[0:06] right now. I think
[0:09] >> I think I would say maybe um
[0:12] » I think I would say maybe um
[0:12] >> because right now it's just going to be
[0:14] » because right now it's just going to be
[0:14] >> it's just what
[0:15] » it's just what
[0:15] >> it's just going to be council member
[0:16] » it's just going to be council member
[0:16] Hawky.
[0:16] >> Yeah, maybe put it on since she's there.
[0:18] » Yeah, maybe put it on since she's there.
[0:18] Yes, that'd be great. Thanks for asking.
[8:12] » [sighs]
[9:08] » Good evening and welcome. Sorry we're
[9:10] starting a minute late. Um to tonight's
[9:14] March 3rd regular meeting of the Arinda
[9:15] City Council. I'll ask the city clerk to
[9:17] please uh call the role. And we have um
[9:20] one remote uh hello council member
[9:24] Hawky. Sorry for the uh the tardy start.
[9:27] >> It's all right. Hello.
[9:28] » It's all right. Hello.
[9:28] >> So, note for the record that all council
[9:30] » So, note for the record that all council
[9:30] members are present.
[9:32] >> Actually, we have
[9:33] » Actually, we have
[9:33] >> Well, except the one that you just noted
[9:34] » Well, except the one that you just noted
[9:34] who's
[9:35] >> and the excused absence.
[9:36] » and the excused absence.
[9:36] >> Oh, so I'm so sorry. [laughter]
[9:40] » Oh, so I'm so sorry. [laughter]
[9:40] >> So, we are missing Janet tonight.
[9:43] » So, we are missing Janet tonight.
[9:43] >> Yes,
[9:43] » Yes,
[9:43] >> she has an excuse absence.
[9:44] » she has an excuse absence.
[9:44] >> Yes, she does.
[9:45] » Yes, she does.
[9:45] >> Okay. Thank you. And so, note that.
[9:48] » Okay. Thank you. And so, note that.
[9:48] >> Thank you. And with that, um we will
[9:52] » Thank you. And with that, um we will
[9:52] please stand for the pledge of
[9:53] allegiance.
[9:56] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[9:59] United States of America of America, the
[10:02] republic for which it stands,
[10:04] >> one nation,
[10:07] » one nation,
[10:07] >> indivisible, liberty and justice for
[10:10] » indivisible, liberty and justice for
[10:10] all.
[10:11] >> Thank you.
[10:15] The next um item is to adopt the agenda.
[10:19] And I will once again um suggest that we
[10:22] do the council member I mean uh city
[10:25] manager and council member reports um
[10:28] before we go to the regular business. So
[10:30] that would be after public forum and
[10:32] consent calendar. Um with that proposal,
[10:35] do I have a second?
[10:38] >> I'll second it.
[10:40] » I'll second it.
[10:40] >> All in favor?
[10:42] » All in favor?
[10:42] Hi.
[10:43] >> All right. So, unfortunately because we
[10:44] » All right. So, unfortunately because we
[10:44] have a member has a by roll call
[10:47] tonight.
[10:53] » Council member uh Hawky.
[10:57] >> Yeah. I
[10:58] » Yeah. I
[10:58] >> council member Marani.
[10:59] » council member Marani.
[10:59] >> I Vice Mayor G.
[11:02] » I Vice Mayor G.
[11:02] >> I mayor Iverson
[11:04] » I mayor Iverson
[11:04] >> I. Thank you. With that we have an
[11:06] » I. Thank you. With that we have an
[11:06] agenda. We'll move on to items for the
[11:08] good of the city. Uh our first item is
[11:10] to introduce uh two new employees uh
[11:14] Cole Heslip and Estella Ramirez. Do we
[11:16] have uh some people to come and
[11:18] introduce them? I it will be me uh
[11:20] introducing Cole. Cole, would you mind
[11:21] standing up to the public podium? And
[11:23] I'm delighted to introduce you to Cole
[11:25] Heslip who joined the city as this our
[11:28] assistant to the city manager. Man, uh
[11:31] Cole uh is I'm sorry. Cole most recently
[11:35] served as a senior management analyst
[11:37] with the city of Wheatidge, Colorado,
[11:38] where he led the city's innovation team
[11:40] and implementing operational
[11:42] improvements and served as staff liaison
[11:44] to the community partners grant program
[11:46] committee and the legislative advocacy
[11:48] program. He was also a key member of
[11:50] their budget team and collaborative
[11:52] collaborated across departments to
[11:53] support a variety of citywide
[11:55] initiatives. Prior to working in
[11:57] Wheatidge, Cole worked for the city of
[11:59] Vanetta in Oregon in the city manager's
[12:02] office where he led economic
[12:03] development, emergency management, and
[12:05] social media communications. His
[12:07] professional background includes the
[12:09] roles in the city of Aspen and served as
[12:12] a management consultant with CA
[12:15] University Public Management. That's
[12:17] correct. That's correct.
[12:18] >> Uh he earned his mers in public
[12:20] » Uh he earned his mers in public
[12:20] administration from the University of
[12:21] Kansas, his bachelor in political
[12:23] science from Humbult. And while Cole has
[12:25] recently [clears throat] relocated to
[12:26] join us, he's very familiar with
[12:28] California territory. He grew up in
[12:29] Humboldt and he has family in nearby
[12:32] Moraga. So, if you could join me in um
[12:35] uh joining uh I don't know why I can't
[12:37] talk tonight. I apologize, Cole. Uh in
[12:40] welcoming Cole to the city of Arinda.
[12:48] » Cole, welcome. I know we've got a big
[12:50] pile of work for you to do. I'm pretty
[12:52] excited to have you start. Did you want
[12:54] to say a few words?
[12:55] >> Yeah, I just want to say thank you so
[12:57] » Yeah, I just want to say thank you so
[12:57] much for the opportunity to join the
[12:59] team here at the city of Arinda. Uh like
[13:02] you said, uh Linda has got a lot of
[13:05] projects ready for the city to take on
[13:07] and I'm excited to get started on some
[13:10] of them, join some of the ones that are
[13:12] already ongoing and uh continue to
[13:14] support the community and the
[13:15] organization here. So, I look forward to
[13:18] working with the council and the
[13:19] community for
[13:21] >> Thank you. We're looking forward to
[13:22] » Thank you. We're looking forward to
[13:22] working with you as well.
[13:25] >> Thanks, Cole.
[13:26] » Thanks, Cole.
[13:26] >> Thank you.
[13:27] » Thank you.
[13:27] >> And then next up will be Estella
[13:31] » And then next up will be Estella
[13:31] and Scott will do her introduction.
[13:34] >> Good evening, city council. Scott
[13:35] » Good evening, city council. Scott
[13:35] Christie, public works director. I'm
[13:38] also pleased to introduce Estella
[13:40] Ramirez, who joins us as our new
[13:42] management analyst in the public works
[13:44] and engineering department. So, we're
[13:46] excited about this position because it
[13:48] kind of combines some of the engineering
[13:51] technician tasks with management
[13:53] analysts and u those sort of related
[13:57] tasks, you know, including records
[14:00] management, responding to public records
[14:02] requests. a lot of things that engineers
[14:04] have typically done, you know, in
[14:06] addition to helping us out with some of
[14:08] the administration of the clean water
[14:10] NPDES program from the standpoint of
[14:12] helping coate reports, provide reports
[14:16] to the uh state water board, etc. help
[14:19] us with grant administration, the
[14:21] capital budget and things like that. So,
[14:25] Asella comes to us from the city of
[14:27] Pleasanton where she handled some
[14:30] administrative tasks in the business uh
[14:33] development area. Also, again, she
[14:36] handled some of the same tasks that I
[14:38] mentioned there for for their
[14:40] department. Also, she's worked with the
[14:42] city of San Leandro in the engineering
[14:45] department there. So, she's wellversed
[14:48] with, I believe, what we do and we're
[14:50] looking forward to having her help us
[14:52] out. And then she's also worked in the
[14:55] past with the city of Oakland and also
[14:57] the county of Marin. She has a
[14:59] bachelor's degree in business
[15:01] administration with an emphasis in
[15:03] public administration. So with that,
[15:06] I'll um introduce Estella.
[15:09] >> Hi. [laughter]
[15:14] » Thank you. Thank you so much for the
[15:15] warm welcome. Um, just really grateful
[15:18] to be part of the team and I'm eager to
[15:21] contribute. Um,
[15:25] Scott, Doug, and Linda already have me
[15:28] diving right in. I've been busy my last
[15:30] two weeks, and I just look forward to
[15:32] bringing my skills to um improving our
[15:36] processes, streamlining so that we can
[15:38] better serve the community with greater
[15:40] efficiency. And yeah, I look forward to
[15:43] supporting council initiatives and
[15:46] priorities in any way I can. So, thank
[15:48] you again. Oh, and I do want to note I
[15:51] was an executive assistant to the um
[15:54] council in San Leandro. So, I want to
[15:56] thank you very much for your service. I
[15:58] know it's a lot more than just two
[16:00] meetings a month. So, thank you for
[16:02] that. [gasps and sighs]
[16:04] >> Thank you. It sounds like you have an
[16:05] » Thank you. It sounds like you have an
[16:05] incredible background for this position.
[16:07] So, thank you for joining and we look
[16:09] forward to working with you. Does anyone
[16:11] else have anything? We'll um Yeah,
[16:14] welcome. Welcome to both of our new
[16:16] employees. Thank you so much for
[16:18] serving, Arinda.
[16:20] >> Thank you. And with that, we'll move on
[16:22] » Thank you. And with that, we'll move on
[16:22] to our next item uh for the good of the
[16:24] city, which is a certificate of
[16:26] recognition for American Red Cross
[16:28] Month. Um we do have a representative
[16:31] tonight, Eva Marquez, uh from the Red
[16:33] Cross. I'm going to do I'm going to talk
[16:34] for um just a minute with some of the um
[16:37] the really cool uh just introductory
[16:40] notes that were shared with us and then
[16:42] um we'll do the certificate and see if
[16:44] you'd like to say a few words as well.
[16:47] Um the American Red Cross volunteers
[16:49] have stepped up to deliver relief and
[16:51] care across our country and around the
[16:52] world, bringing out the best of humanity
[16:54] in times of crisis as Clara Barton,
[16:56] founder of American Red Cross did over
[16:59] 140 years ago. The volunteers, blood and
[17:01] platelet donors, and supporters shine a
[17:03] beacon of hope in people's darkest
[17:05] hours. Delivering shelter, food, and
[17:07] comfort during disasters, providing
[17:09] critical blood donations for hospital
[17:11] patients, supporting service members,
[17:13] veterans, and their families, and saving
[17:15] lives with first aid, CPR, AED, and
[17:17] other skills. With 1,148
[17:21] volunteers in Contraosta County, the
[17:23] American Red Cross assisted or responded
[17:25] to 101 disasters assisting 190 families
[17:29] through their sound the alarm program.
[17:31] Um, and through the sound the alarm
[17:34] program, the American Red Cross
[17:35] installed 778 smoke alarms, making 241
[17:39] homes safer, and trained 425 students
[17:42] through the youth preparedness programs.
[17:45] In addition, Contraosta County residents
[17:47] donated 18,299
[17:50] units of life-saving blood, hosted 530
[17:53] blood drives, and trained 12,164
[17:56] citizens in first aid, CPR, AED, and
[17:59] aquatics, and provided 463 case services
[18:02] to military members and their families.
[18:05] This work to uplift our community is
[18:06] made possible by those who selflessly
[18:09] answer the call to help whenever and
[18:11] wherever it is needed. We hereby
[18:13] recognize this month of March in honor
[18:15] of their remarkable service. And we ask
[18:17] everyone to join in their commitment to
[18:19] care for one another. And um with that,
[18:22] I will bring the certificate and or do
[18:25] you want to do you want to say a few
[18:26] words first and then we'll um do a
[18:28] photo?
[18:29] >> Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor, Vice
[18:31] » Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor, Vice
[18:31] Mayor, Council Members G. Good evening.
[18:34] My name is Eva Marquez. I'm the
[18:36] volunteer engagement manager for the
[18:38] American Red Cross. I handle Contra
[18:41] Costa Alamita and the entire North Bay
[18:45] and I've been with the organization for
[18:46] about 35 years. And so I'm I'm so
[18:49] grateful that I have the opportunity to
[18:51] be here tonight and we're so um
[18:54] delighted that we're partnering with the
[18:56] city of Arinda. Um it's been truly an
[18:59] American Red Cross joy to able to
[19:02] partner with the city of Orinda. um and
[19:06] to continue our commitment because of
[19:08] your support that we're able to be there
[19:10] and respond to disasters whenever it's
[19:12] needed. And we've already partnered with
[19:16] some of the employees and they got
[19:18] trained in sheltering um and in hope
[19:21] that when there's a large disaster in
[19:22] Contra Cara that we are prepared and to
[19:25] be there for the community whenever it's
[19:27] needed. So, thank you so much for that
[19:29] and we look forward to working with you.
[19:31] And if there's anything that we can do,
[19:34] preparedness, handsonly CPR or blood
[19:38] drive or even volunteering to build our
[19:40] capacity so that we can be there right
[19:42] away when something happened. Um, let me
[19:46] know because again, I'm in volunteer
[19:48] services. So, we're always building our
[19:50] capacity to respond right away when
[19:53] there's a need. So, thank you so much.
[20:03] there an opportunity for public comment
[20:06] on this?
[20:07] >> Sure. Why don't we do the certificate
[20:08] » Sure. Why don't we do the certificate
[20:08] and then we'll take public comment.
[20:09] >> Thank you.
[21:10] And with that, we'll ask if uh there is
[21:12] public comment on this matter. It
[21:13] appears we have uh one speaker.
[21:19] » Good evening. [clears throat] For
[21:21] forgive my attire. I just came from my
[21:23] oldest granddaughter's softball
[21:25] practice, so I'm a hodgepodge of a dress
[21:28] shirt and other clothing.
[21:32] I just want to say, as I said last year,
[21:35] I have no issue with the uh American Red
[21:39] Cross and I have no issue with our local
[21:44] people who spoke here.
[21:47] But I think it's important for the
[21:49] public record that people understand
[21:53] that the local Red Cross is different
[21:57] and independent from the abomination
[22:00] known as the International Red Cross,
[22:03] which most notably didn't lift a finger
[22:07] or pay any visit to any of the Israeli
[22:11] hostages captured
[22:14] during the terrorist attack of October.
[22:17] 7, 2023.
[22:19] And as the council made clear last year,
[22:24] honoring the local Red Cross folks
[22:30] uh is not any,
[22:32] [clears throat] excuse me, endorsement
[22:35] or honoring of the National Red Cross.
[22:39] I'm not here to ask you to condemn them.
[22:42] I condemn them, but I just want to be
[22:44] clear that we're just because they share
[22:47] the name quote red cross unquote quote
[22:51] in their names that nothing that is
[22:53] happening here tonight is honoring
[22:57] the very awful people running the
[23:00] International Red Cross. Thank you. My
[23:02] name for the record is Nick Warrenoff.
[23:06] I've lived in Arinda for over 23 years.
[23:09] Thank you.
[23:11] >> Thank you.
[23:12] » Thank you.
[23:12] Uh is there anybody else who would like
[23:13] to speak on um either of the items for
[23:16] the good of the city?
[23:18] Seeing none, we will now go to the
[23:20] public forum. The public forum is an
[23:23] opportunity for members of the public to
[23:25] speak on any item within the
[23:26] jurisdiction of the city that is not on
[23:28] the agenda. In addition, uh a speaker
[23:30] has the option of addressing the council
[23:32] of an on an item that's listed on the
[23:34] agenda if the speaker will not be
[23:36] present when the agenda item is taken
[23:37] up. Um, we ask that people limit
[23:41] comments to three minutes and I'll ask
[23:42] if we have anyone for public comment. I
[23:44] have I mean uh for public forum. I have
[23:47] not checked. Yeah, we have um at least
[23:50] one which is uh Emily Pulkari for public
[23:53] forum. Please come on up.
[23:56] And actually we have a second one as
[23:57] well. [clears throat]
[23:59] >> Hi, thank you. Um I wanted to make sure
[24:02] » Hi, thank you. Um I wanted to make sure
[24:02] that you all got my email about the
[24:05] serious accident on Coral. Um it was
[24:08] very jarring to have that happen a week
[24:10] after we had been discussing the safety
[24:13] measures. Um I don't want to,
[24:17] you know, there was a young person
[24:19] involved. I don't want to go into um
[24:21] anything too detailed, but um I'm
[24:24] requesting that you expedite do whatever
[24:26] you can to expedite bringing that up for
[24:29] a vote, the safety measures on Coral and
[24:32] whatever you can um in terms of
[24:35] instituting temporary safety measures
[24:37] like the temporary sidewalk. If we could
[24:40] get some enforcement out there, that
[24:43] would really, I think, go a long way. I
[24:45] know that um safety at the elementary
[24:48] schools is important and I've seen
[24:50] myself that that's effective. Um but
[24:53] some circulation I think would really
[24:55] help. Um
[24:58] and that's it. Thank you. Oh, one other
[25:00] thing. If you are I don't know exactly
[25:02] what the plan would be for the sidewalk.
[25:04] I don't like if it would be like the
[25:06] sidewalk on Moraga Way which only takes
[25:09] up street or if it would um go into
[25:12] people's yards. But this neighbor who I
[25:16] don't know should probably know before
[25:18] they go about fixing their property um
[25:21] if it's going if a sidewalk is going to
[25:23] go in there. Um so thank you.
[25:28] >> Thank you. And while we cannot comment
[25:30] » Thank you. And while we cannot comment
[25:30] on that, I would just note for the
[25:31] record that we had several letters this
[25:33] week on the same topic and appreciate
[25:34] you coming to speak in person about it.
[25:36] >> Okay. Thank you. Um we also have a I'm
[25:39] » Okay. Thank you. Um we also have a I'm
[25:39] sorry. Did you have any questions or
[25:40] comments? Okay. Um, we also have Shaheen
[25:44] uh Tons and I hope I'm uh pronouncing
[25:46] your name correctly. Come on up.
[25:48] >> Ton, thank you.
[25:54] » Good [clears throat] evening.
[25:57] >> Uh, I'm here to talk about the agenda
[25:59] » Uh, I'm here to talk about the agenda
[25:59] item H2 actually because I won't be here
[26:02] when it comes up on the agenda.
[26:05] Um this was an item to do with revising
[26:08] the private road acceptance policy that
[26:11] was uh instituted a few years ago and
[26:14] which has been a focus of the uh
[26:16] infrastructure subcommittee.
[26:19] Uh I sent a communication earlier today
[26:21] to to the board uh to the council sorry
[26:25] and I hope that you all get a chance to
[26:27] read it at some point.
[26:29] Um but when I did that there was one
[26:31] point I forgot to mention and one of
[26:34] those points was authorize the city
[26:36] engineer to grant exceptions.
[26:39] Uh I feel that's a very bad idea and
[26:41] it's nothing to do with Scott. Um what
[26:44] will happen if you do this it will make
[26:47] the whole policy effectively toothless
[26:50] because the city engineer will be
[26:52] allowed to grant exceptions to it. The
[26:54] engineer will become he or she will
[26:56] become subject to political pressure and
[26:59] be put in a very uncomfortable
[27:00] situation.
[27:02] And also once an exception is granted
[27:05] other people will want exceptions
[27:08] which might be similar but not quite the
[27:10] same. They might claim discrimination if
[27:12] they're not granted the exception at
[27:14] that point.
[27:16] Uh that's all I have to say on that and
[27:19] uh I know that there's going to be a
[27:20] vote on this uh revision to the policy
[27:23] soon. Uh I'd like the council just to
[27:25] remember
[27:27] to my knowledge Orinda is the only city
[27:29] really going down this path. uh many
[27:32] other cities have considered it back in
[27:34] 2017 18 and they all after a while
[27:38] rejected doing anything about it and
[27:40] Arinda is pretty much the only city
[27:42] going ahead with it and is that a good
[27:45] idea or is it raising red flags if
[27:47] everybody else isn't doing it so that's
[27:50] just something to consider um so that's
[27:53] all so please read my communication
[27:56] perhaps speak to councils from the other
[27:58] cities um get some second legal opinions
[28:03] from people you know and um then decide.
[28:07] Thanks.
[28:09] >> Thank you and thank you for coming to
[28:10] » Thank you and thank you for coming to
[28:10] speak tonight. Uh it looks like do we
[28:13] have another speaker on public?
[28:19] » Thank you and good evening.
[28:24] Over
[28:26] the last couple of years,
[28:29] there have been movements
[28:34] uh such as United Against Hate,
[28:39] Californians Against Hate,
[28:43] and the like. And as some of you may
[28:47] recall, I have opposed those for a
[28:50] variety of reasons.
[28:55] » [clears throat]
[28:56] >> My worst fears have been realized
[29:00] » My worst fears have been realized
[29:00] because at
[29:03] the most recent meeting of our local
[29:08] high school board, the Alkalani Union
[29:13] High School District,
[29:17] people
[29:21] spoke up
[29:24] asking the board
[29:27] to ban
[29:30] a student club
[29:35] called Club America,
[29:37] which is an outgrowth of Turning Point
[29:40] USA,
[29:43] founded by the late Charlie Kirk.
[29:47] And
[29:49] this is a community that
[29:52] this when I say this I'm talking about
[29:54] Lamarinda is a community that prides
[29:57] itself ostentatiously as being in
[30:01] support of diversity and inclusion.
[30:05] But what happened at the high school
[30:07] board meeting was that several people
[30:10] spoke at the public forum
[30:13] [snorts] asking the board to ban
[30:17] Club America
[30:20] because they did not like the fact that
[30:22] it was a conservative organization
[30:26] and they
[30:29] pretended
[30:31] that there that this that it was a hate
[30:33] organization.
[30:36] And as you all know, the first amendment
[30:39] provides for freedom of speech and
[30:41] association,
[30:43] freedom for the thought and the speech
[30:45] we hate. Hate speech is constitutionally
[30:48] protected.
[30:50] And when these people spoke against Club
[30:54] America,
[30:56] the people in the audience applauded the
[30:59] speakers asking that that group of
[31:01] students be banned.
[31:04] and Superintendent Nickerson and the
[31:07] members of the school of the high school
[31:09] board did not have the courage
[31:13] to stand up to those people and tell
[31:15] them no, the first amendment allows them
[31:20] to to be a c an onampus club. So I just
[31:26] urge you
[31:28] next time you think about
[31:31] your United Against Hate campaign to
[31:34] reel it in. Thank you.
[31:37] >> Thank you. Is there anyone uh first of
[31:39] » Thank you. Is there anyone uh first of
[31:39] all any comments on that or which I
[31:42] guess we can't really comment. Um
[31:44] anybody else for public for public
[31:45] forum?
[31:47] Great. Seeing none, um we will move to
[31:50] our modified agenda. We're going to do
[31:52] council member and city manager reports
[31:56] uh just to do announcements before we
[31:58] get into the main agenda. Uh does anyone
[32:00] have any meeting or uh other updates
[32:03] they'd like to share?
[32:07] » You you
[32:12] have a little bit of a list. So if you
[32:14] think of one uh hold up your hand by the
[32:15] time I'm done. [laughter]
[32:17] First of all, I just came from the
[32:19] Lamarind to Sunrise Rotary Good
[32:21] Character Awards. Um, you may know those
[32:24] from the newspaper where they take three
[32:26] um standout middle schoolers from each
[32:28] of our middle schoolers, Stanley, um,
[32:32] uh, JM and OIS and uh, and give awards
[32:37] for what they think is outstanding
[32:39] character and um, it was just a
[32:41] wonderful chance to recognize some of
[32:44] our young citizens. Um, we did coffee
[32:47] with the mayor on February 25th where we
[32:50] talked a lot about what's going on in
[32:51] our business community, economic
[32:53] development, some changes in our small
[32:56] business community, and just answered
[32:57] some questions. Um, they did ask
[32:59] questions about what's going on with the
[33:00] BART um funding, and it was just a
[33:03] really nice uh interactive forum. On
[33:06] Saturday this past week, we did our
[33:08] commission and committee interviews uh
[33:10] and look forward to um welcoming some
[33:13] new faces onto our city commissions and
[33:14] committees soon. Um we also got a
[33:18] legislative update from Cal Cities uh
[33:21] last Thursday where we had senators
[33:23] Grayson Mcernney and Rahab come and talk
[33:26] about some of the bills that are coming
[33:27] along this year and um take some
[33:29] questions from people about uh what to
[33:32] expect and what their priorities are.
[33:34] So, it was nice for um I think everybody
[33:36] here tonight was there to hear firsthand
[33:38] what's coming along from Sacramento. Uh
[33:41] and finally, we um I had not done a
[33:45] certificate, but it is Women's History
[33:47] Month in the month of March. And so, uh,
[33:50] since we learned today that the Myati
[33:52] Gym is officially being named the
[33:54] Sabrino, um, UNESCO, uh, gym, I've asked
[33:59] that it be put on our agenda for our
[34:00] next meeting, uh, the second meeting in
[34:02] March to do a little bit of an
[34:04] acknowledgement for what a cool moment
[34:06] that is in women's history to have
[34:08] somebody so special that we get to honor
[34:09] with renaming our gym. Uh, with that, is
[34:12] there anything else that anyone forgot
[34:14] [clears throat] or would like to add?
[34:16] I'll ask the city manager for her
[34:18] reports as well.
[34:19] >> Uh thank you honorable mayor, members of
[34:21] » Uh thank you honorable mayor, members of
[34:21] city council. Uh just a couple of quick
[34:23] updates. Uh this past couple last week
[34:27] we had uh training sessions for Ladis,
[34:29] our evacuation planning tool for
[34:32] residents uh in the audience and those
[34:34] potentially watching at home. You can
[34:35] visit arinda ready.com and um use our
[34:39] evacuation modeling tool to take a look
[34:41] at over a hundred different scenarios
[34:43] for evacuation. Uh the model itself is
[34:46] going to be updated. Uh the consultant
[34:50] Ladress, the company that uh offers the
[34:53] program is making updates to its
[34:55] modeling including embercasting. And so
[34:57] over the next couple of weeks, we'll be
[34:59] including that as part of the public
[35:00] portal as well.
[35:02] Just a quick update on the information
[35:05] related to BART. Uh we did receive some
[35:08] correspondence from BART that after
[35:09] their last work session uh the BART
[35:12] board determined that they were going to
[35:15] apply what they're calling the
[35:16] alternative service framework. A little
[35:18] bit different from what we reported at
[35:20] our last meeting in so much that they
[35:22] are not uh they won't be looking at
[35:25] station closures in the first sort of
[35:28] round. If there is no um revenue measure
[35:32] that either is placed on the ballot or
[35:34] passed in November, they will be looking
[35:36] at service cuts first and then looking
[35:39] to 2027 2028 for station closures. And
[35:43] they've changed their language around
[35:44] station closures to to say that the
[35:46] board will make those decisions about
[35:48] station closures. I think part of what
[35:50] it I've heard is that they really want
[35:53] to see what impact writership impacts
[35:56] there might be from some of those
[35:57] service cuts before they make any
[35:58] decisions about station closure. So, I
[36:00] just wanted to give that update for the
[36:02] public and for the council that that is
[36:04] in fact um what they've reported back to
[36:06] the city. Uh and I will leave it at
[36:10] that.
[36:11] >> Thank you very much. Um
[36:13] » Thank you very much. Um
[36:13] >> mayor, and again I I see that we're
[36:16] » mayor, and again I I see that we're
[36:16] going to have a member of the public who
[36:17] wants to comment on these items. I was
[36:18] just going to ask if we had public
[36:20] comment.
[36:24] » Thank you. Nick Warrenoff speaking.
[36:28] The record should reflect
[36:32] Oh, let me say initially I am pleased to
[36:35] hear that Ladress is going to update
[36:40] their modeling to take into account
[36:42] ember casting.
[36:45] The record should reflect that between
[36:48] the release to the public of the Ladress
[36:51] software and tonight,
[36:54] I have been an extremely vigorous
[36:59] critic of the initial iteration of Ladis
[37:03] specifically because it did not include
[37:08] ember casting.
[37:10] ember casting being that a wildfire
[37:13] casts
[37:15] embers a mile or two ahead of itself.
[37:20] And of course, then those embers start
[37:22] spot fires which can render
[37:26] one or more evacuation routes unusable.
[37:31] And and when that information
[37:35] came to light, I very publicly,
[37:38] frequently,
[37:40] and harshly criticized
[37:44] that product. So I am very glad to hear
[37:48] that that law, which is only one of
[37:52] several, is being remedied.
[37:56] And I [clears throat] am sure that
[37:57] before I get back to my seat in the rear
[38:00] of this auditorium,
[38:02] [snorts] the city manager will tell you
[38:04] that my criticism had absolutely nothing
[38:07] to do with changing
[38:10] with Ladress changing its software.
[38:12] Thank you.
[38:20] Um, with that there are no other
[38:23] comments on the council member and your
[38:26] board said that earlier. Uh, I'm sorry.
[38:30] >> Mic was off. Um, my first uh question is
[38:34] » Mic was off. Um, my first uh question is
[38:34] if anybody has any changes to the items
[38:36] on the consent calendar. Anything you'd
[38:38] like to pull for discussion?
[38:40] >> Mayor, if I could just mention that uh
[38:42] » Mayor, if I could just mention that uh
[38:42] we do have item 5.2 two, which is the
[38:45] ratification of the fire code update. I
[38:46] mentioned I just wanted to mention that
[38:48] Chief Isacs is here in the audience if
[38:50] you had any questions for him prior to
[38:53] the adoption or if you wanted to have
[38:55] him come up and speak quickly. I'm
[38:58] putting him on the spot. He but if you
[39:00] wanted to make any comments about the
[39:02] changes to the fire code. I
[39:05] >> thank you for that opportunity.
[39:07] » thank you for that opportunity.
[39:07] Given that we have the chief here, um I
[39:11] would just love to pull F2 so we can
[39:14] simply give him an opportunity to speak.
[39:16] It's a it's a joy to have him. He's in
[39:20] the upper right corner trying to hide.
[39:22] >> I was [laughter] You knew he wouldn't
[39:24] » I was [laughter] You knew he wouldn't
[39:24] miss that. Um real quickly, uh Chief
[39:27] Isaac, we're going to vote on the other
[39:29] consent calendar items and then we're
[39:30] going to do your F2. Uh a few words,
[39:34] please. Um, so with that, uh, do I have
[39:37] a motion on, and I would just note for
[39:39] the record that we did get a public
[39:40] comment on F2 in writing. Um, if items
[39:44] F1, F3, and F4, do we have a motion to
[39:47] adopt? So moved. Do I have a second?
[39:50] >> Seconded.
[39:51] » Seconded.
[39:51] >> Roll call vote, please. City clerk.
[39:55] » Roll call vote, please. City clerk.
[39:55] >> Council member McConnie.
[39:57] » Council member McConnie.
[39:57] >> I. Vice Mayor G.
[39:59] » I. Vice Mayor G.
[39:59] >> I.
[40:00] » I.
[40:00] >> Council member Hawky.
[40:02] » Council member Hawky.
[40:02] >> I. Mayor Iverson.
[40:04] » I. Mayor Iverson.
[40:04] >> I thank you. And with that on I will
[40:07] » I thank you. And with that on I will
[40:07] bring item F2 up and we'll uh invite
[40:09] Chief Isacs to please uh just say a few
[40:11] words.
[40:14] >> Mayor, council members, thank you for
[40:15] » Mayor, council members, thank you for
[40:15] the opportunity to speak tonight. Every
[40:18] 3 years, the state of California updates
[40:20] the fire code. They require that we um
[40:24] make any modifications to the fire code
[40:26] and then we update it. because we're a
[40:28] fire district, we have to take it to
[40:30] both the city and the town as well as
[40:32] the county for ratification. Um, we do
[40:35] make amendments to our local fire code.
[40:38] Uh, the majority of those amendments
[40:40] have been in place since 2020. Um, the
[40:43] only changes we really made to it where
[40:45] we took some of the stuff out where the
[40:47] state fire code has caught up to us. The
[40:50] other um big item or topic for the fire
[40:53] code this year is the adoption of the
[40:55] California WOOI code. So traditionally
[40:58] the WOOI standards were found in three
[41:01] of the code books, the building code,
[41:03] residential code, and fire code. So, the
[41:05] state finally kind of got smart and they
[41:08] pulled all those requirements out of
[41:10] those individual code books and placed
[41:13] it into uh one code, the wildland urban
[41:17] interface code that is before you this
[41:19] evening. That is a new code. Um we did a
[41:22] couple um modifications to that just to
[41:25] streamline some language. It deals with
[41:28] construction standards. It deals with
[41:31] access uh water standards and also
[41:33] defensible space standards. Once the
[41:36] state finally decides on what they're
[41:38] going to do uh with zone zero, the fire
[41:40] marshall worked uh very closely with
[41:43] town and city staff as well as the
[41:45] county fire marshall group to make sure
[41:48] that we were aligned in as many areas as
[41:51] we could countywide. And that's the
[41:53] document that you have before you this
[41:55] evening. Um happy to answer any
[41:57] questions that you may have.
[42:01] I had one question. Um, there's the
[42:04] general principle that our local code
[42:07] can be more restrictive but not less
[42:08] than restrictive than the state code.
[42:11] Was there anything in these amendments
[42:12] where we opted for something a little
[42:14] bit uh different or more restricted
[42:16] restrictive than the state recommended
[42:18] standards?
[42:19] >> Uh, yes ma'am. all the modifications
[42:22] » Uh, yes ma'am. all the modifications
[42:22] that we put into the code uh road with
[42:24] standards. Um and I'm sorry I forgot to
[42:27] bring our code with us or with me this
[42:30] evening, but there were certain areas
[42:32] that we do go a little more restrictive.
[42:34] The one that really uh two that jump out
[42:36] at me, the under eve uh sprinklers for
[42:38] new construction and the road with uh
[42:41] the state code is 20 foot for a new
[42:43] road. We go 28 ft because we use that
[42:46] road as a fire break um in areas of the
[42:49] district. So we also allow for
[42:51] modification. So if a developer was
[42:54] coming in and said, "Hey, for X reasons,
[42:57] I can't meet that 28 foot road width."
[42:59] We can work with them to grant
[43:01] modifications.
[43:05] » And just for clarity, uh first of all,
[43:08] thank you Chief Isaac for being here. Um
[43:10] and just for clarity, because I know
[43:12] there's been a lot of talk and a lot of
[43:14] buzz in our community about when is zone
[43:17] zero coming, what will it mean locally?
[43:19] Um these amendments so far there have
[43:23] been no modifications to MOFD's fire
[43:25] code around zone zero. Is that correct?
[43:27] >> That is correct. Uh ordinance 2303 and
[43:30] » That is correct. Uh ordinance 2303 and
[43:30] 2303 or 2308 still stand. We have not
[43:34] made any changes. We have the two-foot
[43:36] non-combustible zone, not the 5- foot
[43:39] that uh the state's going to implement
[43:41] with zone zero. We have no update when
[43:43] the state's going to pick that topic
[43:45] back up.
[43:46] And but potentially if the state were to
[43:50] require it, that would mean changes
[43:52] locally as well.
[43:54] >> Potentially.
[43:54] » Potentially.
[43:54] >> Potentially. Yes. And
[43:56] » Potentially. Yes. And
[43:56] >> I'm saying this because our residents
[43:57] » I'm saying this because our residents
[43:57] may be looking to landscape and in when
[44:00] folks are doing that, you know, I would
[44:02] hate for someone to landscape keeping in
[44:04] mind a two twoft barrier and then, you
[44:07] know, six months or a year later have to
[44:09] rellandscape. So it's something I I
[44:12] assume we should be thinking about.
[44:13] >> Yes, ma'am.
[44:17] Uh, were there any other comments or
[44:19] questions? With that, I would and thank
[44:21] you very much for taking the time to be
[44:23] here tonight, Chief. Thank you.
[44:24] >> Um, do we have a motion to adopt F2?
[44:29] » Um, do we have a motion to adopt F2?
[44:29] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, do we have any public
[44:31] » Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, do we have any public
[44:31] comment on F2?
[44:34] >> Seeing none, do we have a motion to
[44:36] » Seeing none, do we have a motion to
[44:36] adopt F2?
[44:38] >> I'll move adoption of item F2.
[44:41] » I'll move adoption of item F2.
[44:41] >> Do I have a second?
[44:44] » Do I have a second?
[44:44] Council member Hawky, we're cold calling
[44:45] you. Would you like to
[44:46] >> second? Yes, absolutely.
[44:47] » second? Yes, absolutely.
[44:47] >> Make sure you're keeping your mute on.
[44:50] » Make sure you're keeping your mute on.
[44:50] Great. Roll call vote, please. City
[44:52] clerk. Council member McConn.
[44:56] Hawky
[44:57] >> I.
[44:58] » I.
[44:58] >> Gee,
[44:59] » Gee,
[44:59] >> I and I. Thank you. And with that, uh,
[45:02] » I and I. Thank you. And with that, uh,
[45:02] the consent calendar is now fully passed
[45:04] and we will move on to policy matters.
[45:08] Item H1 is our city of Arinda 2026
[45:11] legislative platform. And I'll ask the
[45:13] city manager if this is her category.
[45:15] >> Yes. Um um honorable mayor, members of
[45:17] » Yes. Um um honorable mayor, members of
[45:17] the council, this one from a staff
[45:18] perspective would be very quick. Last
[45:20] year, the council adopted its first
[45:23] legislative platform. Uh it's time for
[45:25] updating uh that platform for the new
[45:28] year. Uh the city worked with its
[45:30] consultant towns uh public affairs to
[45:33] put together an updated uh framework
[45:36] that's pretty or platform rather. It is
[45:39] very similar to last year's platform
[45:41] with a few redline changes that we're
[45:43] showing as an attachment to your staff
[45:45] report. But to summarize some of the
[45:47] areas where we were trying to refine uh
[45:50] some of our support and opposition
[45:52] positions, the first being supporting
[45:54] limits on the application of builder's
[45:56] remedy once a housing element has been
[45:58] certified.
[45:59] Supporting tools to address long-term
[46:01] vacant commercial properties.
[46:04] promoting pedestrian and ebike safety,
[46:06] including helmet and age appropriate
[46:08] operation requirements and supporting
[46:10] clarification of local authority to
[46:12] assess service related fees for street
[46:15] maintenance and supporting the
[46:17] sustainability enhancement of BART
[46:19] service at the Arinda station and
[46:21] opposing any service reductions,
[46:23] changes, or funding reallocations that
[46:25] would adversely affect the current level
[46:27] of service at that station. So, with
[46:29] that, I will turn it back over to the
[46:31] city council. See if you have any
[46:33] questions for me. I believe that Casey,
[46:37] our representative from Townsen Public
[46:38] Affairs is joining us via Zoom. If you
[46:40] have any questions for Casey, I'll note
[46:42] that the legislative session has uh the
[46:45] bill introduction period has concluded.
[46:47] Uh Casey and the Townsen team and the
[46:50] city staff will be working to go through
[46:53] uh the pieces of legislation that have
[46:55] been proposed and determine the city's
[46:57] position based on
[46:58] the council's adoption of this updated
[47:01] legislative platform.
[47:03] And with that, I'll turn it back over to
[47:04] the council for any questions.
[47:09] » Does anyone have any uh questions or
[47:10] comments that Well, actually, let's do
[47:12] questions, then we'll do public comment.
[47:15] Yes, please.
[47:18] Um my question is um thi this is
[47:21] Arinda's legislative platform but I want
[47:24] I'm assuming that it it mirrors to some
[47:28] extent the
[47:31] um the lawinda effort of working
[47:35] together.
[47:36] >> Yes. So earlier uh I believe right
[47:38] » Yes. So earlier uh I believe right
[47:38] before the beginning of the year we
[47:39] brought you a a lawinda framework that
[47:41] the council took a look at. It's more
[47:44] narrow than what we're proposing for the
[47:47] citywide platform uh and reflects the
[47:50] cooperation and and the mutual um areas
[47:54] for the three cities town and city of
[47:57] Lafayette and town of Maraga. And um so
[48:00] that that effort is underway just
[48:02] getting kicked off because Moraga took
[48:05] their framework back to the council at
[48:07] the end of January. So, we're just
[48:08] kicking off the regional um efforts with
[48:12] KC at Towns and Public Affairs as well.
[48:14] Um there's no conflicts between the two
[48:17] lists uh from what's on the platform and
[48:19] what's on the framework, but certainly
[48:21] this is more exhaustive than what's on
[48:22] the framework. The framework really
[48:23] tries to hone in on sort of core
[48:25] regional issues. transportation, housing
[48:27] are the ones I can come off the top of
[48:29] my head, but um just in case the
[48:32] community was curious, there's there
[48:35] might be certain overlap, but there's no
[48:37] nothing that's conflicting between the
[48:40] two platforms.
[48:44] This is maybe a little bit more of a
[48:46] comment but sort of a followup to the
[48:48] question and that is given the timing
[48:50] and I know that when we had the the
[48:52] Lamarinda framework it hadn't really
[48:55] happened yet but I I think it it would
[48:58] be good um in my opinion if if the
[49:03] Lamarinda framework would also um
[49:07] support the BART um part of what's in
[49:11] the platform.
[49:13] I'll have to take a look and see if
[49:14] there's broad enough language in there.
[49:17] The thought of trying to recirculate
[49:18] this to three elected bodies for
[49:21] readoption, it doesn't
[49:23] >> Yeah, I I'm
[49:24] » Yeah, I I'm
[49:24] >> something I would be looking forward to,
[49:25] » something I would be looking forward to,
[49:25] but let me see if there's a way to
[49:27] incorporate it under the current
[49:29] framework.
[49:29] >> It would certainly be nice to um have
[49:32] » It would certainly be nice to um have
[49:32] our combined support. I'm sure I know
[49:34] from talking to um everyone that we do,
[49:38] but it would be nice to make it um you
[49:41] know codified. So,
[49:43] >> okay. Are there any other questions?
[49:46] » okay. Are there any other questions?
[49:46] >> Yes, please.
[49:49] » Yes, please.
[49:49] >> Uh let's go. Uh Council Member Hawky and
[49:51] » Uh let's go. Uh Council Member Hawky and
[49:51] then uh Mel County, please.
[49:54] >> I'm wondering if you could tell us more
[49:56] » I'm wondering if you could tell us more
[49:56] about any legislation that's been
[49:58] introduced on the vacancy uh issue.
[50:02] I'm sorry, I didn't hear the on what
[50:04] issue.
[50:04] >> If any legislation is uh being
[50:07] » If any legislation is uh being
[50:07] introduced or considered about vacancies
[50:09] and what what can be done about vacant
[50:11] storefronts?
[50:12] >> I don't I'd have to ask Casey. We
[50:14] » I don't I'd have to ask Casey. We
[50:14] haven't done our deep dive yet on the
[50:16] bills that were introduced in the LA by
[50:18] February 20th. So, um I don't know Casey
[50:22] if you can think of any bills that have
[50:24] addressed long-term vacancies.
[50:27] >> Yeah. Uh Casey Elliott with Towns and
[50:29] » Yeah. Uh Casey Elliott with Towns and
[50:29] Public Affairs. um based on the bills
[50:33] that were introduced as of last of as of
[50:35] the 20th. I'm not aware of any that
[50:38] directly speak to the vacancy rate. I I
[50:41] would have to double check though. Um
[50:44] just to confirm. Additionally, there are
[50:46] about 600 spot bills. So, um probably in
[50:51] the next 2 to 3 weeks, we'll have a
[50:53] little bit better of an idea of all of
[50:54] the those policy proposals as they get
[50:57] fleshed out. But uh I'm happy to take a
[50:59] look at that and and get the information
[51:00] to you through staff.
[51:02] >> Thank you.
[51:04] » Thank you.
[51:04] >> Thank you. And council member Malcani,
[51:06] » Thank you. And council member Malcani,
[51:06] actually council member Hawky, did you
[51:07] have any other questions?
[51:08] >> No, thank you. Not this.
[51:10] » No, thank you. Not this.
[51:10] >> Council member Malcani. Yeah, there were
[51:12] » Council member Malcani. Yeah, there were
[51:12] I was just hoping that Casey or someone
[51:14] could speak to why there were some items
[51:17] that were removed
[51:20] and whether that was to be consistent
[51:22] with sort of and I was sort of wondering
[51:24] is that in terms of the changes which
[51:28] ones are consistent generally with sort
[51:30] of Cal City's platform or was it a
[51:35] regional effort? um or you know
[51:38] sometimes I see I see some things are
[51:40] sort of to keep up with existing
[51:43] uh bills in law.
[51:46] >> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm happy to take a a stab
[51:48] » Yeah, I'm I'm I'm happy to take a a stab
[51:48] at that. Council member, um several of
[51:51] the items that um are are stricken, for
[51:54] example, in the parks and community
[51:55] services section, those were actually
[51:58] repurposed and put into the public works
[52:00] section and and just some areas that
[52:02] felt maybe a little bit more appropriate
[52:04] for the specific items. um some of the
[52:06] the um SP 1383 items um just got shifted
[52:10] around. So So that was kind of more of a
[52:13] a formatting cleanup than um than than
[52:16] the substantive change. Um there were a
[52:18] couple of additional changes um where
[52:21] the platform uh spoke to maybe more of a
[52:24] federal or a state local or excuse me a
[52:27] state impact and not as much impacts on
[52:29] on the on the city. So those are some of
[52:32] the more uh kind of um surgical red
[52:35] lines if [clears throat] you will where
[52:36] it it those are more kind of some of the
[52:38] language modifications. Um so I think
[52:42] that covers the bulk of the strikeouts.
[52:46] I don't think that there was um anything
[52:50] that was pulled out because legislation
[52:54] addressed it. Um I think it's more just
[52:57] all kind of formatting and structural.
[53:00] >> Okay. And then what about there was it
[53:02] » Okay. And then what about there was it
[53:02] was removal of language
[53:05] in the community and economic
[53:08] development section. Maybe it was put
[53:10] elsewhere and I I failed to recognize
[53:12] that. But um item 11, it aims to achieve
[53:15] fair and proportionate representation on
[53:17] countywide and regional boards. Was that
[53:19] a legal update or no? No,
[53:23] >> I'm trying to find it.
[53:28] I'm looking at a strikeout on on I think
[53:32] it's
[53:35] H1 packet page 132. 132.
[53:44] My recollection is is that was one that
[53:47] kind of felt fell into the category of
[53:51] not necessarily being as city specific,
[53:53] but to the to that more more regional
[53:56] and countywide, I I don't believe there
[53:58] was a specific
[54:01] conversation about about broader than
[54:04] that of of that necessitated the removal
[54:06] of that item.
[54:12] » Yeah. I don't I don't recall why we took
[54:15] that out other than we didn't
[54:18] um
[54:22] we weren't sort of monitoring the I
[54:24] guess the states
[54:26] >> countywide and regional. So it would be
[54:27] » countywide and regional. So it would be
[54:28] >> regional and countywide boards process.
[54:31] » regional and countywide boards process.
[54:31] So I guess I just want to confirm that
[54:32] by taking it out the the understanding
[54:35] there is is more that it's it's
[54:38] something that extends to a jurisdiction
[54:41] beyond Arinda as opposed to a com we're
[54:44] not saying that we're not committed to
[54:46] fair um representation on countywide and
[54:49] regional boards because that was I think
[54:51] is something that's very important but
[54:52] it would be something that would be
[54:53] addressed through for example the
[54:54] Contraosta mayor's conference or um you
[54:58] know but but we do make our own
[54:59] appointments and so for that reason. I
[55:01] guess I would like to leave it in. But
[55:03] okay,
[55:06] but I don't have, you know, I could be
[55:08] persuaded, but I I could be persuaded as
[55:11] long as we are recognizing that it is a
[55:13] priority. I don't know that it needs to
[55:15] be in the legislative platform, but I do
[55:17] think it should be a priority.
[55:19] >> Um, we're still doing questions, so not
[55:22] » Um, we're still doing questions, so not
[55:22] going to comment on that yet. Um, are
[55:23] there any other questions? Um, uh, I had
[55:27] one, um, for Casey there. There was some
[55:30] advocacy letters that we got recently
[55:32] and I I didn't really do much to forward
[55:36] them but about uh landslides being
[55:38] included in uh disaster relief. Uh that
[55:42] that would be a category that could be
[55:44] covered in some cities in Southern
[55:45] California were trying to maybe get um a
[55:48] coalition of cities who were similarly
[55:50] uh potentially affected. Is that
[55:53] something that is somewhere in this
[55:55] platform or should we consider adding
[55:57] that?
[56:02] » Um
[56:05] there are there is a broad category
[56:08] under public health and safety. Um it's
[56:11] it's under funding opportunities but
[56:14] relates to disaster large scale disaster
[56:17] preparedness initiatives. Um, but I
[56:20] don't believe there's anything in here
[56:21] that gets quite down to the level of
[56:23] specificity related to um, landslides
[56:27] other than kind of broadly being in in
[56:29] disaster preparedness measures.
[56:33] >> Okay. Um, with that, um, I think we'll
[56:37] » Okay. Um, with that, um, I think we'll
[56:37] go to public comment and then we'll
[56:38] bring it up for discussion.
[56:41] Looks like we have, um, at least one
[56:43] public comment. I don't have any written
[56:44] speaker cards.
[56:46] I did not have time to fill out a
[56:49] speaker card because I was late getting
[56:51] here from my oldest granddaughter's
[56:53] softball practice. Sorry. I'll notify
[56:57] the clerk of my contact information.
[57:03] My public comment is that I would
[57:06] request that tonight somebody give us an
[57:10] overview
[57:12] of the process of
[57:15] how Towns and works for the city
[57:21] and particularly [clears throat] in
[57:22] terms of the communication. So for
[57:24] example, Madame Mayor, you mentioned you
[57:26] received some position letters. I'm just
[57:30] wondering if those are if if there's any
[57:33] public notice process or if that's to
[57:37] whatever if if they're publicly
[57:40] available.
[57:42] Uh if there's some place on the city
[57:44] website where somebody can uh see what's
[57:48] going on, someone who wants to keep up
[57:50] with legislation. So for example, if
[57:53] towns and note alerts the city that
[57:57] Scott Weiner has introduced some new
[57:59] bill to deincorporate Arinda,
[58:04] would Town Townsen notify the city and
[58:09] would that be a matter that someone
[58:12] could just sign up for an alert like we
[58:15] get alerts for meetings or do we have to
[58:18] do a weekly public records act request
[58:21] to see what's come in over the transom.
[58:25] I would just like and I think other
[58:27] people might be interested in how the
[58:30] process
[58:32] works. Do they draft the position
[58:34] letters and send them to you for
[58:36] signature? Is there collaboration?
[58:38] Uh how does the whole thing work? That
[58:42] is my request, my public comment is that
[58:45] someone give us a threeinut speech on
[58:48] how it works and what's available and
[58:50] where. Thank you.
[58:54] » First, I'll ask if there is any other
[58:56] public comment on this item.
[58:59] With that, we'll close the public
[59:00] portion of this and bring it back for
[59:02] discussion. I'd ask if the city manager
[59:03] would like to address anything that's
[59:04] been brought up so far.
[59:05] >> Um, first I'll start with Vice Mayor G's
[59:08] » Um, first I'll start with Vice Mayor G's
[59:08] question about the framework. Uh, the
[59:11] current lawinda framework as it relates
[59:13] to transportation and related
[59:15] infrastructure talks about two things.
[59:18] one it says the coalition looks to
[59:20] encourage and support federal and state
[59:22] actions that invest in local public
[59:25] infrastructure projects with regional
[59:27] benefits. Uh it also goes on to note
[59:31] that uh the framework would ex uh
[59:34] support expanding local transit
[59:37] microtransit bus services and emerging
[59:39] transit opportunities. So I think under
[59:41] that heading in that context that would
[59:43] be enough for the region to talk with
[59:47] one voice on the matter related to BART.
[59:51] Uh if the council is interested in me
[59:53] doing what the public speaker asked
[59:56] which is just a summary of how um we
[59:59] work with towns and I'm happy to do that
[1:00:01] as well.
[1:00:02] >> I think that would be for the public
[1:00:03] » I think that would be for the public
[1:00:03] benefit if you wouldn't mind just
[1:00:04] quickly addressing um how this all
[1:00:07] works.
[1:00:07] >> Sure. So, the towns and public affairs
[1:00:10] » Sure. So, the towns and public affairs
[1:00:10] team, Casey in particular, and I meet
[1:00:13] every other week uh via uh teams um
[1:00:16] online meeting uh where we talk about a
[1:00:19] variety of topics including bill
[1:00:21] introduction, timing, we talk about the
[1:00:23] appropriations process. Uh we talk about
[1:00:27] uh support and oppose matters uh when
[1:00:31] legislation is in front of us. Uh we
[1:00:33] discuss the regional group. and we
[1:00:36] discuss um
[1:00:40] trying to think what else we discuss.
[1:00:41] Those are the kind of the core pieces of
[1:00:43] advocacy visits to Sacramento. Uh that's
[1:00:46] also on the list and in fact uh there
[1:00:48] will be the city summit in April and we
[1:00:52] would be up in Sacramento and we're
[1:00:55] looking to plan an advocacy day up there
[1:00:58] as well. Uh the letters are largely
[1:01:02] crafted from towns and any support and
[1:01:04] opposition letters sent over to city
[1:01:06] staff for review. Staff reviews the
[1:01:08] letters and then we send them to the
[1:01:10] mayor for consideration of signature. Uh
[1:01:13] if I'm unable to get a hold of the mayor
[1:01:15] in a timely fashion uh that I'm
[1:01:17] authorized under the framework to or
[1:01:19] under the platform to sign those letters
[1:01:21] myself. So in some cases that at least
[1:01:25] one case that's happened. Um and then we
[1:01:29] submit those to Casey. Casey submits
[1:01:31] those to the portal and the state for
[1:01:33] the various committees that are
[1:01:35] reviewing bills uh so that our positions
[1:01:38] are on record.
[1:01:41] That'll do my summary. Thank you. And
[1:01:44] with that, I'll ask if there um if
[1:01:46] anybody on the council would like to
[1:01:47] lead off with their comments.
[1:01:51] We will cold call the remote person if
[1:01:53] uh if one's jumping in. [clears throat]
[1:01:56] That's fine. Um I I think it's a good
[1:01:59] platform. I like um particularly the
[1:02:02] BART uh bullet point and the vacancies
[1:02:06] bullet point. I think we have discussed
[1:02:08] the ebike issues and I'm glad to see
[1:02:11] that that is going to be addressed at
[1:02:13] the state level because it seems
[1:02:15] difficult for us to address it at a city
[1:02:17] level without some state changes in
[1:02:19] legislation. Um so I think this is a
[1:02:22] good platform for this year. I'm in
[1:02:23] favor of it.
[1:02:26] Thank you. Uh, Council Member Malcani, I
[1:02:28] think you were
[1:02:29] >> Yeah, I mean, I did think there were a
[1:02:31] » Yeah, I mean, I did think there were a
[1:02:31] couple provisions where it went into a
[1:02:33] specificity that I you don't usually see
[1:02:36] on a platform like when we already talk
[1:02:39] about ebike safety. Of course, safety to
[1:02:42] me means helmets and safety equipment,
[1:02:45] but to specifically mention it in the
[1:02:47] platform seemed um unusual. I guess I
[1:02:52] maybe it's more of a question for you
[1:02:53] know for Casey from Townsend. Is that
[1:02:55] something that we typically see in
[1:02:56] platforms? Is that to be consistent with
[1:02:59] sort of Cal? So, some of the changes
[1:03:01] surprised me and again I I don't really
[1:03:04] see the reason to I mean I I was I guess
[1:03:08] you know for the community and economic
[1:03:11] development former item 11 we had I mean
[1:03:15] again this is like you know parsing out
[1:03:17] the details now but um we were given a
[1:03:20] red line so um
[1:03:24] item 11 was removed and it previously ly
[1:03:30] said that it was part that, you know,
[1:03:33] staff recommends that city support state
[1:03:36] or federal legislation
[1:03:38] that aims to achieve fair and
[1:03:41] proportionate representation on
[1:03:42] countywide and regional boards. And I
[1:03:44] would think we would want to continue
[1:03:45] supporting that. So, I would want to
[1:03:46] leave it in. So, that's the only thing I
[1:03:49] like the two items that sort of stood
[1:03:51] out to me. I also thought the BART the
[1:03:53] BART thing is really important to our
[1:03:55] region. So, I'm fine with including it,
[1:03:56] but it also seemed, you know, it's very
[1:03:58] it's very specific and I think the prior
[1:04:00] platform included it. So, I guess the
[1:04:03] level of specificity
[1:04:05] I I just
[1:04:07] um
[1:04:10] thought is atypical of what I've seen in
[1:04:12] alleged platform before, but I'm not
[1:04:14] opposed to what it says specifically, so
[1:04:16] I don't have a a problem with what's
[1:04:18] stated.
[1:04:21] Vice Mayor Chief.
[1:04:23] >> No, I I'm I'm fine with it. I mean, I
[1:04:25] » No, I I'm I'm fine with it. I mean, I
[1:04:25] think overall for what it is and what
[1:04:27] it's intended to be in terms of our
[1:04:29] priorities, I'm I'm supportive. I think
[1:04:32] it captures a lot of the, as Council
[1:04:34] Member Hawky said, I think it captures a
[1:04:36] lot of the key items that have been, you
[1:04:39] know, raised lately and fall into this
[1:04:41] arena. So, I'm supportive.
[1:04:44] >> Thank you. Um, I have a few notes. Um, I
[1:04:48] » Thank you. Um, I have a few notes. Um, I
[1:04:48] had a million questions and red lines on
[1:04:51] this when I first read it and the city
[1:04:54] manager explained uh to me and it it
[1:04:57] really helped me understand that, you
[1:04:58] know, because I felt like our priorities
[1:05:00] were getting subsumed in all of this
[1:05:03] laundry list of any issue that might
[1:05:05] come up. And and the way the city
[1:05:06] manager explained it is by having this
[1:05:09] list, anything that comes in asking for
[1:05:11] us to just give our support at the state
[1:05:13] or county level, they know that they can
[1:05:16] write a letter of support because it's
[1:05:18] in this laundry list. So, you know, in
[1:05:22] the the frequent meetings and and
[1:05:25] check-ins between towns and and the city
[1:05:28] manager and um and other groups that
[1:05:31] represent us, they know the priorities.
[1:05:33] They know the top three. And so the fact
[1:05:35] that this is kind of the whole kitchen
[1:05:37] sink, it is not getting lost about where
[1:05:39] our focus and priorities are. And it was
[1:05:41] just that if we don't include something,
[1:05:43] it might have to come to us um to ask
[1:05:47] what our position is. So that helped me
[1:05:50] relax. And in the spirit of I think Vice
[1:05:52] [clears throat] Mayor G's comment of
[1:05:53] like this is good. I don't want to go
[1:05:56] messing with the red line because if you
[1:05:57] open up that red line, I'm going to have
[1:05:59] a lot more things that are not ainda
[1:06:02] issues. there's state issues and there's
[1:06:04] all the specificity on things that are,
[1:06:06] you know, representative of ours that
[1:06:08] are their agendas and we support them
[1:06:10] because we support them. But I I really
[1:06:13] don't want to start getting the red pen
[1:06:14] out. Um the other comment I would make
[1:06:16] though is I don't want this to be like
[1:06:17] the tax code where we only add and we
[1:06:20] never subtract. And so I don't want to
[1:06:21] be afraid of something maybe was a
[1:06:25] specific issue last year or the year
[1:06:26] before. It was maybe some legislation in
[1:06:28] progress that got done. Um, so I I am
[1:06:34] inclined to trust the recommendations
[1:06:36] that came from towns and the city
[1:06:38] manager on what is added and subtracted.
[1:06:42] Um, that's just my inclination as we
[1:06:44] look at this.
[1:06:45] Um, and I would just mention that the
[1:06:47] landside uh re as disaster relief um
[1:06:51] might be something um to look at uh to
[1:06:55] talk to our friends in Southern
[1:06:56] California because I remember when we
[1:06:58] had a landslide issue here, the disaster
[1:07:01] relief uh was not available um at least
[1:07:05] without some uh insurance stuff. So,
[1:07:07] that's just something that it's not a
[1:07:09] live issue, but maybe a longer term one.
[1:07:12] Um were there any other questions or
[1:07:14] comments? Uh, and if not, do we have a
[1:07:16] motion?
[1:07:17] >> I guess I just if I don't know if if
[1:07:19] » I guess I just if I don't know if if
[1:07:19] that one item did Casey, do you have any
[1:07:22] insights on why we're taking that out?
[1:07:28] » So, yeah, that
[1:07:32] >> not beyond kind of the regional nature
[1:07:33] » not beyond kind of the regional nature
[1:07:33] of the of the measure. I don't think
[1:07:34] there was a specific
[1:07:36] >> That's fine.
[1:07:38] » That's fine.
[1:07:38] >> We we have a long agenda with [laughter]
[1:07:40] » We we have a long agenda with [laughter]
[1:07:40] it. If there is a if there I let me just
[1:07:43] ask this because this is the time to
[1:07:44] talk about it since it's before us. If
[1:07:46] there is any state or federalation
[1:07:48] federal legislation pending that deals
[1:07:51] with the issue of having fair uh
[1:07:54] representation on on you know regional
[1:07:58] boards. Can you make sure that uh the
[1:08:00] city of made aware of it so we have an
[1:08:02] opportunity to chime in as to whether or
[1:08:03] not we'd support it because I don't want
[1:08:05] it to not be on our radar because we're
[1:08:07] deleting it from our platform.
[1:08:10] That's all. But with that, I would move
[1:08:14] to adopt the if there's unless there's
[1:08:16] more discussion. I don't think there is.
[1:08:18] So, uh, I think we have a motion. Do we
[1:08:20] have a second?
[1:08:21] >> I'll second.
[1:08:23] » I'll second.
[1:08:23] >> Great. Uh, may we [clears throat] have a
[1:08:24] » Great. Uh, may we [clears throat] have a
[1:08:24] roll call vote, please? Congi.
[1:08:27] >> Oxy.
[1:08:28] » Oxy.
[1:08:28] >> I.
[1:08:29] » I.
[1:08:29] >> G.
[1:08:30] » G.
[1:08:30] >> I.
[1:08:30] » I.
[1:08:30] >> And Iverson.
[1:08:31] » And Iverson.
[1:08:31] >> I. Thank you.
[1:08:32] » I. Thank you.
[1:08:32] >> Motion passes unanimously and we go to
[1:08:35] » Motion passes unanimously and we go to
[1:08:35] item and uh, thank you Casey for joining
[1:08:37] us tonight. Uh we'll go to item H2, the
[1:08:40] infrastructure committee report on
[1:08:42] activities including the framework for
[1:08:43] acceptance of private roads. Um I am not
[1:08:46] sure who is presenting this. Is the
[1:08:48] subcommittee going to present or the
[1:08:49] city manager?
[1:08:50] >> So I'll kick us off and then I'll turn
[1:08:51] » So I'll kick us off and then I'll turn
[1:08:51] it back over to the infrastructure
[1:08:53] subcommittee. So
[1:08:57] >> So before uh we get started um council
[1:09:01] » So before uh we get started um council
[1:09:01] member Hawky wants to make a statement.
[1:09:04] >> Thank you. I wanted to take a moment to
[1:09:06] » Thank you. I wanted to take a moment to
[1:09:06] note for the record that the home my
[1:09:09] husband and I own in Arinda is located
[1:09:10] on a privately maintained road. That
[1:09:13] road is a culde-sac serving
[1:09:15] approximately seven homes. We are not
[1:09:18] part of an HOA. Historically, we and our
[1:09:21] neighbors have cooperated as needed to
[1:09:23] arrange and fund maintenance of our
[1:09:25] road. Our road was not offered for
[1:09:27] dedication to the public when it was
[1:09:29] created by subdivision map and was never
[1:09:31] accepted for maintenance by the city or
[1:09:34] county. Because the city's policy
[1:09:36] regarding privately maintained roads
[1:09:38] could ultimately impact my property, I
[1:09:41] considered carefully whether I should
[1:09:43] participate in this discussion. I
[1:09:45] learned that the FPPC has something
[1:09:48] called the public generally rule,
[1:09:50] regulation 18703,
[1:09:53] that allows officials like me to take
[1:09:54] part in a governmental decision that
[1:09:56] affects their financial interest,
[1:09:59] provided that the effect on the
[1:10:00] officials interest is indistinguishable
[1:10:02] from the effect on the public generally.
[1:10:05] This standard is met if a significant
[1:10:07] segment of the public is affected and
[1:10:10] the effect on the official is not
[1:10:11] unique. where as in my situation the
[1:10:14] financial issue interest at issue as a
[1:10:17] primary residence the phrase significant
[1:10:19] segment of the public means at least 15%
[1:10:22] of residential property within the
[1:10:24] jurisdiction
[1:10:25] I worked with city staff to evaluate my
[1:10:27] parcel's private road situation and
[1:10:30] found it is relatively common in Arinda
[1:10:33] for example approximately 22% of
[1:10:36] Arinda's residential properties are on
[1:10:38] privately maintained roads of various
[1:10:40] types approximately ly 19% of Arinda's
[1:10:44] residential properties are like mine on
[1:10:46] privately maintained roads that were not
[1:10:49] dedicated for public use on a
[1:10:51] subdivision map and approximately 20% of
[1:10:55] Arinda's residential properties are like
[1:10:58] mine on privately maintained culde-sac
[1:11:00] roads not through roads considering
[1:11:03] those characteristics of my property I
[1:11:06] believe it satisfies the 15% threshold
[1:11:08] for applicability for the FPVPC's public
[1:11:12] generally rule. So, I've concluded that
[1:11:14] I may generally participate in the
[1:11:17] council's policy discussions regarding
[1:11:19] private roads. I plan to do so while
[1:11:22] staying alert to potential conflicts of
[1:11:25] interest that might arise depending on
[1:11:27] how the council's discussion proceeds.
[1:11:29] For example, at this point, I do not
[1:11:32] know whether my neighbors and I would
[1:11:34] ever request that the city accept our
[1:11:36] street into the its publicly maintained
[1:11:38] system, but if such a specific request
[1:11:40] were to come before the city while I am
[1:11:43] on the council, I would recuse myself.
[1:11:46] Similarly, I would recuse myself if the
[1:11:48] council discusses whether the city's
[1:11:50] policy should differentiate between
[1:11:53] privately maintained roads based on
[1:11:55] whether they are serviced by an HOA or
[1:11:57] homeowners association or other similar
[1:11:59] entity. As I noted, my property is on a
[1:12:03] privately maintained road not serviced
[1:12:05] by an HOA. City staff have calculated
[1:12:08] that approximately 13% of residential
[1:12:11] properties in Arinda share that in
[1:12:13] common with mine which is below the
[1:12:16] FPPPC's 15% threshold for the public
[1:12:19] generally rule which raises a problem
[1:12:22] for tonight's conversation because of
[1:12:25] bullet point two in the staff report
[1:12:28] which differentiates those roads on an
[1:12:31] that are maintained by an HOA and those
[1:12:33] that are not. So, what I'd like to do,
[1:12:36] mayor, if it's all right with you, is
[1:12:38] recuse myself at the beginning of the
[1:12:40] conversation while you discuss that
[1:12:42] particular point regarding HOA
[1:12:45] maintained roads versus all of the
[1:12:48] privately maintained roads, and I'll
[1:12:50] wait for a city manager or city attorney
[1:12:53] to text me and tell me I can rejoin the
[1:12:55] conversation. Does that sound
[1:12:57] reasonable?
[1:12:59] >> Maybe. Um, I know this is the
[1:13:02] » Maybe. Um, I know this is the
[1:13:02] recommendation of the city attorney, but
[1:13:04] I am not aware at this point uh of
[1:13:08] whether there will be a general
[1:13:09] presentation and be because there are
[1:13:13] we're it's not just like we're voting on
[1:13:16] A and then we're voting on B as we did
[1:13:18] with the um some of the housing element
[1:13:20] stuff. Um it's not as distinct in my
[1:13:23] mind the HOA question among all of the
[1:13:27] other questions. I would like to know if
[1:13:30] there is anformational part that council
[1:13:33] member Hawky could listen to before we
[1:13:36] sever um this forum for discussion
[1:13:40] purposes. So the answer is yes. Uh
[1:13:43] Council Member Hawky can hear the staff
[1:13:45] report. She can hear questions about
[1:13:48] that staff report. Although I'd
[1:13:49] recommend you not ask questions about
[1:13:51] the HOA issue. You can hear public
[1:13:53] comment. And then when it comes to
[1:13:56] deliberation, I think that's where the
[1:13:57] council should determine basically
[1:14:00] whether the segmentation approach that
[1:14:02] we sometimes take, whether it can be
[1:14:04] applied in this situation.
[1:14:06] >> That's really helpful and that would be
[1:14:07] » That's really helpful and that would be
[1:14:07] my preference if that's all right with
[1:14:08] you, Council Member Hawky.
[1:14:10] >> Yes, that's fine. I'd like to
[1:14:11] » Yes, that's fine. I'd like to
[1:14:11] participate as much as I can. Um, but
[1:14:14] recognizing the potential conflict.
[1:14:18] >> Thank you. Um, and with that, let's
[1:14:19] » Thank you. Um, and with that, let's
[1:14:20] proceed and then we'll ask you um to
[1:14:23] just uh leave and come back to the zoom
[1:14:24] when we are ready to discuss anything
[1:14:26] having to do with the HOA issue.
[1:14:29] >> Thank you, city manager.
[1:14:31] » Thank you, city manager.
[1:14:31] >> Honorable mayor, members of the council,
[1:14:32] » Honorable mayor, members of the council,
[1:14:32] I'll just do a brief back brief
[1:14:34] background on the infrastructure
[1:14:36] committee. It was established in
[1:14:38] February of 2024.
[1:14:40] Uh in June of 2024, the council reviewed
[1:14:43] the committee's work program which was
[1:14:45] refined in July of 2024 and work uh
[1:14:49] began in earnest at that point with the
[1:14:52] committee meeting to discuss uh that
[1:14:55] program that was adopted by the council.
[1:14:58] Uh in January of 2025,
[1:15:01] >> [snorts]
[1:15:01] » [snorts]
[1:15:01] >> uh the terms of the infrastructure
[1:15:04] » uh the terms of the infrastructure
[1:15:04] committee were amended and restated and
[1:15:07] extending the term until the end of
[1:15:09] 2025. And then in April, the council
[1:15:12] approved funding requests for the
[1:15:14] committee to conduct the private roads
[1:15:16] questionnaire which was consistent with
[1:15:18] the work program. And in November of
[1:15:20] 2025, the council extended the term of
[1:15:23] the committee to end in December of
[1:15:25] 2026.
[1:15:26] The committee has been working now for
[1:15:28] more than a year and a half with the
[1:15:30] assistance of staff to try and finish up
[1:15:33] the work plan. Uh at its most recent
[1:15:36] meeting in January, the committee had a
[1:15:38] very substantial agenda including many
[1:15:41] topics. The topics included research on
[1:15:45] other agencies that provide funding for
[1:15:47] the maintenance of roads, additional
[1:15:49] background on the Arinda Woods
[1:15:51] maintenance agreement, and a discussion
[1:15:53] about a proposed framework for the
[1:15:55] acceptance of private roads. uh that
[1:15:58] following that discussion, the committee
[1:15:59] requested additional information which
[1:16:01] we'll be bringing back to their next
[1:16:03] meeting and that included more
[1:16:05] information regarding the program in
[1:16:07] Sanelmo uh that was related to the grant
[1:16:11] funding uh for private road maintenance.
[1:16:14] Uh so I wanted to turn it back over to
[1:16:17] the committee uh because at that meeting
[1:16:20] we did discuss the framework and thought
[1:16:22] it was an appropriate time to come back
[1:16:24] and discuss it with the city council
[1:16:26] since uh some of the things that were
[1:16:28] being proposed are are fairly
[1:16:30] substantive and uh so I'll turn it back
[1:16:33] over to the vice mayor and to council
[1:16:36] member Malcani who can maybe comment a
[1:16:38] little bit about the work of the
[1:16:40] infrastructure committee and how far
[1:16:42] we've come and Uh, you know, this is
[1:16:45] really a pivotal point for moving to the
[1:16:47] next phase of trying to work through any
[1:16:49] policy changes that the council may want
[1:16:51] to consider.
[1:16:54] >> Vice Mayor, you want to kick it off and
[1:16:55] » Vice Mayor, you want to kick it off and
[1:16:55] then I'll I'll add. Yeah, I think uh and
[1:16:58] again um city manager um Smith um you
[1:17:02] know, please correct anything if I don't
[1:17:05] phrase it quite correctly, but what I
[1:17:07] what I want everyone to know is that the
[1:17:10] key word really here for our discussion
[1:17:13] tonight is framework. This this in and
[1:17:16] of itself is not a written policy at
[1:17:20] this point. Uh what this is is a
[1:17:24] outgrowth of our year and a half of
[1:17:27] meeting with the public and um people
[1:17:29] that have been interested in the topic
[1:17:31] material. Uh we have a current policy
[1:17:35] 56-18
[1:17:38] that is about the acceptance of private
[1:17:40] roads and it has um I I guess my
[1:17:44] comments would simply be that it has um
[1:17:48] never had any um
[1:17:52] private roads uh attempt acceptance
[1:17:55] under it um without uh you know without
[1:17:59] providing um you know unne necessary
[1:18:03] commentary. It was never a policy in my
[1:18:06] mind and I was there that it was not
[1:18:09] really intended
[1:18:12] um to be
[1:18:14] um a tool that was really allowing
[1:18:17] people that lived on private roads to
[1:18:19] explore whether they wanted to offer
[1:18:21] them for acceptance to the public or
[1:18:23] not. Quite frankly, it was primarily um
[1:18:27] it was primarily drafted to again um
[1:18:34] continue the separation of public and
[1:18:36] private roads in a way that you know
[1:18:38] again was deemed um important to the
[1:18:42] city's physical situation. So it was
[1:18:45] never um you know it was it was deeply
[1:18:50] contested in some ways at the time and
[1:18:53] um it did not and I did not support it
[1:18:55] at the time but the reality is is it
[1:18:58] turned into our policy and it's been
[1:19:00] it's been kind of one of those things
[1:19:02] that sits on the shelf because it really
[1:19:04] can't be used for anything. um the way
[1:19:07] it's written, there is no private road
[1:19:09] in Arinda that can really, you know,
[1:19:11] apply to be accepted into the public
[1:19:13] road system under it and be accepted.
[1:19:16] It's just not going to happen. That's
[1:19:17] how uh that's how it's worded. So,
[1:19:20] obviously, that's been um uh you know, a
[1:19:23] troublesome point for a lot of our
[1:19:25] residents that contend with living on a
[1:19:27] private road. And again, I think it's
[1:19:30] important that our community remember
[1:19:31] that, you know, this is this is fully
[1:19:34] 20% of our community. This is not four
[1:19:37] or five homes and this is not just a
[1:19:40] handful of people. This is um if you
[1:19:43] look at the map of all of our private
[1:19:46] roads throughout the community, it
[1:19:48] touches almost every corner of our
[1:19:50] community. and um you know and some of
[1:19:53] them you know and the as people that
[1:19:55] have paid attention to this issue know
[1:19:58] the the description of our private road
[1:20:01] network is um
[1:20:04] is just a a maze of uh of differences.
[1:20:10] Some of them are very new such as I'm
[1:20:12] looking at uh some of our audience
[1:20:14] members. Some of them are very new that
[1:20:16] were the newer developments like Wilder
[1:20:18] and Arinda Woods and the Downs and um at
[1:20:23] the time, you know, they were uh part of
[1:20:25] development agreements when the city
[1:20:27] didn't have um the resources to maintain
[1:20:30] roads and um and they were and they were
[1:20:33] very formalized as part of the
[1:20:35] development agreement. Some of them are
[1:20:37] roads that date back into the you know
[1:20:39] 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s in which there's
[1:20:42] simply no um understanding at all of
[1:20:45] some of the reasons and rationale for
[1:20:47] why things um occurred. We certainly
[1:20:50] have a whole host of roads that were um
[1:20:54] offered for public acceptance and not
[1:20:57] accepted although the documentation as
[1:20:59] to why is completely lacking. We have
[1:21:02] other roads as council member Hawky
[1:21:04] mentioned that you know were never
[1:21:06] offered. Um we basically have one of
[1:21:09] almost everything somewhere that you
[1:21:11] could imagine. What we don't have within
[1:21:13] the whole system is um really any of our
[1:21:17] privately maintained roads that are not
[1:21:20] um open for public use. I mean quite
[1:21:24] frankly uh we have one little segment of
[1:21:27] one uh in North Arinda where
[1:21:29] occasionally they choose to gate it off
[1:21:32] but other than that little tiny piece um
[1:21:35] the you know vast majority of um all of
[1:21:39] these roads which which is uh you know
[1:21:43] quite a an extensive amount when taken
[1:21:46] together um are all being used by the
[1:21:49] public. Now,
[1:21:52] uh, granted, um, they're virtually all
[1:21:54] residential roads, so there may be very
[1:21:57] little traffic on some of them, but they
[1:21:59] are open for public use. So, as part of
[1:22:02] the subcommittee's work, um, the
[1:22:05] discussion of the policy of 56-18
[1:22:08] has been, you know, of great concern.
[1:22:11] Um, again, the subcommittee is not at a
[1:22:13] point. I mean, eventually our goal is to
[1:22:16] come back to the full council with again
[1:22:19] recommendations that we hope will um
[1:22:23] improve this situation in our community
[1:22:25] because it's been an incredibly and
[1:22:27] continues to be a very divisive issue.
[1:22:30] Even sometimes when we don't hear a lot
[1:22:32] about it, there's very strong opinions
[1:22:34] and feelings about it on both sides.
[1:22:37] Whether you live on public roads,
[1:22:38] whether you live on private roads,
[1:22:39] whether you think um we should do
[1:22:41] something about it, whether you think we
[1:22:43] shouldn't do something about it, uh we
[1:22:44] have opinions across the board in every
[1:22:47] category. Um our our hope as the
[1:22:50] subcommittee has been to continue to
[1:22:52] explore it. We've I uh believe council
[1:22:56] member Malcani agrees with me and
[1:22:59] probably even steady staff does is that
[1:23:01] we've had enormously
[1:23:04] um amazing um public conversations with
[1:23:08] our community in the subcommittee. Um I
[1:23:11] would say the participation of the
[1:23:13] public in our subcommittee has been the
[1:23:15] highest I've ever seen for any topic. um
[1:23:18] it remains you know of great concern and
[1:23:21] you know we have heard um amazing you
[1:23:25] know amazing feedback in every way shape
[1:23:27] or form. Um at this point in time I
[1:23:30] don't think where the subcommittee is
[1:23:32] not at a point where we're trying to
[1:23:34] recommend here is the solution and pick
[1:23:37] one thing even though we know there are
[1:23:39] very strong feelings about what that
[1:23:41] solution should be um by many of our
[1:23:44] residents. The reality is is again just
[1:23:48] like we don't have any private roads
[1:23:49] that are sort of one-sizefits-all,
[1:23:52] we're not sure that the solution is
[1:23:53] one-sizefits-all either. Um and and so I
[1:23:58] think what we're um what we've talked
[1:24:00] about is that over time we'd like to see
[1:24:03] the possibility that there could be
[1:24:05] better options than there are today. And
[1:24:08] what those all are going to turn out to
[1:24:10] be sort of remains to be seen. But the
[1:24:14] existing policy 56-18
[1:24:16] I this is a personal opinion. So it it
[1:24:20] only belongs to Darlene. But it is in my
[1:24:24] opinion it's a very adversarial policy.
[1:24:27] It is not intended to be um welcoming to
[1:24:32] a lot of members of our community in
[1:24:34] terms of um of what it's potentially
[1:24:37] offering and and in an area that I
[1:24:40] personally feel very strongly does fall
[1:24:43] into I I believe public works in all of
[1:24:45] its way, shapes and forms falls into the
[1:24:48] domain of why government exists. So I
[1:24:51] think that um you know all the
[1:24:53] conversations we have have been
[1:24:55] exceptional and I and I and this
[1:24:58] framework is um is a summary of so many
[1:25:01] things that we have talked about in a
[1:25:03] way that we could as we move forward
[1:25:07] tend to look for ways to um provide
[1:25:10] options that would um instead of being
[1:25:14] you know the 56-18
[1:25:17] policy of no you can't do this to maybe
[1:25:21] find ways that if it was acceptable to
[1:25:23] the city um that we could allow people
[1:25:27] to do this. So the key word again is
[1:25:30] framework that that it's not that
[1:25:33] everything on this list is an absolute
[1:25:36] given one way or the other and I do hope
[1:25:38] people understand that at this point but
[1:25:41] because there are so many key ideas here
[1:25:44] I think it was important that we bring
[1:25:46] it back for consideration by the whole
[1:25:48] council before we try to draft or have
[1:25:53] staff help us you know draft new
[1:25:55] policies. So, those are my comments and
[1:25:58] to the extent that council member
[1:25:59] Malcani, our other um representative on
[1:26:02] the subcommittee or the staff have
[1:26:04] comments about that, I would welcome
[1:26:07] having those added.
[1:26:11] » Well,
[1:26:14] there's someone quoted this to me
[1:26:16] recently, nothing has been said unless
[1:26:18] everyone on a committee says the same
[1:26:20] thing. I'm going to try not to do that
[1:26:22] now since you think you well summarized
[1:26:24] but I do want to emphasize at the risk
[1:26:26] of redundancy a couple things which is
[1:26:28] just um
[1:26:31] you know there was a lot of frustration
[1:26:34] with the old or the existing policy
[1:26:37] because it's really seen as something
[1:26:39] that just is impractical and essentially
[1:26:42] almost impossible and really serves as a
[1:26:44] roadblock right and so that engendered a
[1:26:47] lot of bad feelings and and I think you
[1:26:50] know uh resentment and bitterness and
[1:26:53] and frustration you know which frankly
[1:26:56] from my perspective was understandable.
[1:26:58] So what you know I do I do agree that
[1:27:01] this is simply a framework right and but
[1:27:04] what it represents really is um I think
[1:27:06] I think the reason um I think the
[1:27:10] infrastructure committee and staff
[1:27:12] really wanted to bring this to the full
[1:27:15] council is because it is it is a tone
[1:27:17] shift in a framework of you know don't
[1:27:21] talk to us about this issue to we do
[1:27:23] want to talk about this issue now do we
[1:27:25] have the solutions completely no we
[1:27:27] don't But it is a tone shift and you
[1:27:29] know it's it's a it's a tone shift in
[1:27:32] that it's a policy that's no longer
[1:27:35] functioning as a roadblock but is
[1:27:37] actually a real functional policy with
[1:27:40] an attempted objective criteria. You
[1:27:43] know the criteria is trying to address
[1:27:45] the varying circumstances with within
[1:27:48] Arinda and recognizing that neither the
[1:27:51] problem nor the solution is a
[1:27:53] one-sizefits-all. Um, and I had
[1:27:56] independently written that down from
[1:27:57] you. I know you just said that, Vice
[1:27:59] Mayor, but um, but you know, because of
[1:28:02] that and these factors, we felt it had
[1:28:04] enough form now that we could and wanted
[1:28:08] to bring it back to our colleagues for
[1:28:11] for input. And one thing to remember in
[1:28:15] this discussion is we aren't you know it
[1:28:19] it is a framework but again um
[1:28:24] it is a check-in point on a continuum of
[1:28:27] trying to address uh you know the
[1:28:32] problem multiaceted uh problems and
[1:28:35] challenges with privately maintained
[1:28:37] roads.
[1:28:40] Please.
[1:28:42] Uh I know that again uh one of the first
[1:28:44] questions almost everyone asks
[1:28:46] immediately and may be of uh being
[1:28:50] gotten ready to be asked tonight but um
[1:28:53] the obviously uh policies you know
[1:28:56] ultimately result in you know some
[1:28:59] potential impacts on costs and there's
[1:29:02] been no attempt at this point um I mean
[1:29:05] we've raised the issue that everything
[1:29:06] costs something but we there's no
[1:29:09] attempt to compare this or have this
[1:29:12] defined or if the question is what is
[1:29:14] this all going to cost? We don't have
[1:29:16] any answers to that right now. We've not
[1:29:18] tried to encapsulate that. We've not
[1:29:22] go down that road even though we know
[1:29:24] that ultimately that will be absolutely
[1:29:27] critical to a whole lot of things.
[1:29:28] Right? So it's not like we're, you know,
[1:29:31] being ignorant or naive or just trying
[1:29:33] to, you know, um have magical thinking
[1:29:37] here about how this all works. We know
[1:29:39] that this has you know serious you know
[1:29:42] cost implications whether it's to our
[1:29:45] residents whether it's to the city
[1:29:47] however it gets structured you know
[1:29:50] maintenance of roads and drains requires
[1:29:52] money so that will all have to continue
[1:29:56] to evolve but the framework itself is
[1:29:59] not attempting to say this is going to
[1:30:02] cost this much or that much so I just
[1:30:05] want to make sure that we're clear about
[1:30:06] that
[1:30:07] >> thank you very much council member
[1:30:08] » thank you very much council member
[1:30:08] Hawky, did you have questions?
[1:30:11] >> I think it would be helpful if um the
[1:30:14] » I think it would be helpful if um the
[1:30:14] vice mayor would just go over the
[1:30:16] framework that her committee is
[1:30:18] proposing at this time for the public
[1:30:21] and for everybody to think about.
[1:30:24] I would not only agree with that that it
[1:30:26] would help if you guys would sort of
[1:30:27] walk us through these, but when you get
[1:30:29] to the one about um 20 years versus five
[1:30:32] years because the current ordinance says
[1:30:37] 5 years before it needs maintenance and
[1:30:39] 20 years before it needs to be replaced
[1:30:41] and I'm I'm paraphrasing. Um
[1:30:44] the if you could go a little bit deeper
[1:30:47] on what you mean by what in five years
[1:30:50] uh was the one question I had as well.
[1:30:54] I mean, that was something that I think
[1:30:56] as staff was taking a look at resolution
[1:30:59] 5918, we noted that in order for the
[1:31:04] city to accept a roadway, it would need
[1:31:08] to not be maintained for essentially 20
[1:31:11] years, right? It would have to be in
[1:31:12] condition. And SA, I think you should
[1:31:14] probably come sit up here in case you
[1:31:16] get called up to talk about some of
[1:31:18] these things. Um but really uh the
[1:31:22] intention at least that staff had in
[1:31:24] proposing this framework back to the
[1:31:26] committee was you know what are the
[1:31:30] things that we've heard over time that
[1:31:32] have contributed to basically not
[1:31:37] receiving any sort of application and
[1:31:39] and you know gave threshold of up to 20
[1:31:43] years is a is a a perfectly maintained
[1:31:47] road I would say. I don't know SA if you
[1:31:49] want to comment on that but
[1:31:50] >> if I can just before you respond the
[1:31:52] » if I can just before you respond the
[1:31:52] exact wording in the current ordinance
[1:31:55] is um provide a pavement life of 20
[1:31:59] years the roadway shall be in a
[1:32:01] condition to not need surface
[1:32:03] maintenance treatment for 5 years. So if
[1:32:06] you can help clarify what you're
[1:32:07] proposing relative to that standard.
[1:32:10] >> Yeah. Um good evening madame mayor and
[1:32:12] » Yeah. Um good evening madame mayor and
[1:32:12] council members. Um
[1:32:15] the five years is
[1:32:18] In line with how we are approaching our
[1:32:20] current public street uh pavement
[1:32:22] maintenance um we go through as I've
[1:32:25] mentioned in prior sessions uh we use a
[1:32:28] um program that allows us to keep tabs
[1:32:31] on the condition of the pavement and uh
[1:32:33] do preventive maintenance. That's kind
[1:32:35] of our primary goal uh to extend the
[1:32:38] pavement life and that cycle roughly
[1:32:40] falls in that 5year time period. So one
[1:32:42] way to look at it is um
[1:32:46] more than likely a street will get
[1:32:48] surfaced with what we call like the
[1:32:50] minimum u surface treatments slurry seal
[1:32:54] um around 5ear cycles. Uh so that's the
[1:32:58] connection to this 5year that you're
[1:33:00] looking at.
[1:33:03] Again it's uh slightly different from
[1:33:05] the life of the pavement. So when you're
[1:33:07] talking about pavement life, it's a
[1:33:10] different context versus maintenance um
[1:33:14] which is worth the five years.
[1:33:17] And I'm not sure this is a question to
[1:33:18] you or I guess vice mayor when you walk
[1:33:20] through this frame framework if you
[1:33:22] could be very specific about what test
[1:33:25] you are proposing because I get that
[1:33:28] slurry seal is about every 5 years and
[1:33:30] replacement is different but I cannot
[1:33:32] translate the current ordinance to the
[1:33:35] proposed framework without little help.
[1:33:38] So can I chime in on something just for
[1:33:41] a suggestion? Um, and I'm just thinking
[1:33:43] back.
[1:33:45] So, in the infrastructure committee, we
[1:33:47] had the benefit of actually a staff
[1:33:49] presentation from our city engineer and
[1:33:51] our director about the framework. And I
[1:33:55] don't
[1:33:59] I don't know. I'm happy to let the vice
[1:34:03] mayor do that if she wants. I don't feel
[1:34:06] like I can go through and necessarily
[1:34:09] answer all your questions without
[1:34:11] turning to staff with all of them. Um,
[1:34:14] so maybe we could we could go through
[1:34:17] the framework with our city engineers
[1:34:20] um,
[1:34:22] uh, presentation or just walk us through
[1:34:24] it and we could chime in as
[1:34:26] infrastructure committee members. That
[1:34:28] might be one way to do it. And then the
[1:34:30] other thing is that a framework is
[1:34:34] simply you know this is a framework is
[1:34:37] guidance that can then be used to
[1:34:41] develop a new ordinance or a new
[1:34:44] resolution. So I don't know that we're
[1:34:47] from the framework we're not going to
[1:34:48] have exact language as to what a
[1:34:51] resolution would in other words any
[1:34:52] resolution my understanding would be
[1:34:54] brought back to the infrastructure
[1:34:56] committee first for some finetuning and
[1:34:58] then to the council but we didn't want
[1:35:01] to say to staff as an infrastructure
[1:35:03] committee take this policy framework and
[1:35:06] go develop a resolution without doing a
[1:35:10] check-in first with the full council.
[1:35:11] Does that make
[1:35:12] >> understood? I think what council member
[1:35:13] » understood? I think what council member
[1:35:13] Hawky asked for and what I agree is we
[1:35:16] would like for one of the two members of
[1:35:18] the subcommittee to literally just walk
[1:35:20] us through your nine bullet points and
[1:35:22] explain the rationale so that we can
[1:35:24] comment and we know we're just
[1:35:25] commenting.
[1:35:26] >> Okay.
[1:35:27] » Okay.
[1:35:27] >> Can I make one uh correction on the
[1:35:29] » Can I make one uh correction on the
[1:35:29] framework? Uh, I think it was a staff
[1:35:31] error. Uh, bullet two where it says
[1:35:33] eliminating the requirement for all
[1:35:35] property owners to sign an application
[1:35:37] when an offer for acceptance when an
[1:35:39] offer of dedication on the road already
[1:35:41] exists. That is inaccurate. The it's um
[1:35:45] that shouldn't be in there at all
[1:35:47] because it currently does not require
[1:35:49] that. So, that isn't a change. So, I
[1:35:51] just wanted to be clear about that. So,
[1:35:53] that bullet is um needs to be removed
[1:35:57] from the discussion.
[1:36:02] I think what staff was attempting to do
[1:36:04] in presenting these bullets to the
[1:36:06] infrastructure committee was to go
[1:36:09] through resolution 59-18 and try to
[1:36:12] identify areas where we could be more I
[1:36:17] guess less restrictive and more
[1:36:19] encouraging. And I think the the I would
[1:36:24] suggest unless uh OSA and SA have any
[1:36:26] other thoughts, the two kind of bigger
[1:36:30] items is the lowering of the pavement
[1:36:32] condition threshold because there was a
[1:36:33] lot of discussion about from when we
[1:36:35] were talking about staff level if we
[1:36:37] should come up with a PCI
[1:36:39] uh you know is this about maintenance of
[1:36:41] the roads. So um we right now it says uh
[1:36:47] that
[1:36:48] basically in order to accept the road
[1:36:50] the condition of the road has to be in
[1:36:53] good shape for a period of up to 20
[1:36:55] years
[1:36:56] and we're suggesting that that's a very
[1:36:59] high bar. I don't know what PCI that
[1:37:01] potentially could be equated to, but
[1:37:04] that that is one of the reasons why
[1:37:07] we're not seeing anybody step forward
[1:37:10] because and and we did do a PCI index of
[1:37:13] all the roads, including the private
[1:37:15] roads. So, we also have that information
[1:37:16] available to us and in many cases it was
[1:37:19] a lot better than we expected. In some
[1:37:21] it was exactly as expected, right? The
[1:37:24] PCIs aren't as great as we would want
[1:37:26] them to be. Um, the other piece of
[1:37:28] course is the current resolution
[1:37:32] restricts and prohibits
[1:37:34] communities that are served by
[1:37:36] homeowners associations from
[1:37:38] participating at all. And so I think
[1:37:40] those were kind of the bigger items uh
[1:37:43] of the bullets. And um we could talk a
[1:37:47] little bit about I mean obviously the
[1:37:48] final bullet under there is just
[1:37:50] shifting the tone to being one in which
[1:37:54] um the staff and the city are willing
[1:37:57] and supportive of requests that might
[1:37:59] come in to make changes. Um you know in
[1:38:04] looking these bullets there's a lot of
[1:38:07] requirements in resolution 59-18.
[1:38:10] I'm not going to sit here and say with
[1:38:13] any proposed framework to modify that
[1:38:17] resolution or this policy that it's
[1:38:20] going to be easy. It is definitely it's
[1:38:24] a very um involved process in order to
[1:38:27] take a road from being public I mean
[1:38:30] privately maintained to publicly
[1:38:33] maintained and the committee did take an
[1:38:36] opportunity to look at other ways to do
[1:38:39] that right it's a spectrum of choice
[1:38:41] there's uh the Arinda Woods model in
[1:38:44] which the city is playing a role in
[1:38:46] maintaining it um the the model Sanelmo
[1:38:49] is using in assisting their private road
[1:38:52] owners, which by the way, we could only
[1:38:53] find one program in the state of
[1:38:55] California, uh is really about providing
[1:38:59] grants to neighbors and residences. So,
[1:39:02] it was really trying to meet residents
[1:39:05] where they were at. Some residents want
[1:39:08] to maintain their roads and want to
[1:39:10] maintain private roads, but might seek
[1:39:11] some assistance. Um, you know, we have
[1:39:14] the the uh the Arinda Woods example,
[1:39:19] which I think when we brought that
[1:39:21] forward at the meeting, there was a lot
[1:39:23] of
[1:39:25] um surprise about how many other roads
[1:39:27] in Arinda Woods are actually public. Uh
[1:39:30] because I think when it's being
[1:39:32] discussed, everybody thinks that most of
[1:39:34] those roads are private, but in fact,
[1:39:36] there are very few that are actually
[1:39:37] private. Uh so that was a good
[1:39:39] discussion to have. Uh and then this is
[1:39:41] sort of on the other end of okay are we
[1:39:43] going to address policy. So again the
[1:39:46] committee is looking at the idea of
[1:39:49] grants programs uh supportive programs
[1:39:52] to help private road privately
[1:39:54] maintained property owners who are
[1:39:57] living on those roads and then looking
[1:39:59] at changes to the resolution that make
[1:40:01] it
[1:40:02] less challenging to move forward. So I
[1:40:05] think I just the framework is dealing
[1:40:08] with this one piece but I think the c
[1:40:11] the committee is trying to look at a
[1:40:14] broad range of options for which um they
[1:40:19] can make recommendations back to the
[1:40:20] council. I think when we wanted to bring
[1:40:23] the framework is simply because we don't
[1:40:25] want to spend more staff time digging in
[1:40:28] and researching and coming up with the
[1:40:31] financial implications of all this. If
[1:40:33] the council's not interested as a body
[1:40:36] in pursuing, you know, any major
[1:40:38] modifications 59-18,
[1:40:41] then we need to know that so that we're
[1:40:42] not spending an inordinate amount of
[1:40:45] time in infrastructure committee, a well
[1:40:47] attended group, a a very engaged group
[1:40:49] of residents. And so we wanted to take
[1:40:51] this opportunity as we, you know, have
[1:40:54] eight months left in this group to try
[1:40:56] and come up with some solutions. I don't
[1:40:58] know uh SA if you just want to talk
[1:41:00] through any of the bullets that are
[1:41:02] listed there in the proposed framework
[1:41:04] aside from the two that I've mentioned.
[1:41:06] Um
[1:41:07] >> um I was just looking a little closer at
[1:41:09] » um I was just looking a little closer at
[1:41:09] the particular question the mayor had
[1:41:11] and um just looking at the current
[1:41:14] resolution wording there is two
[1:41:16] components to that paragraph. Uh one is
[1:41:19] talking about the life of the pavement
[1:41:21] and then the second part of it talks
[1:41:22] about the maintenance component of it.
[1:41:25] Um the proposal is to not focus so much
[1:41:29] on the life of the pavement and rather
[1:41:32] change it focus on the PCI component of
[1:41:34] it. That's why the 5year term comes in.
[1:41:36] Part of the reason is um they are looked
[1:41:39] at in different manner uh to know the
[1:41:41] life of a payment. there's more invasive
[1:41:43] testing involved and uh reports that
[1:41:46] needs to be generated doesn't quite
[1:41:48] necessarily reflect how um we maintain
[1:41:52] the roads currently that are in place
[1:41:54] and also last year we did a uh payment
[1:41:57] management uh review of the private
[1:41:59] roads for the first time. So that gave
[1:42:01] some insight into what the current
[1:42:03] condition of the roadways are. So all
[1:42:05] those factors came into play to
[1:42:07] recommend that as one of the framework
[1:42:09] item.
[1:42:12] » Yeah. And um I'll add and I think it's
[1:42:15] important especially for the mayor and
[1:42:17] council member Hawky since you don't
[1:42:19] attend the subcommittee meetings and SA
[1:42:21] can correct me when I uh make a misstep
[1:42:24] into what I'm saying but when we did as
[1:42:27] you know we did the um assessment for
[1:42:30] the first time um of evaluating the
[1:42:33] pavement condition of the private roads
[1:42:35] throughout the community that and we did
[1:42:38] it in the same fashion that we do for
[1:42:40] our public roads. So, we were able to
[1:42:42] get the same kind of comparative data
[1:42:45] for the first time in this very long
[1:42:48] discussion. And I I guess what I would
[1:42:51] um and I'll have SA help me if I
[1:42:53] misstate something, but um the overall
[1:42:57] PCI rating if you took it all averaged
[1:43:00] together was around 69, right? Um it it
[1:43:04] was at was that
[1:43:06] >> I do not recolct the ex exact number,
[1:43:08] » I do not recolct the ex exact number,
[1:43:08] but it was over 60. Yeah, it was it was
[1:43:12] in the you know it was near
[1:43:15] collectively all of it being you know in
[1:43:20] pretty good shape overall but that was
[1:43:22] characterized after you split it out.
[1:43:24] Remember, you have the larger, newer HOA
[1:43:30] communities like Wilder and some of the
[1:43:32] other newest places in the city where
[1:43:36] the pavement is in excellent condition,
[1:43:38] both because it's relatively new and has
[1:43:41] never had any really serious maintenance
[1:43:43] problems. So, all of it is in excellent
[1:43:46] condition. And in fact, by far and away,
[1:43:48] probably the best condition of any of
[1:43:51] the roads in Arinda, even taking into
[1:43:53] account some of our pretty
[1:43:55] well-maintained arterials at this point.
[1:43:57] Then I would say there was probably a
[1:43:59] pretty hefty midsection of private roads
[1:44:03] that were in, you know, anywhere from,
[1:44:07] you know, pretty good to, you know, the
[1:44:12] upper ends of it. They certainly were
[1:44:14] not in terrible shape. they were not
[1:44:15] really falling apart. They had been
[1:44:17] maintained in some way, shape or fashion
[1:44:20] by the residents and um and then I would
[1:44:23] say there was a sector of probably much
[1:44:27] older and probably not particularly
[1:44:29] well-maintained and that probably
[1:44:32] drugged down a little bit of the overall
[1:44:34] average. So when you think of the
[1:44:36] universe of our private roads, by far
[1:44:38] and away um more, you know, the the
[1:44:42] majority of them are actually in in
[1:44:45] really good shape, okay? Because you
[1:44:47] have to, you know, easily take a look at
[1:44:50] at at the ones that are very new. Um and
[1:44:55] you know, they are not um they are not
[1:44:59] places that would, you know, require a
[1:45:01] lot of maintenance anytime soon. So the
[1:45:05] kind of remembering what that universe
[1:45:07] looks like and and again some are um um
[1:45:11] and there's just incredible differences
[1:45:13] across the board with how they do get
[1:45:15] maintained. So um but um again if you
[1:45:19] look at the whole universe of them you
[1:45:21] know once upon a time we always talked
[1:45:23] about them like every every mile of it
[1:45:25] was just you know turning to rubble.
[1:45:28] That that's not a good that's not an
[1:45:30] appropriate characterization. So,
[1:45:33] >> thank you. I know we have a lot of
[1:45:34] » thank you. I know we have a lot of
[1:45:34] people um who would like to speak on
[1:45:36] this from the public. Uh I did want to
[1:45:38] just ask there's one about uh
[1:45:43] sorry, removing zoning and subdivision
[1:45:45] compliance standards for adjacent
[1:45:47] properties. I just didn't understand
[1:45:49] that issue. Could somebody explain what
[1:45:52] the problem is with the current one and
[1:45:54] what you're hoping to achieve?
[1:45:57] anyone
[1:46:00] » sa I think you're the default if nobody
[1:46:02] else talks.
[1:46:03] >> Yeah, I mean I was we did get the
[1:46:05] » Yeah, I mean I was we did get the
[1:46:05] benefit of
[1:46:05] >> the might be able to chime in on that.
[1:46:08] » the might be able to chime in on that.
[1:46:08] >> Uh so the initial development of this
[1:46:11] » Uh so the initial development of this
[1:46:11] came from staff and was a framework that
[1:46:13] was presented to us. So um and we chimed
[1:46:17] in on it. So it may do you want the city
[1:46:19] engine it might be helpful for the mayor
[1:46:21] and
[1:46:21] >> does [clears throat] anybody know why
[1:46:22] » does [clears throat] anybody know why
[1:46:22] that is in my bullet point list
[1:46:24] >> to go through the rest of the ones we
[1:46:26] » to go through the rest of the ones we
[1:46:26] haven't talked about
[1:46:29] >> and then we'll try and
[1:46:30] » and then we'll try and
[1:46:30] >> I have a guess
[1:46:32] » I have a guess
[1:46:32] which is that we measure setbacks from
[1:46:35] pavement and from roadway and so this
[1:46:38] might have to do with uh in the old pol
[1:46:43] the existing policy requiring that
[1:46:45] setbacks be adequate
[1:46:49] Can you explain what the sentence is
[1:46:51] saying?
[1:46:53] >> So it says private development on the
[1:46:55] » So it says private development on the
[1:46:55] property fronting the road generally
[1:46:57] meets zoning and subdivision standards
[1:46:58] applicable to property on public roads.
[1:47:02] Right? So if you are on a privately
[1:47:04] maintained road and you would like to
[1:47:06] seek city acceptance, you will be
[1:47:08] measured,
[1:47:09] you know, you will be tested against the
[1:47:12] standards we apply to publicly
[1:47:14] maintained roads for zoning setbacks.
[1:47:17] >> And we don't think we should have that
[1:47:18] » And we don't think we should have that
[1:47:18] anymore because
[1:47:24] » you find it.
[1:47:25] >> I'm just having a hard time giving
[1:47:27] » I'm just having a hard time giving
[1:47:27] feedback when I literally don't
[1:47:28] understand what is being proposed. Um,
[1:47:31] and I
[1:47:31] >> mayor, what one thing is that the many
[1:47:34] » mayor, what one thing is that the many
[1:47:34] of the private roads are much narrower
[1:47:37] than many of our public roads and so
[1:47:40] those setbacks would mean that you know
[1:47:43] you're in the middle of someone's home
[1:47:45] if you have to measure from the
[1:47:47] pavement. Um, so it disqualifies a lot
[1:47:51] of private roads
[1:47:54] um because of the narrowness of many of
[1:47:56] them. And I and I think that was
[1:47:59] overall, mayor. Um,
[1:48:01] one of the points that's come up over
[1:48:03] and over and over again is that
[1:48:05] basically again the policy has always
[1:48:09] been focused on
[1:48:12] essentially holding the private roads to
[1:48:14] the very pinnacle standard that we would
[1:48:18] hold a public road to. and that we have
[1:48:20] many many public roads in this community
[1:48:24] that do not meet the standards that we
[1:48:27] are asking for in the existing policy.
[1:48:29] They just don't they're not as wide.
[1:48:31] They're not you know they don't have the
[1:48:33] same characteristics
[1:48:35] um you know evenly throughout the
[1:48:37] community. Many of them were built at
[1:48:39] completely different times. Some of them
[1:48:41] were you know not particularly built to
[1:48:43] what I would even call you know real
[1:48:45] engineering standards at the time. And
[1:48:47] so, um, again, the the feedback over and
[1:48:52] over for years has simply been that
[1:48:54] we're trying to hold everything to do
[1:48:56] with the private roads at a level that's
[1:48:58] here, whereas we have a lot of public
[1:49:01] roads that are down here. So, that
[1:49:03] that's what I think
[1:49:04] >> that's very helpful. And I think what
[1:49:05] » that's very helpful. And I think what
[1:49:05] count I mean unless I'm seeing a
[1:49:07] different body language from our staff,
[1:49:10] does that kind of make sense that what
[1:49:12] those setback rules were about was about
[1:49:14] kind of measuring from Center Road to
[1:49:17] where development happened?
[1:49:18] >> That's my understanding.
[1:49:20] » That's my understanding.
[1:49:20] >> Thank you. I I literally just didn't
[1:49:21] » Thank you. I I literally just didn't
[1:49:22] understand what the words meant. So, um
[1:49:24] if there are there any other questions
[1:49:26] or should we turn this to public
[1:49:28] comment?
[1:49:30] Uh with that, I would love to uh let the
[1:49:32] public um opine. We got quite a few
[1:49:36] written comments that are all in the um
[1:49:38] correspondence that's been shared. Um I
[1:49:41] have one speaker card for Bob Finch. So
[1:49:43] uh Bob, I'll ask you to come up and um
[1:49:45] it looks like Mr. Waroff might also like
[1:49:47] to speak and if anybody else would like
[1:49:48] to speak, please come on up after Mr.
[1:49:50] Kathy, after uh Mr. Waroff um we'll have
[1:49:52] you speak as well. Bob Finch and I'm on
[1:49:56] board of the Wilder HOA.
[1:50:02] » Thank you. I'm Bob Finch and I'm on the
[1:50:05] board of the Wilder HOA where funds for
[1:50:09] road maintenance are pre-colcted in our
[1:50:12] dues, but the dollars in that pot all
[1:50:16] come from the pockets of the residents
[1:50:18] just like on any other private road.
[1:50:21] My comment is that I simply want to
[1:50:24] thank the infrastructure subcommittee
[1:50:26] for its good faith,
[1:50:30] open-mindedness, and diligence over the
[1:50:32] last two years.
[1:50:35] And I would add as a member of the
[1:50:37] arendence for road fairness that we have
[1:50:41] been working for nine years to get to
[1:50:43] this point.
[1:50:44] I urge the city council to approve the
[1:50:48] proposed framework as a framework. Thank
[1:50:52] you.
[1:50:54] >> Uh thank you Mr. Waroff and then um
[1:50:57] » Uh thank you Mr. Waroff and then um
[1:50:57] Kathy Vinch will be after.
[1:50:59] >> Uh good evening Nick Warrenoff for the
[1:51:01] » Uh good evening Nick Warrenoff for the
[1:51:01] record. Initially I want to address Vice
[1:51:04] Mayor G. That was the most one-sided
[1:51:08] presentation of a complicated subject
[1:51:11] that I have ever heard and I think you
[1:51:13] should seriously consider stepping down
[1:51:17] from the infrastructure committee. You
[1:51:19] know, there are two sides to the issue.
[1:51:21] I don't have the time tonight or the
[1:51:23] inclination to go through the other
[1:51:25] side, but to make such a one-sided
[1:51:28] presentation is a disservice to the body
[1:51:32] on which you sit sit.
[1:51:35] Secondly, I want to address uh my
[1:51:38] friend, council member Hawky.
[1:51:41] That was a very thorough, well-reasoned
[1:51:45] and wellthoughtout presentation on the
[1:51:48] subject of the of conflict of interest.
[1:51:52] And I left my hat in the car, but if I
[1:51:55] were wearing it to keep my head warm, I
[1:51:57] would tip my hat to you because it was
[1:51:59] very thorough and carefully reasoned.
[1:52:04] However, and there's always a however,
[1:52:08] the very same city manager
[1:52:11] some years ago
[1:52:13] when Eve Phillips was on the council and
[1:52:17] was a candidate for reelection,
[1:52:21] the very same city attorney, if I said
[1:52:24] city manager, I misspoke. I apologize.
[1:52:26] The very same city attorney
[1:52:29] publicly advised
[1:52:32] our good friend Eve Phillips that
[1:52:35] because she lived on a private road, she
[1:52:39] could not participate at all in the
[1:52:43] discussion before the council
[1:52:46] and Eve,
[1:52:48] Miss Phillips,
[1:52:51] correctly followed the city attorney's
[1:52:54] advice.
[1:52:56] And these people who have been uh part
[1:52:59] of that group, I forget what it's
[1:53:01] called, fair roads or something. Maybe
[1:53:03] it's equitable roads these days. Who
[1:53:06] knows? But these people got together and
[1:53:10] publicly vilified her. Publicly vilified
[1:53:13] her because she followed the advice of
[1:53:16] the city attorney.
[1:53:19] and she and she was very pregnant with
[1:53:21] her twins at that time and she couldn't
[1:53:24] even campaign
[1:53:26] and and present her side that she had to
[1:53:29] follow the advice of the city attorney
[1:53:32] and it felt to me
[1:53:35] to go door to door and to post on social
[1:53:38] media a defense of her. So, I'm sure
[1:53:42] we're not going to hear from the city
[1:53:43] attorney some legal explanation of why
[1:53:46] the two situations are different, but as
[1:53:50] long as we've had this historical exesis
[1:53:52] about this issue, the record should
[1:53:56] reflect my opinion, speaking as a
[1:53:59] private citizen and not a member of any
[1:54:01] group, that Vice Mayor G has shown bias
[1:54:04] that disqualifies her from the committee
[1:54:07] and that I deplore the inconsistent
[1:54:10] positions.
[1:54:12] taken by the
[1:54:15] city attorney. Thank you.
[1:54:18] >> Thank you. Uh are there any questions or
[1:54:20] » Thank you. Uh are there any questions or
[1:54:20] comments before we go to the next public
[1:54:22] speaker?
[1:54:24] >> I just want to thank the vice mayor for
[1:54:26] » I just want to thank the vice mayor for
[1:54:26] her earlier comments and thank the city
[1:54:28] attorney for her continued expert
[1:54:30] advice.
[1:54:32] Um I I do have one comment which is the
[1:54:35] uh as I understood the conflict issue as
[1:54:38] the person running the meeting if the
[1:54:41] HOAs are potentially going to be counted
[1:54:44] that essentially dilutes the uh impact
[1:54:48] of the issue and makes it more general
[1:54:50] when we are talking about private roads
[1:54:53] without including the HOA included
[1:54:57] units. That would be a conflict and
[1:54:59] council member Hawky will recuse herself
[1:55:01] the same as E. Phillips did. So that's
[1:55:03] not the city attorney speaking, but
[1:55:05] that's how I went into this meeting
[1:55:07] understanding the way we should run the
[1:55:09] program. Uh, and Kathy, thank you for
[1:55:11] waiting. Uh, Kathy Finch, please. Uh,
[1:55:13] yes, my name is Kathy Finch, and first I
[1:55:16] want to thank the infrastructure
[1:55:18] subcommittee for um, well making 20% of
[1:55:23] the city just feel included by being
[1:55:26] part of the study. you know, I mean, I
[1:55:28] just think it's wonderful that um you
[1:55:30] can now and we can all now see the city
[1:55:34] as a whole, you know, all of the
[1:55:35] streets, whether they're public or
[1:55:37] private, whether you're going to
[1:55:38] maintain them or not, to see where they
[1:55:41] stand. Same thing with public drains. I
[1:55:43] think it's just such an important issue.
[1:55:46] Um never mind, you know, the financing
[1:55:49] of what's going to come. Uh it just, you
[1:55:52] know, makes us feel part of the city and
[1:55:54] be included. Um and I wanted to only
[1:55:58] address um the first speaker who seemed
[1:56:01] to think that you know you were taking
[1:56:04] over control of of private roads um
[1:56:08] which I know this is just a framework uh
[1:56:11] uh at this point but um he said that
[1:56:14] other East Bay cities you know it should
[1:56:17] be a red flag that all these other
[1:56:19] Eastbay cities have decided not to do
[1:56:22] anything about private roads. Um but as
[1:56:25] um Vice Mayor um uh G noted, Arinda is
[1:56:31] really different. Um it's unique in as
[1:56:33] much as we've got um 20 to 22% of the
[1:56:37] city on private roads. And you know, I
[1:56:41] mean, it's a really large group of
[1:56:43] people. Uh the other thing that I wanted
[1:56:46] to comment on is that the city itself
[1:56:49] required many of us to be on private
[1:56:52] streets because there wasn't enough
[1:56:54] money um at the time like 20 years ago
[1:56:56] when Wilder was being considered. Um you
[1:57:00] didn't have money to um maintain our
[1:57:03] streets. So, it's unusual, I think, that
[1:57:06] a city says you must um be private,
[1:57:10] that, you know, we are requiring you to
[1:57:12] be private. And um some people in our
[1:57:15] subdivision have said things like, you
[1:57:17] know, it's weird. I mean, what if they
[1:57:20] said, "Okay, you can live here, but you
[1:57:22] can't go to the public schools here."
[1:57:24] You know, I mean, they feel cut out um
[1:57:28] in just that way. So, um, because they
[1:57:30] were required and because it's such a
[1:57:32] large proportion of our members and also
[1:57:35] because the bond issues that the city
[1:57:38] has passed, um, they were fine when they
[1:57:42] were requiring everybody to pay for uh,
[1:57:45] arterials and collectors. But when they
[1:57:48] went to require people to pay for
[1:57:51] residential maintenance but barred
[1:57:54] private street residents from that same
[1:57:57] benefit of their tax dollars and also
[1:58:02] when they said that the private road
[1:58:04] residents
[1:58:06] um cannot benefit from the city's road
[1:58:09] damage impact fees that all of us pay.
[1:58:12] you know, those are um things that I
[1:58:14] don't believe are uh city are citywide
[1:58:18] or or um countywide. So, I think unique
[1:58:21] we're in a unique um situation. Thank
[1:58:23] you.
[1:58:24] >> Thank you very much. And uh Joe, I think
[1:58:26] » Thank you very much. And uh Joe, I think
[1:58:26] it's Bowman. Please correct me if I
[1:58:28] mispronounced, but uh we have one more
[1:58:29] speaker card and then we'll just see if
[1:58:31] anybody else would like to speak.
[1:58:36] » Yes, my name is Joe Bowman. I'm a
[1:58:38] resident of the um Bayage Homeowners
[1:58:40] Association where I've been a resident
[1:58:42] for about 30 years.
[1:58:45] [clears throat] Um I appreciated all the
[1:58:47] work that's gone into the framework.
[1:58:48] We've been observing along the way. Um
[1:58:53] the framework as I read it really is is
[1:58:56] an eitheror framework and maybe that's
[1:58:59] where it needs to be at this stage. It's
[1:59:01] it's either uh you are going to um as
[1:59:06] either a a homeowners association or
[1:59:09] members of private births either opt in
[1:59:13] to um be considered for the city's
[1:59:16] services or stay out. And I'd simply
[1:59:19] like to suggest that there's possibly
[1:59:22] another path that should be included uh
[1:59:26] if not in the detail maybe the framework
[1:59:29] and that's uh to take some model that
[1:59:32] like our homeowners associate
[1:59:35] association has done is I think it's
[1:59:37] been on the scale as just recently
[1:59:38] described as having better than average
[1:59:42] roads by our self-maintenance
[1:59:45] and it would be beneficial to encourage
[1:59:48] either homeowners ers associations or
[1:59:50] groups of homeowners to maintain on
[1:59:54] their own but be given some form of
[1:59:57] support to be able to do that. And I did
[2:00:00] not know about the San Andelmo model or
[2:00:03] even the Arena Woods model before coming
[2:00:04] up here, but uh I'd simply ask that the
[2:00:09] that [clears throat] the subcommittee
[2:00:11] take that into consideration before the
[2:00:13] framework is adopted.
[2:00:16] Thank you. Um I would like to ask if
[2:00:20] there's anybody else from the public who
[2:00:22] would like to speak before we close the
[2:00:24] public portion.
[2:00:26] Um and then I believe the best way to do
[2:00:29] this is to talk about the HOA inclusion
[2:00:32] or not first because that will determine
[2:00:34] uh council member Hawky's additional
[2:00:36] participation. So we will ask you to um
[2:00:39] pop off the Zoom uh please and we will
[2:00:42] have
[2:00:42] >> Thank you.
[2:00:43] » Thank you.
[2:00:43] >> the city clerk will text you when it's
[2:00:44] » the city clerk will text you when it's
[2:00:44] time to dial back in.
[2:00:46] >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[2:00:53] » So, as included in the framework, uh
[2:00:56] currently 59-18
[2:00:58] excludes HOAs from participating in any
[2:01:03] um process to move towards public
[2:01:06] acceptance. And so I think this is um I
[2:01:10] think a key piece of any changes that
[2:01:12] could be made to uh any program that the
[2:01:16] city would offer in the future. Uh so I
[2:01:19] think that's
[2:01:21] much of what infrastructure committee
[2:01:23] members were hearing at those meetings
[2:01:25] was around I mean there's a large group
[2:01:27] of folks that were living in HOA areas
[2:01:30] not just wilder but other areas as well
[2:01:32] that have uh hosienda streets the roads
[2:01:34] of hosienda I think was another one as
[2:01:36] well. Um, so it was really, oh, I'm
[2:01:40] happy to stop talking, [laughter]
[2:01:42] very happy. Um, to to really just have a
[2:01:46] conversation about, you know, if there
[2:01:49] is a desire to potentially include them,
[2:01:53] that doesn't mean yes, the answers
[2:01:55] tonight. But if there is a desire to do
[2:01:57] that, that would allow staff to go back
[2:02:00] and sharpen their pencils about impact,
[2:02:02] right? What does the impact look like?
[2:02:04] if um for example the Wilder community
[2:02:07] came forward and said we'd like all of
[2:02:10] our streets to be public and you know
[2:02:12] what sort of financial impact that could
[2:02:14] have to our road maintenance program
[2:02:15] over time. So I mean we could we just
[2:02:18] didn't want to as staff spend time
[2:02:20] researching all these issues unless we
[2:02:22] had some consensus amongst the council.
[2:02:24] These are the issues you want us to
[2:02:26] research. So um I'm going to turn it
[2:02:29] back over to the three of you to discuss
[2:02:31] and give us some feedback on that.
[2:02:34] If I may, because I'm I'm talking to two
[2:02:36] people who are already sort of
[2:02:38] advocating for [laughter]
[2:02:39] going to be a very short discussion. Um,
[2:02:42] I'd like to frame this because it's an
[2:02:44] issue I thought about a lot and I'd
[2:02:46] actually like to credit both Bob and
[2:02:48] Kathy Finch right when I got elected. um
[2:02:50] we had a a call to talk about private
[2:02:53] roads and I was just listening to these
[2:02:55] issues for the first time, but they
[2:02:56] really opened my mind um about the the
[2:03:01] considerations to get beyond the
[2:03:03] knee-jerk Prop 13 argument. Um
[2:03:08] you know, the way I think about HOAs is
[2:03:10] they do have well-maintained roads. They
[2:03:14] do have assessments that have already
[2:03:16] been collected. So, they've got reserves
[2:03:18] and after some number of decades, at
[2:03:21] what point does a subdivision just
[2:03:23] become part of the city and you need to
[2:03:25] stop treating it like the new
[2:03:27] neighborhood? That said, um the reason
[2:03:31] they were excluded is that Prop 13 is so
[2:03:34] different from the the way the rest of
[2:03:36] the country operates with subdivisions
[2:03:38] because we
[2:03:41] >> we cannot
[2:03:43] » we cannot
[2:03:43] uh collect assessments in more you know
[2:03:46] the the costs go up with inflation and
[2:03:48] our ability to collect against those
[2:03:50] costs is limited at that 2% as long as
[2:03:53] they stay in their HOAs.
[2:03:56] their assessments allow them to cover
[2:03:59] costs with assessments that actually
[2:04:02] keep pace with inflation. And that is a
[2:04:04] a really fundamental imbalance that we
[2:04:08] cannot correct for the non-HOAs, but you
[2:04:11] can correct inside them. And so the the
[2:04:15] first thing I would like to hear um the
[2:04:17] subcommittee address is do you
[2:04:20] affirmatively advocate including HOA?
[2:04:22] Have you formed your own position? And
[2:04:23] if so, how do you deal with that
[2:04:26] problem?
[2:04:32] » I guess I'll just chime in. Uh
[2:04:36] [sighs and gasps]
[2:04:39] the thought process,
[2:04:42] I don't know that I can address your
[2:04:43] exact question because it goes to the
[2:04:44] financing and Prop 13. And yes, this is
[2:04:47] why when you walk around Florida,
[2:04:51] there's roadways and infrastructure. And
[2:04:53] I look at their taxes and our taxes and
[2:04:56] you know, it doesn't make a lot of
[2:04:58] sense, but we have Prop 13. Um, that is
[2:05:00] true. But I will just address why I was
[2:05:03] going to mention they don't have a state
[2:05:05] income tax and we do,
[2:05:07] >> right? But still, anyway, there's a lot
[2:05:09] » right? But still, anyway, there's a lot
[2:05:09] of other things. But anyway, um
[2:05:13] the prior resolution has or the existing
[2:05:17] resolution I'm saying because we still
[2:05:19] have this this is still our our um says
[2:05:24] um acceptance of existing privately
[2:05:27] maintained subject to the following
[2:05:28] criteria. One says, "Except where the
[2:05:31] city council approves an exception,
[2:05:33] private roads for which a homeowners
[2:05:34] association or similar entity was
[2:05:36] established for subdivision street
[2:05:39] ownership maintenance are not eligible
[2:05:42] for acceptance by the city. Given the
[2:05:47] number of residents who have been
[2:05:50] participating for the last year and a
[2:05:52] half or however long it's been in this
[2:05:54] in the infrastructure subcommittee who
[2:05:58] either are members of an HOA or you know
[2:06:01] live in an HOA and and
[2:06:05] also even other residents who aren't
[2:06:08] part of an HOA who have who have
[2:06:10] expressed
[2:06:12] um
[2:06:16] some support that members of an HOA
[2:06:18] should I to me including this in the
[2:06:22] framework
[2:06:23] is to me taking the position that HOAs
[2:06:27] should not uniformly be excluded from
[2:06:31] this process right to the extent we're
[2:06:34] trying to adoption
[2:06:36] >> cannot be the criteria if you can't
[2:06:38] » cannot be the criteria if you can't
[2:06:38] address the financial
[2:06:41] reason why they were excluded to begin
[2:06:42] with. And I'm sorry, it's so hard to
[2:06:44] look both ways.
[2:06:45] >> No, no, it's I mean,
[2:06:46] » No, no, it's I mean,
[2:06:46] >> no. Well, let let me add one thing that
[2:06:49] » no. Well, let let me add one thing that
[2:06:49] and again, you know, staff can can
[2:06:52] provide you with a lot more detail, but
[2:06:54] again, remember, it's not that we don't
[2:06:56] take any of our uh road and
[2:06:59] infrastructure funding from our property
[2:07:01] taxes. We do, but the reality is is our
[2:07:05] transportation funding comes from a
[2:07:08] multitude of sources. And it's not all
[2:07:11] based on um on uh our property taxes.
[2:07:16] Okay? So remember that we've we've had
[2:07:18] road bonds, we have sales tax, we have
[2:07:20] measure R, we have return to source from
[2:07:22] our county sales taxes, we have state of
[2:07:25] California grants and and um I mean the
[2:07:29] the problem with transportation and um
[2:07:32] I'm looking at Scott and SA there there
[2:07:34] are days when I say I should have stayed
[2:07:36] in water and wastewater because it's a
[2:07:38] lot easier. Um, transportation is a
[2:07:41] nightmare and you have to have five
[2:07:42] kinds of colors of money to fund
[2:07:45] anything these days and it's just
[2:07:47] getting worse, not better. So, so
[2:07:49] remember that a as well as there's a
[2:07:52] whole multitude of other issues you're
[2:07:54] not raising when it comes to the
[2:07:55] difference between private and public.
[2:07:58] uh public is subject to all of the you
[2:08:00] know public works requirements and you
[2:08:03] know quite frankly private HOAs can
[2:08:06] maintain their roads cheaper than the
[2:08:08] public can. That's just a fact. Um but
[2:08:11] that doesn't again that's not trying to
[2:08:13] take this into consideration. This is
[2:08:15] trying to, as our city manager said,
[2:08:17] this is trying to move toward a tonal
[2:08:19] shift of we've had a lot of division in
[2:08:22] the community already over this topic in
[2:08:24] the broadest sense. And then to me right
[2:08:28] now, it makes no sense trying to create
[2:08:30] a new framework that we would still sort
[2:08:32] of try to separate out another group of
[2:08:36] people that represents a very, you know,
[2:08:38] broad swath of our community. and and
[2:08:41] there are different kinds of HOAs uh
[2:08:43] within our community as well. So again,
[2:08:46] they're not one sizefits-all. So I I
[2:08:49] just in the broadest sense of again this
[2:08:51] being a framework rather than a lot of
[2:08:54] details,
[2:08:56] I don't see the logic of what we're
[2:08:58] trying to accomplish to still want to
[2:09:00] segregate the HOAs out and say, gee, you
[2:09:02] can't participate because again, that
[2:09:05] just affects an awful lot of of people.
[2:09:09] How can you say you don't see the logic
[2:09:12] when private homeowners associations can
[2:09:16] assess consistent with inflation and the
[2:09:19] rest of the city cannot? I mean to lose
[2:09:21] the ability to assess commensurate with
[2:09:25] the need is huge. [snorts]
[2:09:28] And the prior city manager, you know,
[2:09:31] used to always say we could even if we
[2:09:33] look at the private road issue, we can
[2:09:35] never consider letting HOAs in because
[2:09:39] it would blow up the budget so
[2:09:41] dramatically to have the same Prop 13
[2:09:44] constraints apply to an additional 20%
[2:09:47] of roads. And I know they're in good
[2:09:49] condition today, but we're talking about
[2:09:53] a long long-term policy change. And I
[2:09:55] just I am concerned that the arguments
[2:09:58] I'm hearing are well gosh they really
[2:10:00] are participating and we should include
[2:10:02] them. This is not about inclusiveness.
[2:10:04] It is about an a financial burden the
[2:10:08] city could not bear. And if we say that
[2:10:11] we are going to change the framework to
[2:10:13] allow HOAs I think it would be
[2:10:15] incredibly naive to pretend like but we
[2:10:17] might not actually. I mean, I think if
[2:10:19] you're going to say HOAs can be part of
[2:10:21] it, we must be prepared to design a
[2:10:25] program that affirmatively
[2:10:28] includes and addresses and figures it
[2:10:31] out, which I'm still open-minded, but
[2:10:34] I'm not hearing any arguments other than
[2:10:36] inclusivity
[2:10:38] to deal with the big problem. Well,
[2:10:42] there's no doubt that over time
[2:10:46] there's an enormous amount of financial,
[2:10:48] you know,
[2:10:51] lens that has to be implied to anything
[2:10:54] that comes up. But remember, I I I
[2:10:58] sort of interpret that the way you're
[2:11:00] seeing this is this means that all of
[2:11:02] our private roads are are immediately
[2:11:05] going to become public or going to
[2:11:07] immediately all apply to become public.
[2:11:09] And that's not what the framework and
[2:11:10] the policy is in is intended to do. Some
[2:11:14] people feel in the community feel really
[2:11:16] strongly that they want to do that.
[2:11:17] Others don't.
[2:11:18] >> But could you address that comment
[2:11:20] » But could you address that comment
[2:11:20] specifically to the HOAs that are
[2:11:22] participating like Wilder, Arinda Woods,
[2:11:26] Arinda Grove, the kind of the three
[2:11:28] bigger ones? Which of those do you
[2:11:30] expect in and I don't mean in the first
[2:11:32] six months but in short order to uh
[2:11:36] request a process for integration?
[2:11:40] >> I I I don't honestly know Madame Mayor.
[2:11:42] » I I I don't honestly know Madame Mayor.
[2:11:42] I mean we don't know because there are
[2:11:44] so many other details of this that
[2:11:46] aren't outlined at this point. you know,
[2:11:48] we haven't really this sort of tonal
[2:11:51] shift of, you know, we could get there
[2:11:53] instead of continuing to say, you know,
[2:11:56] no, we can't look at our infrastructure
[2:11:58] in a more holistic manner is is
[2:12:02] relatively new. There's a lot of devil
[2:12:04] in the details that's not here yet, but
[2:12:07] um
[2:12:08] >> and and this isn't
[2:12:11] » and and this isn't
[2:12:11] okay. this
[2:12:14] when when you're asking about I I feel
[2:12:19] like the
[2:12:22] including them in the framework
[2:12:24] or not excluding them in the framework
[2:12:28] does not necessarily mean that they're
[2:12:30] going to apply for and be accepted as
[2:12:33] public roads in the next when you say in
[2:12:36] short order I don't know what that I
[2:12:37] view this pro I view this this issue
[2:12:41] as a
[2:12:44] many year issue for us to resolve.
[2:12:47] This is another step there. We simply
[2:12:50] don't have the finances to allow all
[2:12:53] these HOAs immediately to become public
[2:12:56] roads. We just don't have the budget
[2:12:59] now. However, to have on paper a
[2:13:03] resolution that excludes them from any
[2:13:07] possible path in the future to me is the
[2:13:09] problem. That's what we're doing here.
[2:13:11] we're not necessarily taking the next
[2:13:14] step in my mind and I'll ask you know to
[2:13:17] correct me if I'm wrong that
[2:13:20] that there will be this immediate
[2:13:22] acceptance of you know all HOA roads or
[2:13:27] even large HOAs cuz it it
[2:13:30] [clears throat]
[2:13:32] again we need to proceed with you know
[2:13:36] stepby-step
[2:13:37] careful nuanced solutions not an
[2:13:40] overnight
[2:13:41] dramatic sea change where we all became
[2:13:45] public roads. I mean, if we wanted to
[2:13:46] self- tax ourselves, you know, 5% sales
[2:13:49] tax, we could probably do it, but we we
[2:13:52] can't do it unless we we did that. And
[2:13:53] we're not I'm not by any means
[2:13:55] suggesting we do that. Our residents
[2:13:57] wouldn't want it. So, you said was super
[2:13:58] helpful. It may again, I think the idea
[2:14:00] is we're kind of workshopping here and
[2:14:02] and without two of our five, so it's,
[2:14:05] >> you know, get what you pay for. Um, but
[2:14:07] » you know, get what you pay for. Um, but
[2:14:07] what you said about a framework I think
[2:14:09] was incredibly helpful because and we'll
[2:14:12] kind of pull it back up. Um, I had two
[2:14:14] comments. One is when I was reading this
[2:14:16] before the meeting was it was it feels
[2:14:18] kind of touchyfey, right? This is a tone
[2:14:20] reset where we want to shift the
[2:14:23] conversation which would be fine if you
[2:14:26] weren't I I actually think the decision
[2:14:29] whether or not to include HOAs is the
[2:14:31] single most important fork in the road
[2:14:33] we're going to face in this
[2:14:34] conversation. And I don't want to make
[2:14:36] light of it and just say it's a tone
[2:14:38] shift. It's a monumental potential
[2:14:42] fiscal change and I'm still open to it.
[2:14:46] So I'm not
[2:14:47] >> I'm not saying we can never but I am
[2:14:50] » I'm not saying we can never but I am
[2:14:50] saying that is no tone shift. That is a
[2:14:53] massive policy decision that we cannot
[2:14:58] make without looking at how you pay for
[2:15:01] it. That is the decision. So, um, I
[2:15:05] actually really liked what I heard from
[2:15:08] the Finches when I was first elected
[2:15:10] about the the fact that their roads are
[2:15:13] really wellmaintained and we are solving
[2:15:15] this for the life of the city and they
[2:15:18] do have pretty good reserves already.
[2:15:20] So, I I still would like to explore HOA
[2:15:24] solutions. However, semicolon however
[2:15:29] inside the 5918 framework I think is the
[2:15:32] wrong place to do it because the 5918
[2:15:34] framework is an actual ordinance that
[2:15:37] says we shall
[2:15:39] uh you know this is how we will adopt p
[2:15:43] uh private roads into the public road
[2:15:44] system. And I when you say framework my
[2:15:48] other note here was like it's like
[2:15:49] tennis without a net, right? We're gonna
[2:15:52] have a framework and it's going to have
[2:15:53] no rules. That's not a framework. The
[2:15:56] framework is the 5918 ordinance, which
[2:16:00] is an existing law, which I agree
[2:16:03] um isn't going to work without some
[2:16:07] uh some modifications that make it work.
[2:16:10] But when I think about what the
[2:16:12] infrastructure subcommittee is doing,
[2:16:15] it's so much more than 5918. 5918 is not
[2:16:18] the framework. The framework is actually
[2:16:21] um this whole idea of coming back with
[2:16:24] something where it's not like the T-AC
[2:16:26] where a neighborhood is asking for a
[2:16:28] speed bump and they have to petition and
[2:16:30] figure it all out for themselves. This
[2:16:31] is the city figuring out how we
[2:16:37] can play a much bigger role. You know,
[2:16:39] the the figuring out the PCIs was a
[2:16:42] breakthrough, right? That was the
[2:16:43] ability to then look at things and say,
[2:16:46] "Hey, these are these are actually not
[2:16:48] that hard and we can help and we can
[2:16:51] help people organize for those that need
[2:16:53] some work. We can help people form an
[2:16:55] assessment district. We can help do the
[2:16:58] neighborhood organizing."
[2:17:00] And the idea would there would be a
[2:17:02] private infrastructure program that
[2:17:03] would over a long period of time
[2:17:07] create a path for anybody who wants to
[2:17:10] do it to do it. It's not neighborhoods
[2:17:13] self-organizing,
[2:17:16] but
[2:17:17] what was on tonight's agenda was this
[2:17:19] very specific list that felt like
[2:17:21] modifying 5913
[2:17:24] and it it felt sort of cart before the
[2:17:26] horse where we're talking about well,
[2:17:28] oh, let's take out the no subdivision
[2:17:30] restriction
[2:17:32] but with no plan for what we do if we
[2:17:36] say we will consider private road
[2:17:38] adoption of subdivisions.
[2:17:40] I think 5918 is not the framework. The
[2:17:42] framework is the framework.
[2:17:46] And so I I kind of felt like that bullet
[2:17:48] point list was misplaced relative to
[2:17:51] tonight's check-in.
[2:17:52] >> Okay. So just a couple thoughts and then
[2:17:55] » Okay. So just a couple thoughts and then
[2:17:55] I'll
[2:17:56] >> Okay. Um,
[2:17:58] » Okay. Um,
[2:17:58] one thing you reminded me of in this
[2:18:00] conversation is that we had a public
[2:18:01] comment about assessment districts. Um,
[2:18:04] and that there might be various ways and
[2:18:08] different communities or different
[2:18:09] neighborhoods might might want different
[2:18:11] things and that is very much still an
[2:18:15] opportunity and a possibility and
[2:18:17] different, you know, Sanel, there's
[2:18:19] different things we could still do. this
[2:18:24] um
[2:18:27] the I think it might be maybe not but it
[2:18:32] might be helpful to just currently 5918
[2:18:36] the first sentence of the resolution is
[2:18:39] it says the acceptance the acceptance of
[2:18:41] existing privately maintained roads into
[2:18:44] the city's public roadway network shall
[2:18:46] be by resolution of the city council and
[2:18:50] shall be subject to the following
[2:18:51] criteria. IA. So what it is is it's it's
[2:18:55] criteria and so what we're calling
[2:18:56] framework is criteria. It does not say
[2:19:00] if you meet all this criteria you are
[2:19:02] accepted. It is still by resolution. But
[2:19:06] what we are doing is we had a in my mind
[2:19:09] this is just how I view this. We had a
[2:19:11] resolution that included criteria and it
[2:19:15] said the only path is if you meet all
[2:19:19] this criteria and it's it's basically
[2:19:20] impossible to meet, right? Like you
[2:19:22] asked about the 20-year
[2:19:25] to have it's it's I remember now from
[2:19:28] the infrastructure discussion because we
[2:19:30] asked about that, right? And it was the
[2:19:33] response was that it was
[2:19:36] basically we weren't even sure how
[2:19:38] someone would show, you know, show that,
[2:19:40] right? So to this point the question is
[2:19:45] should the criteria say that HOAs are
[2:19:49] excluded and to me that's a lot more
[2:19:51] narrow and doesn't require us right now
[2:19:55] to say
[2:19:57] how are we going to pay for
[2:19:59] you know all the HOA privately
[2:20:02] maintained roads becoming public roads.
[2:20:04] We are simply saying that in the
[2:20:06] criteria we are not excluding them which
[2:20:08] is big. I'm not saying it's not huge. I
[2:20:10] don't want to minimize that. It is big.
[2:20:13] It's It is a very big policy change,
[2:20:17] but I do favor it. And I also
[2:20:23] absolutely underscore underline in bold
[2:20:27] to me
[2:20:30] removing this exclusion from the
[2:20:31] criteria doesn't mean and shouldn't be
[2:20:35] you know read as we are going to
[2:20:37] immediately be able to adopt all these
[2:20:40] roads as public roads
[2:20:43] because to do anything like that has a
[2:20:47] funding mechanism and a funding
[2:20:48] implication and that has to be accounted
[2:20:52] for because we don't overspend here. We
[2:20:55] maintain our reserves. So I do agree
[2:20:58] that that is a huge huge thing that has
[2:21:02] to be done but also view this resolution
[2:21:06] along those lines. I don't know if
[2:21:08] that's helpful or or not.
[2:21:11] Yeah, I agree. I in the sense that again
[2:21:16] what ultimately comes out of this um may
[2:21:20] be a lot of things but the the goal was
[2:21:24] not to at this stage just
[2:21:30] continue
[2:21:34] well I I think council member Malcanu
[2:21:37] said it well not not to just start
[2:21:39] excluding because first of all it's not
[2:21:42] it's not an immediate acceptance of
[2:21:44] anything, right? It's as well as the
[2:21:47] fact that we know from listening to
[2:21:48] people and we have listened over the
[2:21:51] last year and a half and we know both
[2:21:54] from lots of the written comments we've
[2:21:56] gotten, what we've heard in person, um
[2:21:59] what the city's dealt with over the last
[2:22:01] decade on this issue is, you know, we
[2:22:03] have people that are perfectly happy
[2:22:05] with their private road and don't want
[2:22:07] anything. They don't want anything from
[2:22:09] the city. they don't they they're
[2:22:11] perfectly happy with the situation. We
[2:22:13] know that we have people that are on the
[2:22:15] other side that believe for whatever
[2:22:18] combination of reasons that the city
[2:22:21] should um adopt their road into the
[2:22:24] public system in some way, shape or
[2:22:26] form. And we have, believe it or not,
[2:22:28] quite a few people in various categories
[2:22:32] in between. We have some people that
[2:22:34] really care about the ownership of the
[2:22:35] road. We have other people that just
[2:22:37] care about the finances of getting the
[2:22:39] road maintained. We also have some
[2:22:41] people that are not as not all that
[2:22:44] adverse to maintaining it, but they're
[2:22:47] having difficulties doing that because
[2:22:51] they don't have an HOA. They don't have
[2:22:53] a mechanism to get their neighbors to
[2:22:55] contribute. They just they have all
[2:22:57] kinds of other challenges that just make
[2:23:01] doing your own public works kind of
[2:23:03] hard.
[2:23:04] >> No. And I and I want to save some of
[2:23:05] » No. And I and I want to save some of
[2:23:05] those comments for when council member
[2:23:06] Hawky can come back. The the specific
[2:23:08] question here is where there is an
[2:23:10] assessment, you know, where there is an
[2:23:13] HOA. And I again I just I I I'm sorry to
[2:23:17] be so hard-nosed about this, but
[2:23:20] I feel what is being set forth is like a
[2:23:24] tone set and and I agree 5918 is is not
[2:23:30] working right. the whole but but again
[2:23:32] to talk about
[2:23:34] specific changes to this law in the same
[2:23:38] spirit as and you know somebody used the
[2:23:40] expression good faith right I think
[2:23:42] that's the the tone reset happened when
[2:23:44] we formed the subcommittee when we when
[2:23:47] we reupted I mean I I don't think we
[2:23:50] would be spending the resources we've
[2:23:51] been spending for years on the
[2:23:53] subcommittee if we were not committed to
[2:23:56] work together in good faith to find a
[2:23:59] better way to deal with private
[2:24:01] infrastructure. And so I I just again
[2:24:05] this it felt to me like you guys were
[2:24:06] trying to disassemble 5918 from the
[2:24:10] inside and leave nothing there but kind
[2:24:13] of an empty shell. And that's to me not
[2:24:17] the point. The point is to come back and
[2:24:19] say forget what's in 5918. We'll deal
[2:24:22] with that when we have the final the
[2:24:24] final program legal changes financing
[2:24:28] figured out. But what I was
[2:24:31] hoping would come back in a check-in is
[2:24:34] to say, you know, number one, HOAs,
[2:24:36] should we or should we not um should
[2:24:40] they be at the table or not at the
[2:24:41] table, which is I think what you meant
[2:24:44] with the HOA conversation, but then um
[2:24:49] go ahead.
[2:24:50] >> Sorry. The question is if we're
[2:24:53] » Sorry. The question is if we're
[2:24:53] developing criteria for potential
[2:24:57] in order to even be cons if we're
[2:24:59] developing criteria should HOAs be
[2:25:01] excluded from the crit
[2:25:04] is part of the criteria is one item in
[2:25:07] the criteria that HOAs are excluded from
[2:25:08] this resolution but that's the question
[2:25:10] the resolution that's my point not the
[2:25:13] resolution we are not
[2:25:16] >> sorry I'm not understand
[2:25:17] » sorry I'm not understand
[2:25:17] >> I as the person in this conversation is
[2:25:19] » I as the person in this conversation is
[2:25:19] the one of the three people who are not
[2:25:20] on the subcommittee.
[2:25:22] I am nowhere near prepared to uh to say
[2:25:27] that we should include HOAs in private
[2:25:33] road adoption until you have been able
[2:25:36] to address how we deal with uh the
[2:25:40] imbalance of assessments can adjust with
[2:25:42] inflation, property tax cannot.
[2:25:46] So, do I want to say they are not part
[2:25:48] of the subcommittee's charter? No, there
[2:25:50] absolutely should be part of the
[2:25:51] subcommittee's charter. First, you have
[2:25:54] to answer the question about if we can
[2:25:56] come. Is there a solution out there that
[2:25:58] works to include the HOAs?
[2:26:02] >> Well, I guess my feeling is we would
[2:26:03] » Well, I guess my feeling is we would
[2:26:03] never know that if we arbitrarily
[2:26:05] exclude them right now,
[2:26:10] » but do you
[2:26:12] >> Yes. I mean, I I understand your
[2:26:14] » Yes. I mean, I I understand your
[2:26:14] concerns, which I think,
[2:26:17] you know, come back primarily to cost
[2:26:22] ultimately, but we all know that. We all
[2:26:24] know that however this gets approached.
[2:26:27] And even the people that live on private
[2:26:29] roads in this community, no matter how
[2:26:31] strongly they feel one way or the other
[2:26:33] about various topics, all recognize that
[2:26:36] at the end of the day, it comes down to
[2:26:38] how could this be structured costwise?
[2:26:41] Um and and there are a lot of questions
[2:26:43] around that. Um, but I guess in my mind
[2:26:46] I don't want at this point to say
[2:26:50] because you're an HO part of an HOA,
[2:26:53] it means that you can't be again because
[2:26:57] I guess my sense of the goal originally
[2:27:00] was to find ways to keep this
[2:27:04] to find ways to bring this issue
[2:27:08] together more than letting it continue
[2:27:10] to be a very divisive, painful issue in
[2:27:13] the community. And to me, if you're
[2:27:15] right again, not allowing HOAs to be
[2:27:19] considered, then that's again
[2:27:23] just being divisive rather than finding
[2:27:25] ways to find solutions. Even though I'm
[2:27:28] I'm not disagreeing with you that there
[2:27:30] may be financial issues that, you know,
[2:27:34] may or may not be able to be overcome in
[2:27:36] the future.
[2:27:38] >> I go ahead. the the the
[2:27:42] » I go ahead. the the the
[2:27:42] actual language says that
[2:27:46] HOAs are not eligible for acceptance by
[2:27:49] the city. So it says under
[2:27:51] >> you are not hearing my feedback. So I
[2:27:53] » you are not hearing my feedback. So I
[2:27:53] want to try this one more time.
[2:27:55] >> As long as you're trying to reddraft
[2:27:56] » As long as you're trying to reddraft
[2:27:56] that law, I am not going to agree. We're
[2:27:59] not ready. As long as you're telling me
[2:28:02] because like Darlene on my right is
[2:28:05] saying
[2:28:06] the subcommittee the infrastructure
[2:28:08] subcommittee would like to keep working
[2:28:10] on potential solutions. I am on board
[2:28:13] with that.
[2:28:14] >> Then you're saying well 5918 says that
[2:28:18] » Then you're saying well 5918 says that
[2:28:18] HOAs are excluded. 5918 is a path to
[2:28:22] adoption and I'm not ready to put HOAs
[2:28:26] in the path to adoption until we can
[2:28:29] solve the big fiscal imbalance question.
[2:28:34] So I want I would like to see the
[2:28:37] subcommittee keep working on HOA
[2:28:41] inclusion
[2:28:43] if there is a way to do it. But every
[2:28:45] time you point to 5918, I'm going to say
[2:28:48] no because that is the that was actually
[2:28:51] something saying if you do these things,
[2:28:53] the city can adopt your road.
[2:28:55] >> That's not what it's
[2:28:57] » That's not what it's
[2:28:57] it says you're not going to be
[2:28:59] considered
[2:29:00] unless you do all these things. It's it
[2:29:04] it's disingenuous to say, "Oh, you could
[2:29:06] do all these things, but then we're not
[2:29:07] going to consider you because
[2:29:10] we can't afford you and you knew all
[2:29:12] along we could never afford you." I mean
[2:29:13] that it just if it's not possible for
[2:29:17] HOAs then it's not possible.
[2:29:19] >> I mean
[2:29:23] » I don't think that considering finances
[2:29:25] when you're looking at adoption is
[2:29:27] disingenuous. I think everyone knows we
[2:29:29] have to be looking at that as well. So I
[2:29:31] don't I I'm I'm not trying to I hear
[2:29:35] what you're saying. I just think that to
[2:29:38] me what is before us, right? What we're
[2:29:41] looking at is something very specific
[2:29:45] and
[2:29:47] the issue of whether there will be whe
[2:29:51] when and how
[2:29:54] there will be a financial
[2:29:57] um there will be funding basically to
[2:30:00] adopt any any private road in any
[2:30:03] homeowners association or all of them or
[2:30:06] one of them or is
[2:30:10] a very fact-specific inquiry that will
[2:30:12] happen at the time and may frankly
[2:30:14] happen way down the road because there
[2:30:18] isn't funding for it to happen now. So I
[2:30:21] am not trying to be say that we do this
[2:30:26] and then oh well we've already done it
[2:30:28] so everyone gets accepted right that is
[2:30:31] no that I mean I I guess I'm trying to
[2:30:35] be really clear about the understanding
[2:30:37] of what it means to rewrite the criteria
[2:30:40] in here right and that the expectation
[2:30:43] should not be and I and I think that
[2:30:45] those that have been attending the
[2:30:46] subcommittee meetings get that because
[2:30:49] there's been a lot to talk about. We
[2:30:51] keep one question that keeps coming up
[2:30:53] in the subcommittee, frankly, is well,
[2:30:55] what's the next step? How does this get
[2:30:57] happen? How does this get happen? And we
[2:30:58] keep having to say, we're not there yet,
[2:31:02] right? We're not we're not there yet in
[2:31:04] terms of refiguring out the funding.
[2:31:06] What we're trying to do is keep moving
[2:31:09] forward towards problem solving,
[2:31:12] recognizing that this is a really big
[2:31:14] problem that may take, frankly, I
[2:31:16] personally think years to solve.
[2:31:19] And that doesn't mean that this the
[2:31:21] infrastructure subcommittee will exist
[2:31:23] for for for staff purposes. I'm not
[2:31:25] suggesting that that needs to exist for
[2:31:27] years and years. But I think that the
[2:31:29] council will continue to,
[2:31:33] you know, be revisiting this issue for
[2:31:36] years in terms of especially when you
[2:31:38] get to funding. So, I'm not, you know,
[2:31:40] but if if this exclusion was maintained,
[2:31:44] the way I view it, and maybe I'm
[2:31:45] misreading it, but the way I view it is
[2:31:49] if this exclusion were maintained, then
[2:31:51] no matter what the circumstances, no
[2:31:54] road in any homeowners association, no
[2:31:58] residents living on a privately
[2:31:59] maintained road in any homeowners
[2:32:01] association
[2:32:03] could ever seek adoption.
[2:32:06] And that to me is different from
[2:32:08] everyone gets it and the same thing back
[2:32:09] and forth and everybody in the audience
[2:32:10] is thrashing in their chairs. So
[2:32:14] >> we can we can move forward with saying I
[2:32:19] » we can we can move forward with saying I
[2:32:19] I'm going to rephrase it the way Vice
[2:32:20] Mayor G said it, which is
[2:32:23] we are not going to say that HOAs are
[2:32:27] categorically cannot be considered off
[2:32:29] the table. I thought HOAs were in the
[2:32:31] charter of the subcommittee from the
[2:32:32] beginning and should be and for that
[2:32:35] purpose I would like to invite council
[2:32:37] member Hawky back in the conversation
[2:32:39] but every time you point to that law and
[2:32:42] you say
[2:32:44] change this sentence I am going to say
[2:32:47] no what I would like is for the
[2:32:50] subcommittee to come back with an actual
[2:32:53] program that says here's I mean yes this
[2:32:57] law basically says you can't be accepted
[2:32:59] is a public road unless you do all these
[2:33:01] things and you need to be darn near
[2:33:03] perfect. And I agree that that law as
[2:33:06] our one and only way to work didn't
[2:33:08] work. But what I expected from the
[2:33:09] subcommittee was something that that
[2:33:12] doesn't worry too much about what that
[2:33:14] existing law says, but says here's a
[2:33:17] program. Here's a solution. And I'm not
[2:33:20] hearing a solution. What I'm hearing is
[2:33:22] words smithing the existing law. So I I
[2:33:25] do want to get council member back.
[2:33:27] >> Can I ask you a question? Um I I think
[2:33:29] » Can I ask you a question? Um I I think
[2:33:29] that and again I I don't want to be
[2:33:31] overly presumptive but
[2:33:34] >> I think certainly a lot of members of
[2:33:36] » I think certainly a lot of members of
[2:33:36] the community um
[2:33:38] >> you know feel that ultimately if we can
[2:33:41] » you know feel that ultimately if we can
[2:33:41] come up with anything that is better
[2:33:43] than what we have today that 5918 would
[2:33:47] have to either be revised or replaced or
[2:33:51] one of the two that it we probably can't
[2:33:54] come up with solutions
[2:33:57] and then still have 5918 be exactly the
[2:34:00] way it is. I I guess my and so it's a
[2:34:02] question to you.
[2:34:04] >> Of course, of course. Of course. I think
[2:34:06] » Of course, of course. Of course. I think
[2:34:06] we wouldn't have formed the subcommittee
[2:34:07] if we were trying to just redline 5918.
[2:34:09] I think the idea was we need
[2:34:11] fundamentally new programs and
[2:34:13] approaches and it might be a grant
[2:34:16] program. It might be a maintenance
[2:34:17] contract. It might be a way that we work
[2:34:21] with any HOA or private road for
[2:34:24] something that changes the criteria to
[2:34:27] things that are PCI based and where we
[2:34:30] help people form assessments when
[2:34:33] because the whole thing about neighbors
[2:34:34] having to collect from their neighbors.
[2:34:35] I mean the the existing system
[2:34:37] affirmatively doesn't work and I'm
[2:34:39] excited to see things move forward. But
[2:34:42] I I yeah, I just think that the
[2:34:44] excessive focus on 5918 is not
[2:34:47] constructive and I know staff wants to
[2:34:48] spend their time as well as possible and
[2:34:52] so I would focus on more of the big
[2:34:55] picture solutions before we worry about
[2:34:57] what this bullet point says or that
[2:34:59] bullet point says. Um, I the reason this
[2:35:02] is before the full council right now is
[2:35:04] we didn't want to ask staff to spend
[2:35:07] time and effort into reddrafting
[2:35:09] something that was then
[2:35:13] totally out of whack with the policy
[2:35:16] desires of the full council, right?
[2:35:19] Because it's a lot of work and it's
[2:35:20] tricky and evidenced by the conversation
[2:35:23] we're having, right? It's a tricky thing
[2:35:25] to reddraft. So, we didn't want them
[2:35:28] staff to spend time reddrafting until we
[2:35:31] got this was this was one of these
[2:35:34] things where we looked at it and said,
[2:35:36] "Okay, some of this framework looks
[2:35:38] good. This looks good to us, right? But
[2:35:40] let's bring our colleagues in before
[2:35:43] staff spends time
[2:35:46] putting, you know, so I I'm not trying
[2:35:48] to wordsmith something. I'm just trying
[2:35:50] to tell you that on that point, that's
[2:35:53] what I think it addresses. I went back
[2:35:54] and looked on the other point and you
[2:35:57] know the removal of zoning and
[2:35:59] subdivision standards for adjacent
[2:36:01] properties. That also that also that
[2:36:03] bullet point appears to me to address a
[2:36:07] very specific
[2:36:08] uh clause in the current 5918 and
[2:36:12] frankly I made a note that when it goes
[2:36:14] back to the infrastructure committee we
[2:36:16] better understand that better. So that
[2:36:17] was a helpful feedback. So th that's the
[2:36:19] idea
[2:36:20] >> and I think in many respects madame
[2:36:21] » and I think in many respects madame
[2:36:21] mayor we're putting you in a really
[2:36:23] difficult position. I mean some of this
[2:36:25] may have to be redised when we have
[2:36:27] council member Riley with us and to
[2:36:29] whatever extent council member Hawky can
[2:36:32] participate. I think that's important as
[2:36:34] well because obviously we we sort of
[2:36:36] have a a tough situation where council
[2:36:39] member Mccani and I have sat through a
[2:36:41] whole lot that you haven't had the
[2:36:43] benefit of and our other two council
[2:36:44] members haven't either. So, I think it's
[2:36:46] probably important that we get
[2:36:48] >> No, this is a this is a really weird
[2:36:50] » No, this is a this is a really weird
[2:36:50] dynamic and it's it's really suboptimal.
[2:36:53] So, um I will say though, please and I'm
[2:36:58] I am only one person, but there are only
[2:37:01] three of us that aren't on the
[2:37:02] subcommittee. Do not reddraft 5918 until
[2:37:06] you have something that works figured
[2:37:09] out. Start with a solution and then
[2:37:11] reddraft the law. You're you're truly
[2:37:14] putting the car before the horse.
[2:37:16] >> I
[2:37:17] » I
[2:37:17] when you say some until you have
[2:37:19] something figured out, what what do you
[2:37:21] mean?
[2:37:22] >> Come to us and say here's what was
[2:37:24] » Come to us and say here's what was
[2:37:24] broken and here's how we're going to fix
[2:37:26] it. We think that the you know pick so
[2:37:29] you come to us with a presentation that
[2:37:31] says here were the constraints on
[2:37:33] getting roads adopted. The technical
[2:37:35] standards were too high. Mhm.
[2:37:37] >> The city was so concerned about
[2:37:40] » The city was so concerned about
[2:37:40] liability that they made impossible
[2:37:42] standards to pass. Neighbors had too
[2:37:44] hard a time uh some neighbors
[2:37:47] neighborhoods were well organized, some
[2:37:48] were poorly organized. Neighbors had a
[2:37:51] horrible time with the legalities of
[2:37:52] forming assessment districts and
[2:37:55] neighbors neighborhoods had a horrible
[2:37:56] time with knowing what to do to fix
[2:37:58] their roads. So, if you were to come and
[2:38:01] say, "Here's how we're going to deal
[2:38:03] with neighborhood assessments and
[2:38:06] organization and sort of the legal
[2:38:08] aspects and here's how we're going to
[2:38:09] deal with neighborhoods knowing what
[2:38:11] they need to do to get their roads up to
[2:38:14] an adoptable standard. And here's what
[2:38:16] we think an adoptable standard looks
[2:38:18] like. And here's what we're going to do
[2:38:19] about the fact that some roads are maybe
[2:38:22] have soil erosion issues that are really
[2:38:26] not good for city liability, but are
[2:38:28] also not good for homeowner liability.
[2:38:30] What do we do with things that have
[2:38:32] engineering flaws or problems? Here's
[2:38:35] what we think we should do about HOAs
[2:38:38] and the adoption criteria when an HOA is
[2:38:41] evolved. There's a couple things that we
[2:38:43] have talked about for years now that are
[2:38:46] the known kind of the big boulders of
[2:38:47] the issue. And so before we're talking
[2:38:50] about what the bullet point says about
[2:38:52] subdivision compliance, it's like well
[2:38:55] what's the solution?
[2:38:57] So that particular bullet I have a note
[2:39:01] to go back onto but with everything else
[2:39:04] I thought we were coming with that. So I
[2:39:06] guess anyway, how what's the best way
[2:39:08] for us to move forward? Because you're
[2:39:10] right, it is a it's it's not fair to
[2:39:12] have the conversation also, I think,
[2:39:14] with the
[2:39:14] >> it's like you came with a legal solution
[2:39:16] » it's like you came with a legal solution
[2:39:16] to a business problem and I want to hear
[2:39:18] the business solution before we worry
[2:39:19] about how we're going to draft it. And
[2:39:22] but I would like to invite council
[2:39:23] member Hawky
[2:39:24] >> and I'm to have um to be able to share
[2:39:27] » and I'm to have um to be able to share
[2:39:27] her thoughts and opinions because Lord
[2:39:29] knows she's going to have some as well.
[2:39:32] Um and I do think
[2:39:33] >> what are we so we're just putting I
[2:39:35] » what are we so we're just putting I
[2:39:35] think we've discussed it as much as we
[2:39:37] could. Can we can we discuss the rest
[2:39:39] without that clause?
[2:39:41] >> So the way the FPPC's segmentation rule
[2:39:44] » So the way the FPPC's segmentation rule
[2:39:44] works which is the one we're operating
[2:39:45] under right now um an issue has to be
[2:39:49] segregable from the remainder of the
[2:39:52] discussion. A final decision as much as
[2:39:55] there is one uh tonight has to be
[2:39:57] reached and then cannot return to this
[2:40:00] discussion once council member Hawky
[2:40:02] comes back. I hearing the discussion and
[2:40:06] please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm
[2:40:08] hearing consensus that a property's
[2:40:13] membership in an HOA or non-membership
[2:40:15] in an HOA is not a
[2:40:19] definitive characteristic.
[2:40:22] Right? So whereas my read of the
[2:40:25] existing resolution was that there might
[2:40:27] be a clear dividing line. priv private
[2:40:29] roads are either in an HOA or they are
[2:40:31] not and they are treated differently.
[2:40:33] I'm hearing consensus that that is not
[2:40:36] going to be the case at least for the
[2:40:37] purposes of this highle framework
[2:40:39] discussion.
[2:40:40] >> I believe we are unanimous that they do
[2:40:42] » I believe we are unanimous that they do
[2:40:42] not need to be categorically excluded
[2:40:45] from the consideration and therefore I
[2:40:48] believe council member Hawky can be
[2:40:50] invited back.
[2:40:51] >> That's my understanding as well.
[2:40:52] » That's my understanding as well.
[2:40:52] >> Okay, great. So I think we've reached a
[2:40:54] » Okay, great. So I think we've reached a
[2:40:54] final decision.
[2:40:55] >> I'm sorry this is so hard. It just it's
[2:40:57] » I'm sorry this is so hard. It just it's
[2:40:57] a hard issue. Thank you. Okay. So, so
[2:41:02] Council Member Hawky, I texted her to
[2:41:04] return. Is she back?
[2:41:06] >> Okay.
[2:41:09] » Okay.
[2:41:09] >> Hello everyone.
[2:41:11] » Hello everyone.
[2:41:11] >> Hello. Hello. So, we've been um I've
[2:41:14] » Hello. Hello. So, we've been um I've
[2:41:14] been monologuing. I know that surprises
[2:41:16] you. [clears throat] So, we would love
[2:41:18] for you to kind of share your questions,
[2:41:21] your thoughts, your concerns, and I'll
[2:41:22] uh have the subcommittee respond with
[2:41:25] you uh similarly.
[2:41:27] >> Thank you. One of the questions I've
[2:41:29] » Thank you. One of the questions I've
[2:41:29] been thinking about is sort of how
[2:41:31] assuming the city can't afford to take
[2:41:34] all private roads in at once. Is there
[2:41:38] going to be some sort of prioritization
[2:41:41] of what types of private roads we're
[2:41:43] most interested in helping with
[2:41:46] maintenance such as maybe through roads
[2:41:48] or roads that could be an evacuation
[2:41:50] route or um roads that are already in
[2:41:54] great shape? I mean, is there any sort
[2:41:56] of prioritization as part of this
[2:41:59] framework.
[2:42:02] » I think not yet.
[2:42:04] >> I mean, it's not an issue that's been um
[2:42:06] » I mean, it's not an issue that's been um
[2:42:06] talked about yet, Council Member Hawky.
[2:42:08] I mean, it's certainly I would certainly
[2:42:10] say it
[2:42:12] >> would easily be on the table in the
[2:42:14] » would easily be on the table in the
[2:42:14] sense that
[2:42:16] when you weren't with us, Council Member
[2:42:17] Malcani explained
[2:42:20] this. I think this is envisioned maybe
[2:42:23] not by everybody and certainly by not
[2:42:24] every member of our public, but I think
[2:42:27] there's a recognition that this might be
[2:42:30] a pretty lengthy process.
[2:42:32] >> Absolutely.
[2:42:33] » Absolutely.
[2:42:33] >> You [laughter] know, it's something
[2:42:34] » You [laughter] know, it's something
[2:42:34] that's going to happen overnight,
[2:42:36] >> right? It's not like we're going to take
[2:42:37] » right? It's not like we're going to take
[2:42:37] in 20 people of roads overnight. I agree
[2:42:40] with that.
[2:42:41] >> Yeah. Anytime you have something that
[2:42:43] » Yeah. Anytime you have something that
[2:42:43] might take a a right
[2:42:44] >> a significant period of time, it makes
[2:42:46] » a significant period of time, it makes
[2:42:46] sense that you would ultimately probably
[2:42:49] end up with, you know, what do you do
[2:42:51] first, second, third,
[2:42:52] >> right? I mean, there's some roads that I
[2:42:54] » right? I mean, there's some roads that I
[2:42:54] know of that, you know, are clearly more
[2:42:58] problematic than others. For instance, I
[2:43:01] think up near the top of Elway now,
[2:43:03] there's a private road that's actually a
[2:43:04] through road that could be an evacuation
[2:43:06] that really you can't pass through
[2:43:08] without a four-wheel drive vehicle at
[2:43:09] this point because it's in such bad
[2:43:11] repair. You know, at some point, we have
[2:43:13] to decide, is that the sort of thing the
[2:43:15] city wants to help those homeowners deal
[2:43:18] with because they obviously seem
[2:43:20] incapable of doing it on their own
[2:43:22] because they haven't for all these
[2:43:24] years. Um and then
[2:43:28] I one of the issues that I have faced on
[2:43:31] my own road is just particularly visav
[2:43:34] storm drains how difficult it is to
[2:43:36] actually get a contractor to respond to
[2:43:38] a private homeowner. And so one of the
[2:43:41] things that I think the city could do to
[2:43:43] help in the interim would be to just
[2:43:46] help, you know, willing groups of
[2:43:49] homeowners access the contractors who
[2:43:52] can do the kind of work they may need to
[2:43:54] get done because some of these
[2:43:56] contractors are used to having big city
[2:43:58] contracts and they're not used to
[2:44:01] dealing with small homeowner groups.
[2:44:05] One thing that was has been discussed in
[2:44:09] the infrastructure committee and has
[2:44:11] been brought up a lot by residents,
[2:44:13] council member Hawky, is what you're
[2:44:14] talking about exactly, which is that
[2:44:16] folks have said some that yes, it is
[2:44:21] very frustrating for a group of
[2:44:23] homeowners to try to figure out how
[2:44:26] they're supposed to, you know,
[2:44:28] basically. So, you know,
[2:44:30] >> act like the city.
[2:44:31] » act like the city.
[2:44:31] >> Yeah.
[2:44:33] » Yeah.
[2:44:33] fix a fix a road up to up to, you know,
[2:44:36] correct standards. So there's
[2:44:37] >> it's not even the pavement. I think
[2:44:39] » it's not even the pavement. I think
[2:44:39] that's so hard. I think the pavement is
[2:44:41] the easier aspect of it. It's the storm
[2:44:43] drains because they're under the roads
[2:44:45] generally or next to them. They're
[2:44:47] they're harder when they back up. It's
[2:44:50] usually a crisis, right? Because
[2:44:52] someone's house is getting flooded. You
[2:44:54] know, water flows downhill. So the water
[2:44:56] going through those drains isn't coming
[2:44:58] from necessarily your road. it may be
[2:45:00] coming from the public road above you,
[2:45:02] right? So, I think those are some of the
[2:45:05] more difficult issues to deal with and
[2:45:07] they tend to be need require being dealt
[2:45:09] with in a very timely fashion or you're
[2:45:11] going to have some real damage. Um, so I
[2:45:14] I would like to see if we could include
[2:45:16] something to address those kinds of
[2:45:19] issues as an interim step maybe. Just a
[2:45:22] thought.
[2:45:24] So the things that have been discussed
[2:45:26] are the need for technical assistance,
[2:45:28] the need for technical assistance in
[2:45:30] terms of you know helping to find
[2:45:33] contractors in terms of forming
[2:45:35] assessment districts and um the exact
[2:45:38] scenario that you just mentioned in
[2:45:41] terms of you know uh dealing with all
[2:45:45] the drainage issues including the
[2:45:46] scenario you just mentioned have been
[2:45:49] >> good okay well I'm sorry [laughter] so
[2:45:51] » good okay well I'm sorry [laughter] so
[2:45:52] you what you're saying it's resonating
[2:45:53] including with our audience.
[2:45:55] >> But good. I I I'm glad we're discussing
[2:45:57] » But good. I I I'm glad we're discussing
[2:45:57] this and I'm happy to see we're
[2:46:00] >> at least addressing these issues with a
[2:46:03] » at least addressing these issues with a
[2:46:03] willingness to help homeowners because I
[2:46:05] think that's what's been missing. Um so
[2:46:07] I'm very appreciative of the work the
[2:46:09] infrastructure committee has done and
[2:46:12] the direction we're going understanding
[2:46:14] that it's a long process. It's not like
[2:46:17] we're going to deal with issues all at
[2:46:19] once.
[2:46:21] So, what I'm hearing um is that the
[2:46:26] council would like staff to uh work
[2:46:30] closely with the infrastructure
[2:46:32] committee and come up with more specific
[2:46:35] solutions,
[2:46:36] additional financial analysis. So the
[2:46:38] impact of any changes and really put a
[2:46:41] lot of staff effort and time into coming
[2:46:44] up with solutions
[2:46:47] like a range of solutions, not simply a
[2:46:50] change of an ordinance or a resolution,
[2:46:52] but more broad programmatic
[2:46:57] options to bring back for the council's
[2:47:00] consideration. So, I think we just
[2:47:02] wanted to check in before we spend an a
[2:47:05] significant amount of staff time, which
[2:47:07] is what I think this next phase is going
[2:47:09] to entail, and make sure we weren't
[2:47:11] completely off track. The work plan says
[2:47:14] things like explore ideas, discuss and
[2:47:17] develop options. And um it sounds like
[2:47:21] what the council would like to see is
[2:47:23] some financial
[2:47:26] um coupling of what those solutions
[2:47:28] could be. uh and what sort of impact
[2:47:31] they could potentially have on our
[2:47:33] general fund or any funding that we have
[2:47:35] available long term, right? And then
[2:47:38] staff can also present back to
[2:47:41] infrastructure committee and back to the
[2:47:42] council the resources that we have to
[2:47:45] support a large
[2:47:48] program,
[2:47:50] right? because we're pretty small. If
[2:47:52] you haven't seen less than 40 employees
[2:47:54] and to do something that's fairly
[2:47:57] significant would be
[2:48:00] >> it'd be a lift, right?
[2:48:02] » it'd be a lift, right?
[2:48:02] >> We could talk about all of those things,
[2:48:03] » We could talk about all of those things,
[2:48:03] but we didn't want to engage too far
[2:48:06] down that pathway. We had just gotten
[2:48:08] through all the data collection
[2:48:10] basically, right? Data collection,
[2:48:12] questionnaires, PCIs, we're doing the
[2:48:15] mapping of the storm drains. We're doing
[2:48:16] all these things. We've got most of the
[2:48:18] data now. And so now it's like well what
[2:48:20] do we do with all this? We need to come
[2:48:21] back and check in and say um 5918 has
[2:48:26] been mentioned as an impediment. Uh so
[2:48:28] how do we clear that hurdle? But but
[2:48:31] tell us all the other things that are
[2:48:32] out there that other communities are
[2:48:34] doing. So that's where we're at. But it
[2:48:36] sounds like the council is okay with
[2:48:38] infrastructure committee really diving
[2:48:40] into program development at this point
[2:48:43] with with financial um implications for
[2:48:46] what those could be. And just again, I
[2:48:48] hope everybody chimes in with their
[2:48:50] reactions. Uh definitely agree. You
[2:48:53] know, I would just reiterate hearing you
[2:48:55] talk about all the work that's been
[2:48:56] done. That initial scope, I mean, when
[2:48:58] we started everything that the committee
[2:49:00] has already done, that was like the
[2:49:03] first 10 bites of the elephant, right?
[2:49:05] It was a huge undertaking because we
[2:49:07] didn't even have the most basic data.
[2:49:10] And so people would talk about the
[2:49:11] private roads issue was with these gross
[2:49:13] generalizations. And so, believe it or
[2:49:15] not, that was not just gathering the
[2:49:17] data to get started. That was in and of
[2:49:19] itself accomplishing some really
[2:49:21] significant
[2:49:22] meaningful tasks. So, I actually wanted
[2:49:25] to just take a moment to put a big in
[2:49:28] the column for everything that that
[2:49:31] committee has already achieved. Um,
[2:49:33] because the committee could have stopped
[2:49:34] right there and that still would have
[2:49:36] been a tremendous accomplishment. I
[2:49:38] think the what I'm hearing you say is
[2:49:40] it's actually time to define to go back
[2:49:43] to the scope of work now that we've done
[2:49:45] 80% of phase one and figure out what the
[2:49:49] definition of phase 2 looks like right
[2:49:53] what what is the appropriate scope of
[2:49:54] work and come back and maybe get some
[2:49:56] buy in on that and and just when you
[2:49:58] mentioned financial analysis what I
[2:50:00] don't want to do is have everybody waste
[2:50:02] a bunch of time quantifying um
[2:50:07] you
[2:50:09] financial analysis for its own sake. I
[2:50:11] would actually my hope is that the
[2:50:15] whoever and it's probably Doug or
[2:50:17] someone on his team could look at the
[2:50:19] HOA kind of structural finance problem
[2:50:23] and really start with some of the things
[2:50:24] that Vice Mayor G said about what
[2:50:26] proportion of all of the ways you fund
[2:50:29] road projects is property tax versus the
[2:50:32] other soup of funding sources. How big
[2:50:35] is the problem really? And are there,
[2:50:39] you know, are there constructive ways
[2:50:41] that we could do it? So, I would look at
[2:50:42] it not as a just numbers for the sake of
[2:50:44] numbers, but really with an eye to how
[2:50:48] could we get past that obstacle that has
[2:50:51] always stopped us in the past. And
[2:50:54] >> it's great.
[2:50:55] » it's great.
[2:50:55] >> Again, just speaking for my own
[2:50:57] » Again, just speaking for my own
[2:50:57] reactions to your feedback.
[2:51:02] » Subcommittee
[2:51:03] thoughts. I'm I'm accepting of that
[2:51:05] feedback if you have consensus of your
[2:51:07] colleagues to that that's the approach
[2:51:09] you'd like to take. H
[2:51:13] >> I guess how
[2:51:19] how is that different from sort of what
[2:51:22] the city manager described earlier?
[2:51:26] Is it just more
[2:51:30] just more detail?
[2:51:33] right
[2:51:33] >> significantly more.
[2:51:34] » significantly more.
[2:51:34] >> I mean, I do think that [sighs]
[2:51:38] Yeah, I'm I think that makes sense. I I
[2:51:43] do feel like we should probably have
[2:51:46] things
[2:51:48] continue to,
[2:51:51] you know, come back
[2:51:54] so that we also don't go down a rabbit
[2:51:58] hole of a really intensive staff
[2:52:00] analysis
[2:52:02] where we without making sure we have
[2:52:04] consensus because I don't want to waste
[2:52:06] we don't have a lot of staff. We we
[2:52:08] staff time is precious and I don't want
[2:52:10] to waste any of it. So I
[2:52:13] >> and realistically I think
[2:52:15] » and realistically I think
[2:52:15] >> there's there probably needs I mean
[2:52:17] » there's there probably needs I mean
[2:52:18] depending on I mean there's all kinds of
[2:52:21] ways we can approach it but at some
[2:52:23] point quite honestly part of it probably
[2:52:26] requires additional outside resources.
[2:52:29] There probably is a short-term fiscal
[2:52:31] component as well because to be able to
[2:52:35] answer a lot of questions that both the
[2:52:38] council and the community wants to have
[2:52:40] some meat on the bones um is going to
[2:52:44] probably take more than what we can do
[2:52:46] inhouse I would assume.
[2:52:48] >> Yeah.
[2:52:50] » Yeah.
[2:52:50] So, if there's consensus that we would
[2:52:52] be going back and expending more
[2:52:55] resources, including maybe consultant
[2:52:57] resources to flesh out opportunities for
[2:53:01] program development, we could do that.
[2:53:03] Um, I'll I'll work with the staff and uh
[2:53:07] probably won't be ready for your next
[2:53:08] infrastructure committee, but we can
[2:53:10] have um additional discussion at the
[2:53:13] next meeting, which I think is on the
[2:53:15] 19th. I might be getting that wrong, but
[2:53:17] it's coming up this month. I think it's
[2:53:19] the 16th is our next meeting.
[2:53:20] >> You're right. So, it's only in two
[2:53:23] » You're right. So, it's only in two
[2:53:23] weeks. So, we'll we'll work towards um
[2:53:25] putting something on that agenda or we
[2:53:26] can continue this conversation um and
[2:53:29] the outcomes of this meeting to frame up
[2:53:33] what uh program development looks like
[2:53:35] for
[2:53:36] >> Yeah. Maybe we can discuss if there's an
[2:53:37] » Yeah. Maybe we can discuss if there's an
[2:53:37] efficient way to to approach program
[2:53:40] development,
[2:53:40] >> right?
[2:53:41] » right?
[2:53:41] >> That might be a good topic for our next
[2:53:43] » That might be a good topic for our next
[2:53:43] meeting.
[2:53:43] >> Yeah. Thank you. Council member Hawky,
[2:53:45] » Yeah. Thank you. Council member Hawky,
[2:53:45] did you have any final thoughts? I know
[2:53:46] we we didn't get to involve you as much
[2:53:48] as we would have liked.
[2:53:49] >> No, thank you, mayor. I'm very happy
[2:53:51] » No, thank you, mayor. I'm very happy
[2:53:51] that we're moving down this road. I
[2:53:54] think everyone is thinking about it in a
[2:53:56] very rational, systematic, thoughtful
[2:53:58] way. And so, I'm I'm happy with the work
[2:54:02] we've done. I I agree with your comments
[2:54:04] about just the mapping and the, you
[2:54:06] know, understanding the condition of the
[2:54:08] roads and the situation we currently
[2:54:10] have right now is helpful. and I'm
[2:54:12] hopeful that we can come up with some
[2:54:14] creative solutions that will address
[2:54:16] some of these issues going forward.
[2:54:20] >> Thank you. And just one final thank you
[2:54:22] » Thank you. And just one final thank you
[2:54:22] to our infrastructure subcommittee and
[2:54:24] to staff. I this has already been a huge
[2:54:28] huge effort of time, but I actually
[2:54:29] think you're doing something very
[2:54:31] important for the city and um I just I
[2:54:34] these are tough conversations, but
[2:54:36] really really thank you both.
[2:54:38] >> Well, to that end, credit really goes to
[2:54:41] » Well, to that end, credit really goes to
[2:54:41] staff. I think I mean it it and to our
[2:54:44] residents for uh continuing to show up
[2:54:46] again and again and talking with us.
[2:54:49] >> And with that just it's getting late so
[2:54:52] » And with that just it's getting late so
[2:54:52] I'm going to move this along to item H.
[2:54:54] >> Mayor.
[2:54:55] » Mayor.
[2:54:55] >> Yes.
[2:54:55] » Yes.
[2:54:55] >> I'm sorry to interrupt but unfortunately
[2:54:57] » I'm sorry to interrupt but unfortunately
[2:54:57] I'm going to need to sign off now. I'm
[2:54:59] hoping given the lateness of the evening
[2:55:02] that we could postpone item H4 until our
[2:55:05] next meeting.
[2:55:07] >> And we also have item H3 we haven't gone
[2:55:10] » And we also have item H3 we haven't gone
[2:55:10] to yet either. She was just asking if H4
[2:55:12] because I believe um
[2:55:14] >> that was my item. Yeah.
[2:55:15] » that was my item. Yeah.
[2:55:15] >> If you were to reorder H4 or do you need
[2:55:17] » If you were to reorder H4 or do you need
[2:55:17] to go kind of right now?
[2:55:18] >> I really kind of need to go. It's
[2:55:21] » I really kind of need to go. It's
[2:55:21] >> that's fine.
[2:55:22] » that's fine.
[2:55:22] >> Haven't had dinner and it's just about 8
[2:55:24] » Haven't had dinner and it's just about 8
[2:55:24] o'clock here and the where natives are
[2:55:26] getting hungry. [laughter]
[2:55:29] >> Um I I would um be happy to defer item
[2:55:34] » Um I I would um be happy to defer item
[2:55:34] H4. City manager. Do you have any
[2:55:35] concerns about that?
[2:55:36] >> I don't. I'll make a motion. Do I have a
[2:55:39] » I don't. I'll make a motion. Do I have a
[2:55:39] second?
[2:55:40] I'll second.
[2:55:42] >> Okay. Um Okay, great. And if we can
[2:55:44] » Okay. Um Okay, great. And if we can
[2:55:44] please get a roll call vote. Um do we
[2:55:45] want to make that to a date certain?
[2:55:47] >> I can bring it back at the next meeting.
[2:55:49] » I can bring it back at the next meeting.
[2:55:49] Great.
[2:55:50] >> Council member Moani
[2:55:51] » Council member Moani
[2:55:52] >> I. Hawky
[2:55:53] » I. Hawky
[2:55:53] >> I.
[2:55:54] » I.
[2:55:54] >> G I.
[2:55:54] » G I.
[2:55:54] >> Iverson
[2:55:55] » Iverson
[2:55:55] >> I thank you and thank you for uh
[2:55:58] » I thank you and thank you for uh
[2:55:58] attending remotely. Council member
[2:56:00] Hawky. I'm sorry to miss the
[2:56:01] conversation on the housing law uh study
[2:56:04] session, but I will catch up with the
[2:56:06] city manager and I'm sure this is a
[2:56:08] first conversation, not a last. So,
[2:56:10] we'll have more opportunities to discuss
[2:56:12] it together
[2:56:13] >> and it's posted on YouTube if you've got
[2:56:16] » and it's posted on YouTube if you've got
[2:56:16] the uh the time and availability.
[2:56:19] >> Always
[2:56:19] » Always
[2:56:19] >> you can always catch up. Thank you very
[2:56:21] » you can always catch up. Thank you very
[2:56:21] much.
[2:56:22] >> Thank you. Sorry to to bug off. Okay.
[2:56:25] » Thank you. Sorry to to bug off. Okay.
[2:56:25] >> Byebye.
[2:56:25] » Byebye.
[2:56:26] >> Um byebye. We will turn now to item H3,
[2:56:29] » Um byebye. We will turn now to item H3,
[2:56:29] the study session on Senate Bill 1123.
[2:56:32] >> I was going to say, Madame Mayor, before
[2:56:33] » I was going to say, Madame Mayor, before
[2:56:33] we do that, given the hour, should we
[2:56:35] just go ahead and extend the meeting?
[2:56:38] >> Uh, yes, city manager, how long do you
[2:56:40] » Uh, yes, city manager, how long do you
[2:56:40] um boy, this is going to be a test for
[2:56:43] Darren Hughes to get under a 10-minute
[2:56:46] presentation.
[2:56:49] >> Well,
[2:56:51] » Well,
[2:56:51] >> I thought you started to just say no.
[2:56:54] » I thought you started to just say no.
[2:56:54] >> I almost wanted to. Under 10 minutes,
[2:56:56] » I almost wanted to. Under 10 minutes,
[2:56:56] Darren.
[2:56:57] >> Okay, I will do it.
[2:56:58] » Okay, I will do it.
[2:56:58] >> Uh, how long should we extend the
[2:57:00] » Uh, how long should we extend the
[2:57:00] meeting time to?
[2:57:01] >> Uh, 10:30.
[2:57:03] » Uh, 10:30.
[2:57:03] >> 10:30.
[2:57:04] » 10:30.
[2:57:04] >> Uh, I'll propose we extend the meeting
[2:57:05] » Uh, I'll propose we extend the meeting
[2:57:06] time to 10:30.
[2:57:07] >> Yeah. Can I just ask one question? It is
[2:57:10] » Yeah. Can I just ask one question? It is
[2:57:10] efficient for us to have this study
[2:57:12] session with three council members. I
[2:57:14] know it's recorded, so the other council
[2:57:16] members can watch it. I am looking
[2:57:19] forward to it and I'm excited for it,
[2:57:21] but I do want to It's an important
[2:57:24] piece. So,
[2:57:25] I'm I guess I'm sort of asking
[2:57:27] >> I don't think there's anything time is
[2:57:29] » I don't think there's anything time is
[2:57:29] there anything timesensitive with this
[2:57:30] presentation?
[2:57:32] >> Not particularly timesensitive. We are
[2:57:35] » Not particularly timesensitive. We are
[2:57:35] looking for two points of direction. Um
[2:57:38] I do believe uh staff has a
[2:57:41] recommendation on one of those points
[2:57:42] and the other point could probably be uh
[2:57:45] deferred if necessary.
[2:57:49] I guess I'm a little bit torn because I
[2:57:51] feel like it's more of a unilateral like
[2:57:53] I actually feel like the the matter the
[2:57:56] last matter that was more us getting
[2:57:59] consensus was less conducive. This is
[2:58:01] more educational. So if we think the
[2:58:04] other council members would watch it on
[2:58:06] YouTube, we could probably proceed
[2:58:09] pretty well. But if there are any
[2:58:11] concerns, I would agree it's not
[2:58:12] timesensitive. Well, I'm I'm also asking
[2:58:15] are is it unilateral or are are we
[2:58:18] giving feedback because that's what
[2:58:20] makes me
[2:58:22] I didn't know that sometimes in a study
[2:58:24] session we give feedback. Sometimes in a
[2:58:26] study session we're just getting
[2:58:28] information. So I agree with you if it's
[2:58:30] simply it's a state law receptacle.
[2:58:34] >> Yes, staff is asking for direction on
[2:58:36] » Yes, staff is asking for direction on
[2:58:36] two items tonight. Um so this is a study
[2:58:38] session to kind of present this new law
[2:58:41] um and provide a little bit of the
[2:58:42] context around some other housing laws
[2:58:44] that um interact with this law. So we
[2:58:47] are looking ultimately to draft an
[2:58:51] ordinance that we would bring back to
[2:58:52] the planning commission and city council
[2:58:54] and we would take direction from tonight
[2:58:56] in order to do so.
[2:58:59] So, if the council with a body of three
[2:59:02] tonight is uncomfortable in providing
[2:59:04] direction on behalf of the entire city
[2:59:06] council on an ordinance, I mean,
[2:59:08] certainly we wouldn't want to bring back
[2:59:10] an ordinance and have more discussion
[2:59:13] and more debate later about whether or
[2:59:15] not we should have been drafting this
[2:59:17] ordinance. Um, but you're the majority,
[2:59:19] right? Three is the majority. So, if the
[2:59:22] council wants to move forward, you know,
[2:59:24] we'll go as quick as possible
[2:59:26] >> and you'll I'm sure you'll have some
[2:59:28] » and you'll I'm sure you'll have some
[2:59:28] questions and we'll answer your
[2:59:29] questions.
[2:59:32] >> But I think it didn't get settled the
[2:59:34] » But I think it didn't get settled the
[2:59:34] 10:30 question, right? Because I think
[2:59:36] you stopped short of taking a vote for
[2:59:38] that.
[2:59:39] >> Move to extend time till 10:30.
[2:59:41] » Move to extend time till 10:30.
[2:59:41] >> I'll second it.
[2:59:44] » I'll second it.
[2:59:44] >> Do we need a roll call vote still?
[2:59:46] » Do we need a roll call vote still?
[2:59:46] Council member Malcani.
[2:59:48] >> Well, I guess I'm sorry. G
[2:59:50] » Well, I guess I'm sorry. G
[2:59:50] >> I and Iverson
[2:59:52] » I and Iverson
[2:59:52] >> I
[2:59:56] » All right. Thank you very much, mayor.
[2:59:58] Thank you very much,
[3:00:00] >> city [clears throat] council and members
[3:00:01] » city [clears throat] council and members
[3:00:01] of the public. Um this is on Senate Bill
[3:00:04] uh 1123, a new law that went into effect
[3:00:07] as of July uh 1st of 2025. Um
[3:00:12] or rather um an amendment to an existing
[3:00:15] law, the Starter Home Revitalization
[3:00:16] Act. So, uh, tonight, uh, we are
[3:00:20] looking, we're primarily bringing this
[3:00:21] forward to provide a little bit of
[3:00:23] context to talk about some other laws
[3:00:26] that, um, can give us some sense of what
[3:00:28] this law might end up looking like in
[3:00:30] Arinda. Um, and also those laws interact
[3:00:33] with two points for discretion that we
[3:00:36] are asking, um, for guidance from the
[3:00:39] city council. So these two particular
[3:00:41] points are whether ADUs um accessory
[3:00:44] dwelling units and junior accessory
[3:00:46] dwelling units would be permitted on
[3:00:48] newly created small lots um in relation
[3:00:51] to this particular law. Um and whether a
[3:00:55] subsequent SB9 lot split u may occur on
[3:00:58] these parcels. Um so I'll get into the
[3:01:00] details of what all of that is next. I'm
[3:01:02] going to start with some context on the
[3:01:04] ADU law and on SB9 law.
[3:01:09] Um, so ADU law, uh, these junior
[3:01:12] accessory dwelling units, um, this is
[3:01:13] something that's always been around in a
[3:01:15] window. We've had a an ordinance for
[3:01:18] second units that required discretionary
[3:01:20] review. But in 2017, state law, um,
[3:01:22] [clears throat] basically took away a
[3:01:24] lot of that discretion and said that and
[3:01:27] required that uh, jurisdictions process
[3:01:30] these units with a ministerial review
[3:01:32] process. So, no public hearing, no um,
[3:01:35] public notice. um this is something that
[3:01:38] we can process over the counter. In
[3:01:40] 2020, uh there were some statutory
[3:01:42] updates that actually enabled a little
[3:01:45] bit more of a widespread application of
[3:01:46] this law and reduced a lot of the
[3:01:48] barriers. So, it's really 2020 onward
[3:01:50] that Arenda started seeing an uptick in
[3:01:52] accessory dwelling units. And these
[3:01:54] accessory dwelling units can be up to
[3:01:56] 1,000 square ft. They can be attached,
[3:01:57] they can be detached. There are a couple
[3:01:59] of different types of configurations and
[3:02:01] designations. Um but really this law has
[3:02:04] allowed a lot of flexibility for private
[3:02:07] homeowners in Arinda. Um one of the
[3:02:09] biggest reasons that people will come
[3:02:11] forward under this law is for uh being
[3:02:13] able to house uh various generations of
[3:02:15] their family to age in place to have
[3:02:17] children move back into um their
[3:02:19] childhood homes. Um so what we've seen
[3:02:23] in the last uh 6 years of processing
[3:02:26] ADUs is an uptick in approvals. We've
[3:02:29] seen a total of um 140 ADUs and nine
[3:02:33] junior accessory dwelling units uh that
[3:02:36] were approved throughout Arinda. Um that
[3:02:38] doesn't mean that all of these will be
[3:02:40] built. Um some of them kind of drop off
[3:02:42] in the process. Um currently in that
[3:02:45] same time frame, we've seen 74 units uh
[3:02:49] be applied to the uh building department
[3:02:51] and get approved and finalized and now
[3:02:54] people are ostensibly living there. Um
[3:02:58] so a slightly different law uh that also
[3:03:02] requires ministerial review rather than
[3:03:04] design review um is SB9. So this went
[3:03:08] into effect on January 1st, 2022. Um
[3:03:11] this is something this is something that
[3:03:13] basically has two arms. Uh, one of these
[3:03:16] is ministerial processing of new single
[3:03:19] family residences and the other is
[3:03:21] ministerial processing of um lot splits
[3:03:24] at uh single family zoned lots. Um so
[3:03:29] these are urban housing developments for
[3:03:31] the units urban lot splits for the lot
[3:03:34] splits. Um so this has the the the major
[3:03:38] impact in Arinda that is that this law
[3:03:41] has generally uh supplanted the need for
[3:03:45] design review for a lot of new units in
[3:03:47] Arinda. Um so typically in the past
[3:03:50] people would come forward under uh a
[3:03:52] design review process. There would be a
[3:03:54] public notice that go to planning
[3:03:55] commission. But with this law allowing
[3:03:58] for up to two units on an existing
[3:04:00] single family residential lot, um most
[3:04:04] people who have a new home to propose,
[3:04:06] whether that's on a vacant lot or maybe
[3:04:08] it's an additional home on an existing
[3:04:10] or a lot with an existing home, um will
[3:04:13] instead of going through design review,
[3:04:14] just make sure that they're meeting all
[3:04:16] of the objective standards and come in
[3:04:19] under this law uh which doesn't require
[3:04:21] any form of noticing. Um so one one
[3:04:25] aspect of this law while most of the
[3:04:28] discretion is in the the state's hands
[3:04:30] um the the community had discretion over
[3:04:33] one particular aspect which is whether
[3:04:35] or not uh or how we allow ADUs on these
[3:04:38] types of lots. Um the lot splits these
[3:04:42] ministerial lot splits that allow a
[3:04:45] resident who has to be a um has to be
[3:04:48] living on the premises. Um
[3:04:51] if they do a lot split then the city has
[3:04:54] codified a limitation on the number of
[3:04:57] units that can be approved for each uh
[3:05:00] resulting lot. Um so that maximum is two
[3:05:03] units per lot. Um and that's just to
[3:05:07] prevent someone from being able to do a
[3:05:09] lot split and then uh subsequently have
[3:05:12] two primary units through SB9 approval
[3:05:15] on both sides. 211 211 and then
[3:05:19] additionally get ADUs. Um so this is
[3:05:22] going to come into play. Um this is just
[3:05:25] context for what we're going to be
[3:05:26] asking for uh with ADUs in this new law
[3:05:28] that we're looking at. So this one
[3:05:31] hasn't seen as much proliferation um in
[3:05:34] uh in Arinda just because of um the the
[3:05:38] scope and some of the limitations that
[3:05:40] are involved. We've seen 18 entitled
[3:05:42] units uh in the past four years of this
[3:05:45] law being active. there are three in the
[3:05:47] process. Um and then for lot splits,
[3:05:49] there have been seven completed lot
[3:05:51] splits. Uh and four are currently
[3:05:54] active. Um some of those lot splits are
[3:05:57] actually between existing units. So
[3:06:00] someone had a second unit on a parcel,
[3:06:02] they were able to as the homeowner who
[3:06:04] lived on site divide between them and
[3:06:06] sell off the other the other unit. So it
[3:06:09] wasn't necessarily for producing more
[3:06:10] units. It was just to give them some
[3:06:12] flexibility to get rid of that second
[3:06:14] unit. Um, and then seven of the units
[3:06:17] that we've seen or seven of the 18
[3:06:19] entitlements that we've seen have had
[3:06:21] ADUs in association with the SB9 units.
[3:06:24] So, they came forward with a new home
[3:06:27] and either a detached or an attached ADU
[3:06:30] associated with that. Most cases, I
[3:06:33] think in very few cases, we've seen
[3:06:35] people push this to get um, three or
[3:06:37] four units. Um, but there is some
[3:06:41] possibility for that. Um, it's just we
[3:06:43] don't see people normally take advantage
[3:06:45] of this. Um, so this is just a a a brief
[3:06:49] overview of how ADU and SB9 law works
[3:06:53] where you can start with a vacant lot
[3:06:54] and get up to four units in various
[3:06:56] configurations and maybe do a lot split
[3:06:58] and have two on one side, two on another
[3:07:00] side, or have um up to four units on
[3:07:03] something that doesn't even require a
[3:07:05] lot split. Um, but those configurations
[3:07:07] and maximizing the potential with these
[3:07:09] is not something that we normally see.
[3:07:12] Usually, this is flexibility for just
[3:07:13] getting a new home through without
[3:07:15] having to go through design review.
[3:07:19] So, that brings us to that's a little
[3:07:21] bit of context and background before we
[3:07:23] get into the Starter Home Revitalization
[3:07:24] Act. So, this law requires ministerial
[3:07:28] approval. Um, and there's a shot clock
[3:07:30] of 60 days for us to once we deem an
[3:07:33] application to be complete, we have 60
[3:07:34] days as staff to um, approve or
[3:07:37] disapprove of an application. Um, and
[3:07:41] they can use this. There are two arms
[3:07:43] kind of like with SB9. One is
[3:07:45] subdivision. Um, so up to 10 parcels and
[3:07:49] uh, the other is development of up to 10
[3:07:52] residential units. Um, that doesn't have
[3:07:54] to be one for one. you can subdivide
[3:07:57] into two parcels and put five on each of
[3:07:59] them. Um there's nothing in the law that
[3:08:02] excludes um excludes that kind of config
[3:08:04] configuration from going forward. Um so
[3:08:08] this is made up the original version of
[3:08:11] this law uh was SB 684. It didn't uh
[3:08:16] have a whole lot of impact in Arinda
[3:08:17] because it was specific to multif
[3:08:19] family. But 1123, the um the one that we
[3:08:24] primarily focus on here, um expanded
[3:08:27] eligibility to um vacant single family
[3:08:30] zoned lots and um and then subsequently
[3:08:34] AB130 also allowed a developer to
[3:08:36] designate a remainder parcel. So I'll
[3:08:38] get into that in one second in terms of
[3:08:40] what that specifically means. So there
[3:08:43] are a couple of eligibility criteria. I
[3:08:46] think the the primary ones that I want
[3:08:48] to look at here um to draw your
[3:08:50] attention to is maximum size. So the
[3:08:52] parcel can't be more than 1.5 acres. Um
[3:08:56] so anything that's greater than that in
[3:08:57] size generally isn't eligible if it's a
[3:08:59] vacant lot. Um vacancy this is not as
[3:09:03] straightforward as it would seem because
[3:09:05] of that designated remainder aspect. Um
[3:09:08] vacancy can mean a vacant lot that is
[3:09:10] less than that is no more than 1.5 acres
[3:09:13] um of which we have quite a few in
[3:09:16] Arinda. Um
[3:09:18] but it can also because of the
[3:09:20] designated remainder be a portion of a
[3:09:22] lot that is deemed as excess land by
[3:09:26] someone who owns that particular lot. So
[3:09:28] if there is a house in Arinda and there
[3:09:30] is enough in there is enough space they
[3:09:34] could say okay we're going to take that
[3:09:36] existing home and some land surrounding
[3:09:39] it and say that's the designated
[3:09:40] remainder. Um and then the other portion
[3:09:44] as long as that is less than 1.5 acres
[3:09:47] is what can go through um this this act
[3:09:51] um can be subdivided and developed
[3:09:53] through this act. Um and that designated
[3:09:56] remainder, the existing home, the
[3:09:58] existing use, um does not actually have
[3:10:01] to uh uh does not count against the the
[3:10:05] 10 total units or the 10 total lots. Um
[3:10:08] the only point with that is that we do
[3:10:10] have to uh that designated remainder
[3:10:12] would have to um meet all the
[3:10:14] subdivision standards that we do have on
[3:10:16] the books because it's not protected by
[3:10:18] state law. Um, so it still has some
[3:10:20] limitations, but this designated
[3:10:22] remainder basically means that someone
[3:10:23] with a developed parcel could subdivide
[3:10:26] a portion of theirs in accordance to
[3:10:28] this law. And then the last thing that I
[3:10:30] want to um point to here is fire safety.
[3:10:33] Um, I think I have a graphic next. Yes.
[3:10:35] So the wildfire um hazard uh sorry the
[3:10:39] um
[3:10:41] fire hazard severity zones in Arinda um
[3:10:44] you can see this red on this one side uh
[3:10:47] on the uh right hand side that's all
[3:10:49] very high fire hazard severity zone.
[3:10:52] This law um prohibits this law uh this
[3:10:57] sort of subdivision and development
[3:10:59] within that zone. Um so that immediately
[3:11:01] eliminates um in present day a whole
[3:11:04] bunch of vacant lots and a whole bunch
[3:11:06] of lots that would otherwise be
[3:11:08] eligible. Um so over here on the left
[3:11:11] side we've got the vacant housing
[3:11:13] element sites. This is just stuff that
[3:11:14] we these are the sites that we pulled
[3:11:16] from the housing element to show whether
[3:11:17] or not they were um 1.5 acres or smaller
[3:11:21] or greater. um but that that whole uh
[3:11:26] everything that's on the the west side
[3:11:28] of Arinda basically and in the very
[3:11:30] north of Arinda would not be eligible
[3:11:32] right now. This could fluctuate um
[3:11:35] because these zones may change at some
[3:11:36] point in the future, but for the next
[3:11:39] few years at least, we would expect that
[3:11:42] only um parcels in this gray area um and
[3:11:46] the gray and the yellow and orange areas
[3:11:48] would actually be eligible. So for
[3:11:50] vacant lots that are listed within the
[3:11:52] housing element, that reduces us to 50
[3:11:55] parcels that seem like they could
[3:11:57] ostensibly qualify from the outset. Um
[3:12:00] but that still means that anything that
[3:12:02] is not a vacant parcel, if they had
[3:12:04] enough space, they could in theory go
[3:12:06] through um this law.
[3:12:09] >> Um
[3:12:09] » Um
[3:12:09] >> Darren, I'm going to ask you to go a
[3:12:11] » Darren, I'm going to ask you to go a
[3:12:11] little quicker.
[3:12:11] >> I'll go I'll speed it up right now. Um a
[3:12:13] » I'll go I'll speed it up right now. Um a
[3:12:13] couple of requirements. Uh the parcels
[3:12:15] have to we have to allow parcels as
[3:12:17] small as 1,200 square f feet. Um the
[3:12:20] average habitables floor space across
[3:12:22] all of the units that are proposed um
[3:12:24] can't exceed 1750 um 1,750 ft² because
[3:12:29] these are supposed to be smaller homes.
[3:12:31] Um we can't impose standards on floor
[3:12:33] area ratios that are less than 1 or 1.25
[3:12:36] which means that we do have to allow
[3:12:38] quite a bit of the lot to be developed.
[3:12:40] Um we there are sideyard setbacks that
[3:12:44] are drastically reduced from setbacks
[3:12:46] that we have in our own standards. Um
[3:12:48] there's no setbacks required between new
[3:12:50] units. Um and we can't require more than
[3:12:52] one off- streetet parking space.
[3:12:55] Um we can however require adherence to
[3:12:58] all objective standards. Um, for
[3:13:00] instance, that's standards that we find
[3:13:02] in our zoning code and standards that
[3:13:04] we're looking forward to with the
[3:13:06] current draft version of the citywide
[3:13:08] objective design standards. Um, and we
[3:13:12] can't but we can't employ those
[3:13:14] standards. We can't enforce those
[3:13:16] standards where they would preclude
[3:13:17] development in accordance with the act.
[3:13:19] Um, so one example might be height. We
[3:13:21] have this requirement to allow a certain
[3:13:24] floor area ratio. If someone subdivided
[3:13:26] in such a manner that the lots were
[3:13:28] quite small and they needed to build up
[3:13:30] in order to meet that minimum floor area
[3:13:33] that we have to require or we have to
[3:13:36] allow um then there might be a cause for
[3:13:39] exceeding the height standards um in
[3:13:42] that in that particular instance um
[3:13:46] uh I'm just going to this is looking
[3:13:48] this is a brief look at our objective
[3:13:50] design standards uh that are in draft
[3:13:52] format and the types of housing uh uh
[3:13:55] that these uh pertain to. So right now
[3:13:58] we are looking at because I cited as an
[3:14:00] example that you could have in theory
[3:14:02] five units or nine units on one
[3:14:04] particular lot. We do have standards in
[3:14:06] the objective design standards that look
[3:14:08] at this and that provide some additional
[3:14:10] regulations. Um and this is something
[3:14:13] that staff is looking at a little bit
[3:14:15] more closely now and making sure that
[3:14:17] everything in SB or in SB123 is
[3:14:20] accounted for as well as we can through
[3:14:22] these objective design standards.
[3:14:25] um density requirements if it's in the
[3:14:28] housing element. So if it's a vacant
[3:14:30] site, they just have to develop at least
[3:14:32] as many units as it says in our housing
[3:14:34] element. Most of the time that's one to
[3:14:36] two units. So as long as they produce
[3:14:38] that many units, they could go through
[3:14:39] this. If it's not in a housing element
[3:14:41] site, for instance, if it's a on a
[3:14:44] designated remainder parcel, uh the math
[3:14:46] works out that they need 13.2 2 units
[3:14:48] per acre, which means that the average
[3:14:51] unit needs to or each unit has to have
[3:14:53] an average of 3,300 ft associated with
[3:14:56] it at the maximum. So somewhere between
[3:14:58] 1,200 ft² and 3,300 ft².
[3:15:02] So um we don't we're assuming that this
[3:15:04] is not going to take off in quite the
[3:15:07] same um with the same exuberance as ADU
[3:15:10] law. It's not as um accessible for
[3:15:13] homeowners, but it might be a little bit
[3:15:14] more attractive to developers. But one
[3:15:17] of the big things here is that the
[3:15:19] topography of undeveloped space in
[3:15:21] Arinda, the terrain, the slopes tend to
[3:15:23] make this a little bit to increase the
[3:15:26] limitations for site access um and uh
[3:15:30] make this a higher barrier to entry. So,
[3:15:33] what we're looking for from the city
[3:15:34] council, um, two points. One is how
[3:15:38] should we allow ADUs because state gives
[3:15:40] us the discretion to say yes or no to
[3:15:43] ADUs, um, on these parcels. And we could
[3:15:45] do this a number of ways. So, we've
[3:15:47] offered a couple of policy options that
[3:15:50] we could consider that range from just
[3:15:52] prohibiting them outright um, to
[3:15:55] permitting them completely. Um, and then
[3:15:58] in the middle, we could consider size
[3:16:01] restrictions. So, if there is a minimum
[3:16:03] lot size, uh, then perhaps they could
[3:16:06] build an ADU on it. Um, and unit caps,
[3:16:10] we could also potentially say, you know,
[3:16:12] as long as your subdivision doesn't
[3:16:14] exceed 10 total units, some number of
[3:16:17] those can be ADUs. So, so there are a
[3:16:20] myriad of policy options here that could
[3:16:22] be considered. Um and then subsequent
[3:16:26] SB9 lot splits. State does give us
[3:16:28] discretion over whether or not we can
[3:16:30] allow um lot splits according to um in
[3:16:34] accordance with SB9 on lots that were
[3:16:37] subdivided in accordance with the um
[3:16:40] starter home revitalization act. Um
[3:16:43] staff's recommendation on this
[3:16:44] particular point is to not allow this to
[3:16:47] happen and create this rabbit hole of
[3:16:49] increasingly smaller lots that would be
[3:16:51] allowed.
[3:16:53] Um, next steps based on tonight's
[3:16:54] feedback, we would anticipate drafting
[3:16:56] ordinance and come back to the planning
[3:16:59] commission and the city council um with
[3:17:01] an ordinance that meets your direction.
[3:17:04] >> And with that, I will hand it over for
[3:17:06] » And with that, I will hand it over for
[3:17:06] questions. Apologies.
[3:17:09] >> Darren, can you put up the one through
[3:17:11] » Darren, can you put up the one through
[3:17:11] four on the screen so that's there for
[3:17:13] their discussion?
[3:17:18] Um, and we do have a speaker card. So,
[3:17:21] we'll do questions for staff and then
[3:17:23] we'll do some uh public comment. We'll
[3:17:25] bring it back for any direction. Um, any
[3:17:27] questions? [laughter]
[3:17:30] >> Start with vice mayor.
[3:17:31] » Start with vice mayor.
[3:17:31] >> My problem is I have so many questions.
[3:17:33] » My problem is I have so many questions.
[3:17:33] I'm
[3:17:34] I I find this um extraordinarily
[3:17:39] challenging and very challenging to
[3:17:41] understand. So,
[3:17:43] um I I'll try to think of all of them
[3:17:46] that I have real quickly. Darren, um
[3:17:49] one,
[3:17:51] does the objective design standards are
[3:17:53] we allowed to do objective design
[3:17:55] standards that would allow how these
[3:17:57] units could be laid out on the
[3:18:01] subdivided lot?
[3:18:03] >> Yes, this does allow for subdivision
[3:18:05] » Yes, this does allow for subdivision
[3:18:05] standards. And actually within the
[3:18:07] objective design standards in their
[3:18:09] draft format right now there is a
[3:18:10] section on um small lot subdivision. Um
[3:18:14] so it is something that we are looking
[3:18:15] at to make sure it kind of captures as
[3:18:18] many possible scenarios. Um we we do
[3:18:20] have to look at that a little bit more
[3:18:22] closely in order to figure out exactly
[3:18:24] how this law interacts with our proposed
[3:18:27] standards as they sit right now. And
[3:18:29] then how does it fit in the realm of
[3:18:32] infrastructure? Such things as water
[3:18:34] lines, gas lines,
[3:18:37] egress. Um,
[3:18:39] it it just seems I'm I'm maybe I'm the
[3:18:42] only one, but this seems mind-boggling
[3:18:44] to me, the idea that you would create
[3:18:47] this tiny little village on um one and a
[3:18:51] half acres potentially, and then um I'm
[3:18:54] assuming if let's let's say
[3:18:57] I can see a difference if it's a totally
[3:18:59] vacant lot to start with versus it has a
[3:19:02] home on it that's going to turn into
[3:19:03] this remainder piece. I assume that the
[3:19:06] remainder piece if there's a home there
[3:19:09] doesn't count as part of the total
[3:19:12] square footage.
[3:19:14] >> Correct.
[3:19:14] » Correct.
[3:19:14] >> Correct. And then truly out of all these
[3:19:17] » Correct. And then truly out of all these
[3:19:17] units, they can't exceed
[3:19:20] 1750 square ft. So they really are like
[3:19:23] these teeny tiny little cottages.
[3:19:27] >> They can't exceed 1750 square ft on
[3:19:29] » They can't exceed 1750 square ft on
[3:19:29] average. Um so someone could
[3:19:32] >> total or each one?
[3:19:33] » total or each one?
[3:19:33] >> Each one. Each one. So that you would
[3:19:35] » Each one. Each one. So that you would
[3:19:35] take the total square footage between
[3:19:37] all of them, divide them by however many
[3:19:39] units are being proposed. So as an
[3:19:41] example, if someone were proposing 10
[3:19:43] units, the the total square footage
[3:19:46] between all of them would be 17,500
[3:19:48] square ft. Um so if the some units are
[3:19:51] small and some units are large, there's
[3:19:53] nothing in the law that prevents that.
[3:19:54] They just can't exceed that average
[3:19:56] size.
[3:19:59] » Sorry, can you repeat that? I don't
[3:20:00] think I
[3:20:01] >> I was going to say I think I'm still
[3:20:02] » I was going to say I think I'm still
[3:20:02] confused. I'm sorry.
[3:20:03] >> Okay. Um there's an average size
[3:20:05] » Okay. Um there's an average size
[3:20:05] requirement in the law um because the
[3:20:08] the aim is to get these smaller units,
[3:20:11] but every individual unit, for instance,
[3:20:13] could be proposed at 1,750
[3:20:16] ft². So you could propose 10 units that
[3:20:18] are all 1,750 ft². You could also
[3:20:21] propose five units that are 2,000 ft² as
[3:20:25] long as five other units were 1500 ft²
[3:20:28] because you're meeting that average. Um,
[3:20:30] so there's there's some discretion from
[3:20:32] the developer in that instance as to
[3:20:35] which
[3:20:35] >> what was the 1,200 ft? That was
[3:20:37] » what was the 1,200 ft? That was
[3:20:37] >> 1,200 ft is the minimum lot size that we
[3:20:40] » 1,200 ft is the minimum lot size that we
[3:20:40] have to allow.
[3:20:43] >> And so then then can these potential
[3:20:47] » And so then then can these potential
[3:20:47] units that are allowed, can they be
[3:20:49] various configurations? I assume they
[3:20:51] could be a whole collection of little
[3:20:53] tiny cottage type things. I can they be
[3:20:56] like one can be a town home in this
[3:20:59] corner and something else over here. It
[3:21:01] it sounds very complicated.
[3:21:04] >> There's nothing really that seems to
[3:21:05] » There's nothing really that seems to
[3:21:05] preclude that type of configuration. The
[3:21:08] example that I was giving when I was
[3:21:09] thinking about this um was you could
[3:21:12] subdivide into two lots. one just be a
[3:21:16] large single family residence, 4,000
[3:21:18] ft², and the other one might just be
[3:21:20] nine town homes um that are all around
[3:21:22] 1,000 ft stacked together. Um we may
[3:21:26] have some discretion in our objective
[3:21:29] design standards to make uh take a
[3:21:33] little bit more of a regular approach,
[3:21:35] but it will be difficult to codify every
[3:21:38] possible example someone could come
[3:21:40] forward with. Um, so it's just something
[3:21:42] that we're going to have to spend some
[3:21:44] time focusing on with this new lens of
[3:21:47] SB123 in our objective design standards
[3:21:50] that we're currently drafting. Okay,
[3:21:53] I'll let
[3:21:56] » um
[3:22:01] in general with I don't know if you know
[3:22:03] this but with the current ADUs do we
[3:22:05] have any sense of how many are occupied
[3:22:08] like as living quarters versus offices
[3:22:11] or she sheds or you know
[3:22:14] >> uh we don't have specific numbers on
[3:22:16] » uh we don't have specific numbers on
[3:22:16] that there is a certain amount of
[3:22:20] we do have the ability sometimes times
[3:22:22] to at least see when someone is using
[3:22:24] this more to get around square footages
[3:22:27] or to provide that really neat guest
[3:22:30] house next to a pool. Um so but but we
[3:22:34] don't have very explicit numbers on what
[3:22:38] which aus are occupied by family members
[3:22:41] which are being rented out. Um there's
[3:22:44] there's nothing within the planning
[3:22:46] department that requires followup on
[3:22:47] that particular aspect.
[3:22:50] >> Remind me
[3:22:52] » Remind me
[3:22:52] ADUs
[3:22:54] and what is it? What is the definition
[3:22:56] of a JADU as opposed to an ADU?
[3:22:59] >> A junior accessory dwelling unit is more
[3:23:01] » A junior accessory dwelling unit is more
[3:23:01] of a flexible space. It's it's more of
[3:23:05] an efficiency unit usually, and it has
[3:23:07] to be carved out of existing space. So,
[3:23:10] if I come forward and I say, I want to
[3:23:12] turn my garage into this habitable space
[3:23:15] with a tiny little kitchen, but it can
[3:23:17] share some facilities. It can share the
[3:23:18] bathroom with the main home. Um it's
[3:23:21] it's just a a smaller version, a less
[3:23:24] intensive version of an ADU. Um but with
[3:23:27] a junior accessory dwelling unit, the
[3:23:29] homeowner who goes through this does
[3:23:31] have to live on site either in that unit
[3:23:33] or in the primary home. It's meant for
[3:23:35] in-laws, uh parents.
[3:23:40] » Can I ask another qu? Um, and
[3:23:45] >> you showed us a map of the high fire
[3:23:47] » you showed us a map of the high fire
[3:23:48] severity zones and you said there was
[3:23:50] sort of identified I think 50 vacant
[3:23:53] parcels
[3:23:54] and you know there was a reference to
[3:23:56] topography. So it's sort of like how
[3:23:59] many of these
[3:24:01] you know and when you showed us the map
[3:24:03] even before you mentioned topography I
[3:24:04] was thinking yeah but this is Arinda we
[3:24:07] have so many I mean
[3:24:11] how many of these vacant units could be
[3:24:14] even built out
[3:24:16] >> that's why I think that we're going to
[3:24:18] » that's why I think that we're going to
[3:24:18] see this as a slower uptick. Um we have
[3:24:22] been speaking to some developers. We
[3:24:24] have one application in progress right
[3:24:26] now for one lot to be turned into four
[3:24:28] lots. Um, and we've had some interest in
[3:24:32] some other lots in various
[3:24:33] configurations, but no official
[3:24:35] applications yet. Some developers have
[3:24:37] made it clear that there are a lot of
[3:24:39] barriers to this because when you're
[3:24:40] talking about taking lots that are that
[3:24:42] small, particularly for the designated
[3:24:44] remainder um issue, um the the site
[3:24:49] access, finding ways to park these
[3:24:52] places, all of those um all of those
[3:24:55] barriers become pretty significant in
[3:24:57] Orinda's terrain. So there may be some
[3:25:00] opportunities for people to take
[3:25:01] advantage of this at smaller sizes,
[3:25:04] scales that might be slightly closer to
[3:25:06] SP9, which is not to say or guarantee
[3:25:08] that no one will ever come forward with
[3:25:10] a larger subdivision. Um, it's certainly
[3:25:13] a possibility, but there are a lot of
[3:25:15] barriers right now to development in the
[3:25:17] areas that just have remained
[3:25:19] undeveloped so far.
[3:25:21] >> Okay. I'm sorry, mayor. Can I ask one
[3:25:23] » Okay. I'm sorry, mayor. Can I ask one
[3:25:23] more question? and then I'll [laughter]
[3:25:25] >> and then I'll um so but theoretically
[3:25:28] » and then I'll um so but theoretically
[3:25:28] then cuz I was thinking the remainder
[3:25:32] issue might be the issue that is more of
[3:25:35] a
[3:25:37] resulted in development more than the
[3:25:41] vacant lots because when I drive around
[3:25:42] Arinda and I look at vacant lots a lot
[3:25:44] of them I wouldn't want to put a house
[3:25:47] on or anything on because of the
[3:25:49] topography but um theoretically then is
[3:25:53] am Am I understanding this correctly? In
[3:25:55] that if if someone has a lot that is say
[3:26:00] 2 acres with a single family home on one
[3:26:03] area side of the lot, they could then
[3:26:06] keep their single family home and a you
[3:26:09] know half an acre, take the other 1.5
[3:26:13] acres and then build what on it? Like
[3:26:17] build an apartmentl looking place with
[3:26:20] 10 units
[3:26:22] >> in theory. Yes.
[3:26:23] » in theory. Yes.
[3:26:23] >> Okay.
[3:26:24] » Okay.
[3:26:24] >> Um, but it wouldn't be because of the
[3:26:26] » Um, but it wouldn't be because of the
[3:26:26] designated remainder and the minimum
[3:26:27] density requirements. There's some
[3:26:29] squirly math in there. Uh, if you do a
[3:26:32] designated remainder based off of the
[3:26:34] minimum density requirements, it
[3:26:36] actually results in only be a being able
[3:26:39] to carve off about 3/4 of an acre. Um,
[3:26:42] you can't do that full acre and a half.
[3:26:44] You actually have to limit it even more
[3:26:46] to meet those density requirements. But
[3:26:48] in theory, someone with a 2acre lot, as
[3:26:50] long as they are in a zone um in a zone
[3:26:54] that allows a minimum lot size and their
[3:26:57] slope, because we have these slope
[3:26:59] density requirements in Arinda, um if
[3:27:01] they have a lot that is flat enough and
[3:27:05] has enough space and they can meet the
[3:27:07] requirements for their lot to uh their
[3:27:09] designated remainder parcel um to meet
[3:27:13] all of the objective standards of our
[3:27:15] subdivision
[3:27:16] uh requirements. It's that other part.
[3:27:20] It It's anyone's guess. I mean, they
[3:27:22] could use it to do something similar to
[3:27:25] a smaller version of SP9, but with a
[3:27:27] couple of additional units. Um, they
[3:27:29] could have a couple of family homes.
[3:27:31] They could have a couple of what might
[3:27:32] look like just ADUs, or they could do a
[3:27:35] small apartment building if they were
[3:27:37] able to figure out all of the logistics
[3:27:39] around that.
[3:27:43] And then does the ownership have to all
[3:27:46] be one entity? These can't be right now.
[3:27:50] These can't be sold as separate units.
[3:27:53] >> So that's a part of the way the law
[3:27:55] » So that's a part of the way the law
[3:27:55] works. Uh there's an interaction between
[3:27:57] the subdivision aspect and the
[3:27:58] development aspect. Um if you subdivide
[3:28:02] and then don't develop, you actually
[3:28:05] can't sell off lots individually. You
[3:28:08] would have to sell them as a whole. And
[3:28:10] in theory, we would have restrictions.
[3:28:12] Um, basically as part of the the map
[3:28:15] that goes forward and gets approved, we
[3:28:17] would say, you know, whoever buys that,
[3:28:19] you are also subject to the development
[3:28:22] requirements under SB123.
[3:28:25] Um,
[3:28:28] but as soon as they start developing the
[3:28:30] lots, they're able to sell off developed
[3:28:33] lots. So if uh someone comes in and
[3:28:36] turns one lot into four lots through
[3:28:38] this law and they submit their
[3:28:41] development application in accordance
[3:28:43] with the law that shows development on
[3:28:46] four different lots, they can start
[3:28:48] developing them one by one and as soon
[3:28:50] as they get them uh a certificate of
[3:28:52] occupancy, they can sell that one off,
[3:28:54] sell the other one off, sell the other
[3:28:56] one off. Um so you can sell them
[3:28:59] separately as long as they're developed
[3:29:01] in accordance with the law. You can't
[3:29:03] just sell them off individually and then
[3:29:05] people can do whatever they want with
[3:29:06] them. Um, after that,
[3:29:11] » um, Vice Mayor G asked a question
[3:29:13] earlier about the water and sewer, the
[3:29:15] kind of things [clears throat] that
[3:29:16] normally in a subdivision application
[3:29:18] you would get uh that would get looked
[3:29:21] at. Where in this process do all of
[3:29:23] those adequacies get looked at? We
[3:29:26] require as part of a um as part of our
[3:29:28] submitt requirements and this is similar
[3:29:30] to what we require for vacant for
[3:29:33] subdivisions under SB9 we require will
[3:29:37] serve letters from the appropriate
[3:29:39] entities. So we expect that someone by
[3:29:42] the time they are getting to us as a a
[3:29:45] point of completion we want to see that
[3:29:46] the lots that are going to be subdivided
[3:29:49] are not only being legally created but
[3:29:51] are actually um accessible. uh they can
[3:29:54] someone can do something with that lot.
[3:29:57] So that is the same logic that we apply
[3:29:59] to that we're going to be applying to
[3:30:01] this law. Um someone comes forward and
[3:30:04] they should already have in hand the
[3:30:06] will serve letters that says they're
[3:30:08] going to be able to meet all of their
[3:30:09] requirements. They also have to go to
[3:30:11] the fire district and get approval from
[3:30:13] them and make sure that all of the fire
[3:30:15] access uh um requirements are being met.
[3:30:19] So that for the most part gets ironed
[3:30:22] out during the planning portion. Um but
[3:30:25] they're finalizing all of that with the
[3:30:28] building department at Contra Costa.
[3:30:31] >> I had one other question.
[3:30:32] » I had one other question.
[3:30:32] >> Can we still require one parking spot
[3:30:35] » Can we still require one parking spot
[3:30:35] per residential unit under this law?
[3:30:38] >> Yes, as long as it's not within a
[3:30:41] » Yes, as long as it's not within a
[3:30:41] >> half mile apart. I know you were gonna
[3:30:42] » half mile apart. I know you were gonna
[3:30:42] say that.
[3:30:42] >> Um we can require one spot. Um, our
[3:30:46] » Um we can require one spot. Um, our
[3:30:46] current code requires four spots for
[3:30:48] single family residential parcels. Um,
[3:30:51] two enclosed, two unenced. This law says
[3:30:53] you can only require one spot and it
[3:30:56] does not have to be enclosed.
[3:30:59] >> Were there any other questions?
[3:31:02] » Were there any other questions?
[3:31:02] >> This policy decision that this slide
[3:31:05] » This policy decision that this slide
[3:31:05] we're looking at, [clears throat]
[3:31:07] this only applies to
[3:31:10] 1123
[3:31:12] split lots. It doesn't. In other words,
[3:31:14] if we were to choose, for example,
[3:31:16] number one here,
[3:31:20] you could that that is separate and
[3:31:23] apart from SB9
[3:31:26] lot splits where you could they could
[3:31:28] still split lots and include ADUs.
[3:31:31] >> Correct. So, so this would be just
[3:31:34] » Correct. So, so this would be just
[3:31:34] applicable to subdivisions that occur
[3:31:36] under this act. Um, SB9 is separate. We
[3:31:39] do allow ADUs as long as they don't
[3:31:41] exceed a total unit count.
[3:31:44] >> Okay. Well, well, maybe this will come
[3:31:46] » Okay. Well, well, maybe this will come
[3:31:46] out in discussion, so we could just take
[3:31:49] move on. But one thing that I would be
[3:31:53] interested in hearing is from like just
[3:31:55] very brief pros and cons from one
[3:31:57] through three here. But maybe I'll wait
[3:31:59] and that'll come out in discussion. And
[3:32:01] if not, I'll
[3:32:03] >> ask for it unless that's of interest to
[3:32:05] » ask for it unless that's of interest to
[3:32:05] anyone else.
[3:32:05] >> One through three. Do you mind?
[3:32:06] » One through three. Do you mind?
[3:32:06] >> Okay. Sure. Um, so one through three
[3:32:09] » Okay. Sure. Um, so one through three
[3:32:09] pros and cons. Not allowed is the
[3:32:11] easiest. It's the easiest to process.
[3:32:13] It's the easiest to have a rule about.
[3:32:15] Um, it's straightforward. And it also
[3:32:19] uh limits the ability to get many units
[3:32:23] on these particular um these particular
[3:32:27] lots. The one con with this might be
[3:32:29] that we are not affording people who
[3:32:31] might b buy these starting homes some of
[3:32:34] the same opportunities that you would if
[3:32:35] you were buying a different home in
[3:32:36] Arinda where you can later on decide
[3:32:39] that you want a a junior accessory
[3:32:41] dwelling unit or an accessory dwelling
[3:32:43] unit. Um but it is probably procedurally
[3:32:47] one of the and administratively one of
[3:32:49] the easiest to work with. Size
[3:32:51] restrictions and unit caps. Um, this
[3:32:54] could be a little bit more, this is
[3:32:56] something that we would have to look at
[3:32:57] a little bit more closely in order to
[3:32:59] figure out exactly how this would work.
[3:33:01] Um, but chances are this is going to
[3:33:02] this would be enacted through deed
[3:33:04] restrictions and it would require a
[3:33:06] little bit more administrative effort to
[3:33:08] try to figure out, okay, which parcels
[3:33:10] are allowed to have ADUs in the future,
[3:33:12] especially number three with the unit
[3:33:14] caps. Um, let's say you say we don't
[3:33:17] ever want this subdivision to exceed 10
[3:33:19] units. The original developer created
[3:33:21] four units. That means in some way,
[3:33:23] shape, or form we can get another six
[3:33:25] there. Um, just keeping track of
[3:33:28] individual applications in the future
[3:33:31] um, for planning staff might be a little
[3:33:33] bit more difficult. Um,
[3:33:36] fairly akin to how we look at older
[3:33:40] subdivisions now and try to dive into
[3:33:42] what rules apply to specific
[3:33:43] subdivisions.
[3:33:46] >> Thank you. Um before we take public
[3:33:48] » Thank you. Um before we take public
[3:33:48] public comment, we are 3 minutes or four
[3:33:50] minutes to um our extended time, uh I
[3:33:54] would propose that we go ahead and do 15
[3:33:57] more minutes. Hopefully we won't need
[3:33:59] that much, but um I would uh propose to
[3:34:02] extend the meeting to 10:45.
[3:34:04] >> Second.
[3:34:05] » Second.
[3:34:05] >> Uh all in favor?
[3:34:07] » Uh all in favor?
[3:34:07] >> I
[3:34:07] » I
[3:34:07] >> I
[3:34:07] » I
[3:34:07] >> I
[3:34:08] » I
[3:34:08] >> uh city clerk, I assume that's okay
[3:34:09] » uh city clerk, I assume that's okay
[3:34:10] since we no longer have a remote person.
[3:34:12] >> Oh, that's true.
[3:34:13] » Oh, that's true.
[3:34:13] >> Okay, great. Um, with that, Darren, if
[3:34:16] » Okay, great. Um, with that, Darren, if
[3:34:16] you don't mind, I'm going to take um I
[3:34:17] do have a speaker card for Nick Waroff,
[3:34:19] and if anybody else would like to speak,
[3:34:21] uh, please come on up.
[3:34:23] >> Thank you. I will be brief. Uh, I
[3:34:26] » Thank you. I will be brief. Uh, I
[3:34:26] submitted a short written submission. I
[3:34:29] hope you have all looked at it. I
[3:34:32] disagree with the prognostication
[3:34:36] that the law will be infrequently
[3:34:39] invoked
[3:34:41] because there is a major loophole in the
[3:34:44] law. It applies to any vacant
[3:34:48] parcel,
[3:34:50] but a developer or an owner could
[3:34:52] demolish
[3:34:54] his her or their existing house and then
[3:34:58] you have a and there's no waiting time.
[3:35:01] Demolish the house and then invoke SP
[3:35:04] 1123.
[3:35:06] And [clears throat] the part that I care
[3:35:08] about is what I've always cared about
[3:35:11] before you,
[3:35:13] which is safe emergency evacuation
[3:35:18] because I can see a number of these
[3:35:22] developments lining up along our
[3:35:24] evacuation routes and adding a lot of
[3:35:28] units. Fortunately, SB123
[3:35:32] has a safety exception that I quote in
[3:35:35] my email.
[3:35:38] And since there'll be no public hearings
[3:35:40] and no public notice,
[3:35:43] my ask tonight is that you provide
[3:35:48] direction to staff. They have to do it
[3:35:51] on an application by application basis,
[3:35:54] but that you provide direction to staff
[3:35:58] to invoke the safety exception
[3:36:01] and deny
[3:36:04] 1123 applications
[3:36:07] along or within 100 ft of an evacuation
[3:36:11] route
[3:36:13] because
[3:36:15] may, you know, maybe it'll be
[3:36:16] unnecessary, but I would hate to see
[3:36:20] One, two, three, 10 of these start
[3:36:23] mushrooming as people start moving out
[3:36:26] because a 10-unit apartment is built
[3:36:28] next to them and developers swoop in and
[3:36:31] start developing them. Arinda is the
[3:36:35] most dangerous city in California in
[3:36:37] terms of wildfire risk. Your primary
[3:36:41] responsibility
[3:36:43] as council members is public safety. And
[3:36:47] I would urge you to act responsibly and
[3:36:51] direct staff to invoke the safety
[3:36:55] exception on applications
[3:36:58] along or within 100 ft of an evacuation
[3:37:02] route. Thank you.
[3:37:05] >> Thank you. Looks like we have at least
[3:37:06] » Thank you. Looks like we have at least
[3:37:06] one other public speaker. Please come on
[3:37:08] up. Thank you for waiting so long. I
[3:37:10] know this was a long wait to talk.
[3:37:12] >> I know. Um nice to be able to address
[3:37:15] » I know. Um nice to be able to address
[3:37:15] you, city council. Thank you. My name is
[3:37:17] Annne Arurbrite and mostly I just want
[3:37:20] to agree with what Nick just said. Um, I
[3:37:23] feel very strongly about that that um I
[3:37:28] know um it's easy to forget and become
[3:37:32] complacent about fire risk, but our son
[3:37:36] who lives in LA, his house almost burned
[3:37:38] down. The fire embers reached his
[3:37:40] backyard and the only reason his house
[3:37:42] survived is they had people up all night
[3:37:45] putting out the embers. So, he almost
[3:37:47] lost his house. So, we have to remember
[3:37:49] that that could easily happen here. And
[3:37:53] um we really do count on the city
[3:37:54] council to keep the residents safe. And
[3:37:57] it really is concerning about building
[3:38:00] up density in Arinda which is already
[3:38:02] considered possibly I think the
[3:38:04] chronicle said the next Pacific
[3:38:06] Palisades. So that's a cons a big
[3:38:09] concern. Um and the fact that these
[3:38:13] statewide laws call for ministerial
[3:38:15] imple implementation is actually very
[3:38:18] frightening for individual residents. Um
[3:38:21] because it really means that we rely on
[3:38:24] stated and published guidelines from you
[3:38:27] and from the city um that show that we
[3:38:30] will be safe when these things are put
[3:38:33] into place because we really have no
[3:38:35] recourse. Nobody even has to tell us
[3:38:38] that it's going up next door.
[3:38:41] So that I just really agree with what
[3:38:43] Nick wrote and what he's saying. And I
[3:38:45] know I have a lot of people that last
[3:38:48] minute couldn't come but would come. So
[3:38:51] that I I know there's a lot of people
[3:38:52] that would agree with this. So
[3:38:56] that's that's my comment.
[3:38:58] >> Thank you very much. Um is there anybody
[3:39:00] » Thank you very much. Um is there anybody
[3:39:00] else from the public who would like to
[3:39:02] speak on this matter before we bring it
[3:39:04] up?
[3:39:06] >> Um yeah, please come on up. Um and
[3:39:09] » Um yeah, please come on up. Um and
[3:39:09] please just state your name and um three
[3:39:11] minutes.
[3:39:11] >> Yeah. Hi, Tom Seo. Thanks for uh pulling
[3:39:16] » Yeah. Hi, Tom Seo. Thanks for uh pulling
[3:39:16] this over time. Important issue. You
[3:39:18] know, [clears throat] when when Darren
[3:39:20] was going through the explanation, this
[3:39:22] is incredibly complex, and I appreciate
[3:39:25] that. When I put in the context of other
[3:39:28] communities that have multi-unit
[3:39:30] housing, it makes perfect sense. You
[3:39:32] know, if this were going into a
[3:39:33] community that already I get it, that's
[3:39:35] where that's what the law was written
[3:39:37] for. I don't think it applies to our
[3:39:40] community, and I understand that's not a
[3:39:42] choice we have. It's a state law. But
[3:39:45] that's where the interpretation and what
[3:39:47] you all do as the city council I think
[3:39:48] comes into play [clears throat] because
[3:39:51] you know the interpretation of an ADU
[3:39:54] versus a lot. You know it's ADU I think
[3:39:57] by definition has to be a rental
[3:39:58] property. So if this is intended to be
[3:40:01] for starter homes well it's a starter
[3:40:04] home as a rental maybe but that's not
[3:40:06] really solving the issue. And I it seems
[3:40:08] so convoluted to me to try to shoehorn
[3:40:11] this in to [clears throat] Arinda when
[3:40:14] it's probably makes sense and is
[3:40:16] intended for areas that already have
[3:40:18] multi-unit housing.
[3:40:22] » Thank you very much. Um if there are no
[3:40:25] other questions or comments, I think we
[3:40:27] will bring this up for discussion.
[3:40:30] Uh would anyone like to lead us off?
[3:40:33] I I'd like to ask city staff if um the
[3:40:37] suggestion from Mr. Waroff and others um
[3:40:41] is allowed. Are we allowed to um these
[3:40:45] laws get so complicated as to what we're
[3:40:47] allowed to do and not do? Um I mean I
[3:40:50] think it's a perfectly good suggestion.
[3:40:52] My question is are we allowed to do
[3:40:54] that?
[3:40:54] >> Yeah, I had the same question about
[3:40:56] » Yeah, I had the same question about
[3:40:56] invoking the safety exception because
[3:40:58] that wasn't part of the presentation.
[3:41:02] It's true that the language is in the
[3:41:04] law, but it is also, I think, a
[3:41:06] case-byase determination,
[3:41:08] right? It it's not sort of a blanket
[3:41:10] determination citywide. It would be
[3:41:13] looking at this particular application.
[3:41:15] Can you make the findings that there
[3:41:17] would be these particular safety
[3:41:19] problems? So, I if you'd like to direct
[3:41:22] staff to do some more work to look into
[3:41:26] exactly how that might work, uh, we can
[3:41:29] absolutely do that. Um, but I don't
[3:41:31] recommend tonight, for example,
[3:41:34] directing us that for all 1123
[3:41:37] applications that come in, they should
[3:41:38] be denied based on the safety. that we
[3:41:41] could express to staff that we want
[3:41:44] staff to be prepared or to look into it
[3:41:47] so that in the in the event that it's
[3:41:49] applicable to an application, staff
[3:41:51] would recognize it and be able to
[3:41:52] address it.
[3:41:53] >> Correct. Because it ends up being sort
[3:41:54] » Correct. Because it ends up being sort
[3:41:54] of a two-step process where you have to
[3:41:56] have your objective standards um
[3:41:59] prepared before the application comes in
[3:42:02] and then you measure the application
[3:42:04] against your objective standards to
[3:42:05] determine whether you can make the
[3:42:06] safety findings. So, um, if you'd like
[3:42:09] to provide direction to staff, we can
[3:42:11] work on, uh, figuring out what's
[3:42:13] possible.
[3:42:14] >> Got it. Um,
[3:42:20] I I mean, I I'm not I guess I was I
[3:42:23] would look for sort of you're you're
[3:42:26] putting these options before us, and I
[3:42:30] appreciate going through the pros and
[3:42:31] cons. I didn't hear a clear sort of
[3:42:33] staff recommendation. I can tell you
[3:42:36] looking at this
[3:42:38] for me four is out of the question
[3:42:41] because I don't I mean I would I'm sort
[3:42:44] of leaning towards number one here but
[3:42:47] I'm I I would want to hear if there's a
[3:42:50] staff recommendation or what my
[3:42:52] colleagues think as well. That was my
[3:42:54] other question.
[3:42:55] >> Well, I'm easily going with number one.
[3:42:57] » Well, I'm easily going with number one.
[3:42:57] I think the whole thing is just I
[3:43:00] [sighs] mean it is just way out of
[3:43:02] proportion. We all understand what the
[3:43:04] state wishes they could mandate on
[3:43:06] everyone. But I think I think this level
[3:43:09] of density in the size lots you're
[3:43:12] you're talking about is just
[3:43:15] I I mean it's just wildly inappropriate
[3:43:17] to our community unless you're going to
[3:43:19] do what Mr. Waroff said and everybody's
[3:43:21] going to start tearing down existing
[3:43:23] homes and you're going to flatten
[3:43:24] everything so that you can start turning
[3:43:26] everything into, you know, essentially
[3:43:29] apartment zones. Um, I mean, I just I
[3:43:32] just think it's beyond um, you know, and
[3:43:36] and I shudder to think how this is would
[3:43:39] be potentially accepted by, you know, a
[3:43:42] neighborhood, you know, if if it's a
[3:43:44] current single family neighborhood now.
[3:43:46] And you know, I mean, it's one thing for
[3:43:48] people to be okay with their neighbors
[3:43:50] adding ADUs or, you know, doing certain
[3:43:53] things that are going on in the
[3:43:54] community that I think are pretty well
[3:43:56] accepted, but the idea that you might
[3:43:58] all of a sudden end up with, you know,
[3:44:00] living next door to somebody building a
[3:44:03] 10-unit apartment uh complex is um I
[3:44:07] mean, it it I'll be honest, it's just
[3:44:09] frightening in terms of thinking what
[3:44:11] our um community is, you know, what the
[3:44:14] reaction is going to And I and I fully
[3:44:17] agree with the public safety issues. I
[3:44:20] mean I you know I it's we're lucky I
[3:44:24] guess that so much of I mean we're lucky
[3:44:26] we're not lucky. We're we're horribly
[3:44:28] unlucky that we're have such high fire
[3:44:31] risk but you know if it's reducing some
[3:44:34] of you know what we're able to do here.
[3:44:36] But, you know, quite frankly, I I wish
[3:44:39] that this was a situation where our
[3:44:42] community didn't have to accept this law
[3:44:44] at all over fire danger. So, so it's
[3:44:47] easy for me to just say no. I mean, this
[3:44:49] this would be an amount of density that
[3:44:51] I just find very objectionable. Um, even
[3:44:55] recognizing, you know, the housing needs
[3:44:58] of the state. But, um, I I would simply
[3:45:01] fall on the no, no more, no more than
[3:45:06] I'll just chime in because this we're
[3:45:07] kind of a smaller group tonight. Um, and
[3:45:10] it's funny because I had I fell out of
[3:45:13] my chair when the ADU laws first came
[3:45:15] through and then I fell out of my chair
[3:45:16] when SB9 came through and we were told
[3:45:19] there was no such thing as single family
[3:45:20] zoning in the state of California and it
[3:45:22] was just horrific. Um, and I actually
[3:45:27] brought this when I saw these in the
[3:45:29] objective design standards and I was
[3:45:30] like, what are our standards for small
[3:45:33] lot subdivisions? like what are these
[3:45:35] things? And you know, yeah, it can be a
[3:45:38] small apartment building, it can be a
[3:45:40] condo subdivision, you know, two
[3:45:41] stories, but still um it could be town
[3:45:44] homes, it could be all sorts of stuff.
[3:45:46] And so I I'm really glad we're having
[3:45:48] this conversation because it's
[3:45:52] it's not just new. It's it's hard to
[3:45:55] even picture what these look like, but
[3:45:59] um SP9 and the ADUs actually turned out
[3:46:02] to be fine in Arinda. The way that
[3:46:05] people are doing most of their ADUs,
[3:46:07] they're not renting them to strangers,
[3:46:09] right? They're either using them as it
[3:46:11] as a way to expand their house with
[3:46:13] ministerial permitting or they're using
[3:46:15] it for caregivers, in-laws,
[3:46:20] boomerang children. They've actually
[3:46:22] been used to create sort of family
[3:46:23] compounds. And it's the addition of
[3:46:26] density in the way that's appropriate to
[3:46:29] Arinda that we're not seeing apartment
[3:46:31] towers in our downtown. What we're
[3:46:34] seeing is people taking the abundance of
[3:46:37] land and really nice neighborhoods and
[3:46:40] just adding
[3:46:42] some density. And so the the reality has
[3:46:45] actually been just fine. And it was it
[3:46:48] was those were both terrifying. So, um,
[3:46:51] when I heard, you know, 10 little tiny
[3:46:54] homes on a lot, it just boggles the
[3:46:57] mind. But, um, the reason I would
[3:47:00] actually advocate for number three is I
[3:47:02] suspect that the kind of product we're
[3:47:04] actually going to see built will be more
[3:47:08] like two homes with ADUs.
[3:47:12] They might use the junior ADU as a
[3:47:14] feature in a home. I sort of think as
[3:47:17] long as it's within the same 10 that you
[3:47:19] could do as identically sized or
[3:47:22] similarly sized separate units,
[3:47:24] something that might be two or three
[3:47:26] units with a mini feature. It it just
[3:47:30] gives people the flexibility to do the
[3:47:32] correct design that they want to do. And
[3:47:35] I don't think there's any different
[3:47:37] outcome between one and three other than
[3:47:39] three might have some more small units
[3:47:42] than more big units. So I I find three
[3:47:46] to be actually more friendly to people
[3:47:49] who are going to do it anyway. Um so
[3:47:52] that would be my preference. The
[3:47:54] question we haven't even talked about is
[3:47:55] the one about whether you would allow
[3:47:57] further SB9 lot splits because I think
[3:47:59] that was such a an obvious no that we're
[3:48:02] not even talking about it.
[3:48:04] >> Just to be clear on that second question
[3:48:05] » Just to be clear on that second question
[3:48:05] about further subdivision, I'm a hard no
[3:48:07] on that. Can I
[3:48:11] just probe that for a second between one
[3:48:13] and three? Because those are the two
[3:48:15] that I was looking at. But I assume that
[3:48:17] it would be frankly just cheaper to
[3:48:21] build under three to build more units
[3:48:25] than it would be under one. And that's
[3:48:27] why this is being proposed. I mean, is
[3:48:30] that is that correct?
[3:48:32] I I believe um that we could probably
[3:48:36] tailor this in such a manner that we
[3:48:38] wouldn't expect those ADUs or junior
[3:48:40] accessory dwelling units to be
[3:48:42] constructed as part of the initial um
[3:48:45] development. Um this I I see three as
[3:48:49] more of a future flexibility
[3:48:52] um where something has already been
[3:48:53] subdivided into four, five units and
[3:48:57] future homeowners of those units could
[3:48:59] then come in later on and say, "You know
[3:49:01] what? I need an ADU or I need to carve
[3:49:03] out a space to be a junior accessory
[3:49:05] dwelling, right?
[3:49:05] >> So, it wouldn't immediately necessarily
[3:49:07] » So, it wouldn't immediately necessarily
[3:49:07] result in those additional units. It
[3:49:09] would just
[3:49:10] >> for
[3:49:12] » for
[3:49:12] three makes me think that you will end
[3:49:15] up with more units than one
[3:49:20] either because it's more costefficient
[3:49:22] to do so or because of you can do it in
[3:49:25] stages in terms of building. And that's
[3:49:27] why I'm sort of frankly leaning towards
[3:49:30] one because it gives us a tiny little
[3:49:32] bit of local control, but I'm also
[3:49:35] looking to staff it. You know, I mean,
[3:49:37] we do want to in we have to improve, you
[3:49:41] know, we have to increase the amount of
[3:49:43] housing locally or at least encourage
[3:49:46] it. And so, but we want to do it in a
[3:49:48] way that makes sense. And I don't I
[3:49:51] don't certainly
[3:49:54] when you had a single family home
[3:49:56] putting in, you know, five mini homes or
[3:49:59] 10 mini homes for what it's worth. That
[3:50:02] answer kind of uh my mind a little bit
[3:50:04] because I I was thinking of it as like
[3:50:06] the initial design could be more
[3:50:08] flexible. But yeah, building five and
[3:50:10] then turning it into seven um is not the
[3:50:15] desired direction. And um you can always
[3:50:18] amend laws. So, I would be fine starting
[3:50:20] with one and just knowing we can always
[3:50:22] come back. If you, you know, if planning
[3:50:24] says, "Hey, we're seeing things that
[3:50:26] would be better if we had this
[3:50:28] flexibility or we had more discretion.
[3:50:31] Um, I'd be fine starting more limited
[3:50:34] and um and expanding if the need
[3:50:37] presented itself." And it sounds like
[3:50:39] you guys are both inclined to one
[3:50:41] anyway.
[3:50:42] >> Yeah, I I should have asked this during
[3:50:43] » Yeah, I I should have asked this during
[3:50:43] the questions, but this is a very
[3:50:45] difficult format, difficult time, etc.
[3:50:48] And that is are we allowed to have
[3:50:50] different kind of objective design
[3:50:52] standards for this than we are for
[3:50:54] things that we have in downtown?
[3:50:57] >> Oh, that's a good question.
[3:50:57] » Oh, that's a good question.
[3:50:57] >> I mean, is this get a are we allowed to
[3:51:00] » I mean, is this get a are we allowed to
[3:51:00] do specific set of objective design
[3:51:03] standards just for this law?
[3:51:07] >> Oh,
[3:51:07] » Oh,
[3:51:07] >> yes. [laughter]
[3:51:08] » yes. [laughter]
[3:51:08] >> Well, I've seen our planning direct. I
[3:51:10] » Well, I've seen our planning direct. I
[3:51:10] think the answer is that you're going to
[3:51:12] need to apply the same objective
[3:51:13] standards to these single family zoned
[3:51:16] parcels as you do to your other single
[3:51:19] family zoned parcels.
[3:51:20] >> There's an there's a section in our
[3:51:22] » There's an there's a section in our
[3:51:22] current draft. There's like a little
[3:51:24] chapter for small lot subdivision.
[3:51:26] Correct. So there are different
[3:51:28] standards. It's just that it's not a
[3:51:30] different law. It's one law that's that
[3:51:32] says if you're a duplex or if you're a
[3:51:34] single family. Isn't that right? Well,
[3:51:36] so the downtown has its own already
[3:51:39] adopted objective design standards that
[3:51:42] don't affect any of the single family
[3:51:44] residentially zoned parcels. We're
[3:51:46] working on but have not yet brought to
[3:51:48] you for adoption the citywide ODS. Okay.
[3:51:55] By the way, we're uh about to need more
[3:51:57] time. Um [laughter]
[3:52:01] five minutes or is that too aggressive?
[3:52:03] >> Let's move to extend by 10 minutes. So
[3:52:05] » Let's move to extend by 10 minutes. So
[3:52:05] till 10:55.
[3:52:08] >> All right.
[3:52:09] » All right.
[3:52:09] >> And let's I'll move we extend to 10:55.
[3:52:12] » And let's I'll move we extend to 10:55.
[3:52:12] Second. All in favor?
[3:52:13] >> All in favor? I
[3:52:15] » All in favor? I
[3:52:15] >> I
[3:52:17] » I
[3:52:17] >> um
[3:52:21] I think we have consensus on number one
[3:52:25] in this policy decision unless staff
[3:52:27] wants to tell us why we should be doing
[3:52:30] something else.
[3:52:31] >> I think you have consensus on both
[3:52:33] » I think you have consensus on both
[3:52:33] actually. you have uh direction pursue
[3:52:36] one and I don't think unless I've heard
[3:52:39] otherwise staff is not recommending
[3:52:41] >> additional lot split opportunities under
[3:52:43] » additional lot split opportunities under
[3:52:43] SB9. Uh it doesn't seem like you would
[3:52:46] like to see that either. So it sounds
[3:52:48] like we've got policy direction. But and
[3:52:50] then the one thing I would like to see
[3:52:53] if we're in agreement on is can we
[3:52:55] explore whether
[3:52:58] we can do anything else regarding public
[3:53:01] safety that isn't just application by
[3:53:04] application. So those are the three
[3:53:06] things I wrote down. Uh option number
[3:53:09] one on ADUs, no SB9 lot splits and staff
[3:53:13] pursue the what it would take to make
[3:53:15] safety findings.
[3:53:18] >> Yes, please. And um we'd love to see
[3:53:20] » Yes, please. And um we'd love to see
[3:53:20] those objective design standards come
[3:53:22] back quickly because they're pretty uh
[3:53:25] they're pretty important in all of this.
[3:53:26] So um but um with that, I think we're
[3:53:30] good on this matter.
[3:53:32] >> Yes, we're good on this.
[3:53:33] » Yes, we're good on this.
[3:53:33] >> Yes, I think staff got enough direction
[3:53:36] » Yes, I think staff got enough direction
[3:53:36] to move forward with the next best.
[3:53:38] >> Terrific. And since we've already done
[3:53:40] » Terrific. And since we've already done
[3:53:40] the various reports, I believe
[3:53:41] >> you for answering all our questions.
[3:53:43] » you for answering all our questions.
[3:53:43] >> Yeah, thank you again. That was a
[3:53:45] » Yeah, thank you again. That was a
[3:53:45] >> really novel thing to get our arms
[3:53:47] » really novel thing to get our arms
[3:53:47] around and it's not as novel as it
[3:53:50] should be. Um, are there any matters
[3:53:52] initiated?
[3:53:54] >> I move we adjourn.
[3:53:55] » I move we adjourn.
[3:53:55] >> Motion to
[3:53:56] » Motion to
[3:53:56] >> Could it hit my five minutes?
[3:53:57] » Could it hit my five minutes?
[3:53:57] >> Second.