right now. I think
>> I think I would say maybe um
» I think I would say maybe um
>> because right now it's just going to be
» because right now it's just going to be
>> it's just what
» it's just what
>> it's just going to be council member
» it's just going to be council member
Hawky.
>> Yeah, maybe put it on since she's there.
» Yeah, maybe put it on since she's there.
Yes, that'd be great. Thanks for asking.
» [sighs]
» Good evening and welcome. Sorry we're
starting a minute late. Um to tonight's
March 3rd regular meeting of the Arinda
City Council. I'll ask the city clerk to
please uh call the role. And we have um
one remote uh hello council member
Hawky. Sorry for the uh the tardy start.
>> It's all right. Hello.
» It's all right. Hello.
>> So, note for the record that all council
» So, note for the record that all council
members are present.
>> Actually, we have
» Actually, we have
>> Well, except the one that you just noted
» Well, except the one that you just noted
who's
>> and the excused absence.
» and the excused absence.
>> Oh, so I'm so sorry. [laughter]
» Oh, so I'm so sorry. [laughter]
>> So, we are missing Janet tonight.
» So, we are missing Janet tonight.
>> Yes,
» Yes,
>> she has an excuse absence.
» she has an excuse absence.
>> Yes, she does.
» Yes, she does.
>> Okay. Thank you. And so, note that.
» Okay. Thank you. And so, note that.
>> Thank you. And with that, um we will
» Thank you. And with that, um we will
please stand for the pledge of
allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America of America, the
republic for which it stands,
>> one nation,
» one nation,
>> indivisible, liberty and justice for
» indivisible, liberty and justice for
all.
>> Thank you.
The next um item is to adopt the agenda.
And I will once again um suggest that we
do the council member I mean uh city
manager and council member reports um
before we go to the regular business. So
that would be after public forum and
consent calendar. Um with that proposal,
do I have a second?
>> I'll second it.
» I'll second it.
>> All in favor?
» All in favor?
Hi.
>> All right. So, unfortunately because we
» All right. So, unfortunately because we
have a member has a by roll call
tonight.
» Council member uh Hawky.
>> Yeah. I
» Yeah. I
>> council member Marani.
» council member Marani.
>> I Vice Mayor G.
» I Vice Mayor G.
>> I mayor Iverson
» I mayor Iverson
>> I. Thank you. With that we have an
» I. Thank you. With that we have an
agenda. We'll move on to items for the
good of the city. Uh our first item is
to introduce uh two new employees uh
Cole Heslip and Estella Ramirez. Do we
have uh some people to come and
introduce them? I it will be me uh
introducing Cole. Cole, would you mind
standing up to the public podium? And
I'm delighted to introduce you to Cole
Heslip who joined the city as this our
assistant to the city manager. Man, uh
Cole uh is I'm sorry. Cole most recently
served as a senior management analyst
with the city of Wheatidge, Colorado,
where he led the city's innovation team
and implementing operational
improvements and served as staff liaison
to the community partners grant program
committee and the legislative advocacy
program. He was also a key member of
their budget team and collaborative
collaborated across departments to
support a variety of citywide
initiatives. Prior to working in
Wheatidge, Cole worked for the city of
Vanetta in Oregon in the city manager's
office where he led economic
development, emergency management, and
social media communications. His
professional background includes the
roles in the city of Aspen and served as
a management consultant with CA
University Public Management. That's
correct. That's correct.
>> Uh he earned his mers in public
» Uh he earned his mers in public
administration from the University of
Kansas, his bachelor in political
science from Humbult. And while Cole has
recently [clears throat] relocated to
join us, he's very familiar with
California territory. He grew up in
Humboldt and he has family in nearby
Moraga. So, if you could join me in um
uh joining uh I don't know why I can't
talk tonight. I apologize, Cole. Uh in
welcoming Cole to the city of Arinda.
» Cole, welcome. I know we've got a big
pile of work for you to do. I'm pretty
excited to have you start. Did you want
to say a few words?
>> Yeah, I just want to say thank you so
» Yeah, I just want to say thank you so
much for the opportunity to join the
team here at the city of Arinda. Uh like
you said, uh Linda has got a lot of
projects ready for the city to take on
and I'm excited to get started on some
of them, join some of the ones that are
already ongoing and uh continue to
support the community and the
organization here. So, I look forward to
working with the council and the
community for
>> Thank you. We're looking forward to
» Thank you. We're looking forward to
working with you as well.
>> Thanks, Cole.
» Thanks, Cole.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> And then next up will be Estella
» And then next up will be Estella
and Scott will do her introduction.
>> Good evening, city council. Scott
» Good evening, city council. Scott
Christie, public works director. I'm
also pleased to introduce Estella
Ramirez, who joins us as our new
management analyst in the public works
and engineering department. So, we're
excited about this position because it
kind of combines some of the engineering
technician tasks with management
analysts and u those sort of related
tasks, you know, including records
management, responding to public records
requests. a lot of things that engineers
have typically done, you know, in
addition to helping us out with some of
the administration of the clean water
NPDES program from the standpoint of
helping coate reports, provide reports
to the uh state water board, etc. help
us with grant administration, the
capital budget and things like that. So,
Asella comes to us from the city of
Pleasanton where she handled some
administrative tasks in the business uh
development area. Also, again, she
handled some of the same tasks that I
mentioned there for for their
department. Also, she's worked with the
city of San Leandro in the engineering
department there. So, she's wellversed
with, I believe, what we do and we're
looking forward to having her help us
out. And then she's also worked in the
past with the city of Oakland and also
the county of Marin. She has a
bachelor's degree in business
administration with an emphasis in
public administration. So with that,
I'll um introduce Estella.
>> Hi. [laughter]
» Thank you. Thank you so much for the
warm welcome. Um, just really grateful
to be part of the team and I'm eager to
contribute. Um,
Scott, Doug, and Linda already have me
diving right in. I've been busy my last
two weeks, and I just look forward to
bringing my skills to um improving our
processes, streamlining so that we can
better serve the community with greater
efficiency. And yeah, I look forward to
supporting council initiatives and
priorities in any way I can. So, thank
you again. Oh, and I do want to note I
was an executive assistant to the um
council in San Leandro. So, I want to
thank you very much for your service. I
know it's a lot more than just two
meetings a month. So, thank you for
that. [gasps and sighs]
>> Thank you. It sounds like you have an
» Thank you. It sounds like you have an
incredible background for this position.
So, thank you for joining and we look
forward to working with you. Does anyone
else have anything? We'll um Yeah,
welcome. Welcome to both of our new
employees. Thank you so much for
serving, Arinda.
>> Thank you. And with that, we'll move on
» Thank you. And with that, we'll move on
to our next item uh for the good of the
city, which is a certificate of
recognition for American Red Cross
Month. Um we do have a representative
tonight, Eva Marquez, uh from the Red
Cross. I'm going to do I'm going to talk
for um just a minute with some of the um
the really cool uh just introductory
notes that were shared with us and then
um we'll do the certificate and see if
you'd like to say a few words as well.
Um the American Red Cross volunteers
have stepped up to deliver relief and
care across our country and around the
world, bringing out the best of humanity
in times of crisis as Clara Barton,
founder of American Red Cross did over
140 years ago. The volunteers, blood and
platelet donors, and supporters shine a
beacon of hope in people's darkest
hours. Delivering shelter, food, and
comfort during disasters, providing
critical blood donations for hospital
patients, supporting service members,
veterans, and their families, and saving
lives with first aid, CPR, AED, and
other skills. With 1,148
volunteers in Contraosta County, the
American Red Cross assisted or responded
to 101 disasters assisting 190 families
through their sound the alarm program.
Um, and through the sound the alarm
program, the American Red Cross
installed 778 smoke alarms, making 241
homes safer, and trained 425 students
through the youth preparedness programs.
In addition, Contraosta County residents
donated 18,299
units of life-saving blood, hosted 530
blood drives, and trained 12,164
citizens in first aid, CPR, AED, and
aquatics, and provided 463 case services
to military members and their families.
This work to uplift our community is
made possible by those who selflessly
answer the call to help whenever and
wherever it is needed. We hereby
recognize this month of March in honor
of their remarkable service. And we ask
everyone to join in their commitment to
care for one another. And um with that,
I will bring the certificate and or do
you want to do you want to say a few
words first and then we'll um do a
photo?
>> Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor, Vice
» Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor, Vice
Mayor, Council Members G. Good evening.
My name is Eva Marquez. I'm the
volunteer engagement manager for the
American Red Cross. I handle Contra
Costa Alamita and the entire North Bay
and I've been with the organization for
about 35 years. And so I'm I'm so
grateful that I have the opportunity to
be here tonight and we're so um
delighted that we're partnering with the
city of Arinda. Um it's been truly an
American Red Cross joy to able to
partner with the city of Orinda. um and
to continue our commitment because of
your support that we're able to be there
and respond to disasters whenever it's
needed. And we've already partnered with
some of the employees and they got
trained in sheltering um and in hope
that when there's a large disaster in
Contra Cara that we are prepared and to
be there for the community whenever it's
needed. So, thank you so much for that
and we look forward to working with you.
And if there's anything that we can do,
preparedness, handsonly CPR or blood
drive or even volunteering to build our
capacity so that we can be there right
away when something happened. Um, let me
know because again, I'm in volunteer
services. So, we're always building our
capacity to respond right away when
there's a need. So, thank you so much.
there an opportunity for public comment
on this?
>> Sure. Why don't we do the certificate
» Sure. Why don't we do the certificate
and then we'll take public comment.
>> Thank you.
And with that, we'll ask if uh there is
public comment on this matter. It
appears we have uh one speaker.
» Good evening. [clears throat] For
forgive my attire. I just came from my
oldest granddaughter's softball
practice, so I'm a hodgepodge of a dress
shirt and other clothing.
I just want to say, as I said last year,
I have no issue with the uh American Red
Cross and I have no issue with our local
people who spoke here.
But I think it's important for the
public record that people understand
that the local Red Cross is different
and independent from the abomination
known as the International Red Cross,
which most notably didn't lift a finger
or pay any visit to any of the Israeli
hostages captured
during the terrorist attack of October.
7, 2023.
And as the council made clear last year,
honoring the local Red Cross folks
uh is not any,
[clears throat] excuse me, endorsement
or honoring of the National Red Cross.
I'm not here to ask you to condemn them.
I condemn them, but I just want to be
clear that we're just because they share
the name quote red cross unquote quote
in their names that nothing that is
happening here tonight is honoring
the very awful people running the
International Red Cross. Thank you. My
name for the record is Nick Warrenoff.
I've lived in Arinda for over 23 years.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
Uh is there anybody else who would like
to speak on um either of the items for
the good of the city?
Seeing none, we will now go to the
public forum. The public forum is an
opportunity for members of the public to
speak on any item within the
jurisdiction of the city that is not on
the agenda. In addition, uh a speaker
has the option of addressing the council
of an on an item that's listed on the
agenda if the speaker will not be
present when the agenda item is taken
up. Um, we ask that people limit
comments to three minutes and I'll ask
if we have anyone for public comment. I
have I mean uh for public forum. I have
not checked. Yeah, we have um at least
one which is uh Emily Pulkari for public
forum. Please come on up.
And actually we have a second one as
well. [clears throat]
>> Hi, thank you. Um I wanted to make sure
» Hi, thank you. Um I wanted to make sure
that you all got my email about the
serious accident on Coral. Um it was
very jarring to have that happen a week
after we had been discussing the safety
measures. Um I don't want to,
you know, there was a young person
involved. I don't want to go into um
anything too detailed, but um I'm
requesting that you expedite do whatever
you can to expedite bringing that up for
a vote, the safety measures on Coral and
whatever you can um in terms of
instituting temporary safety measures
like the temporary sidewalk. If we could
get some enforcement out there, that
would really, I think, go a long way. I
know that um safety at the elementary
schools is important and I've seen
myself that that's effective. Um but
some circulation I think would really
help. Um
and that's it. Thank you. Oh, one other
thing. If you are I don't know exactly
what the plan would be for the sidewalk.
I don't like if it would be like the
sidewalk on Moraga Way which only takes
up street or if it would um go into
people's yards. But this neighbor who I
don't know should probably know before
they go about fixing their property um
if it's going if a sidewalk is going to
go in there. Um so thank you.
>> Thank you. And while we cannot comment
» Thank you. And while we cannot comment
on that, I would just note for the
record that we had several letters this
week on the same topic and appreciate
you coming to speak in person about it.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um we also have a I'm
» Okay. Thank you. Um we also have a I'm
sorry. Did you have any questions or
comments? Okay. Um, we also have Shaheen
uh Tons and I hope I'm uh pronouncing
your name correctly. Come on up.
>> Ton, thank you.
» Good [clears throat] evening.
>> Uh, I'm here to talk about the agenda
» Uh, I'm here to talk about the agenda
item H2 actually because I won't be here
when it comes up on the agenda.
Um this was an item to do with revising
the private road acceptance policy that
was uh instituted a few years ago and
which has been a focus of the uh
infrastructure subcommittee.
Uh I sent a communication earlier today
to to the board uh to the council sorry
and I hope that you all get a chance to
read it at some point.
Um but when I did that there was one
point I forgot to mention and one of
those points was authorize the city
engineer to grant exceptions.
Uh I feel that's a very bad idea and
it's nothing to do with Scott. Um what
will happen if you do this it will make
the whole policy effectively toothless
because the city engineer will be
allowed to grant exceptions to it. The
engineer will become he or she will
become subject to political pressure and
be put in a very uncomfortable
situation.
And also once an exception is granted
other people will want exceptions
which might be similar but not quite the
same. They might claim discrimination if
they're not granted the exception at
that point.
Uh that's all I have to say on that and
uh I know that there's going to be a
vote on this uh revision to the policy
soon. Uh I'd like the council just to
remember
to my knowledge Orinda is the only city
really going down this path. uh many
other cities have considered it back in
2017 18 and they all after a while
rejected doing anything about it and
Arinda is pretty much the only city
going ahead with it and is that a good
idea or is it raising red flags if
everybody else isn't doing it so that's
just something to consider um so that's
all so please read my communication
perhaps speak to councils from the other
cities um get some second legal opinions
from people you know and um then decide.
Thanks.
>> Thank you and thank you for coming to
» Thank you and thank you for coming to
speak tonight. Uh it looks like do we
have another speaker on public?
» Thank you and good evening.
Over
the last couple of years,
there have been movements
uh such as United Against Hate,
Californians Against Hate,
and the like. And as some of you may
recall, I have opposed those for a
variety of reasons.
» [clears throat]
>> My worst fears have been realized
» My worst fears have been realized
because at
the most recent meeting of our local
high school board, the Alkalani Union
High School District,
people
spoke up
asking the board
to ban
a student club
called Club America,
which is an outgrowth of Turning Point
USA,
founded by the late Charlie Kirk.
And
this is a community that
this when I say this I'm talking about
Lamarinda is a community that prides
itself ostentatiously as being in
support of diversity and inclusion.
But what happened at the high school
board meeting was that several people
spoke at the public forum
[snorts] asking the board to ban
Club America
because they did not like the fact that
it was a conservative organization
and they
pretended
that there that this that it was a hate
organization.
And as you all know, the first amendment
provides for freedom of speech and
association,
freedom for the thought and the speech
we hate. Hate speech is constitutionally
protected.
And when these people spoke against Club
America,
the people in the audience applauded the
speakers asking that that group of
students be banned.
and Superintendent Nickerson and the
members of the school of the high school
board did not have the courage
to stand up to those people and tell
them no, the first amendment allows them
to to be a c an onampus club. So I just
urge you
next time you think about
your United Against Hate campaign to
reel it in. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Is there anyone uh first of
» Thank you. Is there anyone uh first of
all any comments on that or which I
guess we can't really comment. Um
anybody else for public for public
forum?
Great. Seeing none, um we will move to
our modified agenda. We're going to do
council member and city manager reports
uh just to do announcements before we
get into the main agenda. Uh does anyone
have any meeting or uh other updates
they'd like to share?
» You you
have a little bit of a list. So if you
think of one uh hold up your hand by the
time I'm done. [laughter]
First of all, I just came from the
Lamarind to Sunrise Rotary Good
Character Awards. Um, you may know those
from the newspaper where they take three
um standout middle schoolers from each
of our middle schoolers, Stanley, um,
uh, JM and OIS and uh, and give awards
for what they think is outstanding
character and um, it was just a
wonderful chance to recognize some of
our young citizens. Um, we did coffee
with the mayor on February 25th where we
talked a lot about what's going on in
our business community, economic
development, some changes in our small
business community, and just answered
some questions. Um, they did ask
questions about what's going on with the
BART um funding, and it was just a
really nice uh interactive forum. On
Saturday this past week, we did our
commission and committee interviews uh
and look forward to um welcoming some
new faces onto our city commissions and
committees soon. Um we also got a
legislative update from Cal Cities uh
last Thursday where we had senators
Grayson Mcernney and Rahab come and talk
about some of the bills that are coming
along this year and um take some
questions from people about uh what to
expect and what their priorities are.
So, it was nice for um I think everybody
here tonight was there to hear firsthand
what's coming along from Sacramento. Uh
and finally, we um I had not done a
certificate, but it is Women's History
Month in the month of March. And so, uh,
since we learned today that the Myati
Gym is officially being named the
Sabrino, um, UNESCO, uh, gym, I've asked
that it be put on our agenda for our
next meeting, uh, the second meeting in
March to do a little bit of an
acknowledgement for what a cool moment
that is in women's history to have
somebody so special that we get to honor
with renaming our gym. Uh, with that, is
there anything else that anyone forgot
[clears throat] or would like to add?
I'll ask the city manager for her
reports as well.
>> Uh thank you honorable mayor, members of
» Uh thank you honorable mayor, members of
city council. Uh just a couple of quick
updates. Uh this past couple last week
we had uh training sessions for Ladis,
our evacuation planning tool for
residents uh in the audience and those
potentially watching at home. You can
visit arinda ready.com and um use our
evacuation modeling tool to take a look
at over a hundred different scenarios
for evacuation. Uh the model itself is
going to be updated. Uh the consultant
Ladress, the company that uh offers the
program is making updates to its
modeling including embercasting. And so
over the next couple of weeks, we'll be
including that as part of the public
portal as well.
Just a quick update on the information
related to BART. Uh we did receive some
correspondence from BART that after
their last work session uh the BART
board determined that they were going to
apply what they're calling the
alternative service framework. A little
bit different from what we reported at
our last meeting in so much that they
are not uh they won't be looking at
station closures in the first sort of
round. If there is no um revenue measure
that either is placed on the ballot or
passed in November, they will be looking
at service cuts first and then looking
to 2027 2028 for station closures. And
they've changed their language around
station closures to to say that the
board will make those decisions about
station closures. I think part of what
it I've heard is that they really want
to see what impact writership impacts
there might be from some of those
service cuts before they make any
decisions about station closure. So, I
just wanted to give that update for the
public and for the council that that is
in fact um what they've reported back to
the city. Uh and I will leave it at
that.
>> Thank you very much. Um
» Thank you very much. Um
>> mayor, and again I I see that we're
» mayor, and again I I see that we're
going to have a member of the public who
wants to comment on these items. I was
just going to ask if we had public
comment.
» Thank you. Nick Warrenoff speaking.
The record should reflect
Oh, let me say initially I am pleased to
hear that Ladress is going to update
their modeling to take into account
ember casting.
The record should reflect that between
the release to the public of the Ladress
software and tonight,
I have been an extremely vigorous
critic of the initial iteration of Ladis
specifically because it did not include
ember casting.
ember casting being that a wildfire
casts
embers a mile or two ahead of itself.
And of course, then those embers start
spot fires which can render
one or more evacuation routes unusable.
And and when that information
came to light, I very publicly,
frequently,
and harshly criticized
that product. So I am very glad to hear
that that law, which is only one of
several, is being remedied.
And I [clears throat] am sure that
before I get back to my seat in the rear
of this auditorium,
[snorts] the city manager will tell you
that my criticism had absolutely nothing
to do with changing
with Ladress changing its software.
Thank you.
Um, with that there are no other
comments on the council member and your
board said that earlier. Uh, I'm sorry.
>> Mic was off. Um, my first uh question is
» Mic was off. Um, my first uh question is
if anybody has any changes to the items
on the consent calendar. Anything you'd
like to pull for discussion?
>> Mayor, if I could just mention that uh
» Mayor, if I could just mention that uh
we do have item 5.2 two, which is the
ratification of the fire code update. I
mentioned I just wanted to mention that
Chief Isacs is here in the audience if
you had any questions for him prior to
the adoption or if you wanted to have
him come up and speak quickly. I'm
putting him on the spot. He but if you
wanted to make any comments about the
changes to the fire code. I
>> thank you for that opportunity.
» thank you for that opportunity.
Given that we have the chief here, um I
would just love to pull F2 so we can
simply give him an opportunity to speak.
It's a it's a joy to have him. He's in
the upper right corner trying to hide.
>> I was [laughter] You knew he wouldn't
» I was [laughter] You knew he wouldn't
miss that. Um real quickly, uh Chief
Isaac, we're going to vote on the other
consent calendar items and then we're
going to do your F2. Uh a few words,
please. Um, so with that, uh, do I have
a motion on, and I would just note for
the record that we did get a public
comment on F2 in writing. Um, if items
F1, F3, and F4, do we have a motion to
adopt? So moved. Do I have a second?
>> Seconded.
» Seconded.
>> Roll call vote, please. City clerk.
» Roll call vote, please. City clerk.
>> Council member McConnie.
» Council member McConnie.
>> I. Vice Mayor G.
» I. Vice Mayor G.
>> I.
» I.
>> Council member Hawky.
» Council member Hawky.
>> I. Mayor Iverson.
» I. Mayor Iverson.
>> I thank you. And with that on I will
» I thank you. And with that on I will
bring item F2 up and we'll uh invite
Chief Isacs to please uh just say a few
words.
>> Mayor, council members, thank you for
» Mayor, council members, thank you for
the opportunity to speak tonight. Every
3 years, the state of California updates
the fire code. They require that we um
make any modifications to the fire code
and then we update it. because we're a
fire district, we have to take it to
both the city and the town as well as
the county for ratification. Um, we do
make amendments to our local fire code.
Uh, the majority of those amendments
have been in place since 2020. Um, the
only changes we really made to it where
we took some of the stuff out where the
state fire code has caught up to us. The
other um big item or topic for the fire
code this year is the adoption of the
California WOOI code. So traditionally
the WOOI standards were found in three
of the code books, the building code,
residential code, and fire code. So, the
state finally kind of got smart and they
pulled all those requirements out of
those individual code books and placed
it into uh one code, the wildland urban
interface code that is before you this
evening. That is a new code. Um we did a
couple um modifications to that just to
streamline some language. It deals with
construction standards. It deals with
access uh water standards and also
defensible space standards. Once the
state finally decides on what they're
going to do uh with zone zero, the fire
marshall worked uh very closely with
town and city staff as well as the
county fire marshall group to make sure
that we were aligned in as many areas as
we could countywide. And that's the
document that you have before you this
evening. Um happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
I had one question. Um, there's the
general principle that our local code
can be more restrictive but not less
than restrictive than the state code.
Was there anything in these amendments
where we opted for something a little
bit uh different or more restricted
restrictive than the state recommended
standards?
>> Uh, yes ma'am. all the modifications
» Uh, yes ma'am. all the modifications
that we put into the code uh road with
standards. Um and I'm sorry I forgot to
bring our code with us or with me this
evening, but there were certain areas
that we do go a little more restrictive.
The one that really uh two that jump out
at me, the under eve uh sprinklers for
new construction and the road with uh
the state code is 20 foot for a new
road. We go 28 ft because we use that
road as a fire break um in areas of the
district. So we also allow for
modification. So if a developer was
coming in and said, "Hey, for X reasons,
I can't meet that 28 foot road width."
We can work with them to grant
modifications.
» And just for clarity, uh first of all,
thank you Chief Isaac for being here. Um
and just for clarity, because I know
there's been a lot of talk and a lot of
buzz in our community about when is zone
zero coming, what will it mean locally?
Um these amendments so far there have
been no modifications to MOFD's fire
code around zone zero. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. Uh ordinance 2303 and
» That is correct. Uh ordinance 2303 and
2303 or 2308 still stand. We have not
made any changes. We have the two-foot
non-combustible zone, not the 5- foot
that uh the state's going to implement
with zone zero. We have no update when
the state's going to pick that topic
back up.
And but potentially if the state were to
require it, that would mean changes
locally as well.
>> Potentially.
» Potentially.
>> Potentially. Yes. And
» Potentially. Yes. And
>> I'm saying this because our residents
» I'm saying this because our residents
may be looking to landscape and in when
folks are doing that, you know, I would
hate for someone to landscape keeping in
mind a two twoft barrier and then, you
know, six months or a year later have to
rellandscape. So it's something I I
assume we should be thinking about.
>> Yes, ma'am.
Uh, were there any other comments or
questions? With that, I would and thank
you very much for taking the time to be
here tonight, Chief. Thank you.
>> Um, do we have a motion to adopt F2?
» Um, do we have a motion to adopt F2?
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, do we have any public
» Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, do we have any public
comment on F2?
>> Seeing none, do we have a motion to
» Seeing none, do we have a motion to
adopt F2?
>> I'll move adoption of item F2.
» I'll move adoption of item F2.
>> Do I have a second?
» Do I have a second?
Council member Hawky, we're cold calling
you. Would you like to
>> second? Yes, absolutely.
» second? Yes, absolutely.
>> Make sure you're keeping your mute on.
» Make sure you're keeping your mute on.
Great. Roll call vote, please. City
clerk. Council member McConn.
Hawky
>> I.
» I.
>> Gee,
» Gee,
>> I and I. Thank you. And with that, uh,
» I and I. Thank you. And with that, uh,
the consent calendar is now fully passed
and we will move on to policy matters.
Item H1 is our city of Arinda 2026
legislative platform. And I'll ask the
city manager if this is her category.
>> Yes. Um um honorable mayor, members of
» Yes. Um um honorable mayor, members of
the council, this one from a staff
perspective would be very quick. Last
year, the council adopted its first
legislative platform. Uh it's time for
updating uh that platform for the new
year. Uh the city worked with its
consultant towns uh public affairs to
put together an updated uh framework
that's pretty or platform rather. It is
very similar to last year's platform
with a few redline changes that we're
showing as an attachment to your staff
report. But to summarize some of the
areas where we were trying to refine uh
some of our support and opposition
positions, the first being supporting
limits on the application of builder's
remedy once a housing element has been
certified.
Supporting tools to address long-term
vacant commercial properties.
promoting pedestrian and ebike safety,
including helmet and age appropriate
operation requirements and supporting
clarification of local authority to
assess service related fees for street
maintenance and supporting the
sustainability enhancement of BART
service at the Arinda station and
opposing any service reductions,
changes, or funding reallocations that
would adversely affect the current level
of service at that station. So, with
that, I will turn it back over to the
city council. See if you have any
questions for me. I believe that Casey,
our representative from Townsen Public
Affairs is joining us via Zoom. If you
have any questions for Casey, I'll note
that the legislative session has uh the
bill introduction period has concluded.
Uh Casey and the Townsen team and the
city staff will be working to go through
uh the pieces of legislation that have
been proposed and determine the city's
position based on
the council's adoption of this updated
legislative platform.
And with that, I'll turn it back over to
the council for any questions.
» Does anyone have any uh questions or
comments that Well, actually, let's do
questions, then we'll do public comment.
Yes, please.
Um my question is um thi this is
Arinda's legislative platform but I want
I'm assuming that it it mirrors to some
extent the
um the lawinda effort of working
together.
>> Yes. So earlier uh I believe right
» Yes. So earlier uh I believe right
before the beginning of the year we
brought you a a lawinda framework that
the council took a look at. It's more
narrow than what we're proposing for the
citywide platform uh and reflects the
cooperation and and the mutual um areas
for the three cities town and city of
Lafayette and town of Maraga. And um so
that that effort is underway just
getting kicked off because Moraga took
their framework back to the council at
the end of January. So, we're just
kicking off the regional um efforts with
KC at Towns and Public Affairs as well.
Um there's no conflicts between the two
lists uh from what's on the platform and
what's on the framework, but certainly
this is more exhaustive than what's on
the framework. The framework really
tries to hone in on sort of core
regional issues. transportation, housing
are the ones I can come off the top of
my head, but um just in case the
community was curious, there's there
might be certain overlap, but there's no
nothing that's conflicting between the
two platforms.
This is maybe a little bit more of a
comment but sort of a followup to the
question and that is given the timing
and I know that when we had the the
Lamarinda framework it hadn't really
happened yet but I I think it it would
be good um in my opinion if if the
Lamarinda framework would also um
support the BART um part of what's in
the platform.
I'll have to take a look and see if
there's broad enough language in there.
The thought of trying to recirculate
this to three elected bodies for
readoption, it doesn't
>> Yeah, I I'm
» Yeah, I I'm
>> something I would be looking forward to,
» something I would be looking forward to,
but let me see if there's a way to
incorporate it under the current
framework.
>> It would certainly be nice to um have
» It would certainly be nice to um have
our combined support. I'm sure I know
from talking to um everyone that we do,
but it would be nice to make it um you
know codified. So,
>> okay. Are there any other questions?
» okay. Are there any other questions?
>> Yes, please.
» Yes, please.
>> Uh let's go. Uh Council Member Hawky and
» Uh let's go. Uh Council Member Hawky and
then uh Mel County, please.
>> I'm wondering if you could tell us more
» I'm wondering if you could tell us more
about any legislation that's been
introduced on the vacancy uh issue.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear the on what
issue.
>> If any legislation is uh being
» If any legislation is uh being
introduced or considered about vacancies
and what what can be done about vacant
storefronts?
>> I don't I'd have to ask Casey. We
» I don't I'd have to ask Casey. We
haven't done our deep dive yet on the
bills that were introduced in the LA by
February 20th. So, um I don't know Casey
if you can think of any bills that have
addressed long-term vacancies.
>> Yeah. Uh Casey Elliott with Towns and
» Yeah. Uh Casey Elliott with Towns and
Public Affairs. um based on the bills
that were introduced as of last of as of
the 20th. I'm not aware of any that
directly speak to the vacancy rate. I I
would have to double check though. Um
just to confirm. Additionally, there are
about 600 spot bills. So, um probably in
the next 2 to 3 weeks, we'll have a
little bit better of an idea of all of
the those policy proposals as they get
fleshed out. But uh I'm happy to take a
look at that and and get the information
to you through staff.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thank you. And council member Malcani,
» Thank you. And council member Malcani,
actually council member Hawky, did you
have any other questions?
>> No, thank you. Not this.
» No, thank you. Not this.
>> Council member Malcani. Yeah, there were
» Council member Malcani. Yeah, there were
I was just hoping that Casey or someone
could speak to why there were some items
that were removed
and whether that was to be consistent
with sort of and I was sort of wondering
is that in terms of the changes which
ones are consistent generally with sort
of Cal City's platform or was it a
regional effort? um or you know
sometimes I see I see some things are
sort of to keep up with existing
uh bills in law.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm happy to take a a stab
» Yeah, I'm I'm I'm happy to take a a stab
at that. Council member, um several of
the items that um are are stricken, for
example, in the parks and community
services section, those were actually
repurposed and put into the public works
section and and just some areas that
felt maybe a little bit more appropriate
for the specific items. um some of the
the um SP 1383 items um just got shifted
around. So So that was kind of more of a
a formatting cleanup than um than than
the substantive change. Um there were a
couple of additional changes um where
the platform uh spoke to maybe more of a
federal or a state local or excuse me a
state impact and not as much impacts on
on the on the city. So those are some of
the more uh kind of um surgical red
lines if [clears throat] you will where
it it those are more kind of some of the
language modifications. Um so I think
that covers the bulk of the strikeouts.
I don't think that there was um anything
that was pulled out because legislation
addressed it. Um I think it's more just
all kind of formatting and structural.
>> Okay. And then what about there was it
» Okay. And then what about there was it
was removal of language
in the community and economic
development section. Maybe it was put
elsewhere and I I failed to recognize
that. But um item 11, it aims to achieve
fair and proportionate representation on
countywide and regional boards. Was that
a legal update or no? No,
>> I'm trying to find it.
I'm looking at a strikeout on on I think
it's
H1 packet page 132. 132.
My recollection is is that was one that
kind of felt fell into the category of
not necessarily being as city specific,
but to the to that more more regional
and countywide, I I don't believe there
was a specific
conversation about about broader than
that of of that necessitated the removal
of that item.
» Yeah. I don't I don't recall why we took
that out other than we didn't
um
we weren't sort of monitoring the I
guess the states
>> countywide and regional. So it would be
» countywide and regional. So it would be
>> regional and countywide boards process.
» regional and countywide boards process.
So I guess I just want to confirm that
by taking it out the the understanding
there is is more that it's it's
something that extends to a jurisdiction
beyond Arinda as opposed to a com we're
not saying that we're not committed to
fair um representation on countywide and
regional boards because that was I think
is something that's very important but
it would be something that would be
addressed through for example the
Contraosta mayor's conference or um you
know but but we do make our own
appointments and so for that reason. I
guess I would like to leave it in. But
okay,
but I don't have, you know, I could be
persuaded, but I I could be persuaded as
long as we are recognizing that it is a
priority. I don't know that it needs to
be in the legislative platform, but I do
think it should be a priority.
>> Um, we're still doing questions, so not
» Um, we're still doing questions, so not
going to comment on that yet. Um, are
there any other questions? Um, uh, I had
one, um, for Casey there. There was some
advocacy letters that we got recently
and I I didn't really do much to forward
them but about uh landslides being
included in uh disaster relief. Uh that
that would be a category that could be
covered in some cities in Southern
California were trying to maybe get um a
coalition of cities who were similarly
uh potentially affected. Is that
something that is somewhere in this
platform or should we consider adding
that?
» Um
there are there is a broad category
under public health and safety. Um it's
it's under funding opportunities but
relates to disaster large scale disaster
preparedness initiatives. Um, but I
don't believe there's anything in here
that gets quite down to the level of
specificity related to um, landslides
other than kind of broadly being in in
disaster preparedness measures.
>> Okay. Um, with that, um, I think we'll
» Okay. Um, with that, um, I think we'll
go to public comment and then we'll
bring it up for discussion.
Looks like we have, um, at least one
public comment. I don't have any written
speaker cards.
I did not have time to fill out a
speaker card because I was late getting
here from my oldest granddaughter's
softball practice. Sorry. I'll notify
the clerk of my contact information.
My public comment is that I would
request that tonight somebody give us an
overview
of the process of
how Towns and works for the city
and particularly [clears throat] in
terms of the communication. So for
example, Madame Mayor, you mentioned you
received some position letters. I'm just
wondering if those are if if there's any
public notice process or if that's to
whatever if if they're publicly
available.
Uh if there's some place on the city
website where somebody can uh see what's
going on, someone who wants to keep up
with legislation. So for example, if
towns and note alerts the city that
Scott Weiner has introduced some new
bill to deincorporate Arinda,
would Town Townsen notify the city and
would that be a matter that someone
could just sign up for an alert like we
get alerts for meetings or do we have to
do a weekly public records act request
to see what's come in over the transom.
I would just like and I think other
people might be interested in how the
process
works. Do they draft the position
letters and send them to you for
signature? Is there collaboration?
Uh how does the whole thing work? That
is my request, my public comment is that
someone give us a threeinut speech on
how it works and what's available and
where. Thank you.
» First, I'll ask if there is any other
public comment on this item.
With that, we'll close the public
portion of this and bring it back for
discussion. I'd ask if the city manager
would like to address anything that's
been brought up so far.
>> Um, first I'll start with Vice Mayor G's
» Um, first I'll start with Vice Mayor G's
question about the framework. Uh, the
current lawinda framework as it relates
to transportation and related
infrastructure talks about two things.
one it says the coalition looks to
encourage and support federal and state
actions that invest in local public
infrastructure projects with regional
benefits. Uh it also goes on to note
that uh the framework would ex uh
support expanding local transit
microtransit bus services and emerging
transit opportunities. So I think under
that heading in that context that would
be enough for the region to talk with
one voice on the matter related to BART.
Uh if the council is interested in me
doing what the public speaker asked
which is just a summary of how um we
work with towns and I'm happy to do that
as well.
>> I think that would be for the public
» I think that would be for the public
benefit if you wouldn't mind just
quickly addressing um how this all
works.
>> Sure. So, the towns and public affairs
» Sure. So, the towns and public affairs
team, Casey in particular, and I meet
every other week uh via uh teams um
online meeting uh where we talk about a
variety of topics including bill
introduction, timing, we talk about the
appropriations process. Uh we talk about
uh support and oppose matters uh when
legislation is in front of us. Uh we
discuss the regional group. and we
discuss um
trying to think what else we discuss.
Those are the kind of the core pieces of
advocacy visits to Sacramento. Uh that's
also on the list and in fact uh there
will be the city summit in April and we
would be up in Sacramento and we're
looking to plan an advocacy day up there
as well. Uh the letters are largely
crafted from towns and any support and
opposition letters sent over to city
staff for review. Staff reviews the
letters and then we send them to the
mayor for consideration of signature. Uh
if I'm unable to get a hold of the mayor
in a timely fashion uh that I'm
authorized under the framework to or
under the platform to sign those letters
myself. So in some cases that at least
one case that's happened. Um and then we
submit those to Casey. Casey submits
those to the portal and the state for
the various committees that are
reviewing bills uh so that our positions
are on record.
That'll do my summary. Thank you. And
with that, I'll ask if there um if
anybody on the council would like to
lead off with their comments.
We will cold call the remote person if
uh if one's jumping in. [clears throat]
That's fine. Um I I think it's a good
platform. I like um particularly the
BART uh bullet point and the vacancies
bullet point. I think we have discussed
the ebike issues and I'm glad to see
that that is going to be addressed at
the state level because it seems
difficult for us to address it at a city
level without some state changes in
legislation. Um so I think this is a
good platform for this year. I'm in
favor of it.
Thank you. Uh, Council Member Malcani, I
think you were
>> Yeah, I mean, I did think there were a
» Yeah, I mean, I did think there were a
couple provisions where it went into a
specificity that I you don't usually see
on a platform like when we already talk
about ebike safety. Of course, safety to
me means helmets and safety equipment,
but to specifically mention it in the
platform seemed um unusual. I guess I
maybe it's more of a question for you
know for Casey from Townsend. Is that
something that we typically see in
platforms? Is that to be consistent with
sort of Cal? So, some of the changes
surprised me and again I I don't really
see the reason to I mean I I was I guess
you know for the community and economic
development former item 11 we had I mean
again this is like you know parsing out
the details now but um we were given a
red line so um
item 11 was removed and it previously ly
said that it was part that, you know,
staff recommends that city support state
or federal legislation
that aims to achieve fair and
proportionate representation on
countywide and regional boards. And I
would think we would want to continue
supporting that. So, I would want to
leave it in. So, that's the only thing I
like the two items that sort of stood
out to me. I also thought the BART the
BART thing is really important to our
region. So, I'm fine with including it,
but it also seemed, you know, it's very
it's very specific and I think the prior
platform included it. So, I guess the
level of specificity
I I just
um
thought is atypical of what I've seen in
alleged platform before, but I'm not
opposed to what it says specifically, so
I don't have a a problem with what's
stated.
Vice Mayor Chief.
>> No, I I'm I'm fine with it. I mean, I
» No, I I'm I'm fine with it. I mean, I
think overall for what it is and what
it's intended to be in terms of our
priorities, I'm I'm supportive. I think
it captures a lot of the, as Council
Member Hawky said, I think it captures a
lot of the key items that have been, you
know, raised lately and fall into this
arena. So, I'm supportive.
>> Thank you. Um, I have a few notes. Um, I
» Thank you. Um, I have a few notes. Um, I
had a million questions and red lines on
this when I first read it and the city
manager explained uh to me and it it
really helped me understand that, you
know, because I felt like our priorities
were getting subsumed in all of this
laundry list of any issue that might
come up. And and the way the city
manager explained it is by having this
list, anything that comes in asking for
us to just give our support at the state
or county level, they know that they can
write a letter of support because it's
in this laundry list. So, you know, in
the the frequent meetings and and
check-ins between towns and and the city
manager and um and other groups that
represent us, they know the priorities.
They know the top three. And so the fact
that this is kind of the whole kitchen
sink, it is not getting lost about where
our focus and priorities are. And it was
just that if we don't include something,
it might have to come to us um to ask
what our position is. So that helped me
relax. And in the spirit of I think Vice
[clears throat] Mayor G's comment of
like this is good. I don't want to go
messing with the red line because if you
open up that red line, I'm going to have
a lot more things that are not ainda
issues. there's state issues and there's
all the specificity on things that are,
you know, representative of ours that
are their agendas and we support them
because we support them. But I I really
don't want to start getting the red pen
out. Um the other comment I would make
though is I don't want this to be like
the tax code where we only add and we
never subtract. And so I don't want to
be afraid of something maybe was a
specific issue last year or the year
before. It was maybe some legislation in
progress that got done. Um, so I I am
inclined to trust the recommendations
that came from towns and the city
manager on what is added and subtracted.
Um, that's just my inclination as we
look at this.
Um, and I would just mention that the
landside uh re as disaster relief um
might be something um to look at uh to
talk to our friends in Southern
California because I remember when we
had a landslide issue here, the disaster
relief uh was not available um at least
without some uh insurance stuff. So,
that's just something that it's not a
live issue, but maybe a longer term one.
Um were there any other questions or
comments? Uh, and if not, do we have a
motion?
>> I guess I just if I don't know if if
» I guess I just if I don't know if if
that one item did Casey, do you have any
insights on why we're taking that out?
» So, yeah, that
>> not beyond kind of the regional nature
» not beyond kind of the regional nature
of the of the measure. I don't think
there was a specific
>> That's fine.
» That's fine.
>> We we have a long agenda with [laughter]
» We we have a long agenda with [laughter]
it. If there is a if there I let me just
ask this because this is the time to
talk about it since it's before us. If
there is any state or federalation
federal legislation pending that deals
with the issue of having fair uh
representation on on you know regional
boards. Can you make sure that uh the
city of made aware of it so we have an
opportunity to chime in as to whether or
not we'd support it because I don't want
it to not be on our radar because we're
deleting it from our platform.
That's all. But with that, I would move
to adopt the if there's unless there's
more discussion. I don't think there is.
So, uh, I think we have a motion. Do we
have a second?
>> I'll second.
» I'll second.
>> Great. Uh, may we [clears throat] have a
» Great. Uh, may we [clears throat] have a
roll call vote, please? Congi.
>> Oxy.
» Oxy.
>> I.
» I.
>> G.
» G.
>> I.
» I.
>> And Iverson.
» And Iverson.
>> I. Thank you.
» I. Thank you.
>> Motion passes unanimously and we go to
» Motion passes unanimously and we go to
item and uh, thank you Casey for joining
us tonight. Uh we'll go to item H2, the
infrastructure committee report on
activities including the framework for
acceptance of private roads. Um I am not
sure who is presenting this. Is the
subcommittee going to present or the
city manager?
>> So I'll kick us off and then I'll turn
» So I'll kick us off and then I'll turn
it back over to the infrastructure
subcommittee. So
>> So before uh we get started um council
» So before uh we get started um council
member Hawky wants to make a statement.
>> Thank you. I wanted to take a moment to
» Thank you. I wanted to take a moment to
note for the record that the home my
husband and I own in Arinda is located
on a privately maintained road. That
road is a culde-sac serving
approximately seven homes. We are not
part of an HOA. Historically, we and our
neighbors have cooperated as needed to
arrange and fund maintenance of our
road. Our road was not offered for
dedication to the public when it was
created by subdivision map and was never
accepted for maintenance by the city or
county. Because the city's policy
regarding privately maintained roads
could ultimately impact my property, I
considered carefully whether I should
participate in this discussion. I
learned that the FPPC has something
called the public generally rule,
regulation 18703,
that allows officials like me to take
part in a governmental decision that
affects their financial interest,
provided that the effect on the
officials interest is indistinguishable
from the effect on the public generally.
This standard is met if a significant
segment of the public is affected and
the effect on the official is not
unique. where as in my situation the
financial issue interest at issue as a
primary residence the phrase significant
segment of the public means at least 15%
of residential property within the
jurisdiction
I worked with city staff to evaluate my
parcel's private road situation and
found it is relatively common in Arinda
for example approximately 22% of
Arinda's residential properties are on
privately maintained roads of various
types approximately ly 19% of Arinda's
residential properties are like mine on
privately maintained roads that were not
dedicated for public use on a
subdivision map and approximately 20% of
Arinda's residential properties are like
mine on privately maintained culde-sac
roads not through roads considering
those characteristics of my property I
believe it satisfies the 15% threshold
for applicability for the FPVPC's public
generally rule. So, I've concluded that
I may generally participate in the
council's policy discussions regarding
private roads. I plan to do so while
staying alert to potential conflicts of
interest that might arise depending on
how the council's discussion proceeds.
For example, at this point, I do not
know whether my neighbors and I would
ever request that the city accept our
street into the its publicly maintained
system, but if such a specific request
were to come before the city while I am
on the council, I would recuse myself.
Similarly, I would recuse myself if the
council discusses whether the city's
policy should differentiate between
privately maintained roads based on
whether they are serviced by an HOA or
homeowners association or other similar
entity. As I noted, my property is on a
privately maintained road not serviced
by an HOA. City staff have calculated
that approximately 13% of residential
properties in Arinda share that in
common with mine which is below the
FPPPC's 15% threshold for the public
generally rule which raises a problem
for tonight's conversation because of
bullet point two in the staff report
which differentiates those roads on an
that are maintained by an HOA and those
that are not. So, what I'd like to do,
mayor, if it's all right with you, is
recuse myself at the beginning of the
conversation while you discuss that
particular point regarding HOA
maintained roads versus all of the
privately maintained roads, and I'll
wait for a city manager or city attorney
to text me and tell me I can rejoin the
conversation. Does that sound
reasonable?
>> Maybe. Um, I know this is the
» Maybe. Um, I know this is the
recommendation of the city attorney, but
I am not aware at this point uh of
whether there will be a general
presentation and be because there are
we're it's not just like we're voting on
A and then we're voting on B as we did
with the um some of the housing element
stuff. Um it's not as distinct in my
mind the HOA question among all of the
other questions. I would like to know if
there is anformational part that council
member Hawky could listen to before we
sever um this forum for discussion
purposes. So the answer is yes. Uh
Council Member Hawky can hear the staff
report. She can hear questions about
that staff report. Although I'd
recommend you not ask questions about
the HOA issue. You can hear public
comment. And then when it comes to
deliberation, I think that's where the
council should determine basically
whether the segmentation approach that
we sometimes take, whether it can be
applied in this situation.
>> That's really helpful and that would be
» That's really helpful and that would be
my preference if that's all right with
you, Council Member Hawky.
>> Yes, that's fine. I'd like to
» Yes, that's fine. I'd like to
participate as much as I can. Um, but
recognizing the potential conflict.
>> Thank you. Um, and with that, let's
» Thank you. Um, and with that, let's
proceed and then we'll ask you um to
just uh leave and come back to the zoom
when we are ready to discuss anything
having to do with the HOA issue.
>> Thank you, city manager.
» Thank you, city manager.
>> Honorable mayor, members of the council,
» Honorable mayor, members of the council,
I'll just do a brief back brief
background on the infrastructure
committee. It was established in
February of 2024.
Uh in June of 2024, the council reviewed
the committee's work program which was
refined in July of 2024 and work uh
began in earnest at that point with the
committee meeting to discuss uh that
program that was adopted by the council.
Uh in January of 2025,
>> [snorts]
» [snorts]
>> uh the terms of the infrastructure
» uh the terms of the infrastructure
committee were amended and restated and
extending the term until the end of
2025. And then in April, the council
approved funding requests for the
committee to conduct the private roads
questionnaire which was consistent with
the work program. And in November of
2025, the council extended the term of
the committee to end in December of
2026.
The committee has been working now for
more than a year and a half with the
assistance of staff to try and finish up
the work plan. Uh at its most recent
meeting in January, the committee had a
very substantial agenda including many
topics. The topics included research on
other agencies that provide funding for
the maintenance of roads, additional
background on the Arinda Woods
maintenance agreement, and a discussion
about a proposed framework for the
acceptance of private roads. uh that
following that discussion, the committee
requested additional information which
we'll be bringing back to their next
meeting and that included more
information regarding the program in
Sanelmo uh that was related to the grant
funding uh for private road maintenance.
Uh so I wanted to turn it back over to
the committee uh because at that meeting
we did discuss the framework and thought
it was an appropriate time to come back
and discuss it with the city council
since uh some of the things that were
being proposed are are fairly
substantive and uh so I'll turn it back
over to the vice mayor and to council
member Malcani who can maybe comment a
little bit about the work of the
infrastructure committee and how far
we've come and Uh, you know, this is
really a pivotal point for moving to the
next phase of trying to work through any
policy changes that the council may want
to consider.
>> Vice Mayor, you want to kick it off and
» Vice Mayor, you want to kick it off and
then I'll I'll add. Yeah, I think uh and
again um city manager um Smith um you
know, please correct anything if I don't
phrase it quite correctly, but what I
what I want everyone to know is that the
key word really here for our discussion
tonight is framework. This this in and
of itself is not a written policy at
this point. Uh what this is is a
outgrowth of our year and a half of
meeting with the public and um people
that have been interested in the topic
material. Uh we have a current policy
56-18
that is about the acceptance of private
roads and it has um I I guess my
comments would simply be that it has um
never had any um
private roads uh attempt acceptance
under it um without uh you know without
providing um you know unne necessary
commentary. It was never a policy in my
mind and I was there that it was not
really intended
um to be
um a tool that was really allowing
people that lived on private roads to
explore whether they wanted to offer
them for acceptance to the public or
not. Quite frankly, it was primarily um
it was primarily drafted to again um
continue the separation of public and
private roads in a way that you know
again was deemed um important to the
city's physical situation. So it was
never um you know it was it was deeply
contested in some ways at the time and
um it did not and I did not support it
at the time but the reality is is it
turned into our policy and it's been
it's been kind of one of those things
that sits on the shelf because it really
can't be used for anything. um the way
it's written, there is no private road
in Arinda that can really, you know,
apply to be accepted into the public
road system under it and be accepted.
It's just not going to happen. That's
how uh that's how it's worded. So,
obviously, that's been um uh you know, a
troublesome point for a lot of our
residents that contend with living on a
private road. And again, I think it's
important that our community remember
that, you know, this is this is fully
20% of our community. This is not four
or five homes and this is not just a
handful of people. This is um if you
look at the map of all of our private
roads throughout the community, it
touches almost every corner of our
community. and um you know and some of
them you know and the as people that
have paid attention to this issue know
the the description of our private road
network is um
is just a a maze of uh of differences.
Some of them are very new such as I'm
looking at uh some of our audience
members. Some of them are very new that
were the newer developments like Wilder
and Arinda Woods and the Downs and um at
the time, you know, they were uh part of
development agreements when the city
didn't have um the resources to maintain
roads and um and they were and they were
very formalized as part of the
development agreement. Some of them are
roads that date back into the you know
30s, 40s, 50s, 60s in which there's
simply no um understanding at all of
some of the reasons and rationale for
why things um occurred. We certainly
have a whole host of roads that were um
offered for public acceptance and not
accepted although the documentation as
to why is completely lacking. We have
other roads as council member Hawky
mentioned that you know were never
offered. Um we basically have one of
almost everything somewhere that you
could imagine. What we don't have within
the whole system is um really any of our
privately maintained roads that are not
um open for public use. I mean quite
frankly uh we have one little segment of
one uh in North Arinda where
occasionally they choose to gate it off
but other than that little tiny piece um
the you know vast majority of um all of
these roads which which is uh you know
quite a an extensive amount when taken
together um are all being used by the
public. Now,
uh, granted, um, they're virtually all
residential roads, so there may be very
little traffic on some of them, but they
are open for public use. So, as part of
the subcommittee's work, um, the
discussion of the policy of 56-18
has been, you know, of great concern.
Um, again, the subcommittee is not at a
point. I mean, eventually our goal is to
come back to the full council with again
recommendations that we hope will um
improve this situation in our community
because it's been an incredibly and
continues to be a very divisive issue.
Even sometimes when we don't hear a lot
about it, there's very strong opinions
and feelings about it on both sides.
Whether you live on public roads,
whether you live on private roads,
whether you think um we should do
something about it, whether you think we
shouldn't do something about it, uh we
have opinions across the board in every
category. Um our our hope as the
subcommittee has been to continue to
explore it. We've I uh believe council
member Malcani agrees with me and
probably even steady staff does is that
we've had enormously
um amazing um public conversations with
our community in the subcommittee. Um I
would say the participation of the
public in our subcommittee has been the
highest I've ever seen for any topic. um
it remains you know of great concern and
you know we have heard um amazing you
know amazing feedback in every way shape
or form. Um at this point in time I
don't think where the subcommittee is
not at a point where we're trying to
recommend here is the solution and pick
one thing even though we know there are
very strong feelings about what that
solution should be um by many of our
residents. The reality is is again just
like we don't have any private roads
that are sort of one-sizefits-all,
we're not sure that the solution is
one-sizefits-all either. Um and and so I
think what we're um what we've talked
about is that over time we'd like to see
the possibility that there could be
better options than there are today. And
what those all are going to turn out to
be sort of remains to be seen. But the
existing policy 56-18
I this is a personal opinion. So it it
only belongs to Darlene. But it is in my
opinion it's a very adversarial policy.
It is not intended to be um welcoming to
a lot of members of our community in
terms of um of what it's potentially
offering and and in an area that I
personally feel very strongly does fall
into I I believe public works in all of
its way, shapes and forms falls into the
domain of why government exists. So I
think that um you know all the
conversations we have have been
exceptional and I and I and this
framework is um is a summary of so many
things that we have talked about in a
way that we could as we move forward
tend to look for ways to um provide
options that would um instead of being
you know the 56-18
policy of no you can't do this to maybe
find ways that if it was acceptable to
the city um that we could allow people
to do this. So the key word again is
framework that that it's not that
everything on this list is an absolute
given one way or the other and I do hope
people understand that at this point but
because there are so many key ideas here
I think it was important that we bring
it back for consideration by the whole
council before we try to draft or have
staff help us you know draft new
policies. So, those are my comments and
to the extent that council member
Malcani, our other um representative on
the subcommittee or the staff have
comments about that, I would welcome
having those added.
» Well,
there's someone quoted this to me
recently, nothing has been said unless
everyone on a committee says the same
thing. I'm going to try not to do that
now since you think you well summarized
but I do want to emphasize at the risk
of redundancy a couple things which is
just um
you know there was a lot of frustration
with the old or the existing policy
because it's really seen as something
that just is impractical and essentially
almost impossible and really serves as a
roadblock right and so that engendered a
lot of bad feelings and and I think you
know uh resentment and bitterness and
and frustration you know which frankly
from my perspective was understandable.
So what you know I do I do agree that
this is simply a framework right and but
what it represents really is um I think
I think the reason um I think the
infrastructure committee and staff
really wanted to bring this to the full
council is because it is it is a tone
shift in a framework of you know don't
talk to us about this issue to we do
want to talk about this issue now do we
have the solutions completely no we
don't But it is a tone shift and you
know it's it's a it's a tone shift in
that it's a policy that's no longer
functioning as a roadblock but is
actually a real functional policy with
an attempted objective criteria. You
know the criteria is trying to address
the varying circumstances with within
Arinda and recognizing that neither the
problem nor the solution is a
one-sizefits-all. Um, and I had
independently written that down from
you. I know you just said that, Vice
Mayor, but um, but you know, because of
that and these factors, we felt it had
enough form now that we could and wanted
to bring it back to our colleagues for
for input. And one thing to remember in
this discussion is we aren't you know it
it is a framework but again um
it is a check-in point on a continuum of
trying to address uh you know the
problem multiaceted uh problems and
challenges with privately maintained
roads.
Please.
Uh I know that again uh one of the first
questions almost everyone asks
immediately and may be of uh being
gotten ready to be asked tonight but um
the obviously uh policies you know
ultimately result in you know some
potential impacts on costs and there's
been no attempt at this point um I mean
we've raised the issue that everything
costs something but we there's no
attempt to compare this or have this
defined or if the question is what is
this all going to cost? We don't have
any answers to that right now. We've not
tried to encapsulate that. We've not
go down that road even though we know
that ultimately that will be absolutely
critical to a whole lot of things.
Right? So it's not like we're, you know,
being ignorant or naive or just trying
to, you know, um have magical thinking
here about how this all works. We know
that this has you know serious you know
cost implications whether it's to our
residents whether it's to the city
however it gets structured you know
maintenance of roads and drains requires
money so that will all have to continue
to evolve but the framework itself is
not attempting to say this is going to
cost this much or that much so I just
want to make sure that we're clear about
that
>> thank you very much council member
» thank you very much council member
Hawky, did you have questions?
>> I think it would be helpful if um the
» I think it would be helpful if um the
vice mayor would just go over the
framework that her committee is
proposing at this time for the public
and for everybody to think about.
I would not only agree with that that it
would help if you guys would sort of
walk us through these, but when you get
to the one about um 20 years versus five
years because the current ordinance says
5 years before it needs maintenance and
20 years before it needs to be replaced
and I'm I'm paraphrasing. Um
the if you could go a little bit deeper
on what you mean by what in five years
uh was the one question I had as well.
I mean, that was something that I think
as staff was taking a look at resolution
5918, we noted that in order for the
city to accept a roadway, it would need
to not be maintained for essentially 20
years, right? It would have to be in
condition. And SA, I think you should
probably come sit up here in case you
get called up to talk about some of
these things. Um but really uh the
intention at least that staff had in
proposing this framework back to the
committee was you know what are the
things that we've heard over time that
have contributed to basically not
receiving any sort of application and
and you know gave threshold of up to 20
years is a is a a perfectly maintained
road I would say. I don't know SA if you
want to comment on that but
>> if I can just before you respond the
» if I can just before you respond the
exact wording in the current ordinance
is um provide a pavement life of 20
years the roadway shall be in a
condition to not need surface
maintenance treatment for 5 years. So if
you can help clarify what you're
proposing relative to that standard.
>> Yeah. Um good evening madame mayor and
» Yeah. Um good evening madame mayor and
council members. Um
the five years is
In line with how we are approaching our
current public street uh pavement
maintenance um we go through as I've
mentioned in prior sessions uh we use a
um program that allows us to keep tabs
on the condition of the pavement and uh
do preventive maintenance. That's kind
of our primary goal uh to extend the
pavement life and that cycle roughly
falls in that 5year time period. So one
way to look at it is um
more than likely a street will get
surfaced with what we call like the
minimum u surface treatments slurry seal
um around 5ear cycles. Uh so that's the
connection to this 5year that you're
looking at.
Again it's uh slightly different from
the life of the pavement. So when you're
talking about pavement life, it's a
different context versus maintenance um
which is worth the five years.
And I'm not sure this is a question to
you or I guess vice mayor when you walk
through this frame framework if you
could be very specific about what test
you are proposing because I get that
slurry seal is about every 5 years and
replacement is different but I cannot
translate the current ordinance to the
proposed framework without little help.
So can I chime in on something just for
a suggestion? Um, and I'm just thinking
back.
So, in the infrastructure committee, we
had the benefit of actually a staff
presentation from our city engineer and
our director about the framework. And I
don't
I don't know. I'm happy to let the vice
mayor do that if she wants. I don't feel
like I can go through and necessarily
answer all your questions without
turning to staff with all of them. Um,
so maybe we could we could go through
the framework with our city engineers
um,
uh, presentation or just walk us through
it and we could chime in as
infrastructure committee members. That
might be one way to do it. And then the
other thing is that a framework is
simply you know this is a framework is
guidance that can then be used to
develop a new ordinance or a new
resolution. So I don't know that we're
from the framework we're not going to
have exact language as to what a
resolution would in other words any
resolution my understanding would be
brought back to the infrastructure
committee first for some finetuning and
then to the council but we didn't want
to say to staff as an infrastructure
committee take this policy framework and
go develop a resolution without doing a
check-in first with the full council.
Does that make
>> understood? I think what council member
» understood? I think what council member
Hawky asked for and what I agree is we
would like for one of the two members of
the subcommittee to literally just walk
us through your nine bullet points and
explain the rationale so that we can
comment and we know we're just
commenting.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Can I make one uh correction on the
» Can I make one uh correction on the
framework? Uh, I think it was a staff
error. Uh, bullet two where it says
eliminating the requirement for all
property owners to sign an application
when an offer for acceptance when an
offer of dedication on the road already
exists. That is inaccurate. The it's um
that shouldn't be in there at all
because it currently does not require
that. So, that isn't a change. So, I
just wanted to be clear about that. So,
that bullet is um needs to be removed
from the discussion.
I think what staff was attempting to do
in presenting these bullets to the
infrastructure committee was to go
through resolution 59-18 and try to
identify areas where we could be more I
guess less restrictive and more
encouraging. And I think the the I would
suggest unless uh OSA and SA have any
other thoughts, the two kind of bigger
items is the lowering of the pavement
condition threshold because there was a
lot of discussion about from when we
were talking about staff level if we
should come up with a PCI
uh you know is this about maintenance of
the roads. So um we right now it says uh
that
basically in order to accept the road
the condition of the road has to be in
good shape for a period of up to 20
years
and we're suggesting that that's a very
high bar. I don't know what PCI that
potentially could be equated to, but
that that is one of the reasons why
we're not seeing anybody step forward
because and and we did do a PCI index of
all the roads, including the private
roads. So, we also have that information
available to us and in many cases it was
a lot better than we expected. In some
it was exactly as expected, right? The
PCIs aren't as great as we would want
them to be. Um, the other piece of
course is the current resolution
restricts and prohibits
communities that are served by
homeowners associations from
participating at all. And so I think
those were kind of the bigger items uh
of the bullets. And um we could talk a
little bit about I mean obviously the
final bullet under there is just
shifting the tone to being one in which
um the staff and the city are willing
and supportive of requests that might
come in to make changes. Um you know in
looking these bullets there's a lot of
requirements in resolution 59-18.
I'm not going to sit here and say with
any proposed framework to modify that
resolution or this policy that it's
going to be easy. It is definitely it's
a very um involved process in order to
take a road from being public I mean
privately maintained to publicly
maintained and the committee did take an
opportunity to look at other ways to do
that right it's a spectrum of choice
there's uh the Arinda Woods model in
which the city is playing a role in
maintaining it um the the model Sanelmo
is using in assisting their private road
owners, which by the way, we could only
find one program in the state of
California, uh is really about providing
grants to neighbors and residences. So,
it was really trying to meet residents
where they were at. Some residents want
to maintain their roads and want to
maintain private roads, but might seek
some assistance. Um, you know, we have
the the uh the Arinda Woods example,
which I think when we brought that
forward at the meeting, there was a lot
of
um surprise about how many other roads
in Arinda Woods are actually public. Uh
because I think when it's being
discussed, everybody thinks that most of
those roads are private, but in fact,
there are very few that are actually
private. Uh so that was a good
discussion to have. Uh and then this is
sort of on the other end of okay are we
going to address policy. So again the
committee is looking at the idea of
grants programs uh supportive programs
to help private road privately
maintained property owners who are
living on those roads and then looking
at changes to the resolution that make
it
less challenging to move forward. So I
think I just the framework is dealing
with this one piece but I think the c
the committee is trying to look at a
broad range of options for which um they
can make recommendations back to the
council. I think when we wanted to bring
the framework is simply because we don't
want to spend more staff time digging in
and researching and coming up with the
financial implications of all this. If
the council's not interested as a body
in pursuing, you know, any major
modifications 59-18,
then we need to know that so that we're
not spending an inordinate amount of
time in infrastructure committee, a well
attended group, a a very engaged group
of residents. And so we wanted to take
this opportunity as we, you know, have
eight months left in this group to try
and come up with some solutions. I don't
know uh SA if you just want to talk
through any of the bullets that are
listed there in the proposed framework
aside from the two that I've mentioned.
Um
>> um I was just looking a little closer at
» um I was just looking a little closer at
the particular question the mayor had
and um just looking at the current
resolution wording there is two
components to that paragraph. Uh one is
talking about the life of the pavement
and then the second part of it talks
about the maintenance component of it.
Um the proposal is to not focus so much
on the life of the pavement and rather
change it focus on the PCI component of
it. That's why the 5year term comes in.
Part of the reason is um they are looked
at in different manner uh to know the
life of a payment. there's more invasive
testing involved and uh reports that
needs to be generated doesn't quite
necessarily reflect how um we maintain
the roads currently that are in place
and also last year we did a uh payment
management uh review of the private
roads for the first time. So that gave
some insight into what the current
condition of the roadways are. So all
those factors came into play to
recommend that as one of the framework
item.
» Yeah. And um I'll add and I think it's
important especially for the mayor and
council member Hawky since you don't
attend the subcommittee meetings and SA
can correct me when I uh make a misstep
into what I'm saying but when we did as
you know we did the um assessment for
the first time um of evaluating the
pavement condition of the private roads
throughout the community that and we did
it in the same fashion that we do for
our public roads. So, we were able to
get the same kind of comparative data
for the first time in this very long
discussion. And I I guess what I would
um and I'll have SA help me if I
misstate something, but um the overall
PCI rating if you took it all averaged
together was around 69, right? Um it it
was at was that
>> I do not recolct the ex exact number,
» I do not recolct the ex exact number,
but it was over 60. Yeah, it was it was
in the you know it was near
collectively all of it being you know in
pretty good shape overall but that was
characterized after you split it out.
Remember, you have the larger, newer HOA
communities like Wilder and some of the
other newest places in the city where
the pavement is in excellent condition,
both because it's relatively new and has
never had any really serious maintenance
problems. So, all of it is in excellent
condition. And in fact, by far and away,
probably the best condition of any of
the roads in Arinda, even taking into
account some of our pretty
well-maintained arterials at this point.
Then I would say there was probably a
pretty hefty midsection of private roads
that were in, you know, anywhere from,
you know, pretty good to, you know, the
upper ends of it. They certainly were
not in terrible shape. they were not
really falling apart. They had been
maintained in some way, shape or fashion
by the residents and um and then I would
say there was a sector of probably much
older and probably not particularly
well-maintained and that probably
drugged down a little bit of the overall
average. So when you think of the
universe of our private roads, by far
and away um more, you know, the the
majority of them are actually in in
really good shape, okay? Because you
have to, you know, easily take a look at
at at the ones that are very new. Um and
you know, they are not um they are not
places that would, you know, require a
lot of maintenance anytime soon. So the
kind of remembering what that universe
looks like and and again some are um um
and there's just incredible differences
across the board with how they do get
maintained. So um but um again if you
look at the whole universe of them you
know once upon a time we always talked
about them like every every mile of it
was just you know turning to rubble.
That that's not a good that's not an
appropriate characterization. So,
>> thank you. I know we have a lot of
» thank you. I know we have a lot of
people um who would like to speak on
this from the public. Uh I did want to
just ask there's one about uh
sorry, removing zoning and subdivision
compliance standards for adjacent
properties. I just didn't understand
that issue. Could somebody explain what
the problem is with the current one and
what you're hoping to achieve?
anyone
» sa I think you're the default if nobody
else talks.
>> Yeah, I mean I was we did get the
» Yeah, I mean I was we did get the
benefit of
>> the might be able to chime in on that.
» the might be able to chime in on that.
>> Uh so the initial development of this
» Uh so the initial development of this
came from staff and was a framework that
was presented to us. So um and we chimed
in on it. So it may do you want the city
engine it might be helpful for the mayor
and
>> does [clears throat] anybody know why
» does [clears throat] anybody know why
that is in my bullet point list
>> to go through the rest of the ones we
» to go through the rest of the ones we
haven't talked about
>> and then we'll try and
» and then we'll try and
>> I have a guess
» I have a guess
which is that we measure setbacks from
pavement and from roadway and so this
might have to do with uh in the old pol
the existing policy requiring that
setbacks be adequate
Can you explain what the sentence is
saying?
>> So it says private development on the
» So it says private development on the
property fronting the road generally
meets zoning and subdivision standards
applicable to property on public roads.
Right? So if you are on a privately
maintained road and you would like to
seek city acceptance, you will be
measured,
you know, you will be tested against the
standards we apply to publicly
maintained roads for zoning setbacks.
>> And we don't think we should have that
» And we don't think we should have that
anymore because
» you find it.
>> I'm just having a hard time giving
» I'm just having a hard time giving
feedback when I literally don't
understand what is being proposed. Um,
and I
>> mayor, what one thing is that the many
» mayor, what one thing is that the many
of the private roads are much narrower
than many of our public roads and so
those setbacks would mean that you know
you're in the middle of someone's home
if you have to measure from the
pavement. Um, so it disqualifies a lot
of private roads
um because of the narrowness of many of
them. And I and I think that was
overall, mayor. Um,
one of the points that's come up over
and over and over again is that
basically again the policy has always
been focused on
essentially holding the private roads to
the very pinnacle standard that we would
hold a public road to. and that we have
many many public roads in this community
that do not meet the standards that we
are asking for in the existing policy.
They just don't they're not as wide.
They're not you know they don't have the
same characteristics
um you know evenly throughout the
community. Many of them were built at
completely different times. Some of them
were you know not particularly built to
what I would even call you know real
engineering standards at the time. And
so, um, again, the the feedback over and
over for years has simply been that
we're trying to hold everything to do
with the private roads at a level that's
here, whereas we have a lot of public
roads that are down here. So, that
that's what I think
>> that's very helpful. And I think what
» that's very helpful. And I think what
count I mean unless I'm seeing a
different body language from our staff,
does that kind of make sense that what
those setback rules were about was about
kind of measuring from Center Road to
where development happened?
>> That's my understanding.
» That's my understanding.
>> Thank you. I I literally just didn't
» Thank you. I I literally just didn't
understand what the words meant. So, um
if there are there any other questions
or should we turn this to public
comment?
Uh with that, I would love to uh let the
public um opine. We got quite a few
written comments that are all in the um
correspondence that's been shared. Um I
have one speaker card for Bob Finch. So
uh Bob, I'll ask you to come up and um
it looks like Mr. Waroff might also like
to speak and if anybody else would like
to speak, please come on up after Mr.
Kathy, after uh Mr. Waroff um we'll have
you speak as well. Bob Finch and I'm on
board of the Wilder HOA.
» Thank you. I'm Bob Finch and I'm on the
board of the Wilder HOA where funds for
road maintenance are pre-colcted in our
dues, but the dollars in that pot all
come from the pockets of the residents
just like on any other private road.
My comment is that I simply want to
thank the infrastructure subcommittee
for its good faith,
open-mindedness, and diligence over the
last two years.
And I would add as a member of the
arendence for road fairness that we have
been working for nine years to get to
this point.
I urge the city council to approve the
proposed framework as a framework. Thank
you.
>> Uh thank you Mr. Waroff and then um
» Uh thank you Mr. Waroff and then um
Kathy Vinch will be after.
>> Uh good evening Nick Warrenoff for the
» Uh good evening Nick Warrenoff for the
record. Initially I want to address Vice
Mayor G. That was the most one-sided
presentation of a complicated subject
that I have ever heard and I think you
should seriously consider stepping down
from the infrastructure committee. You
know, there are two sides to the issue.
I don't have the time tonight or the
inclination to go through the other
side, but to make such a one-sided
presentation is a disservice to the body
on which you sit sit.
Secondly, I want to address uh my
friend, council member Hawky.
That was a very thorough, well-reasoned
and wellthoughtout presentation on the
subject of the of conflict of interest.
And I left my hat in the car, but if I
were wearing it to keep my head warm, I
would tip my hat to you because it was
very thorough and carefully reasoned.
However, and there's always a however,
the very same city manager
some years ago
when Eve Phillips was on the council and
was a candidate for reelection,
the very same city attorney, if I said
city manager, I misspoke. I apologize.
The very same city attorney
publicly advised
our good friend Eve Phillips that
because she lived on a private road, she
could not participate at all in the
discussion before the council
and Eve,
Miss Phillips,
correctly followed the city attorney's
advice.
And these people who have been uh part
of that group, I forget what it's
called, fair roads or something. Maybe
it's equitable roads these days. Who
knows? But these people got together and
publicly vilified her. Publicly vilified
her because she followed the advice of
the city attorney.
and she and she was very pregnant with
her twins at that time and she couldn't
even campaign
and and present her side that she had to
follow the advice of the city attorney
and it felt to me
to go door to door and to post on social
media a defense of her. So, I'm sure
we're not going to hear from the city
attorney some legal explanation of why
the two situations are different, but as
long as we've had this historical exesis
about this issue, the record should
reflect my opinion, speaking as a
private citizen and not a member of any
group, that Vice Mayor G has shown bias
that disqualifies her from the committee
and that I deplore the inconsistent
positions.
taken by the
city attorney. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Uh are there any questions or
» Thank you. Uh are there any questions or
comments before we go to the next public
speaker?
>> I just want to thank the vice mayor for
» I just want to thank the vice mayor for
her earlier comments and thank the city
attorney for her continued expert
advice.
Um I I do have one comment which is the
uh as I understood the conflict issue as
the person running the meeting if the
HOAs are potentially going to be counted
that essentially dilutes the uh impact
of the issue and makes it more general
when we are talking about private roads
without including the HOA included
units. That would be a conflict and
council member Hawky will recuse herself
the same as E. Phillips did. So that's
not the city attorney speaking, but
that's how I went into this meeting
understanding the way we should run the
program. Uh, and Kathy, thank you for
waiting. Uh, Kathy Finch, please. Uh,
yes, my name is Kathy Finch, and first I
want to thank the infrastructure
subcommittee for um, well making 20% of
the city just feel included by being
part of the study. you know, I mean, I
just think it's wonderful that um you
can now and we can all now see the city
as a whole, you know, all of the
streets, whether they're public or
private, whether you're going to
maintain them or not, to see where they
stand. Same thing with public drains. I
think it's just such an important issue.
Um never mind, you know, the financing
of what's going to come. Uh it just, you
know, makes us feel part of the city and
be included. Um and I wanted to only
address um the first speaker who seemed
to think that you know you were taking
over control of of private roads um
which I know this is just a framework uh
uh at this point but um he said that
other East Bay cities you know it should
be a red flag that all these other
Eastbay cities have decided not to do
anything about private roads. Um but as
um Vice Mayor um uh G noted, Arinda is
really different. Um it's unique in as
much as we've got um 20 to 22% of the
city on private roads. And you know, I
mean, it's a really large group of
people. Uh the other thing that I wanted
to comment on is that the city itself
required many of us to be on private
streets because there wasn't enough
money um at the time like 20 years ago
when Wilder was being considered. Um you
didn't have money to um maintain our
streets. So, it's unusual, I think, that
a city says you must um be private,
that, you know, we are requiring you to
be private. And um some people in our
subdivision have said things like, you
know, it's weird. I mean, what if they
said, "Okay, you can live here, but you
can't go to the public schools here."
You know, I mean, they feel cut out um
in just that way. So, um, because they
were required and because it's such a
large proportion of our members and also
because the bond issues that the city
has passed, um, they were fine when they
were requiring everybody to pay for uh,
arterials and collectors. But when they
went to require people to pay for
residential maintenance but barred
private street residents from that same
benefit of their tax dollars and also
when they said that the private road
residents
um cannot benefit from the city's road
damage impact fees that all of us pay.
you know, those are um things that I
don't believe are uh city are citywide
or or um countywide. So, I think unique
we're in a unique um situation. Thank
you.
>> Thank you very much. And uh Joe, I think
» Thank you very much. And uh Joe, I think
it's Bowman. Please correct me if I
mispronounced, but uh we have one more
speaker card and then we'll just see if
anybody else would like to speak.
» Yes, my name is Joe Bowman. I'm a
resident of the um Bayage Homeowners
Association where I've been a resident
for about 30 years.
[clears throat] Um I appreciated all the
work that's gone into the framework.
We've been observing along the way. Um
the framework as I read it really is is
an eitheror framework and maybe that's
where it needs to be at this stage. It's
it's either uh you are going to um as
either a a homeowners association or
members of private births either opt in
to um be considered for the city's
services or stay out. And I'd simply
like to suggest that there's possibly
another path that should be included uh
if not in the detail maybe the framework
and that's uh to take some model that
like our homeowners associate
association has done is I think it's
been on the scale as just recently
described as having better than average
roads by our self-maintenance
and it would be beneficial to encourage
either homeowners ers associations or
groups of homeowners to maintain on
their own but be given some form of
support to be able to do that. And I did
not know about the San Andelmo model or
even the Arena Woods model before coming
up here, but uh I'd simply ask that the
that [clears throat] the subcommittee
take that into consideration before the
framework is adopted.
Thank you. Um I would like to ask if
there's anybody else from the public who
would like to speak before we close the
public portion.
Um and then I believe the best way to do
this is to talk about the HOA inclusion
or not first because that will determine
uh council member Hawky's additional
participation. So we will ask you to um
pop off the Zoom uh please and we will
have
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> the city clerk will text you when it's
» the city clerk will text you when it's
time to dial back in.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
» So, as included in the framework, uh
currently 59-18
excludes HOAs from participating in any
um process to move towards public
acceptance. And so I think this is um I
think a key piece of any changes that
could be made to uh any program that the
city would offer in the future. Uh so I
think that's
much of what infrastructure committee
members were hearing at those meetings
was around I mean there's a large group
of folks that were living in HOA areas
not just wilder but other areas as well
that have uh hosienda streets the roads
of hosienda I think was another one as
well. Um, so it was really, oh, I'm
happy to stop talking, [laughter]
very happy. Um, to to really just have a
conversation about, you know, if there
is a desire to potentially include them,
that doesn't mean yes, the answers
tonight. But if there is a desire to do
that, that would allow staff to go back
and sharpen their pencils about impact,
right? What does the impact look like?
if um for example the Wilder community
came forward and said we'd like all of
our streets to be public and you know
what sort of financial impact that could
have to our road maintenance program
over time. So I mean we could we just
didn't want to as staff spend time
researching all these issues unless we
had some consensus amongst the council.
These are the issues you want us to
research. So um I'm going to turn it
back over to the three of you to discuss
and give us some feedback on that.
If I may, because I'm I'm talking to two
people who are already sort of
advocating for [laughter]
going to be a very short discussion. Um,
I'd like to frame this because it's an
issue I thought about a lot and I'd
actually like to credit both Bob and
Kathy Finch right when I got elected. um
we had a a call to talk about private
roads and I was just listening to these
issues for the first time, but they
really opened my mind um about the the
considerations to get beyond the
knee-jerk Prop 13 argument. Um
you know, the way I think about HOAs is
they do have well-maintained roads. They
do have assessments that have already
been collected. So, they've got reserves
and after some number of decades, at
what point does a subdivision just
become part of the city and you need to
stop treating it like the new
neighborhood? That said, um the reason
they were excluded is that Prop 13 is so
different from the the way the rest of
the country operates with subdivisions
because we
>> we cannot
» we cannot
uh collect assessments in more you know
the the costs go up with inflation and
our ability to collect against those
costs is limited at that 2% as long as
they stay in their HOAs.
their assessments allow them to cover
costs with assessments that actually
keep pace with inflation. And that is a
a really fundamental imbalance that we
cannot correct for the non-HOAs, but you
can correct inside them. And so the the
first thing I would like to hear um the
subcommittee address is do you
affirmatively advocate including HOA?
Have you formed your own position? And
if so, how do you deal with that
problem?
» I guess I'll just chime in. Uh
[sighs and gasps]
the thought process,
I don't know that I can address your
exact question because it goes to the
financing and Prop 13. And yes, this is
why when you walk around Florida,
there's roadways and infrastructure. And
I look at their taxes and our taxes and
you know, it doesn't make a lot of
sense, but we have Prop 13. Um, that is
true. But I will just address why I was
going to mention they don't have a state
income tax and we do,
>> right? But still, anyway, there's a lot
» right? But still, anyway, there's a lot
of other things. But anyway, um
the prior resolution has or the existing
resolution I'm saying because we still
have this this is still our our um says
um acceptance of existing privately
maintained subject to the following
criteria. One says, "Except where the
city council approves an exception,
private roads for which a homeowners
association or similar entity was
established for subdivision street
ownership maintenance are not eligible
for acceptance by the city. Given the
number of residents who have been
participating for the last year and a
half or however long it's been in this
in the infrastructure subcommittee who
either are members of an HOA or you know
live in an HOA and and
also even other residents who aren't
part of an HOA who have who have
expressed
um
some support that members of an HOA
should I to me including this in the
framework
is to me taking the position that HOAs
should not uniformly be excluded from
this process right to the extent we're
trying to adoption
>> cannot be the criteria if you can't
» cannot be the criteria if you can't
address the financial
reason why they were excluded to begin
with. And I'm sorry, it's so hard to
look both ways.
>> No, no, it's I mean,
» No, no, it's I mean,
>> no. Well, let let me add one thing that
» no. Well, let let me add one thing that
and again, you know, staff can can
provide you with a lot more detail, but
again, remember, it's not that we don't
take any of our uh road and
infrastructure funding from our property
taxes. We do, but the reality is is our
transportation funding comes from a
multitude of sources. And it's not all
based on um on uh our property taxes.
Okay? So remember that we've we've had
road bonds, we have sales tax, we have
measure R, we have return to source from
our county sales taxes, we have state of
California grants and and um I mean the
the problem with transportation and um
I'm looking at Scott and SA there there
are days when I say I should have stayed
in water and wastewater because it's a
lot easier. Um, transportation is a
nightmare and you have to have five
kinds of colors of money to fund
anything these days and it's just
getting worse, not better. So, so
remember that a as well as there's a
whole multitude of other issues you're
not raising when it comes to the
difference between private and public.
uh public is subject to all of the you
know public works requirements and you
know quite frankly private HOAs can
maintain their roads cheaper than the
public can. That's just a fact. Um but
that doesn't again that's not trying to
take this into consideration. This is
trying to, as our city manager said,
this is trying to move toward a tonal
shift of we've had a lot of division in
the community already over this topic in
the broadest sense. And then to me right
now, it makes no sense trying to create
a new framework that we would still sort
of try to separate out another group of
people that represents a very, you know,
broad swath of our community. and and
there are different kinds of HOAs uh
within our community as well. So again,
they're not one sizefits-all. So I I
just in the broadest sense of again this
being a framework rather than a lot of
details,
I don't see the logic of what we're
trying to accomplish to still want to
segregate the HOAs out and say, gee, you
can't participate because again, that
just affects an awful lot of of people.
How can you say you don't see the logic
when private homeowners associations can
assess consistent with inflation and the
rest of the city cannot? I mean to lose
the ability to assess commensurate with
the need is huge. [snorts]
And the prior city manager, you know,
used to always say we could even if we
look at the private road issue, we can
never consider letting HOAs in because
it would blow up the budget so
dramatically to have the same Prop 13
constraints apply to an additional 20%
of roads. And I know they're in good
condition today, but we're talking about
a long long-term policy change. And I
just I am concerned that the arguments
I'm hearing are well gosh they really
are participating and we should include
them. This is not about inclusiveness.
It is about an a financial burden the
city could not bear. And if we say that
we are going to change the framework to
allow HOAs I think it would be
incredibly naive to pretend like but we
might not actually. I mean, I think if
you're going to say HOAs can be part of
it, we must be prepared to design a
program that affirmatively
includes and addresses and figures it
out, which I'm still open-minded, but
I'm not hearing any arguments other than
inclusivity
to deal with the big problem. Well,
there's no doubt that over time
there's an enormous amount of financial,
you know,
lens that has to be implied to anything
that comes up. But remember, I I I
sort of interpret that the way you're
seeing this is this means that all of
our private roads are are immediately
going to become public or going to
immediately all apply to become public.
And that's not what the framework and
the policy is in is intended to do. Some
people feel in the community feel really
strongly that they want to do that.
Others don't.
>> But could you address that comment
» But could you address that comment
specifically to the HOAs that are
participating like Wilder, Arinda Woods,
Arinda Grove, the kind of the three
bigger ones? Which of those do you
expect in and I don't mean in the first
six months but in short order to uh
request a process for integration?
>> I I I don't honestly know Madame Mayor.
» I I I don't honestly know Madame Mayor.
I mean we don't know because there are
so many other details of this that
aren't outlined at this point. you know,
we haven't really this sort of tonal
shift of, you know, we could get there
instead of continuing to say, you know,
no, we can't look at our infrastructure
in a more holistic manner is is
relatively new. There's a lot of devil
in the details that's not here yet, but
um
>> and and this isn't
» and and this isn't
okay. this
when when you're asking about I I feel
like the
including them in the framework
or not excluding them in the framework
does not necessarily mean that they're
going to apply for and be accepted as
public roads in the next when you say in
short order I don't know what that I
view this pro I view this this issue
as a
many year issue for us to resolve.
This is another step there. We simply
don't have the finances to allow all
these HOAs immediately to become public
roads. We just don't have the budget
now. However, to have on paper a
resolution that excludes them from any
possible path in the future to me is the
problem. That's what we're doing here.
we're not necessarily taking the next
step in my mind and I'll ask you know to
correct me if I'm wrong that
that there will be this immediate
acceptance of you know all HOA roads or
even large HOAs cuz it it
[clears throat]
again we need to proceed with you know
stepby-step
careful nuanced solutions not an
overnight
dramatic sea change where we all became
public roads. I mean, if we wanted to
self- tax ourselves, you know, 5% sales
tax, we could probably do it, but we we
can't do it unless we we did that. And
we're not I'm not by any means
suggesting we do that. Our residents
wouldn't want it. So, you said was super
helpful. It may again, I think the idea
is we're kind of workshopping here and
and without two of our five, so it's,
>> you know, get what you pay for. Um, but
» you know, get what you pay for. Um, but
what you said about a framework I think
was incredibly helpful because and we'll
kind of pull it back up. Um, I had two
comments. One is when I was reading this
before the meeting was it was it feels
kind of touchyfey, right? This is a tone
reset where we want to shift the
conversation which would be fine if you
weren't I I actually think the decision
whether or not to include HOAs is the
single most important fork in the road
we're going to face in this
conversation. And I don't want to make
light of it and just say it's a tone
shift. It's a monumental potential
fiscal change and I'm still open to it.
So I'm not
>> I'm not saying we can never but I am
» I'm not saying we can never but I am
saying that is no tone shift. That is a
massive policy decision that we cannot
make without looking at how you pay for
it. That is the decision. So, um, I
actually really liked what I heard from
the Finches when I was first elected
about the the fact that their roads are
really wellmaintained and we are solving
this for the life of the city and they
do have pretty good reserves already.
So, I I still would like to explore HOA
solutions. However, semicolon however
inside the 5918 framework I think is the
wrong place to do it because the 5918
framework is an actual ordinance that
says we shall
uh you know this is how we will adopt p
uh private roads into the public road
system. And I when you say framework my
other note here was like it's like
tennis without a net, right? We're gonna
have a framework and it's going to have
no rules. That's not a framework. The
framework is the 5918 ordinance, which
is an existing law, which I agree
um isn't going to work without some
uh some modifications that make it work.
But when I think about what the
infrastructure subcommittee is doing,
it's so much more than 5918. 5918 is not
the framework. The framework is actually
um this whole idea of coming back with
something where it's not like the T-AC
where a neighborhood is asking for a
speed bump and they have to petition and
figure it all out for themselves. This
is the city figuring out how we
can play a much bigger role. You know,
the the figuring out the PCIs was a
breakthrough, right? That was the
ability to then look at things and say,
"Hey, these are these are actually not
that hard and we can help and we can
help people organize for those that need
some work. We can help people form an
assessment district. We can help do the
neighborhood organizing."
And the idea would there would be a
private infrastructure program that
would over a long period of time
create a path for anybody who wants to
do it to do it. It's not neighborhoods
self-organizing,
but
what was on tonight's agenda was this
very specific list that felt like
modifying 5913
and it it felt sort of cart before the
horse where we're talking about well,
oh, let's take out the no subdivision
restriction
but with no plan for what we do if we
say we will consider private road
adoption of subdivisions.
I think 5918 is not the framework. The
framework is the framework.
And so I I kind of felt like that bullet
point list was misplaced relative to
tonight's check-in.
>> Okay. So just a couple thoughts and then
» Okay. So just a couple thoughts and then
I'll
>> Okay. Um,
» Okay. Um,
one thing you reminded me of in this
conversation is that we had a public
comment about assessment districts. Um,
and that there might be various ways and
different communities or different
neighborhoods might might want different
things and that is very much still an
opportunity and a possibility and
different, you know, Sanel, there's
different things we could still do. this
um
the I think it might be maybe not but it
might be helpful to just currently 5918
the first sentence of the resolution is
it says the acceptance the acceptance of
existing privately maintained roads into
the city's public roadway network shall
be by resolution of the city council and
shall be subject to the following
criteria. IA. So what it is is it's it's
criteria and so what we're calling
framework is criteria. It does not say
if you meet all this criteria you are
accepted. It is still by resolution. But
what we are doing is we had a in my mind
this is just how I view this. We had a
resolution that included criteria and it
said the only path is if you meet all
this criteria and it's it's basically
impossible to meet, right? Like you
asked about the 20-year
to have it's it's I remember now from
the infrastructure discussion because we
asked about that, right? And it was the
response was that it was
basically we weren't even sure how
someone would show, you know, show that,
right? So to this point the question is
should the criteria say that HOAs are
excluded and to me that's a lot more
narrow and doesn't require us right now
to say
how are we going to pay for
you know all the HOA privately
maintained roads becoming public roads.
We are simply saying that in the
criteria we are not excluding them which
is big. I'm not saying it's not huge. I
don't want to minimize that. It is big.
It's It is a very big policy change,
but I do favor it. And I also
absolutely underscore underline in bold
to me
removing this exclusion from the
criteria doesn't mean and shouldn't be
you know read as we are going to
immediately be able to adopt all these
roads as public roads
because to do anything like that has a
funding mechanism and a funding
implication and that has to be accounted
for because we don't overspend here. We
maintain our reserves. So I do agree
that that is a huge huge thing that has
to be done but also view this resolution
along those lines. I don't know if
that's helpful or or not.
Yeah, I agree. I in the sense that again
what ultimately comes out of this um may
be a lot of things but the the goal was
not to at this stage just
continue
well I I think council member Malcanu
said it well not not to just start
excluding because first of all it's not
it's not an immediate acceptance of
anything, right? It's as well as the
fact that we know from listening to
people and we have listened over the
last year and a half and we know both
from lots of the written comments we've
gotten, what we've heard in person, um
what the city's dealt with over the last
decade on this issue is, you know, we
have people that are perfectly happy
with their private road and don't want
anything. They don't want anything from
the city. they don't they they're
perfectly happy with the situation. We
know that we have people that are on the
other side that believe for whatever
combination of reasons that the city
should um adopt their road into the
public system in some way, shape or
form. And we have, believe it or not,
quite a few people in various categories
in between. We have some people that
really care about the ownership of the
road. We have other people that just
care about the finances of getting the
road maintained. We also have some
people that are not as not all that
adverse to maintaining it, but they're
having difficulties doing that because
they don't have an HOA. They don't have
a mechanism to get their neighbors to
contribute. They just they have all
kinds of other challenges that just make
doing your own public works kind of
hard.
>> No. And I and I want to save some of
» No. And I and I want to save some of
those comments for when council member
Hawky can come back. The the specific
question here is where there is an
assessment, you know, where there is an
HOA. And I again I just I I I'm sorry to
be so hard-nosed about this, but
I feel what is being set forth is like a
tone set and and I agree 5918 is is not
working right. the whole but but again
to talk about
specific changes to this law in the same
spirit as and you know somebody used the
expression good faith right I think
that's the the tone reset happened when
we formed the subcommittee when we when
we reupted I mean I I don't think we
would be spending the resources we've
been spending for years on the
subcommittee if we were not committed to
work together in good faith to find a
better way to deal with private
infrastructure. And so I I just again
this it felt to me like you guys were
trying to disassemble 5918 from the
inside and leave nothing there but kind
of an empty shell. And that's to me not
the point. The point is to come back and
say forget what's in 5918. We'll deal
with that when we have the final the
final program legal changes financing
figured out. But what I was
hoping would come back in a check-in is
to say, you know, number one, HOAs,
should we or should we not um should
they be at the table or not at the
table, which is I think what you meant
with the HOA conversation, but then um
go ahead.
>> Sorry. The question is if we're
» Sorry. The question is if we're
developing criteria for potential
in order to even be cons if we're
developing criteria should HOAs be
excluded from the crit
is part of the criteria is one item in
the criteria that HOAs are excluded from
this resolution but that's the question
the resolution that's my point not the
resolution we are not
>> sorry I'm not understand
» sorry I'm not understand
>> I as the person in this conversation is
» I as the person in this conversation is
the one of the three people who are not
on the subcommittee.
I am nowhere near prepared to uh to say
that we should include HOAs in private
road adoption until you have been able
to address how we deal with uh the
imbalance of assessments can adjust with
inflation, property tax cannot.
So, do I want to say they are not part
of the subcommittee's charter? No, there
absolutely should be part of the
subcommittee's charter. First, you have
to answer the question about if we can
come. Is there a solution out there that
works to include the HOAs?
>> Well, I guess my feeling is we would
» Well, I guess my feeling is we would
never know that if we arbitrarily
exclude them right now,
» but do you
>> Yes. I mean, I I understand your
» Yes. I mean, I I understand your
concerns, which I think,
you know, come back primarily to cost
ultimately, but we all know that. We all
know that however this gets approached.
And even the people that live on private
roads in this community, no matter how
strongly they feel one way or the other
about various topics, all recognize that
at the end of the day, it comes down to
how could this be structured costwise?
Um and and there are a lot of questions
around that. Um, but I guess in my mind
I don't want at this point to say
because you're an HO part of an HOA,
it means that you can't be again because
I guess my sense of the goal originally
was to find ways to keep this
to find ways to bring this issue
together more than letting it continue
to be a very divisive, painful issue in
the community. And to me, if you're
right again, not allowing HOAs to be
considered, then that's again
just being divisive rather than finding
ways to find solutions. Even though I'm
I'm not disagreeing with you that there
may be financial issues that, you know,
may or may not be able to be overcome in
the future.
>> I go ahead. the the the
» I go ahead. the the the
actual language says that
HOAs are not eligible for acceptance by
the city. So it says under
>> you are not hearing my feedback. So I
» you are not hearing my feedback. So I
want to try this one more time.
>> As long as you're trying to reddraft
» As long as you're trying to reddraft
that law, I am not going to agree. We're
not ready. As long as you're telling me
because like Darlene on my right is
saying
the subcommittee the infrastructure
subcommittee would like to keep working
on potential solutions. I am on board
with that.
>> Then you're saying well 5918 says that
» Then you're saying well 5918 says that
HOAs are excluded. 5918 is a path to
adoption and I'm not ready to put HOAs
in the path to adoption until we can
solve the big fiscal imbalance question.
So I want I would like to see the
subcommittee keep working on HOA
inclusion
if there is a way to do it. But every
time you point to 5918, I'm going to say
no because that is the that was actually
something saying if you do these things,
the city can adopt your road.
>> That's not what it's
» That's not what it's
it says you're not going to be
considered
unless you do all these things. It's it
it's disingenuous to say, "Oh, you could
do all these things, but then we're not
going to consider you because
we can't afford you and you knew all
along we could never afford you." I mean
that it just if it's not possible for
HOAs then it's not possible.
>> I mean
» I don't think that considering finances
when you're looking at adoption is
disingenuous. I think everyone knows we
have to be looking at that as well. So I
don't I I'm I'm not trying to I hear
what you're saying. I just think that to
me what is before us, right? What we're
looking at is something very specific
and
the issue of whether there will be whe
when and how
there will be a financial
um there will be funding basically to
adopt any any private road in any
homeowners association or all of them or
one of them or is
a very fact-specific inquiry that will
happen at the time and may frankly
happen way down the road because there
isn't funding for it to happen now. So I
am not trying to be say that we do this
and then oh well we've already done it
so everyone gets accepted right that is
no that I mean I I guess I'm trying to
be really clear about the understanding
of what it means to rewrite the criteria
in here right and that the expectation
should not be and I and I think that
those that have been attending the
subcommittee meetings get that because
there's been a lot to talk about. We
keep one question that keeps coming up
in the subcommittee, frankly, is well,
what's the next step? How does this get
happen? How does this get happen? And we
keep having to say, we're not there yet,
right? We're not we're not there yet in
terms of refiguring out the funding.
What we're trying to do is keep moving
forward towards problem solving,
recognizing that this is a really big
problem that may take, frankly, I
personally think years to solve.
And that doesn't mean that this the
infrastructure subcommittee will exist
for for for staff purposes. I'm not
suggesting that that needs to exist for
years and years. But I think that the
council will continue to,
you know, be revisiting this issue for
years in terms of especially when you
get to funding. So, I'm not, you know,
but if if this exclusion was maintained,
the way I view it, and maybe I'm
misreading it, but the way I view it is
if this exclusion were maintained, then
no matter what the circumstances, no
road in any homeowners association, no
residents living on a privately
maintained road in any homeowners
association
could ever seek adoption.
And that to me is different from
everyone gets it and the same thing back
and forth and everybody in the audience
is thrashing in their chairs. So
>> we can we can move forward with saying I
» we can we can move forward with saying I
I'm going to rephrase it the way Vice
Mayor G said it, which is
we are not going to say that HOAs are
categorically cannot be considered off
the table. I thought HOAs were in the
charter of the subcommittee from the
beginning and should be and for that
purpose I would like to invite council
member Hawky back in the conversation
but every time you point to that law and
you say
change this sentence I am going to say
no what I would like is for the
subcommittee to come back with an actual
program that says here's I mean yes this
law basically says you can't be accepted
is a public road unless you do all these
things and you need to be darn near
perfect. And I agree that that law as
our one and only way to work didn't
work. But what I expected from the
subcommittee was something that that
doesn't worry too much about what that
existing law says, but says here's a
program. Here's a solution. And I'm not
hearing a solution. What I'm hearing is
words smithing the existing law. So I I
do want to get council member back.
>> Can I ask you a question? Um I I think
» Can I ask you a question? Um I I think
that and again I I don't want to be
overly presumptive but
>> I think certainly a lot of members of
» I think certainly a lot of members of
the community um
>> you know feel that ultimately if we can
» you know feel that ultimately if we can
come up with anything that is better
than what we have today that 5918 would
have to either be revised or replaced or
one of the two that it we probably can't
come up with solutions
and then still have 5918 be exactly the
way it is. I I guess my and so it's a
question to you.
>> Of course, of course. Of course. I think
» Of course, of course. Of course. I think
we wouldn't have formed the subcommittee
if we were trying to just redline 5918.
I think the idea was we need
fundamentally new programs and
approaches and it might be a grant
program. It might be a maintenance
contract. It might be a way that we work
with any HOA or private road for
something that changes the criteria to
things that are PCI based and where we
help people form assessments when
because the whole thing about neighbors
having to collect from their neighbors.
I mean the the existing system
affirmatively doesn't work and I'm
excited to see things move forward. But
I I yeah, I just think that the
excessive focus on 5918 is not
constructive and I know staff wants to
spend their time as well as possible and
so I would focus on more of the big
picture solutions before we worry about
what this bullet point says or that
bullet point says. Um, I the reason this
is before the full council right now is
we didn't want to ask staff to spend
time and effort into reddrafting
something that was then
totally out of whack with the policy
desires of the full council, right?
Because it's a lot of work and it's
tricky and evidenced by the conversation
we're having, right? It's a tricky thing
to reddraft. So, we didn't want them
staff to spend time reddrafting until we
got this was this was one of these
things where we looked at it and said,
"Okay, some of this framework looks
good. This looks good to us, right? But
let's bring our colleagues in before
staff spends time
putting, you know, so I I'm not trying
to wordsmith something. I'm just trying
to tell you that on that point, that's
what I think it addresses. I went back
and looked on the other point and you
know the removal of zoning and
subdivision standards for adjacent
properties. That also that also that
bullet point appears to me to address a
very specific
uh clause in the current 5918 and
frankly I made a note that when it goes
back to the infrastructure committee we
better understand that better. So that
was a helpful feedback. So th that's the
idea
>> and I think in many respects madame
» and I think in many respects madame
mayor we're putting you in a really
difficult position. I mean some of this
may have to be redised when we have
council member Riley with us and to
whatever extent council member Hawky can
participate. I think that's important as
well because obviously we we sort of
have a a tough situation where council
member Mccani and I have sat through a
whole lot that you haven't had the
benefit of and our other two council
members haven't either. So, I think it's
probably important that we get
>> No, this is a this is a really weird
» No, this is a this is a really weird
dynamic and it's it's really suboptimal.
So, um I will say though, please and I'm
I am only one person, but there are only
three of us that aren't on the
subcommittee. Do not reddraft 5918 until
you have something that works figured
out. Start with a solution and then
reddraft the law. You're you're truly
putting the car before the horse.
>> I
» I
when you say some until you have
something figured out, what what do you
mean?
>> Come to us and say here's what was
» Come to us and say here's what was
broken and here's how we're going to fix
it. We think that the you know pick so
you come to us with a presentation that
says here were the constraints on
getting roads adopted. The technical
standards were too high. Mhm.
>> The city was so concerned about
» The city was so concerned about
liability that they made impossible
standards to pass. Neighbors had too
hard a time uh some neighbors
neighborhoods were well organized, some
were poorly organized. Neighbors had a
horrible time with the legalities of
forming assessment districts and
neighbors neighborhoods had a horrible
time with knowing what to do to fix
their roads. So, if you were to come and
say, "Here's how we're going to deal
with neighborhood assessments and
organization and sort of the legal
aspects and here's how we're going to
deal with neighborhoods knowing what
they need to do to get their roads up to
an adoptable standard. And here's what
we think an adoptable standard looks
like. And here's what we're going to do
about the fact that some roads are maybe
have soil erosion issues that are really
not good for city liability, but are
also not good for homeowner liability.
What do we do with things that have
engineering flaws or problems? Here's
what we think we should do about HOAs
and the adoption criteria when an HOA is
evolved. There's a couple things that we
have talked about for years now that are
the known kind of the big boulders of
the issue. And so before we're talking
about what the bullet point says about
subdivision compliance, it's like well
what's the solution?
So that particular bullet I have a note
to go back onto but with everything else
I thought we were coming with that. So I
guess anyway, how what's the best way
for us to move forward? Because you're
right, it is a it's it's not fair to
have the conversation also, I think,
with the
>> it's like you came with a legal solution
» it's like you came with a legal solution
to a business problem and I want to hear
the business solution before we worry
about how we're going to draft it. And
but I would like to invite council
member Hawky
>> and I'm to have um to be able to share
» and I'm to have um to be able to share
her thoughts and opinions because Lord
knows she's going to have some as well.
Um and I do think
>> what are we so we're just putting I
» what are we so we're just putting I
think we've discussed it as much as we
could. Can we can we discuss the rest
without that clause?
>> So the way the FPPC's segmentation rule
» So the way the FPPC's segmentation rule
works which is the one we're operating
under right now um an issue has to be
segregable from the remainder of the
discussion. A final decision as much as
there is one uh tonight has to be
reached and then cannot return to this
discussion once council member Hawky
comes back. I hearing the discussion and
please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm
hearing consensus that a property's
membership in an HOA or non-membership
in an HOA is not a
definitive characteristic.
Right? So whereas my read of the
existing resolution was that there might
be a clear dividing line. priv private
roads are either in an HOA or they are
not and they are treated differently.
I'm hearing consensus that that is not
going to be the case at least for the
purposes of this highle framework
discussion.
>> I believe we are unanimous that they do
» I believe we are unanimous that they do
not need to be categorically excluded
from the consideration and therefore I
believe council member Hawky can be
invited back.
>> That's my understanding as well.
» That's my understanding as well.
>> Okay, great. So I think we've reached a
» Okay, great. So I think we've reached a
final decision.
>> I'm sorry this is so hard. It just it's
» I'm sorry this is so hard. It just it's
a hard issue. Thank you. Okay. So, so
Council Member Hawky, I texted her to
return. Is she back?
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Hello everyone.
» Hello everyone.
>> Hello. Hello. So, we've been um I've
» Hello. Hello. So, we've been um I've
been monologuing. I know that surprises
you. [clears throat] So, we would love
for you to kind of share your questions,
your thoughts, your concerns, and I'll
uh have the subcommittee respond with
you uh similarly.
>> Thank you. One of the questions I've
» Thank you. One of the questions I've
been thinking about is sort of how
assuming the city can't afford to take
all private roads in at once. Is there
going to be some sort of prioritization
of what types of private roads we're
most interested in helping with
maintenance such as maybe through roads
or roads that could be an evacuation
route or um roads that are already in
great shape? I mean, is there any sort
of prioritization as part of this
framework.
» I think not yet.
>> I mean, it's not an issue that's been um
» I mean, it's not an issue that's been um
talked about yet, Council Member Hawky.
I mean, it's certainly I would certainly
say it
>> would easily be on the table in the
» would easily be on the table in the
sense that
when you weren't with us, Council Member
Malcani explained
this. I think this is envisioned maybe
not by everybody and certainly by not
every member of our public, but I think
there's a recognition that this might be
a pretty lengthy process.
>> Absolutely.
» Absolutely.
>> You [laughter] know, it's something
» You [laughter] know, it's something
that's going to happen overnight,
>> right? It's not like we're going to take
» right? It's not like we're going to take
in 20 people of roads overnight. I agree
with that.
>> Yeah. Anytime you have something that
» Yeah. Anytime you have something that
might take a a right
>> a significant period of time, it makes
» a significant period of time, it makes
sense that you would ultimately probably
end up with, you know, what do you do
first, second, third,
>> right? I mean, there's some roads that I
» right? I mean, there's some roads that I
know of that, you know, are clearly more
problematic than others. For instance, I
think up near the top of Elway now,
there's a private road that's actually a
through road that could be an evacuation
that really you can't pass through
without a four-wheel drive vehicle at
this point because it's in such bad
repair. You know, at some point, we have
to decide, is that the sort of thing the
city wants to help those homeowners deal
with because they obviously seem
incapable of doing it on their own
because they haven't for all these
years. Um and then
I one of the issues that I have faced on
my own road is just particularly visav
storm drains how difficult it is to
actually get a contractor to respond to
a private homeowner. And so one of the
things that I think the city could do to
help in the interim would be to just
help, you know, willing groups of
homeowners access the contractors who
can do the kind of work they may need to
get done because some of these
contractors are used to having big city
contracts and they're not used to
dealing with small homeowner groups.
One thing that was has been discussed in
the infrastructure committee and has
been brought up a lot by residents,
council member Hawky, is what you're
talking about exactly, which is that
folks have said some that yes, it is
very frustrating for a group of
homeowners to try to figure out how
they're supposed to, you know,
basically. So, you know,
>> act like the city.
» act like the city.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
fix a fix a road up to up to, you know,
correct standards. So there's
>> it's not even the pavement. I think
» it's not even the pavement. I think
that's so hard. I think the pavement is
the easier aspect of it. It's the storm
drains because they're under the roads
generally or next to them. They're
they're harder when they back up. It's
usually a crisis, right? Because
someone's house is getting flooded. You
know, water flows downhill. So the water
going through those drains isn't coming
from necessarily your road. it may be
coming from the public road above you,
right? So, I think those are some of the
more difficult issues to deal with and
they tend to be need require being dealt
with in a very timely fashion or you're
going to have some real damage. Um, so I
I would like to see if we could include
something to address those kinds of
issues as an interim step maybe. Just a
thought.
So the things that have been discussed
are the need for technical assistance,
the need for technical assistance in
terms of you know helping to find
contractors in terms of forming
assessment districts and um the exact
scenario that you just mentioned in
terms of you know uh dealing with all
the drainage issues including the
scenario you just mentioned have been
>> good okay well I'm sorry [laughter] so
» good okay well I'm sorry [laughter] so
you what you're saying it's resonating
including with our audience.
>> But good. I I I'm glad we're discussing
» But good. I I I'm glad we're discussing
this and I'm happy to see we're
>> at least addressing these issues with a
» at least addressing these issues with a
willingness to help homeowners because I
think that's what's been missing. Um so
I'm very appreciative of the work the
infrastructure committee has done and
the direction we're going understanding
that it's a long process. It's not like
we're going to deal with issues all at
once.
So, what I'm hearing um is that the
council would like staff to uh work
closely with the infrastructure
committee and come up with more specific
solutions,
additional financial analysis. So the
impact of any changes and really put a
lot of staff effort and time into coming
up with solutions
like a range of solutions, not simply a
change of an ordinance or a resolution,
but more broad programmatic
options to bring back for the council's
consideration. So, I think we just
wanted to check in before we spend an a
significant amount of staff time, which
is what I think this next phase is going
to entail, and make sure we weren't
completely off track. The work plan says
things like explore ideas, discuss and
develop options. And um it sounds like
what the council would like to see is
some financial
um coupling of what those solutions
could be. uh and what sort of impact
they could potentially have on our
general fund or any funding that we have
available long term, right? And then
staff can also present back to
infrastructure committee and back to the
council the resources that we have to
support a large
program,
right? because we're pretty small. If
you haven't seen less than 40 employees
and to do something that's fairly
significant would be
>> it'd be a lift, right?
» it'd be a lift, right?
>> We could talk about all of those things,
» We could talk about all of those things,
but we didn't want to engage too far
down that pathway. We had just gotten
through all the data collection
basically, right? Data collection,
questionnaires, PCIs, we're doing the
mapping of the storm drains. We're doing
all these things. We've got most of the
data now. And so now it's like well what
do we do with all this? We need to come
back and check in and say um 5918 has
been mentioned as an impediment. Uh so
how do we clear that hurdle? But but
tell us all the other things that are
out there that other communities are
doing. So that's where we're at. But it
sounds like the council is okay with
infrastructure committee really diving
into program development at this point
with with financial um implications for
what those could be. And just again, I
hope everybody chimes in with their
reactions. Uh definitely agree. You
know, I would just reiterate hearing you
talk about all the work that's been
done. That initial scope, I mean, when
we started everything that the committee
has already done, that was like the
first 10 bites of the elephant, right?
It was a huge undertaking because we
didn't even have the most basic data.
And so people would talk about the
private roads issue was with these gross
generalizations. And so, believe it or
not, that was not just gathering the
data to get started. That was in and of
itself accomplishing some really
significant
meaningful tasks. So, I actually wanted
to just take a moment to put a big in
the column for everything that that
committee has already achieved. Um,
because the committee could have stopped
right there and that still would have
been a tremendous accomplishment. I
think the what I'm hearing you say is
it's actually time to define to go back
to the scope of work now that we've done
80% of phase one and figure out what the
definition of phase 2 looks like right
what what is the appropriate scope of
work and come back and maybe get some
buy in on that and and just when you
mentioned financial analysis what I
don't want to do is have everybody waste
a bunch of time quantifying um
you
financial analysis for its own sake. I
would actually my hope is that the
whoever and it's probably Doug or
someone on his team could look at the
HOA kind of structural finance problem
and really start with some of the things
that Vice Mayor G said about what
proportion of all of the ways you fund
road projects is property tax versus the
other soup of funding sources. How big
is the problem really? And are there,
you know, are there constructive ways
that we could do it? So, I would look at
it not as a just numbers for the sake of
numbers, but really with an eye to how
could we get past that obstacle that has
always stopped us in the past. And
>> it's great.
» it's great.
>> Again, just speaking for my own
» Again, just speaking for my own
reactions to your feedback.
» Subcommittee
thoughts. I'm I'm accepting of that
feedback if you have consensus of your
colleagues to that that's the approach
you'd like to take. H
>> I guess how
how is that different from sort of what
the city manager described earlier?
Is it just more
just more detail?
right
>> significantly more.
» significantly more.
>> I mean, I do think that [sighs]
Yeah, I'm I think that makes sense. I I
do feel like we should probably have
things
continue to,
you know, come back
so that we also don't go down a rabbit
hole of a really intensive staff
analysis
where we without making sure we have
consensus because I don't want to waste
we don't have a lot of staff. We we
staff time is precious and I don't want
to waste any of it. So I
>> and realistically I think
» and realistically I think
>> there's there probably needs I mean
» there's there probably needs I mean
depending on I mean there's all kinds of
ways we can approach it but at some
point quite honestly part of it probably
requires additional outside resources.
There probably is a short-term fiscal
component as well because to be able to
answer a lot of questions that both the
council and the community wants to have
some meat on the bones um is going to
probably take more than what we can do
inhouse I would assume.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
So, if there's consensus that we would
be going back and expending more
resources, including maybe consultant
resources to flesh out opportunities for
program development, we could do that.
Um, I'll I'll work with the staff and uh
probably won't be ready for your next
infrastructure committee, but we can
have um additional discussion at the
next meeting, which I think is on the
19th. I might be getting that wrong, but
it's coming up this month. I think it's
the 16th is our next meeting.
>> You're right. So, it's only in two
» You're right. So, it's only in two
weeks. So, we'll we'll work towards um
putting something on that agenda or we
can continue this conversation um and
the outcomes of this meeting to frame up
what uh program development looks like
for
>> Yeah. Maybe we can discuss if there's an
» Yeah. Maybe we can discuss if there's an
efficient way to to approach program
development,
>> right?
» right?
>> That might be a good topic for our next
» That might be a good topic for our next
meeting.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Council member Hawky,
» Yeah. Thank you. Council member Hawky,
did you have any final thoughts? I know
we we didn't get to involve you as much
as we would have liked.
>> No, thank you, mayor. I'm very happy
» No, thank you, mayor. I'm very happy
that we're moving down this road. I
think everyone is thinking about it in a
very rational, systematic, thoughtful
way. And so, I'm I'm happy with the work
we've done. I I agree with your comments
about just the mapping and the, you
know, understanding the condition of the
roads and the situation we currently
have right now is helpful. and I'm
hopeful that we can come up with some
creative solutions that will address
some of these issues going forward.
>> Thank you. And just one final thank you
» Thank you. And just one final thank you
to our infrastructure subcommittee and
to staff. I this has already been a huge
huge effort of time, but I actually
think you're doing something very
important for the city and um I just I
these are tough conversations, but
really really thank you both.
>> Well, to that end, credit really goes to
» Well, to that end, credit really goes to
staff. I think I mean it it and to our
residents for uh continuing to show up
again and again and talking with us.
>> And with that just it's getting late so
» And with that just it's getting late so
I'm going to move this along to item H.
>> Mayor.
» Mayor.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> I'm sorry to interrupt but unfortunately
» I'm sorry to interrupt but unfortunately
I'm going to need to sign off now. I'm
hoping given the lateness of the evening
that we could postpone item H4 until our
next meeting.
>> And we also have item H3 we haven't gone
» And we also have item H3 we haven't gone
to yet either. She was just asking if H4
because I believe um
>> that was my item. Yeah.
» that was my item. Yeah.
>> If you were to reorder H4 or do you need
» If you were to reorder H4 or do you need
to go kind of right now?
>> I really kind of need to go. It's
» I really kind of need to go. It's
>> that's fine.
» that's fine.
>> Haven't had dinner and it's just about 8
» Haven't had dinner and it's just about 8
o'clock here and the where natives are
getting hungry. [laughter]
>> Um I I would um be happy to defer item
» Um I I would um be happy to defer item
H4. City manager. Do you have any
concerns about that?
>> I don't. I'll make a motion. Do I have a
» I don't. I'll make a motion. Do I have a
second?
I'll second.
>> Okay. Um Okay, great. And if we can
» Okay. Um Okay, great. And if we can
please get a roll call vote. Um do we
want to make that to a date certain?
>> I can bring it back at the next meeting.
» I can bring it back at the next meeting.
Great.
>> Council member Moani
» Council member Moani
>> I. Hawky
» I. Hawky
>> I.
» I.
>> G I.
» G I.
>> Iverson
» Iverson
>> I thank you and thank you for uh
» I thank you and thank you for uh
attending remotely. Council member
Hawky. I'm sorry to miss the
conversation on the housing law uh study
session, but I will catch up with the
city manager and I'm sure this is a
first conversation, not a last. So,
we'll have more opportunities to discuss
it together
>> and it's posted on YouTube if you've got
» and it's posted on YouTube if you've got
the uh the time and availability.
>> Always
» Always
>> you can always catch up. Thank you very
» you can always catch up. Thank you very
much.
>> Thank you. Sorry to to bug off. Okay.
» Thank you. Sorry to to bug off. Okay.
>> Byebye.
» Byebye.
>> Um byebye. We will turn now to item H3,
» Um byebye. We will turn now to item H3,
the study session on Senate Bill 1123.
>> I was going to say, Madame Mayor, before
» I was going to say, Madame Mayor, before
we do that, given the hour, should we
just go ahead and extend the meeting?
>> Uh, yes, city manager, how long do you
» Uh, yes, city manager, how long do you
um boy, this is going to be a test for
Darren Hughes to get under a 10-minute
presentation.
>> Well,
» Well,
>> I thought you started to just say no.
» I thought you started to just say no.
>> I almost wanted to. Under 10 minutes,
» I almost wanted to. Under 10 minutes,
Darren.
>> Okay, I will do it.
» Okay, I will do it.
>> Uh, how long should we extend the
» Uh, how long should we extend the
meeting time to?
>> Uh, 10:30.
» Uh, 10:30.
>> 10:30.
» 10:30.
>> Uh, I'll propose we extend the meeting
» Uh, I'll propose we extend the meeting
time to 10:30.
>> Yeah. Can I just ask one question? It is
» Yeah. Can I just ask one question? It is
efficient for us to have this study
session with three council members. I
know it's recorded, so the other council
members can watch it. I am looking
forward to it and I'm excited for it,
but I do want to It's an important
piece. So,
I'm I guess I'm sort of asking
>> I don't think there's anything time is
» I don't think there's anything time is
there anything timesensitive with this
presentation?
>> Not particularly timesensitive. We are
» Not particularly timesensitive. We are
looking for two points of direction. Um
I do believe uh staff has a
recommendation on one of those points
and the other point could probably be uh
deferred if necessary.
I guess I'm a little bit torn because I
feel like it's more of a unilateral like
I actually feel like the the matter the
last matter that was more us getting
consensus was less conducive. This is
more educational. So if we think the
other council members would watch it on
YouTube, we could probably proceed
pretty well. But if there are any
concerns, I would agree it's not
timesensitive. Well, I'm I'm also asking
are is it unilateral or are are we
giving feedback because that's what
makes me
I didn't know that sometimes in a study
session we give feedback. Sometimes in a
study session we're just getting
information. So I agree with you if it's
simply it's a state law receptacle.
>> Yes, staff is asking for direction on
» Yes, staff is asking for direction on
two items tonight. Um so this is a study
session to kind of present this new law
um and provide a little bit of the
context around some other housing laws
that um interact with this law. So we
are looking ultimately to draft an
ordinance that we would bring back to
the planning commission and city council
and we would take direction from tonight
in order to do so.
So, if the council with a body of three
tonight is uncomfortable in providing
direction on behalf of the entire city
council on an ordinance, I mean,
certainly we wouldn't want to bring back
an ordinance and have more discussion
and more debate later about whether or
not we should have been drafting this
ordinance. Um, but you're the majority,
right? Three is the majority. So, if the
council wants to move forward, you know,
we'll go as quick as possible
>> and you'll I'm sure you'll have some
» and you'll I'm sure you'll have some
questions and we'll answer your
questions.
>> But I think it didn't get settled the
» But I think it didn't get settled the
10:30 question, right? Because I think
you stopped short of taking a vote for
that.
>> Move to extend time till 10:30.
» Move to extend time till 10:30.
>> I'll second it.
» I'll second it.
>> Do we need a roll call vote still?
» Do we need a roll call vote still?
Council member Malcani.
>> Well, I guess I'm sorry. G
» Well, I guess I'm sorry. G
>> I and Iverson
» I and Iverson
>> I
» All right. Thank you very much, mayor.
Thank you very much,
>> city [clears throat] council and members
» city [clears throat] council and members
of the public. Um this is on Senate Bill
uh 1123, a new law that went into effect
as of July uh 1st of 2025. Um
or rather um an amendment to an existing
law, the Starter Home Revitalization
Act. So, uh, tonight, uh, we are
looking, we're primarily bringing this
forward to provide a little bit of
context to talk about some other laws
that, um, can give us some sense of what
this law might end up looking like in
Arinda. Um, and also those laws interact
with two points for discretion that we
are asking, um, for guidance from the
city council. So these two particular
points are whether ADUs um accessory
dwelling units and junior accessory
dwelling units would be permitted on
newly created small lots um in relation
to this particular law. Um and whether a
subsequent SB9 lot split u may occur on
these parcels. Um so I'll get into the
details of what all of that is next. I'm
going to start with some context on the
ADU law and on SB9 law.
Um, so ADU law, uh, these junior
accessory dwelling units, um, this is
something that's always been around in a
window. We've had a an ordinance for
second units that required discretionary
review. But in 2017, state law, um,
[clears throat] basically took away a
lot of that discretion and said that and
required that uh, jurisdictions process
these units with a ministerial review
process. So, no public hearing, no um,
public notice. um this is something that
we can process over the counter. In
2020, uh there were some statutory
updates that actually enabled a little
bit more of a widespread application of
this law and reduced a lot of the
barriers. So, it's really 2020 onward
that Arenda started seeing an uptick in
accessory dwelling units. And these
accessory dwelling units can be up to
1,000 square ft. They can be attached,
they can be detached. There are a couple
of different types of configurations and
designations. Um but really this law has
allowed a lot of flexibility for private
homeowners in Arinda. Um one of the
biggest reasons that people will come
forward under this law is for uh being
able to house uh various generations of
their family to age in place to have
children move back into um their
childhood homes. Um so what we've seen
in the last uh 6 years of processing
ADUs is an uptick in approvals. We've
seen a total of um 140 ADUs and nine
junior accessory dwelling units uh that
were approved throughout Arinda. Um that
doesn't mean that all of these will be
built. Um some of them kind of drop off
in the process. Um currently in that
same time frame, we've seen 74 units uh
be applied to the uh building department
and get approved and finalized and now
people are ostensibly living there. Um
so a slightly different law uh that also
requires ministerial review rather than
design review um is SB9. So this went
into effect on January 1st, 2022. Um
this is something this is something that
basically has two arms. Uh, one of these
is ministerial processing of new single
family residences and the other is
ministerial processing of um lot splits
at uh single family zoned lots. Um so
these are urban housing developments for
the units urban lot splits for the lot
splits. Um so this has the the the major
impact in Arinda that is that this law
has generally uh supplanted the need for
design review for a lot of new units in
Arinda. Um so typically in the past
people would come forward under uh a
design review process. There would be a
public notice that go to planning
commission. But with this law allowing
for up to two units on an existing
single family residential lot, um most
people who have a new home to propose,
whether that's on a vacant lot or maybe
it's an additional home on an existing
or a lot with an existing home, um will
instead of going through design review,
just make sure that they're meeting all
of the objective standards and come in
under this law uh which doesn't require
any form of noticing. Um so one one
aspect of this law while most of the
discretion is in the the state's hands
um the the community had discretion over
one particular aspect which is whether
or not uh or how we allow ADUs on these
types of lots. Um the lot splits these
ministerial lot splits that allow a
resident who has to be a um has to be
living on the premises. Um
if they do a lot split then the city has
codified a limitation on the number of
units that can be approved for each uh
resulting lot. Um so that maximum is two
units per lot. Um and that's just to
prevent someone from being able to do a
lot split and then uh subsequently have
two primary units through SB9 approval
on both sides. 211 211 and then
additionally get ADUs. Um so this is
going to come into play. Um this is just
context for what we're going to be
asking for uh with ADUs in this new law
that we're looking at. So this one
hasn't seen as much proliferation um in
uh in Arinda just because of um the the
scope and some of the limitations that
are involved. We've seen 18 entitled
units uh in the past four years of this
law being active. there are three in the
process. Um and then for lot splits,
there have been seven completed lot
splits. Uh and four are currently
active. Um some of those lot splits are
actually between existing units. So
someone had a second unit on a parcel,
they were able to as the homeowner who
lived on site divide between them and
sell off the other the other unit. So it
wasn't necessarily for producing more
units. It was just to give them some
flexibility to get rid of that second
unit. Um, and then seven of the units
that we've seen or seven of the 18
entitlements that we've seen have had
ADUs in association with the SB9 units.
So, they came forward with a new home
and either a detached or an attached ADU
associated with that. Most cases, I
think in very few cases, we've seen
people push this to get um, three or
four units. Um, but there is some
possibility for that. Um, it's just we
don't see people normally take advantage
of this. Um, so this is just a a a brief
overview of how ADU and SB9 law works
where you can start with a vacant lot
and get up to four units in various
configurations and maybe do a lot split
and have two on one side, two on another
side, or have um up to four units on
something that doesn't even require a
lot split. Um, but those configurations
and maximizing the potential with these
is not something that we normally see.
Usually, this is flexibility for just
getting a new home through without
having to go through design review.
So, that brings us to that's a little
bit of context and background before we
get into the Starter Home Revitalization
Act. So, this law requires ministerial
approval. Um, and there's a shot clock
of 60 days for us to once we deem an
application to be complete, we have 60
days as staff to um, approve or
disapprove of an application. Um, and
they can use this. There are two arms
kind of like with SB9. One is
subdivision. Um, so up to 10 parcels and
uh, the other is development of up to 10
residential units. Um, that doesn't have
to be one for one. you can subdivide
into two parcels and put five on each of
them. Um there's nothing in the law that
excludes um excludes that kind of config
configuration from going forward. Um so
this is made up the original version of
this law uh was SB 684. It didn't uh
have a whole lot of impact in Arinda
because it was specific to multif
family. But 1123, the um the one that we
primarily focus on here, um expanded
eligibility to um vacant single family
zoned lots and um and then subsequently
AB130 also allowed a developer to
designate a remainder parcel. So I'll
get into that in one second in terms of
what that specifically means. So there
are a couple of eligibility criteria. I
think the the primary ones that I want
to look at here um to draw your
attention to is maximum size. So the
parcel can't be more than 1.5 acres. Um
so anything that's greater than that in
size generally isn't eligible if it's a
vacant lot. Um vacancy this is not as
straightforward as it would seem because
of that designated remainder aspect. Um
vacancy can mean a vacant lot that is
less than that is no more than 1.5 acres
um of which we have quite a few in
Arinda. Um
but it can also because of the
designated remainder be a portion of a
lot that is deemed as excess land by
someone who owns that particular lot. So
if there is a house in Arinda and there
is enough in there is enough space they
could say okay we're going to take that
existing home and some land surrounding
it and say that's the designated
remainder. Um and then the other portion
as long as that is less than 1.5 acres
is what can go through um this this act
um can be subdivided and developed
through this act. Um and that designated
remainder, the existing home, the
existing use, um does not actually have
to uh uh does not count against the the
10 total units or the 10 total lots. Um
the only point with that is that we do
have to uh that designated remainder
would have to um meet all the
subdivision standards that we do have on
the books because it's not protected by
state law. Um, so it still has some
limitations, but this designated
remainder basically means that someone
with a developed parcel could subdivide
a portion of theirs in accordance to
this law. And then the last thing that I
want to um point to here is fire safety.
Um, I think I have a graphic next. Yes.
So the wildfire um hazard uh sorry the
um
fire hazard severity zones in Arinda um
you can see this red on this one side uh
on the uh right hand side that's all
very high fire hazard severity zone.
This law um prohibits this law uh this
sort of subdivision and development
within that zone. Um so that immediately
eliminates um in present day a whole
bunch of vacant lots and a whole bunch
of lots that would otherwise be
eligible. Um so over here on the left
side we've got the vacant housing
element sites. This is just stuff that
we these are the sites that we pulled
from the housing element to show whether
or not they were um 1.5 acres or smaller
or greater. um but that that whole uh
everything that's on the the west side
of Arinda basically and in the very
north of Arinda would not be eligible
right now. This could fluctuate um
because these zones may change at some
point in the future, but for the next
few years at least, we would expect that
only um parcels in this gray area um and
the gray and the yellow and orange areas
would actually be eligible. So for
vacant lots that are listed within the
housing element, that reduces us to 50
parcels that seem like they could
ostensibly qualify from the outset. Um
but that still means that anything that
is not a vacant parcel, if they had
enough space, they could in theory go
through um this law.
>> Um
» Um
>> Darren, I'm going to ask you to go a
» Darren, I'm going to ask you to go a
little quicker.
>> I'll go I'll speed it up right now. Um a
» I'll go I'll speed it up right now. Um a
couple of requirements. Uh the parcels
have to we have to allow parcels as
small as 1,200 square f feet. Um the
average habitables floor space across
all of the units that are proposed um
can't exceed 1750 um 1,750 ft² because
these are supposed to be smaller homes.
Um we can't impose standards on floor
area ratios that are less than 1 or 1.25
which means that we do have to allow
quite a bit of the lot to be developed.
Um we there are sideyard setbacks that
are drastically reduced from setbacks
that we have in our own standards. Um
there's no setbacks required between new
units. Um and we can't require more than
one off- streetet parking space.
Um we can however require adherence to
all objective standards. Um, for
instance, that's standards that we find
in our zoning code and standards that
we're looking forward to with the
current draft version of the citywide
objective design standards. Um, and we
can't but we can't employ those
standards. We can't enforce those
standards where they would preclude
development in accordance with the act.
Um, so one example might be height. We
have this requirement to allow a certain
floor area ratio. If someone subdivided
in such a manner that the lots were
quite small and they needed to build up
in order to meet that minimum floor area
that we have to require or we have to
allow um then there might be a cause for
exceeding the height standards um in
that in that particular instance um
uh I'm just going to this is looking
this is a brief look at our objective
design standards uh that are in draft
format and the types of housing uh uh
that these uh pertain to. So right now
we are looking at because I cited as an
example that you could have in theory
five units or nine units on one
particular lot. We do have standards in
the objective design standards that look
at this and that provide some additional
regulations. Um and this is something
that staff is looking at a little bit
more closely now and making sure that
everything in SB or in SB123 is
accounted for as well as we can through
these objective design standards.
um density requirements if it's in the
housing element. So if it's a vacant
site, they just have to develop at least
as many units as it says in our housing
element. Most of the time that's one to
two units. So as long as they produce
that many units, they could go through
this. If it's not in a housing element
site, for instance, if it's a on a
designated remainder parcel, uh the math
works out that they need 13.2 2 units
per acre, which means that the average
unit needs to or each unit has to have
an average of 3,300 ft associated with
it at the maximum. So somewhere between
1,200 ft² and 3,300 ft².
So um we don't we're assuming that this
is not going to take off in quite the
same um with the same exuberance as ADU
law. It's not as um accessible for
homeowners, but it might be a little bit
more attractive to developers. But one
of the big things here is that the
topography of undeveloped space in
Arinda, the terrain, the slopes tend to
make this a little bit to increase the
limitations for site access um and uh
make this a higher barrier to entry. So,
what we're looking for from the city
council, um, two points. One is how
should we allow ADUs because state gives
us the discretion to say yes or no to
ADUs, um, on these parcels. And we could
do this a number of ways. So, we've
offered a couple of policy options that
we could consider that range from just
prohibiting them outright um, to
permitting them completely. Um, and then
in the middle, we could consider size
restrictions. So, if there is a minimum
lot size, uh, then perhaps they could
build an ADU on it. Um, and unit caps,
we could also potentially say, you know,
as long as your subdivision doesn't
exceed 10 total units, some number of
those can be ADUs. So, so there are a
myriad of policy options here that could
be considered. Um and then subsequent
SB9 lot splits. State does give us
discretion over whether or not we can
allow um lot splits according to um in
accordance with SB9 on lots that were
subdivided in accordance with the um
starter home revitalization act. Um
staff's recommendation on this
particular point is to not allow this to
happen and create this rabbit hole of
increasingly smaller lots that would be
allowed.
Um, next steps based on tonight's
feedback, we would anticipate drafting
ordinance and come back to the planning
commission and the city council um with
an ordinance that meets your direction.
>> And with that, I will hand it over for
» And with that, I will hand it over for
questions. Apologies.
>> Darren, can you put up the one through
» Darren, can you put up the one through
four on the screen so that's there for
their discussion?
Um, and we do have a speaker card. So,
we'll do questions for staff and then
we'll do some uh public comment. We'll
bring it back for any direction. Um, any
questions? [laughter]
>> Start with vice mayor.
» Start with vice mayor.
>> My problem is I have so many questions.
» My problem is I have so many questions.
I'm
I I find this um extraordinarily
challenging and very challenging to
understand. So,
um I I'll try to think of all of them
that I have real quickly. Darren, um
one,
does the objective design standards are
we allowed to do objective design
standards that would allow how these
units could be laid out on the
subdivided lot?
>> Yes, this does allow for subdivision
» Yes, this does allow for subdivision
standards. And actually within the
objective design standards in their
draft format right now there is a
section on um small lot subdivision. Um
so it is something that we are looking
at to make sure it kind of captures as
many possible scenarios. Um we we do
have to look at that a little bit more
closely in order to figure out exactly
how this law interacts with our proposed
standards as they sit right now. And
then how does it fit in the realm of
infrastructure? Such things as water
lines, gas lines,
egress. Um,
it it just seems I'm I'm maybe I'm the
only one, but this seems mind-boggling
to me, the idea that you would create
this tiny little village on um one and a
half acres potentially, and then um I'm
assuming if let's let's say
I can see a difference if it's a totally
vacant lot to start with versus it has a
home on it that's going to turn into
this remainder piece. I assume that the
remainder piece if there's a home there
doesn't count as part of the total
square footage.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Correct. And then truly out of all these
» Correct. And then truly out of all these
units, they can't exceed
1750 square ft. So they really are like
these teeny tiny little cottages.
>> They can't exceed 1750 square ft on
» They can't exceed 1750 square ft on
average. Um so someone could
>> total or each one?
» total or each one?
>> Each one. Each one. So that you would
» Each one. Each one. So that you would
take the total square footage between
all of them, divide them by however many
units are being proposed. So as an
example, if someone were proposing 10
units, the the total square footage
between all of them would be 17,500
square ft. Um so if the some units are
small and some units are large, there's
nothing in the law that prevents that.
They just can't exceed that average
size.
» Sorry, can you repeat that? I don't
think I
>> I was going to say I think I'm still
» I was going to say I think I'm still
confused. I'm sorry.
>> Okay. Um there's an average size
» Okay. Um there's an average size
requirement in the law um because the
the aim is to get these smaller units,
but every individual unit, for instance,
could be proposed at 1,750
ft². So you could propose 10 units that
are all 1,750 ft². You could also
propose five units that are 2,000 ft² as
long as five other units were 1500 ft²
because you're meeting that average. Um,
so there's there's some discretion from
the developer in that instance as to
which
>> what was the 1,200 ft? That was
» what was the 1,200 ft? That was
>> 1,200 ft is the minimum lot size that we
» 1,200 ft is the minimum lot size that we
have to allow.
>> And so then then can these potential
» And so then then can these potential
units that are allowed, can they be
various configurations? I assume they
could be a whole collection of little
tiny cottage type things. I can they be
like one can be a town home in this
corner and something else over here. It
it sounds very complicated.
>> There's nothing really that seems to
» There's nothing really that seems to
preclude that type of configuration. The
example that I was giving when I was
thinking about this um was you could
subdivide into two lots. one just be a
large single family residence, 4,000
ft², and the other one might just be
nine town homes um that are all around
1,000 ft stacked together. Um we may
have some discretion in our objective
design standards to make uh take a
little bit more of a regular approach,
but it will be difficult to codify every
possible example someone could come
forward with. Um, so it's just something
that we're going to have to spend some
time focusing on with this new lens of
SB123 in our objective design standards
that we're currently drafting. Okay,
I'll let
» um
in general with I don't know if you know
this but with the current ADUs do we
have any sense of how many are occupied
like as living quarters versus offices
or she sheds or you know
>> uh we don't have specific numbers on
» uh we don't have specific numbers on
that there is a certain amount of
we do have the ability sometimes times
to at least see when someone is using
this more to get around square footages
or to provide that really neat guest
house next to a pool. Um so but but we
don't have very explicit numbers on what
which aus are occupied by family members
which are being rented out. Um there's
there's nothing within the planning
department that requires followup on
that particular aspect.
>> Remind me
» Remind me
ADUs
and what is it? What is the definition
of a JADU as opposed to an ADU?
>> A junior accessory dwelling unit is more
» A junior accessory dwelling unit is more
of a flexible space. It's it's more of
an efficiency unit usually, and it has
to be carved out of existing space. So,
if I come forward and I say, I want to
turn my garage into this habitable space
with a tiny little kitchen, but it can
share some facilities. It can share the
bathroom with the main home. Um it's
it's just a a smaller version, a less
intensive version of an ADU. Um but with
a junior accessory dwelling unit, the
homeowner who goes through this does
have to live on site either in that unit
or in the primary home. It's meant for
in-laws, uh parents.
» Can I ask another qu? Um, and
>> you showed us a map of the high fire
» you showed us a map of the high fire
severity zones and you said there was
sort of identified I think 50 vacant
parcels
and you know there was a reference to
topography. So it's sort of like how
many of these
you know and when you showed us the map
even before you mentioned topography I
was thinking yeah but this is Arinda we
have so many I mean
how many of these vacant units could be
even built out
>> that's why I think that we're going to
» that's why I think that we're going to
see this as a slower uptick. Um we have
been speaking to some developers. We
have one application in progress right
now for one lot to be turned into four
lots. Um, and we've had some interest in
some other lots in various
configurations, but no official
applications yet. Some developers have
made it clear that there are a lot of
barriers to this because when you're
talking about taking lots that are that
small, particularly for the designated
remainder um issue, um the the site
access, finding ways to park these
places, all of those um all of those
barriers become pretty significant in
Orinda's terrain. So there may be some
opportunities for people to take
advantage of this at smaller sizes,
scales that might be slightly closer to
SP9, which is not to say or guarantee
that no one will ever come forward with
a larger subdivision. Um, it's certainly
a possibility, but there are a lot of
barriers right now to development in the
areas that just have remained
undeveloped so far.
>> Okay. I'm sorry, mayor. Can I ask one
» Okay. I'm sorry, mayor. Can I ask one
more question? and then I'll [laughter]
>> and then I'll um so but theoretically
» and then I'll um so but theoretically
then cuz I was thinking the remainder
issue might be the issue that is more of
a
resulted in development more than the
vacant lots because when I drive around
Arinda and I look at vacant lots a lot
of them I wouldn't want to put a house
on or anything on because of the
topography but um theoretically then is
am Am I understanding this correctly? In
that if if someone has a lot that is say
2 acres with a single family home on one
area side of the lot, they could then
keep their single family home and a you
know half an acre, take the other 1.5
acres and then build what on it? Like
build an apartmentl looking place with
10 units
>> in theory. Yes.
» in theory. Yes.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Um, but it wouldn't be because of the
» Um, but it wouldn't be because of the
designated remainder and the minimum
density requirements. There's some
squirly math in there. Uh, if you do a
designated remainder based off of the
minimum density requirements, it
actually results in only be a being able
to carve off about 3/4 of an acre. Um,
you can't do that full acre and a half.
You actually have to limit it even more
to meet those density requirements. But
in theory, someone with a 2acre lot, as
long as they are in a zone um in a zone
that allows a minimum lot size and their
slope, because we have these slope
density requirements in Arinda, um if
they have a lot that is flat enough and
has enough space and they can meet the
requirements for their lot to uh their
designated remainder parcel um to meet
all of the objective standards of our
subdivision
uh requirements. It's that other part.
It It's anyone's guess. I mean, they
could use it to do something similar to
a smaller version of SP9, but with a
couple of additional units. Um, they
could have a couple of family homes.
They could have a couple of what might
look like just ADUs, or they could do a
small apartment building if they were
able to figure out all of the logistics
around that.
And then does the ownership have to all
be one entity? These can't be right now.
These can't be sold as separate units.
>> So that's a part of the way the law
» So that's a part of the way the law
works. Uh there's an interaction between
the subdivision aspect and the
development aspect. Um if you subdivide
and then don't develop, you actually
can't sell off lots individually. You
would have to sell them as a whole. And
in theory, we would have restrictions.
Um, basically as part of the the map
that goes forward and gets approved, we
would say, you know, whoever buys that,
you are also subject to the development
requirements under SB123.
Um,
but as soon as they start developing the
lots, they're able to sell off developed
lots. So if uh someone comes in and
turns one lot into four lots through
this law and they submit their
development application in accordance
with the law that shows development on
four different lots, they can start
developing them one by one and as soon
as they get them uh a certificate of
occupancy, they can sell that one off,
sell the other one off, sell the other
one off. Um so you can sell them
separately as long as they're developed
in accordance with the law. You can't
just sell them off individually and then
people can do whatever they want with
them. Um, after that,
» um, Vice Mayor G asked a question
earlier about the water and sewer, the
kind of things [clears throat] that
normally in a subdivision application
you would get uh that would get looked
at. Where in this process do all of
those adequacies get looked at? We
require as part of a um as part of our
submitt requirements and this is similar
to what we require for vacant for
subdivisions under SB9 we require will
serve letters from the appropriate
entities. So we expect that someone by
the time they are getting to us as a a
point of completion we want to see that
the lots that are going to be subdivided
are not only being legally created but
are actually um accessible. uh they can
someone can do something with that lot.
So that is the same logic that we apply
to that we're going to be applying to
this law. Um someone comes forward and
they should already have in hand the
will serve letters that says they're
going to be able to meet all of their
requirements. They also have to go to
the fire district and get approval from
them and make sure that all of the fire
access uh um requirements are being met.
So that for the most part gets ironed
out during the planning portion. Um but
they're finalizing all of that with the
building department at Contra Costa.
>> I had one other question.
» I had one other question.
>> Can we still require one parking spot
» Can we still require one parking spot
per residential unit under this law?
>> Yes, as long as it's not within a
» Yes, as long as it's not within a
>> half mile apart. I know you were gonna
» half mile apart. I know you were gonna
say that.
>> Um we can require one spot. Um, our
» Um we can require one spot. Um, our
current code requires four spots for
single family residential parcels. Um,
two enclosed, two unenced. This law says
you can only require one spot and it
does not have to be enclosed.
>> Were there any other questions?
» Were there any other questions?
>> This policy decision that this slide
» This policy decision that this slide
we're looking at, [clears throat]
this only applies to
1123
split lots. It doesn't. In other words,
if we were to choose, for example,
number one here,
you could that that is separate and
apart from SB9
lot splits where you could they could
still split lots and include ADUs.
>> Correct. So, so this would be just
» Correct. So, so this would be just
applicable to subdivisions that occur
under this act. Um, SB9 is separate. We
do allow ADUs as long as they don't
exceed a total unit count.
>> Okay. Well, well, maybe this will come
» Okay. Well, well, maybe this will come
out in discussion, so we could just take
move on. But one thing that I would be
interested in hearing is from like just
very brief pros and cons from one
through three here. But maybe I'll wait
and that'll come out in discussion. And
if not, I'll
>> ask for it unless that's of interest to
» ask for it unless that's of interest to
anyone else.
>> One through three. Do you mind?
» One through three. Do you mind?
>> Okay. Sure. Um, so one through three
» Okay. Sure. Um, so one through three
pros and cons. Not allowed is the
easiest. It's the easiest to process.
It's the easiest to have a rule about.
Um, it's straightforward. And it also
uh limits the ability to get many units
on these particular um these particular
lots. The one con with this might be
that we are not affording people who
might b buy these starting homes some of
the same opportunities that you would if
you were buying a different home in
Arinda where you can later on decide
that you want a a junior accessory
dwelling unit or an accessory dwelling
unit. Um but it is probably procedurally
one of the and administratively one of
the easiest to work with. Size
restrictions and unit caps. Um, this
could be a little bit more, this is
something that we would have to look at
a little bit more closely in order to
figure out exactly how this would work.
Um, but chances are this is going to
this would be enacted through deed
restrictions and it would require a
little bit more administrative effort to
try to figure out, okay, which parcels
are allowed to have ADUs in the future,
especially number three with the unit
caps. Um, let's say you say we don't
ever want this subdivision to exceed 10
units. The original developer created
four units. That means in some way,
shape, or form we can get another six
there. Um, just keeping track of
individual applications in the future
um, for planning staff might be a little
bit more difficult. Um,
fairly akin to how we look at older
subdivisions now and try to dive into
what rules apply to specific
subdivisions.
>> Thank you. Um before we take public
» Thank you. Um before we take public
public comment, we are 3 minutes or four
minutes to um our extended time, uh I
would propose that we go ahead and do 15
more minutes. Hopefully we won't need
that much, but um I would uh propose to
extend the meeting to 10:45.
>> Second.
» Second.
>> Uh all in favor?
» Uh all in favor?
>> I
» I
>> I
» I
>> I
» I
>> uh city clerk, I assume that's okay
» uh city clerk, I assume that's okay
since we no longer have a remote person.
>> Oh, that's true.
» Oh, that's true.
>> Okay, great. Um, with that, Darren, if
» Okay, great. Um, with that, Darren, if
you don't mind, I'm going to take um I
do have a speaker card for Nick Waroff,
and if anybody else would like to speak,
uh, please come on up.
>> Thank you. I will be brief. Uh, I
» Thank you. I will be brief. Uh, I
submitted a short written submission. I
hope you have all looked at it. I
disagree with the prognostication
that the law will be infrequently
invoked
because there is a major loophole in the
law. It applies to any vacant
parcel,
but a developer or an owner could
demolish
his her or their existing house and then
you have a and there's no waiting time.
Demolish the house and then invoke SP
1123.
And [clears throat] the part that I care
about is what I've always cared about
before you,
which is safe emergency evacuation
because I can see a number of these
developments lining up along our
evacuation routes and adding a lot of
units. Fortunately, SB123
has a safety exception that I quote in
my email.
And since there'll be no public hearings
and no public notice,
my ask tonight is that you provide
direction to staff. They have to do it
on an application by application basis,
but that you provide direction to staff
to invoke the safety exception
and deny
1123 applications
along or within 100 ft of an evacuation
route
because
may, you know, maybe it'll be
unnecessary, but I would hate to see
One, two, three, 10 of these start
mushrooming as people start moving out
because a 10-unit apartment is built
next to them and developers swoop in and
start developing them. Arinda is the
most dangerous city in California in
terms of wildfire risk. Your primary
responsibility
as council members is public safety. And
I would urge you to act responsibly and
direct staff to invoke the safety
exception on applications
along or within 100 ft of an evacuation
route. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Looks like we have at least
» Thank you. Looks like we have at least
one other public speaker. Please come on
up. Thank you for waiting so long. I
know this was a long wait to talk.
>> I know. Um nice to be able to address
» I know. Um nice to be able to address
you, city council. Thank you. My name is
Annne Arurbrite and mostly I just want
to agree with what Nick just said. Um, I
feel very strongly about that that um I
know um it's easy to forget and become
complacent about fire risk, but our son
who lives in LA, his house almost burned
down. The fire embers reached his
backyard and the only reason his house
survived is they had people up all night
putting out the embers. So, he almost
lost his house. So, we have to remember
that that could easily happen here. And
um we really do count on the city
council to keep the residents safe. And
it really is concerning about building
up density in Arinda which is already
considered possibly I think the
chronicle said the next Pacific
Palisades. So that's a cons a big
concern. Um and the fact that these
statewide laws call for ministerial
imple implementation is actually very
frightening for individual residents. Um
because it really means that we rely on
stated and published guidelines from you
and from the city um that show that we
will be safe when these things are put
into place because we really have no
recourse. Nobody even has to tell us
that it's going up next door.
So that I just really agree with what
Nick wrote and what he's saying. And I
know I have a lot of people that last
minute couldn't come but would come. So
that I I know there's a lot of people
that would agree with this. So
that's that's my comment.
>> Thank you very much. Um is there anybody
» Thank you very much. Um is there anybody
else from the public who would like to
speak on this matter before we bring it
up?
>> Um yeah, please come on up. Um and
» Um yeah, please come on up. Um and
please just state your name and um three
minutes.
>> Yeah. Hi, Tom Seo. Thanks for uh pulling
» Yeah. Hi, Tom Seo. Thanks for uh pulling
this over time. Important issue. You
know, [clears throat] when when Darren
was going through the explanation, this
is incredibly complex, and I appreciate
that. When I put in the context of other
communities that have multi-unit
housing, it makes perfect sense. You
know, if this were going into a
community that already I get it, that's
where that's what the law was written
for. I don't think it applies to our
community, and I understand that's not a
choice we have. It's a state law. But
that's where the interpretation and what
you all do as the city council I think
comes into play [clears throat] because
you know the interpretation of an ADU
versus a lot. You know it's ADU I think
by definition has to be a rental
property. So if this is intended to be
for starter homes well it's a starter
home as a rental maybe but that's not
really solving the issue. And I it seems
so convoluted to me to try to shoehorn
this in to [clears throat] Arinda when
it's probably makes sense and is
intended for areas that already have
multi-unit housing.
» Thank you very much. Um if there are no
other questions or comments, I think we
will bring this up for discussion.
Uh would anyone like to lead us off?
I I'd like to ask city staff if um the
suggestion from Mr. Waroff and others um
is allowed. Are we allowed to um these
laws get so complicated as to what we're
allowed to do and not do? Um I mean I
think it's a perfectly good suggestion.
My question is are we allowed to do
that?
>> Yeah, I had the same question about
» Yeah, I had the same question about
invoking the safety exception because
that wasn't part of the presentation.
It's true that the language is in the
law, but it is also, I think, a
case-byase determination,
right? It it's not sort of a blanket
determination citywide. It would be
looking at this particular application.
Can you make the findings that there
would be these particular safety
problems? So, I if you'd like to direct
staff to do some more work to look into
exactly how that might work, uh, we can
absolutely do that. Um, but I don't
recommend tonight, for example,
directing us that for all 1123
applications that come in, they should
be denied based on the safety. that we
could express to staff that we want
staff to be prepared or to look into it
so that in the in the event that it's
applicable to an application, staff
would recognize it and be able to
address it.
>> Correct. Because it ends up being sort
» Correct. Because it ends up being sort
of a two-step process where you have to
have your objective standards um
prepared before the application comes in
and then you measure the application
against your objective standards to
determine whether you can make the
safety findings. So, um, if you'd like
to provide direction to staff, we can
work on, uh, figuring out what's
possible.
>> Got it. Um,
I I mean, I I'm not I guess I was I
would look for sort of you're you're
putting these options before us, and I
appreciate going through the pros and
cons. I didn't hear a clear sort of
staff recommendation. I can tell you
looking at this
for me four is out of the question
because I don't I mean I would I'm sort
of leaning towards number one here but
I'm I I would want to hear if there's a
staff recommendation or what my
colleagues think as well. That was my
other question.
>> Well, I'm easily going with number one.
» Well, I'm easily going with number one.
I think the whole thing is just I
[sighs] mean it is just way out of
proportion. We all understand what the
state wishes they could mandate on
everyone. But I think I think this level
of density in the size lots you're
you're talking about is just
I I mean it's just wildly inappropriate
to our community unless you're going to
do what Mr. Waroff said and everybody's
going to start tearing down existing
homes and you're going to flatten
everything so that you can start turning
everything into, you know, essentially
apartment zones. Um, I mean, I just I
just think it's beyond um, you know, and
and I shudder to think how this is would
be potentially accepted by, you know, a
neighborhood, you know, if if it's a
current single family neighborhood now.
And you know, I mean, it's one thing for
people to be okay with their neighbors
adding ADUs or, you know, doing certain
things that are going on in the
community that I think are pretty well
accepted, but the idea that you might
all of a sudden end up with, you know,
living next door to somebody building a
10-unit apartment uh complex is um I
mean, it it I'll be honest, it's just
frightening in terms of thinking what
our um community is, you know, what the
reaction is going to And I and I fully
agree with the public safety issues. I
mean I you know I it's we're lucky I
guess that so much of I mean we're lucky
we're not lucky. We're we're horribly
unlucky that we're have such high fire
risk but you know if it's reducing some
of you know what we're able to do here.
But, you know, quite frankly, I I wish
that this was a situation where our
community didn't have to accept this law
at all over fire danger. So, so it's
easy for me to just say no. I mean, this
this would be an amount of density that
I just find very objectionable. Um, even
recognizing, you know, the housing needs
of the state. But, um, I I would simply
fall on the no, no more, no more than
I'll just chime in because this we're
kind of a smaller group tonight. Um, and
it's funny because I had I fell out of
my chair when the ADU laws first came
through and then I fell out of my chair
when SB9 came through and we were told
there was no such thing as single family
zoning in the state of California and it
was just horrific. Um, and I actually
brought this when I saw these in the
objective design standards and I was
like, what are our standards for small
lot subdivisions? like what are these
things? And you know, yeah, it can be a
small apartment building, it can be a
condo subdivision, you know, two
stories, but still um it could be town
homes, it could be all sorts of stuff.
And so I I'm really glad we're having
this conversation because it's
it's not just new. It's it's hard to
even picture what these look like, but
um SP9 and the ADUs actually turned out
to be fine in Arinda. The way that
people are doing most of their ADUs,
they're not renting them to strangers,
right? They're either using them as it
as a way to expand their house with
ministerial permitting or they're using
it for caregivers, in-laws,
boomerang children. They've actually
been used to create sort of family
compounds. And it's the addition of
density in the way that's appropriate to
Arinda that we're not seeing apartment
towers in our downtown. What we're
seeing is people taking the abundance of
land and really nice neighborhoods and
just adding
some density. And so the the reality has
actually been just fine. And it was it
was those were both terrifying. So, um,
when I heard, you know, 10 little tiny
homes on a lot, it just boggles the
mind. But, um, the reason I would
actually advocate for number three is I
suspect that the kind of product we're
actually going to see built will be more
like two homes with ADUs.
They might use the junior ADU as a
feature in a home. I sort of think as
long as it's within the same 10 that you
could do as identically sized or
similarly sized separate units,
something that might be two or three
units with a mini feature. It it just
gives people the flexibility to do the
correct design that they want to do. And
I don't think there's any different
outcome between one and three other than
three might have some more small units
than more big units. So I I find three
to be actually more friendly to people
who are going to do it anyway. Um so
that would be my preference. The
question we haven't even talked about is
the one about whether you would allow
further SB9 lot splits because I think
that was such a an obvious no that we're
not even talking about it.
>> Just to be clear on that second question
» Just to be clear on that second question
about further subdivision, I'm a hard no
on that. Can I
just probe that for a second between one
and three? Because those are the two
that I was looking at. But I assume that
it would be frankly just cheaper to
build under three to build more units
than it would be under one. And that's
why this is being proposed. I mean, is
that is that correct?
I I believe um that we could probably
tailor this in such a manner that we
wouldn't expect those ADUs or junior
accessory dwelling units to be
constructed as part of the initial um
development. Um this I I see three as
more of a future flexibility
um where something has already been
subdivided into four, five units and
future homeowners of those units could
then come in later on and say, "You know
what? I need an ADU or I need to carve
out a space to be a junior accessory
dwelling, right?
>> So, it wouldn't immediately necessarily
» So, it wouldn't immediately necessarily
result in those additional units. It
would just
>> for
» for
three makes me think that you will end
up with more units than one
either because it's more costefficient
to do so or because of you can do it in
stages in terms of building. And that's
why I'm sort of frankly leaning towards
one because it gives us a tiny little
bit of local control, but I'm also
looking to staff it. You know, I mean,
we do want to in we have to improve, you
know, we have to increase the amount of
housing locally or at least encourage
it. And so, but we want to do it in a
way that makes sense. And I don't I
don't certainly
when you had a single family home
putting in, you know, five mini homes or
10 mini homes for what it's worth. That
answer kind of uh my mind a little bit
because I I was thinking of it as like
the initial design could be more
flexible. But yeah, building five and
then turning it into seven um is not the
desired direction. And um you can always
amend laws. So, I would be fine starting
with one and just knowing we can always
come back. If you, you know, if planning
says, "Hey, we're seeing things that
would be better if we had this
flexibility or we had more discretion.
Um, I'd be fine starting more limited
and um and expanding if the need
presented itself." And it sounds like
you guys are both inclined to one
anyway.
>> Yeah, I I should have asked this during
» Yeah, I I should have asked this during
the questions, but this is a very
difficult format, difficult time, etc.
And that is are we allowed to have
different kind of objective design
standards for this than we are for
things that we have in downtown?
>> Oh, that's a good question.
» Oh, that's a good question.
>> I mean, is this get a are we allowed to
» I mean, is this get a are we allowed to
do specific set of objective design
standards just for this law?
>> Oh,
» Oh,
>> yes. [laughter]
» yes. [laughter]
>> Well, I've seen our planning direct. I
» Well, I've seen our planning direct. I
think the answer is that you're going to
need to apply the same objective
standards to these single family zoned
parcels as you do to your other single
family zoned parcels.
>> There's an there's a section in our
» There's an there's a section in our
current draft. There's like a little
chapter for small lot subdivision.
Correct. So there are different
standards. It's just that it's not a
different law. It's one law that's that
says if you're a duplex or if you're a
single family. Isn't that right? Well,
so the downtown has its own already
adopted objective design standards that
don't affect any of the single family
residentially zoned parcels. We're
working on but have not yet brought to
you for adoption the citywide ODS. Okay.
By the way, we're uh about to need more
time. Um [laughter]
five minutes or is that too aggressive?
>> Let's move to extend by 10 minutes. So
» Let's move to extend by 10 minutes. So
till 10:55.
>> All right.
» All right.
>> And let's I'll move we extend to 10:55.
» And let's I'll move we extend to 10:55.
Second. All in favor?
>> All in favor? I
» All in favor? I
>> I
» I
>> um
I think we have consensus on number one
in this policy decision unless staff
wants to tell us why we should be doing
something else.
>> I think you have consensus on both
» I think you have consensus on both
actually. you have uh direction pursue
one and I don't think unless I've heard
otherwise staff is not recommending
>> additional lot split opportunities under
» additional lot split opportunities under
SB9. Uh it doesn't seem like you would
like to see that either. So it sounds
like we've got policy direction. But and
then the one thing I would like to see
if we're in agreement on is can we
explore whether
we can do anything else regarding public
safety that isn't just application by
application. So those are the three
things I wrote down. Uh option number
one on ADUs, no SB9 lot splits and staff
pursue the what it would take to make
safety findings.
>> Yes, please. And um we'd love to see
» Yes, please. And um we'd love to see
those objective design standards come
back quickly because they're pretty uh
they're pretty important in all of this.
So um but um with that, I think we're
good on this matter.
>> Yes, we're good on this.
» Yes, we're good on this.
>> Yes, I think staff got enough direction
» Yes, I think staff got enough direction
to move forward with the next best.
>> Terrific. And since we've already done
» Terrific. And since we've already done
the various reports, I believe
>> you for answering all our questions.
» you for answering all our questions.
>> Yeah, thank you again. That was a
» Yeah, thank you again. That was a
>> really novel thing to get our arms
» really novel thing to get our arms
around and it's not as novel as it
should be. Um, are there any matters
initiated?
>> I move we adjourn.
» I move we adjourn.
>> Motion to
» Motion to
>> Could it hit my five minutes?
» Could it hit my five minutes?
>> Second.