I thought we were coming with that. So I

[2:39:06] guess anyway, how what's the best way

[2:39:08] for us to move forward? Because you're

[2:39:10] right, it is a it's it's not fair to

[2:39:12] have the conversation also, I think,

[2:39:14] with the

[2:39:14] >> it's like you came with a legal solution

[2:39:16] » it's like you came with a legal solution

[2:39:16] to a business problem and I want to hear

[2:39:18] the business solution before we worry

[2:39:19] about how we're going to draft it. And

[2:39:22] but I would like to invite council

[2:39:23] member Hawky

[2:39:24] >> and I'm to have um to be able to share

[2:39:27] » and I'm to have um to be able to share

[2:39:27] her thoughts and opinions because Lord

[2:39:29] knows she's going to have some as well.

[2:39:32] Um and I do think

[2:39:33] >> what are we so we're just putting I

[2:39:35] » what are we so we're just putting I

[2:39:35] think we've discussed it as much as we

[2:39:37] could. Can we can we discuss the rest

[2:39:39] without that clause?

[2:39:41] >> So the way the FPPC's segmentation rule

[2:39:44] » So the way the FPPC's segmentation rule

[2:39:44] works which is the one we're operating

[2:39:45] under right now um an issue has to be

[2:39:49] segregable from the remainder of the

[2:39:52] discussion. A final decision as much as

[2:39:55] there is one uh tonight has to be

[2:39:57] reached and then cannot return to this

[2:40:00] discussion once council member Hawky

[2:40:02] comes back. I hearing the discussion and

[2:40:06] please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm

[2:40:08] hearing consensus that a property's

[2:40:13] membership in an HOA or non-membership

[2:40:15] in an HOA is not a

[2:40:19] definitive characteristic.

[2:40:22] Right? So whereas my read of the

[2:40:25] existing resolution was that there might

[2:40:27] be a clear dividing line. priv private

[2:40:29] roads are either in an HOA or they are

[2:40:31] not and they are treated differently.

[2:40:33] I'm hearing consensus that that is not

[2:40:36] going to be the case at least for the

[2:40:37] purposes of this highle framework

[2:40:39] discussion.

[2:40:40] >> I believe we are unanimous that they do

[2:40:42] » I believe we are unanimous that they do

[2:40:42] not need to be categorically excluded

[2:40:45] from the consideration and therefore I

[2:40:48] believe council member Hawky can be

[2:40:50] invited back.

[2:40:51] >> That's my understanding as well.

[2:40:52] » That's my understanding as well.

[2:40:52] >> Okay, great. So I think we've reached a

[2:40:54] » Okay, great. So I think we've reached a

[2:40:54] final decision.

[2:40:55] >> I'm sorry this is so hard. It just it's

[2:40:57] » I'm sorry this is so hard. It just it's

[2:40:57] a hard issue. Thank you. Okay. So, so

[2:41:02] Council Member Hawky, I texted her to

[2:41:04] return. Is she back?

[2:41:06] >> Okay.

[2:41:09] » Okay.

[2:41:09] >> Hello everyone.

[2:41:11] » Hello everyone.

[2:41:11] >> Hello. Hello. So, we've been um I've

[2:41:14] » Hello. Hello. So, we've been um I've

[2:41:14] been monologuing. I know that surprises

[2:41:16] you. [clears throat] So, we would love

[2:41:18] for you to kind of share your questions,

[2:41:21] your thoughts, your concerns, and I'll

[2:41:22] uh have the subcommittee respond with

[2:41:25] you uh similarly.

[2:41:27] >> Thank you. One of the questions I've

[2:41:29] » Thank you. One of the questions I've

[2:41:29] been thinking about is sort of how

[2:41:31] assuming the city can't afford to take

[2:41:34] all private roads in at once. Is there

[2:41:38] going to be some sort of prioritization

[2:41:41] of what types of private roads we're

[2:41:43] most interested in helping with

[2:41:46] maintenance such as maybe through roads

[2:41:48] or roads that could be an evacuation

[2:41:50] route or um roads that are already in

[2:41:54] great shape? I mean, is there any sort

[2:41:56] of prioritization as part of this

[2:41:59] framework.

[2:42:02] » I think not yet.

[2:42:04] >> I mean, it's not an issue that's been um

[2:42:06] » I mean, it's not an issue that's been um

[2:42:06] talked about yet, Council Member Hawky.

[2:42:08] I mean, it's certainly I would certainly

[2:42:10] say it

[2:42:12] >> would easily be on the table in the

[2:42:14] » would easily be on the table in the

[2:42:14] sense that

[2:42:16] when you weren't with us, Council Member

[2:42:17] Malcani explained

[2:42:20] this. I think this is envisioned maybe

[2:42:23] not by everybody and certainly by not

[2:42:24] every member of our public, but I think

[2:42:27] there's a recognition that this might be

[2:42:30] a pretty lengthy process.

[2:42:32] >> Absolutely.

[2:42:33] » Absolutely.

[2:42:33] >> You [laughter] know, it's something

[2:42:34] » You [laughter] know, it's something

[2:42:34] that's going to happen overnight,

[2:42:36] >> right? It's not like we're going to take

[2:42:37] » right? It's not like we're going to take

[2:42:37] in 20 people of roads overnight. I agree

[2:42:40] with that.

[2:42:41] >> Yeah. Anytime you have something that

[2:42:43] » Yeah. Anytime you have something that

[2:42:43] might take a a right

[2:42:44] >> a significant period of time, it makes

[2:42:46] » a significant period of time, it makes

[2:42:46] sense that you would ultimately probably

[2:42:49] end up with, you know, what do you do

[2:42:51] first, second, third,

[2:42:52] >> right? I mean, there's some roads that I

[2:42:54] » right? I mean, there's some roads that I

[2:42:54] know of that, you know, are clearly more

[2:42:58] problematic than others. For instance, I

[2:43:01] think up near the top of Elway now,

[2:43:03] there's a private road that's actually a

[2:43:04] through road that could be an evacuation

[2:43:06] that really you can't pass through

[2:43:08] without a four-wheel drive vehicle at

[2:43:09] this point because it's in such bad

[2:43:11] repair. You know, at some point, we have

[2:43:13] to decide, is that the sort of thing the

[2:43:15] city wants to help those homeowners deal

[2:43:18] with because they obviously seem

[2:43:20] incapable of doing it on their own

[2:43:22] because they haven't for all these

[2:43:24] years. Um and then

[2:43:28] I one of the issues that I have faced on

[2:43:31] my own road is just particularly visav

[2:43:34] storm drains how difficult it is to

[2:43:36] actually get a contractor to respond to

[2:43:38] a private homeowner. And so one of the

[2:43:41] things that I think the city could do to

[2:43:43] help in the interim would be to just

[2:43:46] help, you know, willing groups of

[2:43:49] homeowners access the contractors who

[2:43:52] can do the kind of work they may need to

[2:43:54] get done because some of these

[2:43:56] contractors are used to having big city

[2:43:58] contracts and they're not used to

[2:44:01] dealing with small homeowner groups.

[2:44:05] One thing that was has been discussed in

[2:44:09] the infrastructure committee and has

[2:44:11] been brought up a lot by residents,

[2:44:13] council member Hawky, is what you're

[2:44:14] talking about exactly, which is that

[2:44:16] folks have said some that yes, it is

[2:44:21] very frustrating for a group of

[2:44:23] homeowners to try to figure out how

[2:44:26] they're supposed to, you know,

[2:44:28] basically. So, you know,

[2:44:30] >> act like the city.

[2:44:31] » act like the city.

[2:44:31] >> Yeah.

[2:44:33] » Yeah.

[2:44:33] fix a fix a road up to up to, you know,

[2:44:36] correct standards. So there's

[2:44:37] >> it's not even the pavement. I think

[2:44:39] » it's not even the pavement. I think

[2:44:39] that's so hard. I think the pavement is

[2:44:41] the easier aspect of it. It's the storm

[2:44:43] drains because they're under the roads

[2:44:45] generally or next to them. They're

[2:44:47] they're harder when they back up. It's

[2:44:50] usually a crisis, right? Because

[2:44:52] someone's house is getting flooded. You

[2:44:54] know, water flows downhill. So the water

[2:44:56] going through those drains isn't coming

[2:44:58] from necessarily your road. it may be

[2:45:00] coming from the public road above you,

[2:45:02] right? So, I think those are some of the

[2:45:05] more difficult issues to deal with and

[2:45:07] they tend to be need require being dealt

[2:45:09] with in a very timely fashion or you're

[2:45:11] going to have some real damage. Um, so I

[2:45:14] I would like to see if we could include

[2:45:16] something to address those kinds of

[2:45:19] issues as an interim step maybe. Just a

[2:45:22] thought.

[2:45:24] So the things that have been discussed

[2:45:26] are the need for technical assistance,

[2:45:28] the need for technical assistance in

[2:45:30] terms of you know helping to find

[2:45:33] contractors in terms of forming

[2:45:35] assessment districts and um the exact

[2:45:38] scenario that you just mentioned in

[2:45:41] terms of you know uh dealing with all

[2:45:45] the drainage issues including the

[2:45:46] scenario you just mentioned have been

[2:45:49] >> good okay well I'm sorry [laughter] so

[2:45:51] » good okay well I'm sorry [laughter] so

[2:45:52] you what you're saying it's resonating

[2:45:53] including with our audience.

[2:45:55] >> But good. I I I'm glad we're discussing

[2:45:57] » But good. I I I'm glad we're discussing

[2:45:57] this and I'm happy to see we're

[2:46:00] >> at least addressing these issues with a

[2:46:03] » at least addressing these issues with a

[2:46:03] willingness to help homeowners because I

[2:46:05] think that's what's been missing. Um so

[2:46:07] I'm very appreciative of the work the

[2:46:09] infrastructure committee has done and

[2:46:12] the direction we're going understanding

[2:46:14] that it's a long process. It's not like

[2:46:17] we're going to deal with issues all at

[2:46:19] once.

[2:46:21] So, what I'm hearing um is that the

[2:46:26] council would like staff to uh work

[2:46:30] closely with the infrastructure

[2:46:32] committee and come up with more specific

[2:46:35] solutions,

[2:46:36] additional financial analysis. So the

[2:46:38] impact of any changes and really put a

[2:46:41] lot of staff effort and time into coming

[2:46:44] up with solutions

[2:46:47] like a range of solutions, not simply a

[2:46:50] change of an ordinance or a resolution,

[2:46:52] but more broad programmatic

[2:46:57] options to bring back for the council's

[2:47:00] consideration. So, I think we just

[2:47:02] wanted to check in before we spend an a

[2:47:05] significant amount of staff time, which

[2:47:07] is what I think this next phase is going

[2:47:09] to entail, and make sure we weren't

[2:47:11] completely off track. The work plan says

[2:47:14] things like explore ideas, discuss and

[2:47:17] develop options. And um it sounds like

[2:47:21] what the council would like to see is

[2:47:23] some financial

[2:47:26] um coupling of what those solutions

[2:47:28] could be. uh and what sort of impact

[2:47:31] they could potentially have on our

[2:47:33] general fund or any funding that we have

[2:47:35] available long term, right? And then

[2:47:38] staff can also present back to

[2:47:41] infrastructure committee and back to the

[2:47:42] council the resources that we have to

[2:47:45] support a large

[2:47:48] program,

[2:47:50] right? because we're pretty small. If

[2:47:52] you haven't seen less than 40 employees

[2:47:54] and to do something that's fairly

[2:47:57] significant would be

[2:48:00] >> it'd be a lift, right?

[2:48:02] » it'd be a lift, right?

[2:48:02] >> We could talk about all of those things,

[2:48:03] » We could talk about all of those things,

[2:48:03] but we didn't want to engage too far

[2:48:06] down that pathway. We had just gotten

[2:48:08] through all the data collection

[2:48:10] basically, right? Data collection,

[2:48:12] questionnaires, PCIs, we're doing the

[2:48:15] mapping of the storm drains. We're doing

[2:48:16] all these things. We've got most of the

[2:48:18] data now. And so now it's like well what

[2:48:20] do we do with all this? We need to come

[2:48:21] back and check in and say um 5918 has

[2:48:26] been mentioned as an impediment. Uh so

[2:48:28] how do we clear that hurdle? But but

[2:48:31] tell us all the other things that are

[2:48:32] out there that other communities are

[2:48:34] doing. So that's where we're at. But it

[2:48:36] sounds like the council is okay with

[2:48:38] infrastructure committee really diving

[2:48:40] into program development at this point

[2:48:43] with with financial um implications for

[2:48:46] what those could be. And just again, I

[2:48:48] hope everybody chimes in with their

[2:48:50] reactions. Uh definitely agree. You

[2:48:53] know, I would just reiterate hearing you

[2:48:55] talk about all the work that's been

[2:48:56] done. That initial scope, I mean, when

[2:48:58] we started everything that the committee

[2:49:00] has already done, that was like the

[2:49:03] first 10 bites of the elephant, right?

[2:49:05] It was a huge undertaking because we

[2:49:07] didn't even have the most basic data.

[2:49:10] And so people would talk about the

[2:49:11] private roads issue was with these gross

[2:49:13] generalizations. And so, believe it or

[2:49:15] not, that was not just gathering the

[2:49:17] data to get started. That was in and of

[2:49:19] itself accomplishing some really

[2:49:21] significant

[2:49:22] meaningful tasks. So, I actually wanted

[2:49:25] to just take a moment to put a big in

[2:49:28] the column for everything that that

[2:49:31] committee has already achieved. Um,

[2:49:33] because the committee could have stopped

[2:49:34] right there and that still would have

[2:49:36] been a tremendous accomplishment. I

[2:49:38] think the what I'm hearing you say is

[2:49:40] it's actually time to define to go back

[2:49:43] to the scope of work now that we've done

[2:49:45] 80% of phase one and figure out what the

[2:49:49] definition of phase 2 looks like right

[2:49:53] what what is the appropriate scope of

[2:49:54] work and come back and maybe get some

[2:49:56] buy in on that and and just when you

[2:49:58] mentioned financial analysis what I

[2:50:00] don't want to do is have everybody waste

[2:50:02] a bunch of time quantifying um

[2:50:07] you

[2:50:09] financial analysis for its own sake. I

[2:50:11] would actually my hope is that the

[2:50:15] whoever and it's probably Doug or

[2:50:17] someone on his team could look at the

[2:50:19] HOA kind of structural finance problem

[2:50:23] and really start with some of the things

[2:50:24] that Vice Mayor G said about what

[2:50:26] proportion of all of the ways you fund

[2:50:29] road projects is property tax versus the

[2:50:32] other soup of funding sources. How big

[2:50:35] is the problem really? And are there,

[2:50:39] you know, are there constructive ways

[2:50:41] that we could do it? So, I would look at

[2:50:42] it not as a just numbers for the sake of

[2:50:44] numbers, but really with an eye to how

[2:50:48] could we get past that obstacle that has

[2:50:51] always stopped us in the past. And

[2:50:54] >> it's great.

[2:50:55] » it's great.

[2:50:55] >> Again, just speaking for my own

[2:50:57] » Again, just speaking for my own

[2:50:57] reactions to your feedback.

[2:51:02] » Subcommittee

[2:51:03] thoughts. I'm I'm accepting of that

[2:51:05] feedback if you have consensus of your

[2:51:07] colleagues to that that's the approach

[2:51:09] you'd like to take. H

[2:51:13] >> I guess how

[2:51:19] how is that different from sort of what

[2:51:22] the city manager described earlier?

[2:51:26] Is it just more

[2:51:30] just more detail?

[2:51:33] right

[2:51:33] >> significantly more.

[2:51:34] » significantly more.

[2:51:34] >> I mean, I do think that [sighs]

[2:51:38] Yeah, I'm I think that makes sense. I I

[2:51:43] do feel like we should probably have

[2:51:46] things

[2:51:48] continue to,

[2:51:51] you know, come back

[2:51:54] so that we also don't go down a rabbit

[2:51:58] hole of a really intensive staff

[2:52:00] analysis

[2:52:02] where we without making sure we have

[2:52:04] consensus because I don't want to waste

[2:52:06] we don't have a lot of staff. We we

[2:52:08] staff time is precious and I don't want

[2:52:10] to waste any of it. So I

[2:52:13] >> and realistically I think

[2:52:15] » and realistically I think

[2:52:15] >> there's there probably needs I mean

[2:52:17] » there's there probably needs I mean

[2:52:18] depending on I mean there's all kinds of

[2:52:21] ways we can approach it but at some

[2:52:23] point quite honestly part of it probably

[2:52:26] requires additional outside resources.

[2:52:29] There probably is a short-term fiscal

[2:52:31] component as well because to be able to

[2:52:35] answer a lot of questions that both the

[2:52:38] council and the community wants to have

[2:52:40] some meat on the bones um is going to

[2:52:44] probably take more than what we can do

[2:52:46] inhouse I would assume.

[2:52:48] >> Yeah.

[2:52:50] » Yeah.

[2:52:50] So, if there's consensus that we would

[2:52:52] be going back and expending more

[2:52:55] resources, including maybe consultant

[2:52:57] resources to flesh out opportunities for

[2:53:01] program development, we could do that.

[2:53:03] Um, I'll I'll work with the staff and uh

[2:53:07] probably won't be ready for your next

[2:53:08] infrastructure committee, but we can

[2:53:10] have um additional discussion at the

[2:53:13] next meeting, which I think is on the

[2:53:15] 19th. I might be getting that wrong, but

[2:53:17] it's coming up this month. I think it's

[2:53:19] the 16th is our next meeting.

[2:53:20] >> You're right. So, it's only in two

[2:53:23] » You're right. So, it's only in two

[2:53:23] weeks. So, we'll we'll work towards um

[2:53:25] putting something on that agenda or we

[2:53:26] can continue this conversation um and

[2:53:29] the outcomes of this meeting to frame up

[2:53:33] what uh program development looks like

[2:53:35] for

[2:53:36] >> Yeah. Maybe we can discuss if there's an

[2:53:37] » Yeah. Maybe we can discuss if there's an

[2:53:37] efficient way to to approach program

[2:53:40] development,

[2:53:40] >> right?

[2:53:41] » right?

[2:53:41] >> That might be a good topic for our next

[2:53:43] » That might be a good topic for our next

[2:53:43] meeting.

[2:53:43] >> Yeah. Thank you. Council member Hawky,

[2:53:45] » Yeah. Thank you. Council member Hawky,

[2:53:45] did you have any final thoughts? I know

[2:53:46] we we didn't get to involve you as much

[2:53:48] as we would have liked.

[2:53:49] >> No, thank you, mayor. I'm very happy

[2:53:51] » No, thank you, mayor. I'm very happy

[2:53:51] that we're moving down this road. I

[2:53:54] think everyone is thinking about it in a

[2:53:56] very rational, systematic, thoughtful

[2:53:58] way. And so, I'm I'm happy with the work

[2:54:02] we've done. I I agree with your comments

[2:54:04] about just the mapping and the, you

[2:54:06] know, understanding the condition of the

[2:54:08] roads and the situation we currently

[2:54:10] have right now is helpful. and I'm

[2:54:12] hopeful that we can come up with some

[2:54:14] creative solutions that will address

[2:54:16] some of these issues going forward.

[2:54:20] >> Thank you. And just one final thank you

[2:54:22] » Thank you. And just one final thank you

[2:54:22] to our infrastructure subcommittee and

[2:54:24] to staff. I this has already been a huge

[2:54:28] huge effort of time, but I actually

[2:54:29] think you're doing something very

[2:54:31] important for the city and um I just I

[2:54:34] these are tough conversations, but

[2:54:36] really really thank you both.

[2:54:38] >> Well, to that end, credit really goes to

[2:54:41] » Well, to that end, credit really goes to

[2:54:41] staff. I think I mean it it and to our

[2:54:44] residents for uh continuing to show up

[2:54:46] again and again and talking with us.

[2:54:49] >> And with that just it's getting late so

[2:54:52] » And with that just it's getting late so

[2:54:52] I'm going to move this along to item H.

[2:54:54] >> Mayor.

[2:54:55] » Mayor.

[2:54:55] >> Yes.

[2:54:55] » Yes.

[2:54:55] >> I'm sorry to interrupt but unfortunately

[2:54:57] » I'm sorry to interrupt but unfortunately

[2:54:57] I'm going to need to sign off now. I'm

[2:54:59] hoping given the lateness of the evening

[2:55:02] that we could postpone item H4 until our

[2:55:05] next meeting.

[2:55:07] >> And we also have item H3 we haven't gone

[2:55:10] » And we also have item H3 we haven't gone

[2:55:10] to yet either. She was just asking if H4

[2:55:12] because I believe um

[2:55:14] >> that was my item. Yeah.

[2:55:15] » that was my item. Yeah.

[2:55:15] >> If you were to reorder H4 or do you need

[2:55:17] » If you were to reorder H4 or do you need

[2:55:17] to go kind of right now?

[2:55:18] >> I really kind of need to go. It's

[2:55:21] » I really kind of need to go. It's

[2:55:21] >> that's fine.

[2:55:22] » that's fine.

[2:55:22] >> Haven't had dinner and it's just about 8

[2:55:24] » Haven't had dinner and it's just about 8

[2:55:24] o'clock here and the where natives are

[2:55:26] getting hungry. [laughter]

[2:55:29] >> Um I I would um be happy to defer item

[2:55:34] » Um I I would um be happy to defer item

[2:55:34] H4. City manager. Do you have any

[2:55:35] concerns about that?

[2:55:36] >> I don't. I'll make a motion. Do I have a

[2:55:39] » I don't. I'll make a motion. Do I have a

[2:55:39] second?

[2:55:40] I'll second.

[2:55:42] >> Okay. Um Okay, great. And if we can

[2:55:44] » Okay. Um Okay, great. And if we can

[2:55:44] please get a roll call vote. Um do we

[2:55:45] want to make that to a date certain?

[2:55:47] >> I can bring it back at the next meeting.

[2:55:49] » I can bring it back at the next meeting.

[2:55:49] Great.

[2:55:50] >> Council member Moani

[2:55:51] » Council member Moani

[2:55:52] >> I. Hawky

[2:55:53] » I. Hawky

[2:55:53] >> I.

[2:55:54] » I.

[2:55:54] >> G I.

[2:55:54] » G I.

[2:55:54] >> Iverson

[2:55:55] » Iverson

[2:55:55] >> I thank you and thank you for uh

[2:55:58] » I thank you and thank you for uh

[2:55:58] attending remotely. Council member

[2:56:00] Hawky. I'm sorry to miss the

[2:56:01] conversation on the housing law uh study

[2:56:04] session, but I will catch up with the

[2:56:06] city manager and I'm sure this is a

[2:56:08] first conversation, not a last. So,

[2:56:10] we'll have more opportunities to discuss

[2:56:12] it together

[2:56:13] >> and it's posted on YouTube if you've got

[2:56:16] » and it's posted on YouTube if you've got

[2:56:16] the uh the time and availability.

[2:56:19] >> Always

[2:56:19] » Always

[2:56:19] >> you can always catch up. Thank you very

[2:56:21] » you can always catch up. Thank you very

[2:56:21] much.

[2:56:22] >> Thank you. Sorry to to bug off. Okay.

[2:56:25] » Thank you. Sorry to to bug off. Okay.

[2:56:25] >> Byebye.

[2:56:25] » Byebye.

[2:56:26] >> Um byebye. We will turn now to item H3,

[2:56:29] » Um byebye. We will turn now to item H3,

[2:56:29] the study session on Senate Bill 1123.

[2:56:32] >> I was going to say, Madame Mayor, before

[2:56:33] » I was going to say, Madame Mayor, before

[2:56:33] we do that, given the hour, should we

[2:56:35] just go ahead and extend the meeting?

[2:56:38] >> Uh, yes, city manager, how long do you

[2:56:40] » Uh, yes, city manager, how long do you

[2:56:40] um boy, this is going to be a test for

[2:56:43] Darren Hughes to get under a 10-minute

[2:56:46] presentation.

[2:56:49] >> Well,

[2:56:51] » Well,

[2:56:51] >> I thought you started to just say no.

[2:56:54] » I thought you started to just say no.

[2:56:54] >> I almost wanted to. Under 10 minutes,

[2:56:56] » I almost wanted to. Under 10 minutes,

[2:56:56] Darren.

[2:56:57] >> Okay, I will do it.

[2:56:58] » Okay, I will do it.

[2:56:58] >> Uh, how long should we extend the

[2:57:00] » Uh, how long should we extend the

[2:57:00] meeting time to?

[2:57:01] >> Uh, 10:30.

[2:57:03] » Uh, 10:30.

[2:57:03] >> 10:30.

[2:57:04] » 10:30.

[2:57:04] >> Uh, I'll propose we extend the meeting

[2:57:05] » Uh, I'll propose we extend the meeting

[2:57:06] time to 10:30.

[2:57:07] >> Yeah. Can I just ask one question? It is

[2:57:10] » Yeah. Can I just ask one question? It is

[2:57:10] efficient for us to have this study

[2:57:12] session with three council members. I

[2:57:14] know it's recorded, so the other council

[2:57:16] members can watch it. I am looking

[2:57:19] forward to it and I'm excited for it,

[2:57:21] but I do want to It's an important

[2:57:24] piece. So,

[2:57:25] I'm I guess I'm sort of asking

[2:57:27] >> I don't think there's anything time is

[2:57:29] » I don't think there's anything time is

[2:57:29] there anything timesensitive with this

[2:57:30] presentation?

[2:57:32] >> Not particularly timesensitive. We are

[2:57:35] » Not particularly timesensitive. We are

[2:57:35] looking for two points of direction. Um

[2:57:38] I do believe uh staff has a

[2:57:41] recommendation on one of those points

[2:57:42] and the other point could probably be uh

[2:57:45] deferred if necessary.

[2:57:49] I guess I'm a little bit torn because I

[2:57:51] feel like it's more of a unilateral like

[2:57:53] I actually feel like the the matter the

[2:57:56] last matter that was more us getting

[2:57:59] consensus was less conducive. This is

[2:58:01] more educational. So if we think the

[2:58:04] other council members would watch it on

[2:58:06] YouTube, we could probably proceed

[2:58:09] pretty well. But if there are any

[2:58:11] concerns, I would agree it's not

[2:58:12] timesensitive. Well, I'm I'm also asking

[2:58:15] are is it unilateral or are are we

[2:58:18] giving feedback because that's what

[2:58:20] makes me

[2:58:22] I didn't know that sometimes in a study

[2:58:24] session we give feedback. Sometimes in a

[2:58:26] study session we're just getting

[2:58:28] information. So I agree with you if it's

[2:58:30] simply it's a state law receptacle.

[2:58:34] >> Yes, staff is asking for direction on

[2:58:36] » Yes, staff is asking for direction on

[2:58:36] two items tonight. Um so this is a study

[2:58:38] session to kind of present this new law

[2:58:41] um and provide a little bit of the

[2:58:42] context around some other housing laws

[2:58:44] that um interact with this law. So we

[2:58:47] are looking ultimately to draft an

[2:58:51] ordinance that we would bring back to

[2:58:52] the planning commission and city council

[2:58:54] and we would take direction from tonight

[2:58:56] in order to do so.

[2:58:59] So, if the council with a body of three

[2:59:02] tonight is uncomfortable in providing

[2:59:04] direction on behalf of the entire city

[2:59:06] council on an ordinance, I mean,

[2:59:08] certainly we wouldn't want to bring back

[2:59:10] an ordinance and have more discussion

[2:59:13] and more debate later about whether or

[2:59:15] not we should have been drafting this

[2:59:17] ordinance. Um, but you're the majority,

[2:59:19] right? Three is the majority. So, if the

[2:59:22] council wants to move forward, you know,

[2:59:24] we'll go as quick as possible

[2:59:26] >> and you'll I'm sure you'll have some

[2:59:28] » and you'll I'm sure you'll have some

[2:59:28] questions and we'll answer your

[2:59:29] questions.

[2:59:32] >> But I think it didn't get settled the

[2:59:34] » But I think it didn't get settled the

[2:59:34] 10:30 question, right? Because I think

[2:59:36] you stopped short of taking a vote for

[2:59:38] that.

[2:59:39] >> Move to extend time till 10:30.

[2:59:41] » Move to extend time till 10:30.

[2:59:41] >> I'll second it.

[2:59:44] » I'll second it.

[2:59:44] >> Do we need a roll call vote still?

[2:59:46] » Do we need a roll call vote still?

[2:59:46] Council member Malcani.

[2:59:48] >> Well, I guess I'm sorry. G

[2:59:50] » Well, I guess I'm sorry. G

[2:59:50] >> I and Iverson

[2:59:52] » I and Iverson

[2:59:52] >> I

[2:59:56] » All right. Thank you very much, mayor.

[2:59:58] Thank you very much,

[3:00:00] >> city [clears throat] council and members

[3:00:01] » city [clears throat] council and members

[3:00:01] of the public. Um this is on Senate Bill

[3:00:04] uh 1123, a new law that went into effect

[3:00:07] as of July uh 1st of 2025. Um

[3:00:12] or rather um an amendment to an existing

[3:00:15] law, the Starter Home Revitalization

[3:00:16] Act. So, uh, tonight, uh, we are

[3:00:20] looking, we're primarily bringing this

[3:00:21] forward to provide a little bit of

[3:00:23] context to talk about some other laws

[3:00:26] that, um, can give us some sense of what

[3:00:28] this law might end up looking like in

[3:00:30] Arinda. Um, and also those laws interact

[3:00:33] with two points for discretion that we

[3:00:36] are asking, um, for guidance from the

[3:00:39] city council. So these two particular

[3:00:41] points are whether ADUs um accessory

[3:00:44] dwelling units and junior accessory

[3:00:46] dwelling units would be permitted on

[3:00:48] newly created small lots um in relation

[3:00:51] to this particular law. Um and whether a

[3:00:55] subsequent SB9 lot split u may occur on

[3:00:58] these parcels. Um so I'll get into the

[3:01:00] details of what all of that is next. I'm

[3:01:02] going to start with some context on the

[3:01:04] ADU law and on SB9 law.

[3:01:09] Um, so ADU law, uh, these junior

[3:01:12] accessory dwelling units, um, this is

[3:01:13] something that's always been around in a

[3:01:15] window. We've had a an ordinance for

[3:01:18] second units that required discretionary

[3:01:20] review. But in 2017, state law, um,

[3:01:22] [clears throat] basically took away a

[3:01:24] lot of that discretion and said that and

[3:01:27] required that uh, jurisdictions process

[3:01:30] these units with a ministerial review

[3:01:32] process. So, no public hearing, no um,

[3:01:35] public notice. um this is something that

[3:01:38] we can process over the counter. In

[3:01:40] 2020, uh there were some statutory

[3:01:42] updates that actually enabled a little

[3:01:45] bit more of a widespread application of

[3:01:46] this law and reduced a lot of the

[3:01:48] barriers. So, it's really 2020 onward

[3:01:50] that Arenda started seeing an uptick in

[3:01:52] accessory dwelling units. And these

[3:01:54] accessory dwelling units can be up to

[3:01:56] 1,000 square ft. They can be attached,

[3:01:57] they can be detached. There are a couple

[3:01:59] of different types of configurations and

[3:02:01] designations. Um but really this law has

[3:02:04] allowed a lot of flexibility for private

[3:02:07] homeowners in Arinda. Um one of the

[3:02:09] biggest reasons that people will come

[3:02:11] forward under this law is for uh being

[3:02:13] able to house uh various generations of

[3:02:15] their family to age in place to have

[3:02:17] children move back into um their

[3:02:19] childhood homes. Um so what we've seen

[3:02:23] in the last uh 6 years of processing

[3:02:26] ADUs is an uptick in approvals. We've

[3:02:29] seen a total of um 140 ADUs and nine

[3:02:33] junior accessory dwelling units uh that

[3:02:36] were approved throughout Arinda. Um that

[3:02:38] doesn't mean that all of these will be

[3:02:40] built. Um some of them kind of drop off

[3:02:42] in the process. Um currently in that

[3:02:45] same time frame, we've seen 74 units uh

[3:02:49] be applied to the uh building department

[3:02:51] and get approved and finalized and now

[3:02:54] people are ostensibly living there. Um

[3:02:58] so a slightly different law uh that also

[3:03:02] requires ministerial review rather than

[3:03:04] design review um is SB9. So this went

[3:03:08] into effect on January 1st, 2022. Um

[3:03:11] this is something this is something that

[3:03:13] basically has two arms. Uh, one of these

[3:03:16] is ministerial processing of new single

[3:03:19] family residences and the other is

[3:03:21] ministerial processing of um lot splits

[3:03:24] at uh single family zoned lots. Um so

[3:03:29] these are urban housing developments for

[3:03:31] the units urban lot splits for the lot

[3:03:34] splits. Um so this has the the the major

[3:03:38] impact in Arinda that is that this law

[3:03:41] has generally uh supplanted the need for

[3:03:45] design review for a lot of new units in

[3:03:47] Arinda. Um so typically in the past

[3:03:50] people would come forward under uh a

[3:03:52] design review process. There would be a

[3:03:54] public notice that go to planning

[3:03:55] commission. But with this law allowing

[3:03:58] for up to two units on an existing

[3:04:00] single family residential lot, um most

[3:04:04] people who have a new home to propose,

[3:04:06] whether that's on a vacant lot or maybe

[3:04:08] it's an additional home on an existing

[3:04:10] or a lot with an existing home, um will

[3:04:13] instead of going through design review,

[3:04:14] just make sure that they're meeting all

[3:04:16] of the objective standards and come in

[3:04:19] under this law uh which doesn't require

[3:04:21] any form of noticing. Um so one one

[3:04:25] aspect of this law while most of the

[3:04:28] discretion is in the the state's hands

[3:04:30] um the the community had discretion over

[3:04:33] one particular aspect which is whether

[3:04:35] or not uh or how we allow ADUs on these

[3:04:38] types of lots. Um the lot splits these

[3:04:42] ministerial lot splits that allow a

[3:04:45] resident who has to be a um has to be

[3:04:48] living on the premises. Um

[3:04:51] if they do a lot split then the city has

[3:04:54] codified a limitation on the number of

[3:04:57] units that can be approved for each uh

[3:05:00] resulting lot. Um so that maximum is two

[3:05:03] units per lot. Um and that's just to

[3:05:07] prevent someone from being able to do a

[3:05:09] lot split and then uh subsequently have

[3:05:12] two primary units through SB9 approval

[3:05:15] on both sides. 211 211 and then

[3:05:19] additionally get ADUs. Um so this is

[3:05:22] going to come into play. Um this is just

[3:05:25] context for what we're going to be

[3:05:26] asking for uh with ADUs in this new law

[3:05:28] that we're looking at. So this one

[3:05:31] hasn't seen as much proliferation um in

[3:05:34] uh in Arinda just because of um the the

[3:05:38] scope and some of the limitations that

[3:05:40] are involved. We've seen 18 entitled

[3:05:42] units uh in the past four years of this

[3:05:45] law being active. there are three in the

[3:05:47] process. Um and then for lot splits,

[3:05:49] there have been seven completed lot

[3:05:51] splits. Uh and four are currently

[3:05:54] active. Um some of those lot splits are

[3:05:57] actually between existing units. So

[3:06:00] someone had a second unit on a parcel,

[3:06:02] they were able to as the homeowner who

[3:06:04] lived on site divide between them and

[3:06:06] sell off the other the other unit. So it

[3:06:09] wasn't necessarily for producing more

[3:06:10] units. It was just to give them some

[3:06:12] flexibility to get rid of that second

[3:06:14] unit. Um, and then seven of the units

[3:06:17] that we've seen or seven of the 18

[3:06:19] entitlements that we've seen have had

[3:06:21] ADUs in association with the SB9 units.

[3:06:24] So, they came forward with a new home

[3:06:27] and either a detached or an attached ADU

[3:06:30] associated with that. Most cases, I

[3:06:33] think in very few cases, we've seen

[3:06:35] people push this to get um, three or

[3:06:37] four units. Um, but there is some

[3:06:41] possibility for that. Um, it's just we

[3:06:43] don't see people normally take advantage

[3:06:45] of this. Um, so this is just a a a brief

[3:06:49] overview of how ADU and SB9 law works

[3:06:53] where you can start with a vacant lot

[3:06:54] and get up to four units in various

[3:06:56] configurations and maybe do a lot split

[3:06:58] and have two on one side, two on another

[3:07:00] side, or have um up to four units on

[3:07:03] something that doesn't even require a

[3:07:05] lot split. Um, but those configurations

[3:07:07] and maximizing the potential with these

[3:07:09] is not something that we normally see.

[3:07:12] Usually, this is flexibility for just

[3:07:13] getting a new home through without

[3:07:15] having to go through design review.

[3:07:19] So, that brings us to that's a little

[3:07:21] bit of context and background before we

[3:07:23] get into the Starter Home Revitalization

[3:07:24] Act. So, this law requires ministerial

[3:07:28] approval. Um, and there's a shot clock

[3:07:30] of 60 days for us to once we deem an

[3:07:33] application to be complete, we have 60

[3:07:34] days as staff to um, approve or

[3:07:37] disapprove of an application. Um, and

[3:07:41] they can use this. There are two arms

[3:07:43] kind of like with SB9. One is

[3:07:45] subdivision. Um, so up to 10 parcels and

[3:07:49] uh, the other is development of up to 10

[3:07:52] residential units. Um, that doesn't have

[3:07:54] to be one for one. you can subdivide

[3:07:57] into two parcels and put five on each of

[3:07:59] them. Um there's nothing in the law that

[3:08:02] excludes um excludes that kind of config

[3:08:04] configuration from going forward. Um so

[3:08:08] this is made up the original version of

[3:08:11] this law uh was SB 684. It didn't uh

[3:08:16] have a whole lot of impact in Arinda

[3:08:17] because it was specific to multif

[3:08:19] family. But 1123, the um the one that we

[3:08:24] primarily focus on here, um expanded

[3:08:27] eligibility to um vacant single family

[3:08:30] zoned lots and um and then subsequently

[3:08:34] AB130 also allowed a developer to

[3:08:36] designate a remainder parcel. So I'll

[3:08:38] get into that in one second in terms of

[3:08:40] what that specifically means. So there

[3:08:43] are a couple of eligibility criteria. I

[3:08:46] think the the primary ones that I want

[3:08:48] to look at here um to draw your

[3:08:50] attention to is maximum size. So the

[3:08:52] parcel can't be more than 1.5 acres. Um

[3:08:56] so anything that's greater than that in

[3:08:57] size generally isn't eligible if it's a

[3:08:59] vacant lot. Um vacancy this is not as

[3:09:03] straightforward as it would seem because

[3:09:05] of that designated remainder aspect. Um

[3:09:08] vacancy can mean a vacant lot that is

[3:09:10] less than that is no more than 1.5 acres

[3:09:13] um of which we have quite a few in

[3:09:16] Arinda. Um

[3:09:18] but it can also because of the

[3:09:20] designated remainder be a portion of a

[3:09:22] lot that is deemed as excess land by

[3:09:26] someone who owns that particular lot. So

[3:09:28] if there is a house in Arinda and there

[3:09:30] is enough in there is enough space they

[3:09:34] could say okay we're going to take that

[3:09:36] existing home and some land surrounding

[3:09:39] it and say that's the designated

[3:09:40] remainder. Um and then the other portion

[3:09:44] as long as that is less than 1.5 acres

[3:09:47] is what can go through um this this act

[3:09:51] um can be subdivided and developed

[3:09:53] through this act. Um and that designated

[3:09:56] remainder, the existing home, the

[3:09:58] existing use, um does not actually have

[3:10:01] to uh uh does not count against the the

[3:10:05] 10 total units or the 10 total lots. Um

[3:10:08] the only point with that is that we do

[3:10:10] have to uh that designated remainder

[3:10:12] would have to um meet all the

[3:10:14] subdivision standards that we do have on

[3:10:16] the books because it's not protected by

[3:10:18] state law. Um, so it still has some

[3:10:20] limitations, but this designated

[3:10:22] remainder basically means that someone

[3:10:23] with a developed parcel could subdivide

[3:10:26] a portion of theirs in accordance to

[3:10:28] this law. And then the last thing that I

[3:10:30] want to um point to here is fire safety.

[3:10:33] Um, I think I have a graphic next. Yes.

[3:10:35] So the wildfire um hazard uh sorry the

[3:10:39] um

[3:10:41] fire hazard severity zones in Arinda um

[3:10:44] you can see this red on this one side uh

[3:10:47] on the uh right hand side that's all

[3:10:49] very high fire hazard severity zone.

[3:10:52] This law um prohibits this law uh this

[3:10:57] sort of subdivision and development

[3:10:59] within that zone. Um so that immediately

[3:11:01] eliminates um in present day a whole

[3:11:04] bunch of vacant lots and a whole bunch

[3:11:06] of lots that would otherwise be

[3:11:08] eligible. Um so over here on the left

[3:11:11] side we've got the vacant housing

[3:11:13] element sites. This is just stuff that

[3:11:14] we these are the sites that we pulled

[3:11:16] from the housing element to show whether

[3:11:17] or not they were um 1.5 acres or smaller

[3:11:21] or greater. um but that that whole uh

[3:11:26] everything that's on the the west side

[3:11:28] of Arinda basically and in the very

[3:11:30] north of Arinda would not be eligible

[3:11:32] right now. This could fluctuate um

[3:11:35] because these zones may change at some

[3:11:36] point in the future, but for the next

[3:11:39] few years at least, we would expect that

[3:11:42] only um parcels in this gray area um and

[3:11:46] the gray and the yellow and orange areas

[3:11:48] would actually be eligible. So for

[3:11:50] vacant lots that are listed within the

[3:11:52] housing element, that reduces us to 50

[3:11:55] parcels that seem like they could

[3:11:57] ostensibly qualify from the outset. Um

[3:12:00] but that still means that anything that

[3:12:02] is not a vacant parcel, if they had

[3:12:04] enough space, they could in theory go

[3:12:06] through um this law.

[3:12:09] >> Um

[3:12:09] » Um

[3:12:09] >> Darren, I'm going to ask you to go a

[3:12:11] » Darren, I'm going to ask you to go a

[3:12:11] little quicker.

[3:12:11] >> I'll go I'll speed it up right now. Um a

[3:12:13] » I'll go I'll speed it up right now. Um a

[3:12:13] couple of requirements. Uh the parcels

[3:12:15] have to we have to allow parcels as

[3:12:17] small as 1,200 square f feet. Um the

[3:12:20] average habitables floor space across

[3:12:22] all of the units that are proposed um

[3:12:24] can't exceed 1750 um 1,750 ft² because

[3:12:29] these are supposed to be smaller homes.

[3:12:31] Um we can't impose standards on floor

[3:12:33] area ratios that are less than 1 or 1.25

[3:12:36] which means that we do have to allow

[3:12:38] quite a bit of the lot to be developed.

[3:12:40] Um we there are sideyard setbacks that

[3:12:44] are drastically reduced from setbacks

[3:12:46] that we have in our own standards. Um

[3:12:48] there's no setbacks required between new

[3:12:50] units. Um and we can't require more than

[3:12:52] one off- streetet parking space.

[3:12:55] Um we can however require adherence to

[3:12:58] all objective standards. Um, for

[3:13:00] instance, that's standards that we find

[3:13:02] in our zoning code and standards that

[3:13:04] we're looking forward to with the

[3:13:06] current draft version of the citywide

[3:13:08] objective design standards. Um, and we

[3:13:12] can't but we can't employ those

[3:13:14] standards. We can't enforce those

[3:13:16] standards where they would preclude

[3:13:17] development in accordance with the act.

[3:13:19] Um, so one example might be height. We

[3:13:21] have this requirement to allow a certain

[3:13:24] floor area ratio. If someone subdivided

[3:13:26] in such a manner that the lots were

[3:13:28] quite small and they needed to build up

[3:13:30] in order to meet that minimum floor area

[3:13:33] that we have to require or we have to

[3:13:36] allow um then there might be a cause for

[3:13:39] exceeding the height standards um in

[3:13:42] that in that particular instance um

[3:13:46] uh I'm just going to this is looking

[3:13:48] this is a brief look at our objective

[3:13:50] design standards uh that are in draft

[3:13:52] format and the types of housing uh uh

[3:13:55] that these uh pertain to. So right now

[3:13:58] we are looking at because I cited as an

[3:14:00] example that you could have in theory

[3:14:02] five units or nine units on one

[3:14:04] particular lot. We do have standards in

[3:14:06] the objective design standards that look

[3:14:08] at this and that provide some additional

[3:14:10] regulations. Um and this is something

[3:14:13] that staff is looking at a little bit

[3:14:15] more closely now and making sure that

[3:14:17] everything in SB or in SB123 is

[3:14:20] accounted for as well as we can through

[3:14:22] these objective design standards.

[3:14:25] um density requirements if it's in the

[3:14:28] housing element. So if it's a vacant

[3:14:30] site, they just have to develop at least

[3:14:32] as many units as it says in our housing

[3:14:34] element. Most of the time that's one to

[3:14:36] two units. So as long as they produce

[3:14:38] that many units, they could go through

[3:14:39] this. If it's not in a housing element

[3:14:41] site, for instance, if it's a on a

[3:14:44] designated remainder parcel, uh the math

[3:14:46] works out that they need 13.2 2 units

[3:14:48] per acre, which means that the average

[3:14:51] unit needs to or each unit has to have

[3:14:53] an average of 3,300 ft associated with

[3:14:56] it at the maximum. So somewhere between

[3:14:58] 1,200 ft² and 3,300 ft².

[3:15:02] So um we don't we're assuming that this

[3:15:04] is not going to take off in quite the

[3:15:07] same um with the same exuberance as ADU

[3:15:10] law. It's not as um accessible for

[3:15:13] homeowners, but it might be a little bit

[3:15:14] more attractive to developers. But one

[3:15:17] of the big things here is that the

[3:15:19] topography of undeveloped space in

[3:15:21] Arinda, the terrain, the slopes tend to

[3:15:23] make this a little bit to increase the

[3:15:26] limitations for site access um and uh

[3:15:30] make this a higher barrier to entry. So,

[3:15:33] what we're looking for from the city

[3:15:34] council, um, two points. One is how

[3:15:38] should we allow ADUs because state gives

[3:15:40] us the discretion to say yes or no to

[3:15:43] ADUs, um, on these parcels. And we could

[3:15:45] do this a number of ways. So, we've

[3:15:47] offered a couple of policy options that

[3:15:50] we could consider that range from just

[3:15:52] prohibiting them outright um, to

[3:15:55] permitting them completely. Um, and then

[3:15:58] in the middle, we could consider size

[3:16:01] restrictions. So, if there is a minimum

[3:16:03] lot size, uh, then perhaps they could

[3:16:06] build an ADU on it. Um, and unit caps,

[3:16:10] we could also potentially say, you know,

[3:16:12] as long as your subdivision doesn't

[3:16:14] exceed 10 total units, some number of

[3:16:17] those can be ADUs. So, so there are a

[3:16:20] myriad of policy options here that could

[3:16:22] be considered. Um and then subsequent

[3:16:26] SB9 lot splits. State does give us

[3:16:28] discretion over whether or not we can

[3:16:30] allow um lot splits according to um in

[3:16:34] accordance with SB9 on lots that were

[3:16:37] subdivided in accordance with the um

[3:16:40] starter home revitalization act. Um

[3:16:43] staff's recommendation on this

[3:16:44] particular point is to not allow this to

[3:16:47] happen and create this rabbit hole of

[3:16:49] increasingly smaller lots that would be

[3:16:51] allowed.

[3:16:53] Um, next steps based on tonight's

[3:16:54] feedback, we would anticipate drafting

[3:16:56] ordinance and come back to the planning

[3:16:59] commission and the city council um with

[3:17:01] an ordinance that meets your direction.

[3:17:04] >> And with that, I will hand it over for

[3:17:06] » And with that, I will hand it over for

[3:17:06] questions. Apologies.

[3:17:09] >> Darren, can you put up the one through

[3:17:11] » Darren, can you put up the one through

[3:17:11] four on the screen so that's there for

[3:17:13] their discussion?

[3:17:18] Um, and we do have a speaker card. So,

[3:17:21] we'll do questions for staff and then

[3:17:23] we'll do some uh public comment. We'll

[3:17:25] bring it back for any direction. Um, any

[3:17:27] questions? [laughter]

[3:17:30] >> Start with vice mayor.

[3:17:31] » Start with vice mayor.

[3:17:31] >> My problem is I have so many questions.

[3:17:33] » My problem is I have so many questions.

[3:17:33] I'm

[3:17:34] I I find this um extraordinarily

[3:17:39] challenging and very challenging to

[3:17:41] understand. So,

[3:17:43] um I I'll try to think of all of them

[3:17:46] that I have real quickly. Darren, um

[3:17:49] one,

[3:17:51] does the objective design standards are

[3:17:53] we allowed to do objective design

[3:17:55] standards that would allow how these

[3:17:57] units could be laid out on the

[3:18:01] subdivided lot?

[3:18:03] >> Yes, this does allow for subdivision

[3:18:05] » Yes, this does allow for subdivision

[3:18:05] standards. And actually within the

[3:18:07] objective design standards in their

[3:18:09] draft format right now there is a

[3:18:10] section on um small lot subdivision. Um

[3:18:14] so it is something that we are looking

[3:18:15] at to make sure it kind of captures as

[3:18:18] many possible scenarios. Um we we do

[3:18:20] have to look at that a little bit more

[3:18:22] closely in order to figure out exactly

[3:18:24] how this law interacts with our proposed

[3:18:27] standards as they sit right now. And

[3:18:29] then how does it fit in the realm of

[3:18:32] infrastructure? Such things as water

[3:18:34] lines, gas lines,

[3:18:37] egress. Um,

[3:18:39] it it just seems I'm I'm maybe I'm the

[3:18:42] only one, but this seems mind-boggling

[3:18:44] to me, the idea that you would create

[3:18:47] this tiny little village on um one and a

[3:18:51] half acres potentially, and then um I'm

[3:18:54] assuming if let's let's say

[3:18:57] I can see a difference if it's a totally

[3:18:59] vacant lot to start with versus it has a

[3:19:02] home on it that's going to turn into

[3:19:03] this remainder piece. I assume that the

[3:19:06] remainder piece if there's a home there

[3:19:09] doesn't count as part of the total

[3:19:12] square footage.

[3:19:14] >> Correct.

[3:19:14] » Correct.

[3:19:14] >> Correct. And then truly out of all these

[3:19:17] » Correct. And then truly out of all these

[3:19:17] units, they can't exceed

[3:19:20] 1750 square ft. So they really are like

[3:19:23] these teeny tiny little cottages.

[3:19:27] >> They can't exceed 1750 square ft on

[3:19:29] » They can't exceed 1750 square ft on

[3:19:29] average. Um so someone could

[3:19:32] >> total or each one?

[3:19:33] » total or each one?

[3:19:33] >> Each one. Each one. So that you would

[3:19:35] » Each one. Each one. So that you would

[3:19:35] take the total square footage between

[3:19:37] all of them, divide them by however many

[3:19:39] units are being proposed. So as an

[3:19:41] example, if someone were proposing 10

[3:19:43] units, the the total square footage

[3:19:46] between all of them would be 17,500

[3:19:48] square ft. Um so if the some units are

[3:19:51] small and some units are large, there's

[3:19:53] nothing in the law that prevents that.

[3:19:54] They just can't exceed that average

[3:19:56] size.

[3:19:59] » Sorry, can you repeat that? I don't

[3:20:00] think I

[3:20:01] >> I was going to say I think I'm still

[3:20:02] » I was going to say I think I'm still

[3:20:02] confused. I'm sorry.

[3:20:03] >> Okay. Um there's an average size

[3:20:05] » Okay. Um there's an average size

[3:20:05] requirement in the law um because the

[3:20:08] the aim is to get these smaller units,

[3:20:11] but every individual unit, for instance,

[3:20:13] could be proposed at 1,750

[3:20:16] ft². So you could propose 10 units that

[3:20:18] are all 1,750 ft². You could also

[3:20:21] propose five units that are 2,000 ft² as

[3:20:25] long as five other units were 1500 ft²

[3:20:28] because you're meeting that average. Um,

[3:20:30] so there's there's some discretion from

[3:20:32] the developer in that instance as to

[3:20:35] which

[3:20:35] >> what was the 1,200 ft? That was

[3:20:37] » what was the 1,200 ft? That was

[3:20:37] >> 1,200 ft is the minimum lot size that we

[3:20:40] » 1,200 ft is the minimum lot size that we

[3:20:40] have to allow.

[3:20:43] >> And so then then can these potential

[3:20:47] » And so then then can these potential

[3:20:47] units that are allowed, can they be

[3:20:49] various configurations? I assume they

[3:20:51] could be a whole collection of little

[3:20:53] tiny cottage type things. I can they be

[3:20:56] like one can be a town home in this

[3:20:59] corner and something else over here. It

[3:21:01] it sounds very complicated.

[3:21:04] >> There's nothing really that seems to

[3:21:05] » There's nothing really that seems to

[3:21:05] preclude that type of configuration. The

[3:21:08] example that I was giving when I was

[3:21:09] thinking about this um was you could

[3:21:12] subdivide into two lots. one just be a

[3:21:16] large single family residence, 4,000

[3:21:18] ft², and the other one might just be

[3:21:20] nine town homes um that are all around

[3:21:22] 1,000 ft stacked together. Um we may

[3:21:26] have some discretion in our objective

[3:21:29] design standards to make uh take a

[3:21:33] little bit more of a regular approach,

[3:21:35] but it will be difficult to codify every

[3:21:38] possible example someone could come

[3:21:40] forward with. Um, so it's just something

[3:21:42] that we're going to have to spend some

[3:21:44] time focusing on with this new lens of

[3:21:47] SB123 in our objective design standards

[3:21:50] that we're currently drafting. Okay,

[3:21:53] I'll let

[3:21:56] » um

[3:22:01] in general with I don't know if you know

[3:22:03] this but with the current ADUs do we

[3:22:05] have any sense of how many are occupied

[3:22:08] like as living quarters versus offices

[3:22:11] or she sheds or you know

[3:22:14] >> uh we don't have specific numbers on

[3:22:16] » uh we don't have specific numbers on

[3:22:16] that there is a certain amount of

[3:22:20] we do have the ability sometimes times

[3:22:22] to at least see when someone is using

[3:22:24] this more to get around square footages

[3:22:27] or to provide that really neat guest

[3:22:30] house next to a pool. Um so but but we

[3:22:34] don't have very explicit numbers on what

[3:22:38] which aus are occupied by family members

[3:22:41] which are being rented out. Um there's

[3:22:44] there's nothing within the planning

[3:22:46] department that requires followup on

[3:22:47] that particular aspect.

[3:22:50] >> Remind me

[3:22:52] » Remind me

[3:22:52] ADUs

[3:22:54] and what is it? What is the definition

[3:22:56] of a JADU as opposed to an ADU?

[3:22:59] >> A junior accessory dwelling unit is more

[3:23:01] » A junior accessory dwelling unit is more

[3:23:01] of a flexible space. It's it's more of

[3:23:05] an efficiency unit usually, and it has

[3:23:07] to be carved out of existing space. So,

[3:23:10] if I come forward and I say, I want to

[3:23:12] turn my garage into this habitable space

[3:23:15] with a tiny little kitchen, but it can

[3:23:17] share some facilities. It can share the

[3:23:18] bathroom with the main home. Um it's

[3:23:21] it's just a a smaller version, a less

[3:23:24] intensive version of an ADU. Um but with

[3:23:27] a junior accessory dwelling unit, the

[3:23:29] homeowner who goes through this does

[3:23:31] have to live on site either in that unit

[3:23:33] or in the primary home. It's meant for

[3:23:35] in-laws, uh parents.

[3:23:40] » Can I ask another qu? Um, and

[3:23:45] >> you showed us a map of the high fire

[3:23:47] » you showed us a map of the high fire

[3:23:48] severity zones and you said there was

[3:23:50] sort of identified I think 50 vacant

[3:23:53] parcels

[3:23:54] and you know there was a reference to

[3:23:56] topography. So it's sort of like how

[3:23:59] many of these

[3:24:01] you know and when you showed us the map

[3:24:03] even before you mentioned topography I

[3:24:04] was thinking yeah but this is Arinda we

[3:24:07] have so many I mean

[3:24:11] how many of these vacant units could be

[3:24:14] even built out

[3:24:16] >> that's why I think that we're going to

[3:24:18] » that's why I think that we're going to

[3:24:18] see this as a slower uptick. Um we have

[3:24:22] been speaking to some developers. We

[3:24:24] have one application in progress right

[3:24:26] now for one lot to be turned into four

[3:24:28] lots. Um, and we've had some interest in

[3:24:32] some other lots in various

[3:24:33] configurations, but no official

[3:24:35] applications yet. Some developers have

[3:24:37] made it clear that there are a lot of

[3:24:39] barriers to this because when you're

[3:24:40] talking about taking lots that are that

[3:24:42] small, particularly for the designated

[3:24:44] remainder um issue, um the the site

[3:24:49] access, finding ways to park these

[3:24:52] places, all of those um all of those

[3:24:55] barriers become pretty significant in

[3:24:57] Orinda's terrain. So there may be some

[3:25:00] opportunities for people to take

[3:25:01] advantage of this at smaller sizes,

[3:25:04] scales that might be slightly closer to

[3:25:06] SP9, which is not to say or guarantee

[3:25:08] that no one will ever come forward with

[3:25:10] a larger subdivision. Um, it's certainly

[3:25:13] a possibility, but there are a lot of

[3:25:15] barriers right now to development in the

[3:25:17] areas that just have remained

[3:25:19] undeveloped so far.

[3:25:21] >> Okay. I'm sorry, mayor. Can I ask one

[3:25:23] » Okay. I'm sorry, mayor. Can I ask one

[3:25:23] more question? and then I'll [laughter]

[3:25:25] >> and then I'll um so but theoretically

[3:25:28] » and then I'll um so but theoretically

[3:25:28] then cuz I was thinking the remainder

[3:25:32] issue might be the issue that is more of

[3:25:35] a

[3:25:37] resulted in development more than the

[3:25:41] vacant lots because when I drive around

[3:25:42] Arinda and I look at vacant lots a lot

[3:25:44] of them I wouldn't want to put a house

[3:25:47] on or anything on because of the

[3:25:49] topography but um theoretically then is

[3:25:53] am Am I understanding this correctly? In

[3:25:55] that if if someone has a lot that is say

[3:26:00] 2 acres with a single family home on one

[3:26:03] area side of the lot, they could then

[3:26:06] keep their single family home and a you

[3:26:09] know half an acre, take the other 1.5

[3:26:13] acres and then build what on it? Like

[3:26:17] build an apartmentl looking place with

[3:26:20] 10 units

[3:26:22] >> in theory. Yes.

[3:26:23] » in theory. Yes.

[3:26:23] >> Okay.

[3:26:24] » Okay.

[3:26:24] >> Um, but it wouldn't be because of the

[3:26:26] » Um, but it wouldn't be because of the

[3:26:26] designated remainder and the minimum

[3:26:27] density requirements. There's some

[3:26:29] squirly math in there. Uh, if you do a

[3:26:32] designated remainder based off of the

[3:26:34] minimum density requirements, it

[3:26:36] actually results in only be a being able

[3:26:39] to carve off about 3/4 of an acre. Um,

[3:26:42] you can't do that full acre and a half.

[3:26:44] You actually have to limit it even more

[3:26:46] to meet those density requirements. But

[3:26:48] in theory, someone with a 2acre lot, as

[3:26:50] long as they are in a zone um in a zone

[3:26:54] that allows a minimum lot size and their

[3:26:57] slope, because we have these slope

[3:26:59] density requirements in Arinda, um if

[3:27:01] they have a lot that is flat enough and

[3:27:05] has enough space and they can meet the

[3:27:07] requirements for their lot to uh their

[3:27:09] designated remainder parcel um to meet

[3:27:13] all of the objective standards of our

[3:27:15] subdivision

[3:27:16] uh requirements. It's that other part.

[3:27:20] It It's anyone's guess. I mean, they

[3:27:22] could use it to do something similar to

[3:27:25] a smaller version of SP9, but with a

[3:27:27] couple of additional units. Um, they

[3:27:29] could have a couple of family homes.

[3:27:31] They could have a couple of what might

[3:27:32] look like just ADUs, or they could do a

[3:27:35] small apartment building if they were

[3:27:37] able to figure out all of the logistics

[3:27:39] around that.

[3:27:43] And then does the ownership have to all

[3:27:46] be one entity? These can't be right now.

[3:27:50] These can't be sold as separate units.

[3:27:53] >> So that's a part of the way the law

[3:27:55] » So that's a part of the way the law

[3:27:55] works. Uh there's an interaction between

[3:27:57] the subdivision aspect and the

[3:27:58] development aspect. Um if you subdivide

[3:28:02] and then don't develop, you actually

[3:28:05] can't sell off lots individually. You

[3:28:08] would have to sell them as a whole. And

[3:28:10] in theory, we would have restrictions.

[3:28:12] Um, basically as part of the the map

[3:28:15] that goes forward and gets approved, we

[3:28:17] would say, you know, whoever buys that,

[3:28:19] you are also subject to the development

[3:28:22] requirements under SB123.

[3:28:25] Um,

[3:28:28] but as soon as they start developing the

[3:28:30] lots, they're able to sell off developed

[3:28:33] lots. So if uh someone comes in and

[3:28:36] turns one lot into four lots through

[3:28:38] this law and they submit their

[3:28:41] development application in accordance

[3:28:43] with the law that shows development on

[3:28:46] four different lots, they can start

[3:28:48] developing them one by one and as soon

[3:28:50] as they get them uh a certificate of

[3:28:52] occupancy, they can sell that one off,

[3:28:54] sell the other one off, sell the other

[3:28:56] one off. Um so you can sell them

[3:28:59] separately as long as they're developed

[3:29:01] in accordance with the law. You can't

[3:29:03] just sell them off individually and then

[3:29:05] people can do whatever they want with

[3:29:06] them. Um, after that,

[3:29:11] » um, Vice Mayor G asked a question

[3:29:13] earlier about the water and sewer, the

[3:29:15] kind of things [clears throat] that

[3:29:16] normally in a subdivision application

[3:29:18] you would get uh that would get looked

[3:29:21] at. Where in this process do all of

[3:29:23] those adequacies get looked at? We

[3:29:26] require as part of a um as part of our

[3:29:28] submitt requirements and this is similar

[3:29:30] to what we require for vacant for

[3:29:33] subdivisions under SB9 we require will

[3:29:37] serve letters from the appropriate

[3:29:39] entities. So we expect that someone by

[3:29:42] the time they are getting to us as a a

[3:29:45] point of completion we want to see that

[3:29:46] the lots that are going to be subdivided

[3:29:49] are not only being legally created but

[3:29:51] are actually um accessible. uh they can

[3:29:54] someone can do something with that lot.

[3:29:57] So that is the same logic that we apply

[3:29:59] to that we're going to be applying to

[3:30:01] this law. Um someone comes forward and

[3:30:04] they should already have in hand the

[3:30:06] will serve letters that says they're

[3:30:08] going to be able to meet all of their

[3:30:09] requirements. They also have to go to

[3:30:11] the fire district and get approval from

[3:30:13] them and make sure that all of the fire

[3:30:15] access uh um requirements are being met.

[3:30:19] So that for the most part gets ironed

[3:30:22] out during the planning portion. Um but

[3:30:25] they're finalizing all of that with the

[3:30:28] building department at Contra Costa.

[3:30:31] >> I had one other question.

[3:30:32] » I had one other question.

[3:30:32] >> Can we still require one parking spot

[3:30:35] » Can we still require one parking spot

[3:30:35] per residential unit under this law?

[3:30:38] >> Yes, as long as it's not within a

[3:30:41] » Yes, as long as it's not within a

[3:30:41] >> half mile apart. I know you were gonna

[3:30:42] » half mile apart. I know you were gonna

[3:30:42] say that.

[3:30:42] >> Um we can require one spot. Um, our

[3:30:46] » Um we can require one spot. Um, our

[3:30:46] current code requires four spots for

[3:30:48] single family residential parcels. Um,

[3:30:51] two enclosed, two unenced. This law says

[3:30:53] you can only require one spot and it

[3:30:56] does not have to be enclosed.

[3:30:59] >> Were there any other questions?

[3:31:02] » Were there any other questions?

[3:31:02] >> This policy decision that this slide

[3:31:05] » This policy decision that this slide

[3:31:05] we're looking at, [clears throat]

[3:31:07] this only applies to

[3:31:10] 1123

[3:31:12] split lots. It doesn't. In other words,

[3:31:14] if we were to choose, for example,

[3:31:16] number one here,

[3:31:20] you could that that is separate and

[3:31:23] apart from SB9

[3:31:26] lot splits where you could they could

[3:31:28] still split lots and include ADUs.

[3:31:31] >> Correct. So, so this would be just

[3:31:34] » Correct. So, so this would be just

[3:31:34] applicable to subdivisions that occur

[3:31:36] under this act. Um, SB9 is separate. We

[3:31:39] do allow ADUs as long as they don't

[3:31:41] exceed a total unit count.

[3:31:44] >> Okay. Well, well, maybe this will come

[3:31:46] » Okay. Well, well, maybe this will come

[3:31:46] out in discussion, so we could just take

[3:31:49] move on. But one thing that I would be

[3:31:53] interested in hearing is from like just

[3:31:55] very brief pros and cons from one

[3:31:57] through three here. But maybe I'll wait

[3:31:59] and that'll come out in discussion. And

[3:32:01] if not, I'll

[3:32:03] >> ask for it unless that's of interest to

[3:32:05] » ask for it unless that's of interest to

[3:32:05] anyone else.

[3:32:05] >> One through three. Do you mind?

[3:32:06] » One through three. Do you mind?

[3:32:06] >> Okay. Sure. Um, so one through three

[3:32:09] » Okay. Sure. Um, so one through three

[3:32:09] pros and cons. Not allowed is the

[3:32:11] easiest. It's the easiest to process.

[3:32:13] It's the easiest to have a rule about.

[3:32:15] Um, it's straightforward. And it also

[3:32:19] uh limits the ability to get many units

[3:32:23] on these particular um these particular

[3:32:27] lots. The one con with this might be

[3:32:29] that we are not affording people who

[3:32:31] might b buy these starting homes some of

[3:32:34] the same opportunities that you would if

[3:32:35] you were buying a different home in

[3:32:36] Arinda where you can later on decide

[3:32:39] that you want a a junior accessory

[3:32:41] dwelling unit or an accessory dwelling

[3:32:43] unit. Um but it is probably procedurally

[3:32:47] one of the and administratively one of

[3:32:49] the easiest to work with. Size

[3:32:51] restrictions and unit caps. Um, this

[3:32:54] could be a little bit more, this is

[3:32:56] something that we would have to look at

[3:32:57] a little bit more closely in order to

[3:32:59] figure out exactly how this would work.

[3:33:01] Um, but chances are this is going to

[3:33:02] this would be enacted through deed

[3:33:04] restrictions and it would require a

[3:33:06] little bit more administrative effort to

[3:33:08] try to figure out, okay, which parcels

[3:33:10] are allowed to have ADUs in the future,

[3:33:12] especially number three with the unit

[3:33:14] caps. Um, let's say you say we don't

[3:33:17] ever want this subdivision to exceed 10

[3:33:19] units. The original developer created

[3:33:21] four units. That means in some way,

[3:33:23] shape, or form we can get another six

[3:33:25] there. Um, just keeping track of

[3:33:28] individual applications in the future

[3:33:31] um, for planning staff might be a little

[3:33:33] bit more difficult. Um,

[3:33:36] fairly akin to how we look at older

[3:33:40] subdivisions now and try to dive into

[3:33:42] what rules apply to specific

[3:33:43] subdivisions.

[3:33:46] >> Thank you. Um before we take public

[3:33:48] » Thank you. Um before we take public

[3:33:48] public comment, we are 3 minutes or four

[3:33:50] minutes to um our extended time, uh I

[3:33:54] would propose that we go ahead and do 15

[3:33:57] more minutes. Hopefully we won't need

[3:33:59] that much, but um I would uh propose to

[3:34:02] extend the meeting to 10:45.

[3:34:04] >> Second.

[3:34:05] » Second.

[3:34:05] >> Uh all in favor?

[3:34:07] » Uh all in favor?

[3:34:07] >> I

[3:34:07] » I

[3:34:07] >> I

[3:34:07] » I

[3:34:07] >> I

[3:34:08] » I

[3:34:08] >> uh city clerk, I assume that's okay

[3:34:09] » uh city clerk, I assume that's okay

[3:34:10] since we no longer have a remote person.

[3:34:12] >> Oh, that's true.

[3:34:13] » Oh, that's true.

[3:34:13] >> Okay, great. Um, with that, Darren, if

[3:34:16] » Okay, great. Um, with that, Darren, if

[3:34:16] you don't mind, I'm going to take um I

[3:34:17] do have a speaker card for Nick Waroff,

[3:34:19] and if anybody else would like to speak,

[3:34:21] uh, please come on up.

[3:34:23] >> Thank you. I will be brief. Uh, I

[3:34:26] » Thank you. I will be brief. Uh, I

[3:34:26] submitted a short written submission. I

[3:34:29] hope you have all looked at it. I

[3:34:32] disagree with the prognostication

[3:34:36] that the law will be infrequently

[3:34:39] invoked

[3:34:41] because there is a major loophole in the

[3:34:44] law. It applies to any vacant

[3:34:48] parcel,

[3:34:50] but a developer or an owner could

[3:34:52] demolish

[3:34:54] his her or their existing house and then

[3:34:58] you have a and there's no waiting time.

[3:35:01] Demolish the house and then invoke SP

[3:35:04] 1123.

[3:35:06] And [clears throat] the part that I care

[3:35:08] about is what I've always cared about

[3:35:11] before you,

[3:35:13] which is safe emergency evacuation

[3:35:18] because I can see a number of these

[3:35:22] developments lining up along our

[3:35:24] evacuation routes and adding a lot of

[3:35:28] units. Fortunately, SB123

[3:35:32] has a safety exception that I quote in

[3:35:35] my email.

[3:35:38] And since there'll be no public hearings

[3:35:40] and no public notice,

[3:35:43] my ask tonight is that you provide

[3:35:48] direction to staff. They have to do it

[3:35:51] on an application by application basis,

[3:35:54] but that you provide direction to staff

[3:35:58] to invoke the safety exception

[3:36:01] and deny

[3:36:04] 1123 applications

[3:36:07] along or within 100 ft of an evacuation

[3:36:11] route

[3:36:13] because

[3:36:15] may, you know, maybe it'll be

[3:36:16] unnecessary, but I would hate to see

[3:36:20] One, two, three, 10 of these start

[3:36:23] mushrooming as people start moving out

[3:36:26] because a 10-unit apartment is built

[3:36:28] next to them and developers swoop in and

[3:36:31] start developing them. Arinda is the

[3:36:35] most dangerous city in California in

[3:36:37] terms of wildfire risk. Your primary

[3:36:41] responsibility

[3:36:43] as council members is public safety. And

[3:36:47] I would urge you to act responsibly and

[3:36:51] direct staff to invoke the safety

[3:36:55] exception on applications

[3:36:58] along or within 100 ft of an evacuation

[3:37:02] route. Thank you.

[3:37:05] >> Thank you. Looks like we have at least

[3:37:06] » Thank you. Looks like we have at least

[3:37:06] one other public speaker. Please come on

[3:37:08] up. Thank you for waiting so long. I

[3:37:10] know this was a long wait to talk.

[3:37:12] >> I know. Um nice to be able to address

[3:37:15] » I know. Um nice to be able to address

[3:37:15] you, city council. Thank you. My name is

[3:37:17] Annne Arurbrite and mostly I just want

[3:37:20] to agree with what Nick just said. Um, I

[3:37:23] feel very strongly about that that um I

[3:37:28] know um it's easy to forget and become

[3:37:32] complacent about fire risk, but our son

[3:37:36] who lives in LA, his house almost burned

[3:37:38] down. The fire embers reached his

[3:37:40] backyard and the only reason his house

[3:37:42] survived is they had people up all night

[3:37:45] putting out the embers. So, he almost

[3:37:47] lost his house. So, we have to remember

[3:37:49] that that could easily happen here. And

[3:37:53] um we really do count on the city

[3:37:54] council to keep the residents safe. And

[3:37:57] it really is concerning about building

[3:38:00] up density in Arinda which is already

[3:38:02] considered possibly I think the

[3:38:04] chronicle said the next Pacific

[3:38:06] Palisades. So that's a cons a big

[3:38:09] concern. Um and the fact that these

[3:38:13] statewide laws call for ministerial

[3:38:15] imple implementation is actually very

[3:38:18] frightening for individual residents. Um

[3:38:21] because it really means that we rely on

[3:38:24] stated and published guidelines from you

[3:38:27] and from the city um that show that we

[3:38:30] will be safe when these things are put

[3:38:33] into place because we really have no

[3:38:35] recourse. Nobody even has to tell us

[3:38:38] that it's going up next door.

[3:38:41] So that I just really agree with what

[3:38:43] Nick wrote and what he's saying. And I

[3:38:45] know I have a lot of people that last

[3:38:48] minute couldn't come but would come. So

[3:38:51] that I I know there's a lot of people

[3:38:52] that would agree with this. So

[3:38:56] that's that's my comment.

[3:38:58] >> Thank you very much. Um is there anybody

[3:39:00] » Thank you very much. Um is there anybody

[3:39:00] else from the public who would like to

[3:39:02] speak on this matter before we bring it

[3:39:04] up?

[3:39:06] >> Um yeah, please come on up. Um and

[3:39:09] » Um yeah, please come on up. Um and

[3:39:09] please just state your name and um three

[3:39:11] minutes.

[3:39:11] >> Yeah. Hi, Tom Seo. Thanks for uh pulling

[3:39:16] » Yeah. Hi, Tom Seo. Thanks for uh pulling

[3:39:16] this over time. Important issue. You

[3:39:18] know, [clears throat] when when Darren

[3:39:20] was going through the explanation, this

[3:39:22] is incredibly complex, and I appreciate

[3:39:25] that. When I put in the context of other

[3:39:28] communities that have multi-unit

[3:39:30] housing, it makes perfect sense. You

[3:39:32] know, if this were going into a

[3:39:33] community that already I get it, that's

[3:39:35] where that's what the law was written

[3:39:37] for. I don't think it applies to our

[3:39:40] community, and I understand that's not a

[3:39:42] choice we have. It's a state law. But

[3:39:45] that's where the interpretation and what

[3:39:47] you all do as the city council I think

[3:39:48] comes into play [clears throat] because

[3:39:51] you know the interpretation of an ADU

[3:39:54] versus a lot. You know it's ADU I think

[3:39:57] by definition has to be a rental

[3:39:58] property. So if this is intended to be

[3:40:01] for starter homes well it's a starter

[3:40:04] home as a rental maybe but that's not

[3:40:06] really solving the issue. And I it seems

[3:40:08] so convoluted to me to try to shoehorn

[3:40:11] this in to [clears throat] Arinda when

[3:40:14] it's probably makes sense and is

[3:40:16] intended for areas that already have

[3:40:18] multi-unit housing.

[3:40:22] » Thank you very much. Um if there are no

[3:40:25] other questions or comments, I think we

[3:40:27] will bring this up for discussion.

[3:40:30] Uh would anyone like to lead us off?

[3:40:33] I I'd like to ask city staff if um the

[3:40:37] suggestion from Mr. Waroff and others um

[3:40:41] is allowed. Are we allowed to um these

[3:40:45] laws get so complicated as to what we're

[3:40:47] allowed to do and not do? Um I mean I

[3:40:50] think it's a perfectly good suggestion.

[3:40:52] My question is are we allowed to do

[3:40:54] that?

[3:40:54] >> Yeah, I had the same question about

[3:40:56] » Yeah, I had the same question about

[3:40:56] invoking the safety exception because

[3:40:58] that wasn't part of the presentation.

[3:41:02] It's true that the language is in the

[3:41:04] law, but it is also, I think, a

[3:41:06] case-byase determination,

[3:41:08] right? It it's not sort of a blanket

[3:41:10] determination citywide. It would be

[3:41:13] looking at this particular application.

[3:41:15] Can you make the findings that there

[3:41:17] would be these particular safety

[3:41:19] problems? So, I if you'd like to direct

[3:41:22] staff to do some more work to look into

[3:41:26] exactly how that might work, uh, we can

[3:41:29] absolutely do that. Um, but I don't

[3:41:31] recommend tonight, for example,

[3:41:34] directing us that for all 1123

[3:41:37] applications that come in, they should

[3:41:38] be denied based on the safety. that we

[3:41:41] could express to staff that we want

[3:41:44] staff to be prepared or to look into it

[3:41:47] so that in the in the event that it's

[3:41:49] applicable to an application, staff

[3:41:51] would recognize it and be able to

[3:41:52] address it.

[3:41:53] >> Correct. Because it ends up being sort

[3:41:54] » Correct. Because it ends up being sort

[3:41:54] of a two-step process where you have to

[3:41:56] have your objective standards um

[3:41:59] prepared before the application comes in

[3:42:02] and then you measure the application

[3:42:04] against your objective standards to

[3:42:05] determine whether you can make the

[3:42:06] safety findings. So, um, if you'd like

[3:42:09] to provide direction to staff, we can

[3:42:11] work on, uh, figuring out what's

[3:42:13] possible.

[3:42:14] >> Got it. Um,

[3:42:20] I I mean, I I'm not I guess I was I

[3:42:23] would look for sort of you're you're

[3:42:26] putting these options before us, and I

[3:42:30] appreciate going through the pros and

[3:42:31] cons. I didn't hear a clear sort of

[3:42:33] staff recommendation. I can tell you

[3:42:36] looking at this

[3:42:38] for me four is out of the question

[3:42:41] because I don't I mean I would I'm sort

[3:42:44] of leaning towards number one here but

[3:42:47] I'm I I would want to hear if there's a

[3:42:50] staff recommendation or what my

[3:42:52] colleagues think as well. That was my

[3:42:54] other question.

[3:42:55] >> Well, I'm easily going with number one.

[3:42:57] » Well, I'm easily going with number one.

[3:42:57] I think the whole thing is just I

[3:43:00] [sighs] mean it is just way out of

[3:43:02] proportion. We all understand what the

[3:43:04] state wishes they could mandate on

[3:43:06] everyone. But I think I think this level

[3:43:09] of density in the size lots you're

[3:43:12] you're talking about is just

[3:43:15] I I mean it's just wildly inappropriate

[3:43:17] to our community unless you're going to

[3:43:19] do what Mr. Waroff said and everybody's

[3:43:21] going to start tearing down existing

[3:43:23] homes and you're going to flatten

[3:43:24] everything so that you can start turning

[3:43:26] everything into, you know, essentially

[3:43:29] apartment zones. Um, I mean, I just I

[3:43:32] just think it's beyond um, you know, and

[3:43:36] and I shudder to think how this is would

[3:43:39] be potentially accepted by, you know, a

[3:43:42] neighborhood, you know, if if it's a

[3:43:44] current single family neighborhood now.

[3:43:46] And you know, I mean, it's one thing for

[3:43:48] people to be okay with their neighbors

[3:43:50] adding ADUs or, you know, doing certain

[3:43:53] things that are going on in the

[3:43:54] community that I think are pretty well

[3:43:56] accepted, but the idea that you might

[3:43:58] all of a sudden end up with, you know,

[3:44:00] living next door to somebody building a

[3:44:03] 10-unit apartment uh complex is um I

[3:44:07] mean, it it I'll be honest, it's just

[3:44:09] frightening in terms of thinking what

[3:44:11] our um community is, you know, what the

[3:44:14] reaction is going to And I and I fully

[3:44:17] agree with the public safety issues. I

[3:44:20] mean I you know I it's we're lucky I

[3:44:24] guess that so much of I mean we're lucky

[3:44:26] we're not lucky. We're we're horribly

[3:44:28] unlucky that we're have such high fire

[3:44:31] risk but you know if it's reducing some

[3:44:34] of you know what we're able to do here.

[3:44:36] But, you know, quite frankly, I I wish

[3:44:39] that this was a situation where our

[3:44:42] community didn't have to accept this law

[3:44:44] at all over fire danger. So, so it's

[3:44:47] easy for me to just say no. I mean, this

[3:44:49] this would be an amount of density that

[3:44:51] I just find very objectionable. Um, even

[3:44:55] recognizing, you know, the housing needs

[3:44:58] of the state. But, um, I I would simply

[3:45:01] fall on the no, no more, no more than

[3:45:06] I'll just chime in because this we're

[3:45:07] kind of a smaller group tonight. Um, and

[3:45:10] it's funny because I had I fell out of

[3:45:13] my chair when the ADU laws first came

[3:45:15] through and then I fell out of my chair

[3:45:16] when SB9 came through and we were told

[3:45:19] there was no such thing as single family

[3:45:20] zoning in the state of California and it

[3:45:22] was just horrific. Um, and I actually

[3:45:27] brought this when I saw these in the

[3:45:29] objective design standards and I was

[3:45:30] like, what are our standards for small

[3:45:33] lot subdivisions? like what are these

[3:45:35] things? And you know, yeah, it can be a

[3:45:38] small apartment building, it can be a

[3:45:40] condo subdivision, you know, two

[3:45:41] stories, but still um it could be town

[3:45:44] homes, it could be all sorts of stuff.

[3:45:46] And so I I'm really glad we're having

[3:45:48] this conversation because it's

[3:45:52] it's not just new. It's it's hard to

[3:45:55] even picture what these look like, but

[3:45:59] um SP9 and the ADUs actually turned out

[3:46:02] to be fine in Arinda. The way that

[3:46:05] people are doing most of their ADUs,

[3:46:07] they're not renting them to strangers,

[3:46:09] right? They're either using them as it

[3:46:11] as a way to expand their house with

[3:46:13] ministerial permitting or they're using

[3:46:15] it for caregivers, in-laws,

[3:46:20] boomerang children. They've actually

[3:46:22] been used to create sort of family

[3:46:23] compounds. And it's the addition of

[3:46:26] density in the way that's appropriate to

[3:46:29] Arinda that we're not seeing apartment

[3:46:31] towers in our downtown. What we're

[3:46:34] seeing is people taking the abundance of

[3:46:37] land and really nice neighborhoods and

[3:46:40] just adding

[3:46:42] some density. And so the the reality has

[3:46:45] actually been just fine. And it was it

[3:46:48] was those were both terrifying. So, um,

[3:46:51] when I heard, you know, 10 little tiny

[3:46:54] homes on a lot, it just boggles the

[3:46:57] mind. But, um, the reason I would

[3:47:00] actually advocate for number three is I

[3:47:02] suspect that the kind of product we're

[3:47:04] actually going to see built will be more

[3:47:08] like two homes with ADUs.

[3:47:12] They might use the junior ADU as a

[3:47:14] feature in a home. I sort of think as

[3:47:17] long as it's within the same 10 that you

[3:47:19] could do as identically sized or

[3:47:22] similarly sized separate units,

[3:47:24] something that might be two or three

[3:47:26] units with a mini feature. It it just

[3:47:30] gives people the flexibility to do the

[3:47:32] correct design that they want to do. And

[3:47:35] I don't think there's any different

[3:47:37] outcome between one and three other than

[3:47:39] three might have some more small units

[3:47:42] than more big units. So I I find three

[3:47:46] to be actually more friendly to people

[3:47:49] who are going to do it anyway. Um so

[3:47:52] that would be my preference. The

[3:47:54] question we haven't even talked about is

[3:47:55] the one about whether you would allow

[3:47:57] further SB9 lot splits because I think

[3:47:59] that was such a an obvious no that we're

[3:48:02] not even talking about it.

[3:48:04] >> Just to be clear on that second question

[3:48:05] » Just to be clear on that second question

[3:48:05] about further subdivision, I'm a hard no

[3:48:07] on that. Can I

[3:48:11] just probe that for a second between one

[3:48:13] and three? Because those are the two

[3:48:15] that I was looking at. But I assume that

[3:48:17] it would be frankly just cheaper to

[3:48:21] build under three to build more units

[3:48:25] than it would be under one. And that's

[3:48:27] why this is being proposed. I mean, is

[3:48:30] that is that correct?

[3:48:32] I I believe um that we could probably

[3:48:36] tailor this in such a manner that we

[3:48:38] wouldn't expect those ADUs or junior

[3:48:40] accessory dwelling units to be

[3:48:42] constructed as part of the initial um

[3:48:45] development. Um this I I see three as

[3:48:49] more of a future flexibility

[3:48:52] um where something has already been

[3:48:53] subdivided into four, five units and

[3:48:57] future homeowners of those units could

[3:48:59] then come in later on and say, "You know

[3:49:01] what? I need an ADU or I need to carve

[3:49:03] out a space to be a junior accessory

[3:49:05] dwelling, right?

[3:49:05] >> So, it wouldn't immediately necessarily

[3:49:07] » So, it wouldn't immediately necessarily

[3:49:07] result in those additional units. It

[3:49:09] would just

[3:49:10] >> for

[3:49:12] » for

[3:49:12] three makes me think that you will end

[3:49:15] up with more units than one

[3:49:20] either because it's more costefficient

[3:49:22] to do so or because of you can do it in

[3:49:25] stages in terms of building. And that's

[3:49:27] why I'm sort of frankly leaning towards

[3:49:30] one because it gives us a tiny little

[3:49:32] bit of local control, but I'm also

[3:49:35] looking to staff it. You know, I mean,

[3:49:37] we do want to in we have to improve, you

[3:49:41] know, we have to increase the amount of

[3:49:43] housing locally or at least encourage

[3:49:46] it. And so, but we want to do it in a

[3:49:48] way that makes sense. And I don't I

[3:49:51] don't certainly

[3:49:54] when you had a single family home

[3:49:56] putting in, you know, five mini homes or

[3:49:59] 10 mini homes for what it's worth. That

[3:50:02] answer kind of uh my mind a little bit

[3:50:04] because I I was thinking of it as like

[3:50:06] the initial design could be more

[3:50:08] flexible. But yeah, building five and

[3:50:10] then turning it into seven um is not the

[3:50:15] desired direction. And um you can always

[3:50:18] amend laws. So, I would be fine starting

[3:50:20] with one and just knowing we can always

[3:50:22] come back. If you, you know, if planning

[3:50:24] says, "Hey, we're seeing things that

[3:50:26] would be better if we had this

[3:50:28] flexibility or we had more discretion.

[3:50:31] Um, I'd be fine starting more limited

[3:50:34] and um and expanding if the need

[3:50:37] presented itself." And it sounds like

[3:50:39] you guys are both inclined to one

[3:50:41] anyway.

[3:50:42] >> Yeah, I I should have asked this during

[3:50:43] » Yeah, I I should have asked this during

[3:50:43] the questions, but this is a very

[3:50:45] difficult format, difficult time, etc.

[3:50:48] And that is are we allowed to have

[3:50:50] different kind of objective design

[3:50:52] standards for this than we are for

[3:50:54] things that we have in downtown?

[3:50:57] >> Oh, that's a good question.

[3:50:57] » Oh, that's a good question.

[3:50:57] >> I mean, is this get a are we allowed to

[3:51:00] » I mean, is this get a are we allowed to

[3:51:00] do specific set of objective design

[3:51:03] standards just for this law?

[3:51:07] >> Oh,

[3:51:07] » Oh,

[3:51:07] >> yes. [laughter]

[3:51:08] » yes. [laughter]

[3:51:08] >> Well, I've seen our planning direct. I

[3:51:10] » Well, I've seen our planning direct. I

[3:51:10] think the answer is that you're going to

[3:51:12] need to apply the same objective

[3:51:13] standards to these single family zoned

[3:51:16] parcels as you do to your other single

[3:51:19] family zoned parcels.

[3:51:20] >> There's an there's a section in our

[3:51:22] » There's an there's a section in our

[3:51:22] current draft. There's like a little

[3:51:24] chapter for small lot subdivision.

[3:51:26] Correct. So there are different

[3:51:28] standards. It's just that it's not a

[3:51:30] different law. It's one law that's that

[3:51:32] says if you're a duplex or if you're a

[3:51:34] single family. Isn't that right? Well,

[3:51:36] so the downtown has its own already

[3:51:39] adopted objective design standards that

[3:51:42] don't affect any of the single family

[3:51:44] residentially zoned parcels. We're

[3:51:46] working on but have not yet brought to

[3:51:48] you for adoption the citywide ODS. Okay.

[3:51:55] By the way, we're uh about to need more

[3:51:57] time. Um [laughter]

[3:52:01] five minutes or is that too aggressive?

[3:52:03] >> Let's move to extend by 10 minutes. So

[3:52:05] » Let's move to extend by 10 minutes. So

[3:52:05] till 10:55.

[3:52:08] >> All right.

[3:52:09] » All right.

[3:52:09] >> And let's I'll move we extend to 10:55.

[3:52:12] » And let's I'll move we extend to 10:55.

[3:52:12] Second. All in favor?

[3:52:13] >> All in favor? I

[3:52:15] » All in favor? I

[3:52:15] >> I

[3:52:17] » I

[3:52:17] >> um

[3:52:21] I think we have consensus on number one

[3:52:25] in this policy decision unless staff

[3:52:27] wants to tell us why we should be doing

[3:52:30] something else.

[3:52:31] >> I think you have consensus on both

[3:52:33] » I think you have consensus on both

[3:52:33] actually. you have uh direction pursue

[3:52:36] one and I don't think unless I've heard

[3:52:39] otherwise staff is not recommending

[3:52:41] >> additional lot split opportunities under

[3:52:43] » additional lot split opportunities under

[3:52:43] SB9. Uh it doesn't seem like you would

[3:52:46] like to see that either. So it sounds

[3:52:48] like we've got policy direction. But and

[3:52:50] then the one thing I would like to see

[3:52:53] if we're in agreement on is can we

[3:52:55] explore whether

[3:52:58] we can do anything else regarding public

[3:53:01] safety that isn't just application by

[3:53:04] application. So those are the three

[3:53:06] things I wrote down. Uh option number

[3:53:09] one on ADUs, no SB9 lot splits and staff

[3:53:13] pursue the what it would take to make

[3:53:15] safety findings.

[3:53:18] >> Yes, please. And um we'd love to see

[3:53:20] » Yes, please. And um we'd love to see

[3:53:20] those objective design standards come

[3:53:22] back quickly because they're pretty uh

[3:53:25] they're pretty important in all of this.

[3:53:26] So um but um with that, I think we're

[3:53:30] good on this matter.

[3:53:32] >> Yes, we're good on this.

[3:53:33] » Yes, we're good on this.

[3:53:33] >> Yes, I think staff got enough direction

[3:53:36] » Yes, I think staff got enough direction

[3:53:36] to move forward with the next best.

[3:53:38] >> Terrific. And since we've already done

[3:53:40] » Terrific. And since we've already done

[3:53:40] the various reports, I believe

[3:53:41] >> you for answering all our questions.

[3:53:43] » you for answering all our questions.

[3:53:43] >> Yeah, thank you again. That was a

[3:53:45] » Yeah, thank you again. That was a

[3:53:45] >> really novel thing to get our arms

[3:53:47] » really novel thing to get our arms

[3:53:47] around and it's not as novel as it

[3:53:50] should be. Um, are there any matters

[3:53:52] initiated?

[3:53:54] >> I move we adjourn.

[3:53:55] » I move we adjourn.

[3:53:55] >> Motion to

[3:53:56] » Motion to

[3:53:56] >> Could it hit my five minutes?

[3:53:57] » Could it hit my five minutes?

[3:53:57] >> Second.

City Council Regular

Transcript