the city council meeting. I'm
with that I'll ask the city clerk to please conduct the roll call okay
councilmember Hoxie here councilmember Mokani here councilmember Riley here
Vice Mayor G here and mayor Iverson here and we'll start with the pledge of
allegiance a pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and
to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with
liberty and justice for all. Our first action is to adopt the agenda. I do have
a change to propose to the agenda but I'd like to ask if anybody else does.
Seeing none I would like to ask if my fellow council members are open to a
A temporary change. I'd like to try it for a few meetings as an
just a change to the agenda to see if we like it and that would be to bring the
Councilmember reports and City Manager report to the front of the agenda so that we're
Sharing information on things that are of a little bit more general interest before we get into the specific matters
We may not like it. So I didn't want to change the policies and procedures manual
But if you are open to trying it, I would suggest that for tonight
any comments or support or not?
Certainly open to trying it.
Okay, so I propose that we move those two matters
to the front of the agenda.
I would say we should do it after the consent calendar
and before the public hearing.
So between items F and G, if that is all right, acceptable.
Sounds good.
Okay, with that, do we have a motion to adopt the agenda
with the proposed change?
So moved.
I'll second that.
Great. We'll call in favor, please, City Clerk. Council Member Hoxie?
Aye.
Mal Kani?
Aye.
Riley?
Aye.
Vice Mayor Gee?
Aye.
Mayor Iverson?
Aye.
Thank you.
Um, and with that, uh, items for the good of the City, we don't have any, but we'll go
to public forum. The public forum is an opportunity for members of the public to address the Council
members on items that are not on tonight's agenda.
Oh, what?
Oh, I'm sorry.
oh I'm sorry Sophie and we have one item for good of the city and its introduction of a city staff
person oh I'm sorry my apologies it may not have no I'm very sorry about that um with that I would
like to ask director cross to please introduce Sophie Foster a new planning technician all right
thank you uh good afternoon or good evening uh mayor Iverson and council members um please uh
assist me in welcoming our new planning technician for the planning department Sophie Foster uh Sophie
Sophie has a Bachelor of Science degree from UC Santa Cruz in Earth Sciences and a continued
fascination with geology.
She has professional background and experience in construction project management and extensive
customer service experience.
You should see her now jump up to greet the public as they come into the door.
Sophie enjoys being outdoors and is looking forward to exploring all of her in those beautiful
parks and natural preserves.
leave it there. And I just have a couple words as well. I just wanted to say that I'm thrilled
to be joining the city of Arinda as a planning technician. I've been pursuing a career path
and planning for a bit and I feel so fortunate to be starting my journey with the Arinda
planning department. Thank you so much for having me here tonight and I look forward
to working with all of you in some capacity. I appreciate it. I'm just gonna say welcome.
Thank you. Welcome. We hope we have lots of projects for you. Yeah.
And with that, I will go to public forum. The public forum is an opportunity for members to
speak on items that are not on the agenda. You may also speak in the public forum if there's an
agenda item that you will not be here to speak on when the item is taken up.
We will ask anybody who's speaking tonight to limit their comments to three minutes,
and I don't have any speaker cards.
Is there anybody tonight who would like to speak
for public forum, please come forward.
There's a speaker card.
I didn't do it in time, not sat here, here we go.
So good evening.
I'm Bill Waterman and I'm speaking personally tonight,
not as a representative of the Arendt Association Board
or the Rotary Club of Orinda,
which I'm also a member and involved.
So I would like to speak briefly
about the Chevron Convenience Store.
I've been following this project
for seems like a very long time.
I know this project's been around,
bumping around for over 10 years.
Three things, this store adds value to Orinda.
It's another place to secure things
people forget to get and the only alternative is Safeway late at night. It's true we have
small convenience stores at Mash and currently at Chevron but I think having a bigger store
would add value. We also have the dedication of the creek access that is part of this deal.
This is a benefit for the city of Arrinda and I think that the dedication agreement that I read
was very thoroughly and very carefully drafted
by our city attorney and perhaps outside council.
It protects the city from any extremely remote chance
of any pollution issues or claims.
The positives outweigh the negatives.
Walnut Creek has two extra mile stores, two.
Pleasant Hill has two extra mile stores.
Danville has an extra mile store.
Martinez has an extra mile store.
Those cities did not seem to have any problem
and don't have any problem with having a store like this
within their city confines.
As I say, it's been a 10 or 15 year journey
to have this project and I just say, let's get it done.
I think that because this is only the third or fourth
new commercial project in the last 20 years in Arenda,
in addition to the B of A project now
And Mr. Michoun's remodeling of the building in Orinda
and the MASH gas station, that's about it.
I think it's time that we have something new built in Orinda
so we don't have all of our commercial buildings
really degrade and decay.
And that particular garage site has been empty
for over 20 years.
There's been nobody in there coming in.
There's no other mechanics that are wanting to take the space.
So, I think it's a project that deserves our approval.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Ms. Abrams, did you want to speak now or-
I do, yeah, I can't stay.
Yeah, please go ahead.
So, if that's okay, I'd like to-
Is it on item G1?
Yes.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
So, I'll take the opposite approach.
I'm very disappointed that in the review of this project,
in the former staff reports,
there was no mention of the former ordinance,
which you are vowing basically to repeal.
There was no discussion of the former council's intent.
When we passed this ordinance,
we had support from the school district,
from board members from the school district,
and from people throughout the community.
I spoke publicly and no one on the council
asked me any questions as to what our reasons were,
Nor was there a long discussion in the staff report
about what our intent was back then.
What Amy and Joyce and Greg and Alan and Bill Lindsay
and my intent was dealing with unknown consequences.
I presented a long response to the staff report
with salient issues and reality photographs
from the flagship store in Danville,
showing the merchandise, which is basically
alcohol, tobacco, fast food, and junk food.
And yes, there's some milk, and there were rotting bananas,
and some apples.
No one asked me any questions about it.
I spent hours on that.
No discussion of the photos.
A former city council member called me after the meeting
to apologize and said, well, you know,
there were so many people there from Arinda Creeks,
which of course, I'm supportive of the Orinda Creek group
and I always have been, but not this.
You know, this will be your legacy, basically.
You know, we all have legacies
when we serve on the city council.
And we have four gas stations in Orinda.
And Orinda is not big like Danville
and not big like Walnut Creek
and not big like Pleasant Hill.
It's a small community.
And their traffic impacts already
next to the station, next to the Casa Arenda.
Every time I try to pull in that parking lot,
I risk my life trying to get in there
because there's still traffic backed up on the street.
There's unknown consequences.
I didn't see a whole lot of discussion about that.
So I hope you know what you're doing.
We have three other gas stations,
all of which can qualify to do whatever they want
that's non-automotive sales.
And so you're opening the door.
And I hope you give this some serious thought tonight
and really think about, because this is part,
when you're sitting up there,
you create a legacy for the community.
That's your responsibility.
And it's a tough one and I understand that.
I did it for 12 years, I understand it.
So I'm good luck this evening, I'm sorry I can't stay.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your comments.
I know you know that we can't comment to this,
but we'll make sure we address those
when the item comes up.
Thanks.
Would anybody else like to speak
for the public forum portion of the meeting?
Seeing none, we'll move to the consent calendar
and I would note that the written correspondence
has a staff correction just to item,
which item is that, F5.
And with that, I'd like to ask if anybody has any items
that they would like to pull for discussion
from the consent calendar.
Councilmember
No?
Councilmember Riley, you're good?
Okay.
With that, do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar?
So moved.
I'll second it.
Thank you.
Roll call vote, please.
Councilmember Hoxie?
Aye.
Marah Coney?
Aye.
Riley?
Aye.
Gee?
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Thank you.
Consent calendar passes unanimously, and we will move on to our public hearing for tonight.
comments. Um. That is
introduction of ordinance 25
06. Could I change the order
wanted? Oh, my God. Thank you.
It's my first meeting is mayor
for those of you who don't
know, Um, with that we work
out accounts for member
reports and ask if people have
anything that they would like
to share from subcommittee or
other public meetings that
Go. Okay. Sure. The Infrastructure Committee meeting was held last night and that was Vice
Mayor G and myself together with our staff and we covered a variety of issues. It was
actually really interesting. We looked at the history of the Orinda Woods HOA having
roads that are publicly maintained under a, well,
having roads that the city maintains, right?
So under a maintenance agreement,
which is sort of one model.
And then another model we looked at is we were curious
about different jurisdictions and sort of what the models
and different jurisdictions were.
And so we got some information from our staff report
on that, thank you, to our city manager,
And specifically, it turned out that San and Selma
has a grant program where they have private individuals,
residents who live on private roads in a community group
in a large, you know, a group of residents can apply
for matching funds to, or rather partially matching funds
to help with road or drainage repairs and maintenance.
And so for the roads, it was sort of they could apply
for 25%, up to 25% of the expenditure.
And for the drains, they could apply up to 50%.
And there's more information we're getting on that.
And then finally, we also looked at a framework
for our how to sort of update our prior ordinance
on resolution for adoption of public roads
And that framework, I believe, will be coming.
The recommendation was for it to come back
to the full council for a policy discussion.
So expect that in the future.
And I will look at the vice mayor
and she will fill in what I've left out.
I think the other thing we talked about last night
was we got an update from our public work staff
in regards to our drainage mapping,
which is a combination of both public
and private drainage mapping
that will hopefully update the city's records
enormously in terms of the information they have
of the drainage throughout the community.
And they'll be bringing that back to council
sometime soon, next week.
Next week.
I think the only other comment I have is as usual,
we had a very good and very robust discussion.
The infrastructure subcommittee is very well attended,
incredible participation.
And I think we've made a great deal of progress
with a lot of members of the community
in terms of the conversation, so.
In the tone and approach,
I think it's much more collaborative than problem solving.
Meeting year, so there haven't been a lot of things going on.
I would just mention we had five Eagle Scouts
that were recognized as part of the national program
this weekend.
Congressman Mark DeSaulnier sat through
the entire two-hour ceremony, it was kind of a treat.
Today is in fact Raul Dial Day in Arinda.
So if you see him, congratulate him.
And city manager's part of your report,
if you could please just mention the grant
that we got for the Moraga Way study,
that was kind of big news.
There's no other council reports
I can move into city manager reports, is that it?
Okay.
So as the mayor indicated, the city of Arinda
and the town of Moraga jointly applied
for the Safe Streets for All Program, a federal grant,
and received a grant of approximately $500,000
to begin the planning study for improvements to Moraga Way
that could result in a safer bike and pedestrian access
as well as evacuation needs over the long term.
So that planning grant has been secured.
We're very grateful for the partnership
with the Town of Moraga,
And we will be, I'm sure, over the next few months
working to try and initiate that work between the two
agencies.
In addition to that, I just wanted
to report Crossroads Plaza, which the council approved
a few meetings ago, which is the new entryway
sign along Moraga Way at Brookfield, Brookside?
John, getting that wrong.
Entrance to Theater Square, I'll say.
and in that case today we received notification
that PG&E has approved it.
So we are good to go.
So I just wanted to let you know that at a meeting
and see your wonderful smiling faces.
And then lastly, the city is prepared to launch
a rendereddy.com tomorrow.
Rendereddy will be the new portal
for all things related to emergency preparedness,
preparing your home, information about insurance,
And in addition to that, as part of that launch,
we will be launching the LADRIS evacuation
and fire modeling tools so residents can take a look
and better understand the effects of fire spread
and evacuation timing in the community.
We'll have about 100 scenarios pre-planned in the system
so that they can look at those scenarios
and understand and educate themselves.
I just want to thank the city manager and her team,
implementation of the lateral system was a huge effort and something there's not
a lot of precedent for how to do that in a public format so thank you for
getting that done so quickly relative to when we embarked on getting that
software. If there are no other reports we will go to the public hearing that's
matter g1 the introduction of ordinance 2506 amending section 17.2.3 and 17.8.5 of our planning
and zoning code uh specifically addressing convenient market convenience markets and the
use permit for the chevron station at um on oranda way and darren hughs i'll ask you to please provide
do the staff report good evening my mayor iverson members of the city council and members of the
public. Associate planner Darren Hughes and I will go over this proposed zoning text amendment.
I think I'm first going to turn this over for hearing process to city attorney.
All right, I'm going to quickly run through this slide. It will be familiar to everybody on the
dais, but just for the benefit of the public, we have completed item one. Item's been called. We
We are now doing item two.
We're viewing the procedure.
When we get to the item three,
we will give the council an opportunity
to close any ex-party communications
they may have had related to this item.
And then when we get to five, you'll hear a staff report.
And six, you'll have the opportunity
to ask questions of staff.
Then the applicant, which in this case is Chevron,
will be given up to 15 minutes
to make a presentation.
If they'd like to reserve any of that time for rebuttal,
they should let the city clerk know
when they come to the podium.
Council will then get an opportunity
to ask the applicant any questions.
Then it will be time for any other members of the public
who'd like to offer comments.
Each will be given three minutes per speaker.
And the council can ask questions of those speakers.
They need not answer, but they can.
If they like, the answers don't come out of their time.
then the applicant will be given an opportunity
for rebuttal using whatever time they have remaining
from their 15 minutes.
After that's complete, you will close the public hearing
and the item will be before the council for deliberation.
So now we're back up to item four.
If you wouldn't mind, you can go down the line
and if you'd have any ex-party communications
to disclose, you can do that now.
Why don't we go this direction?
all those in favor? No, none.
None. I had one conversation
with a resident regarding the
topic. I've had multiple
conversations in the two years
since we first approved this
with Juliette Don, who was a
Chevron representative at the
time and is part of our
Chamber of Commerce. So just
periodically over the course of
the two years. And just to
the public. The correspondence or the communications you've had or is the substance of that already reflected in the staff report that's before you or would you like to provide any additional detail about what was discussed? Every I would just provide the details that everything we discussed is reflected in the staff report and it was just asking questions about what to expect. And I concur everything's presented. And with that we will continue to the staff. Did Councilmember Riley get a chance? She did. She said none. Okay, thank you.
Alright, so proceeding to an overview of what's on the agenda for the night, we're looking
at a re-introduction of an ordinance that was originally introduced in September of
2023.
This is being proposed as a re-introduction rather than, so a first introduction of the
ordinance rather than a second reading.
I don't believe that there are any statutory limits on coming back for a second reading,
just a quick reminder of what
And we've recently had the
downtown rezoning, which
amended some of the language
that was in reflected in the
ordinance. Um, that has been
proposed for tonight. That
wasn't originally part of the
ordinance in 2023, but there
ordinance, and we'll go over
the first and last one. The
ordinance aligns with the last
one that was approved. So this
ordinance would modify the
regulations for convenience
markets at service stations,
which I'll go over shortly. It
was prompted by an application
from Chevron for a project that
they proposed and had approved
by the Planning Commission. It
includes a negotiated offer of
dedication for the creek
and easement to get to that creek. And overall, this was delayed over the last two years while we were negotiating the details for the dedication, which included the phase one environmental site assessments. And we're reintroducing now, as I stated before, to ensure consistency with the downtown reasonings.
Okay. All right. So looking at
the timeline, this was
originally brought before the
City Council and the Planning
Commission in February of 2021
for a study session at which
Chevron received feedback, work
with staff afterwards, came back
with an updated proposal, which
was brought before the Planning
Commission in November of 2022.
It was continued at that point
with some additional requests by
the Planning Commission.
the city. The city staff. Uh,
council before the project
and all of its other permit
components and the project
approval is contingent upon
this zoning text amendment. It
went forward in September, on
September 19th of 2023 to the
City Council where it was
introduced and City Council at
the time directed staff to come
in with a more in-depth look at what it would look like
to accept a donation for the proposed dedication.
And then by summer 2025, negotiations concluded
regarding the offer of dedication,
the phase one environmental site assessment was completed.
And we have brought this back for your review tonight.
So, just some background on the project itself.
Again, this is not under review tonight.
This was approved by the planning commission,
just contingent upon the zoning text amendment.
But the project proposed the conversion
of the existing service base that are at this building,
currently underutilized,
currently not utilized for the last several decades.
It proposes to turn those into a convenience market,
that structure in a convenience market.
There is a remodel of the interior and exterior.
There's an observation deck which you can see
to the left-hand side of this photo
that would overlook the daylight portion
of the San Pablo Creek.
They would install additional fueling station
as well as an EV charging station
that would be located over at Santa Maria Way
and Camino Pablo.
And these were all approved by the Planning Commission
as entitlements.
The votes at the Planning Commission was five in favor,
one opposed, and one absent.
This is just a look at the applications.
Again, we are looking at the zoning text amendment tonight,
but overall, they had a commercial use permit, design
review, elevated deck permit, exception permit,
and tree removal permits.
Of note, the commercial use permit
was explicitly conducted in relation
to the findings that would be required for a use permit
for a convenience station by the proposed text.
So the text amendments are what set the standards
for the commercial use permit,
hence the reliance on the approval of the text amendments
in order to see the project move forward.
So looking at the proposed zoning changes,
there are two sections that would be altered,
17.2.3 definitions.
This was primarily a request by staff
to clean up the definition for liquor store
To clarify that a liquor store primarily sells alcohol beverages for offsite consumption,
just adding the word primarily to this because there was no thresholds set up before.
And then within the section 17.8.5, this is for the downtown commercial district and specifically
within the use restrictions section.
This proposed ordinance would eliminate the 40-square-foot limitation to the size of convenience
markets that at service stations. They would eliminate to the 600-foot maximum distance
to schools, playgrounds and youth facilities. They eliminate the prohibition on vicinity
to churches and hospitals and also eliminate the prohibition of any variances to any of
the standards that are within that section. And then it would allow convenience markets
at service stations and the proposed tax provides a number of regulations that they would have
to adhere to. So this would require a noticed public hearing for a commercial use permit.
It would prohibit the size, limit the size to be between 2,250 square feet and 3,000
square feet, but that can't exceed 20% of the total lot size. It would require a pedestrian
entrance to be located within 35 feet of the public right-of-way as well as
provide at least 25 feet of frontage to the right-of-way along which the
pedestrian entrance is located. It would require inclusion of fresh food as part
of what would be sold within the store and it would require that any uses that
fall within the definition of a takeout restaurant if any would be proposed
conjunction with a convenience market would have to conform to any permitting
for such a use and this would be applicable to lots within, to any parcels within the
downtown commercial and potentially downtown core zoning districts right now. It's most
applicable to the four existing service stations in Arrinda, Chevron, Shell, 76, and Mash Gas
and Food. Two are located on each side of the downtown in the vicinity of the highway
access point. So briefly on the offer of dedication for San Pablo Creek, this includes
a five foot access easement and a 0.22 acre area of dedication in the rear. This access
easement falls along the rear side of the building and functionally is in the driveway
space for the parcel next door, the clean cleaners, but goes alongside the building
and would ensure that the city can maintain access to the creek, either for maintenance
purposes or for general public access. It would be up to the city to make that choice.
And then the 0.22 acre area of dedication is on the rear portion of the parcel that
covers San Pablo Creek. There is one portion of this that is carved out from of that rear
area that's below the retaining wall that is carved out for the purposes of maintaining
access to the area that Chevron is proposing that observation deck outlook. So they would
maintain control of that portion of the creek side, but everything else would be in control
of the city. So they offer a fee title dedication of the San Pablo Creek area with an axis easement.
offer of dedication was included in the materials for the report. Over this
period of time the city conducted a phase one environmental site assessments
which did indicate a need for a phase two but Chevron did decline that phase
two and made their offer as is for that parcel that portion of the parcel and
the city has ten years to decide whether or not to accept the offer and to look
into this further. This is not, there is no requirement as part of this to accept that
offer tonight. And then separately again revisiting it's $24,874 for public right of way improvements
that would be payable at construction start. That is within the purview of the city manager
to accept. Four public correspondence prior to the two residents who spoke earlier tonight.
We received written correspondence from five total entities. There were two residents that
were in support, as well as one business, which is Rebel Convenience located immediately
across the way. The Rebel Convenience Store supports the proposal with the exception to
to one provision, which I'll go over in a moment.
And then two residents wrote in opposition
to both aspects of these items.
Overall, the support and the opposition
generally reflected the types of support and opposition points
that we had seen in the previous iteration of this.
In support, people want to see an underutilized building come
back to life.
They want to see that benefit to the creek via the observation deck.
Many residents including the Friends of Arinda Creeks are in support.
Yes, there was two residents in support and there should actually also be one organization
because Friends of Arinda Creek support this for the purposes of taking that fee dedication
for the rear portion of the parcel.
people are excited about an additional charging station in downtown Orinda. Two
residents did oppose eliciting some issues around quality of food, quality of
the stations, concerns that this would bring in exterior traffic to Orinda
rather than being explicitly serving of the the residents of Orinda, and concerns
about safety related to convenience stores and gas stations adjacent to
highways. To go briefly over the point made by the commenter from Rebel
Convenience, the particular issue is with the idea that one of the requirements
were to require no more than a 35-foot setback from the public right-of-way, so
that particular, this particular provision here says that wherever the
door is that is closest, the door that accesses the convenience station is closest to the right
of way. It needs to be no more than 35 feet away from the right of way. So I looked at
the other stations. It does seem that that would be a prohibition and an obstacle to
any of the other service stations which all have existing buildings. And so just like
like Chevron being able to
re-utilize this building for this purpose.
If any of them tried to come forward with this,
they would need to seek a variance
for basically the same use
because none of them are located within 35 feet
of a public right of way.
So this doesn't seem to serve any
from staff's assessment of this,
looking at this particular issue.
It doesn't necessarily serve any purpose
for enhancing the pedestrian environment
to say a maximum of 35 feet
that's not typically seen in planning
as promoting a pedestrian-friendly environment.
Usually we talk about much shorter maximum setbacks.
And just to give an example here for the Chevron proposal,
we have this nice looking trellis
that Chevron worked on after talking to staff,
after working with staff,
after being directed by the Planning Commission
during the design review portion of this
to come back with a more robust,
a stronger link to the pedestrian environment.
There's nothing about this besides the setback,
the existing setback from the street
that would be required by that maximum setback.
This is something that staff does feel
generally gets worked out through design review
in order to see these connections enhanced.
So that's just something for City Council
consider in relation to that comment. If I could just briefly note, there was a juxtaposition
of the mash and shell in that PowerPoint. So just to make sure we have that correct.
Shell is actually the mash and mash is the shell. Swap them. Yes, indeed.
I don't go to gas stations often. I apologize.
um. Can you go? Oh, so, to wrap
up fiscal impact and strategic plan alignment, um, fiscal impact that there's no material cost to introduce this ordinance. Um, and there is a potential increase to sales tax revenue by utilizing this building that has not been utilized in the last several decades. Um, this aligns with goals 3 B and 3 C, uh, to evaluate existing conditions and consider business growth, um,
community and thank you for
giving us the opportunity to
work with and to engage
property owners to encourage
reuse of underutilized
properties in Orlando in
downtown. Next step, if it's
introduced tonight, this item
will be scheduled for its
second reading and adoption at
the January 20th, 2026 city
council meeting. And if
adopted, the city manager will
take steps to accept the
donation and ensure that the
offer of dedication is
recorded. So currently staff's
introduce ordinance 25-06 amending section 17.2.3 definitions and section 17.8.5, Downtown
Commercial District use restrictions of the Arendelle Municipal Code to update regulations
governing convenience markets and ancillary retail uses at service stations and three
to review and provide comment on the negotiated offer of dedication and donation. And with
that I conclude my presentation and open up to questions from the council.
Thank you. And I would ask if council members have questions for staff.
I was just saying, could you go back to the slide with the different gas stations? Because
it was unclear which was what the juxtaposition was you were talking about there. So up on
the right corner, that's supposed to be shell and down on the bottom?
Yes, I have them swapped. Yes.
Okay, thank you. Can I? Yeah. Can I ask a follow up question to that, Mayor? I'm still
not entirely clear beyond the sentiment and goal of having pedestrian access, right, to
enter the convenience store. What is the basis for the requirement that the entrance be located
no more than 35 feet from the public sidewalk? In other words, what in the so and then my
My follow up would be if we didn't want to require that in the ordinance, what are the
procedurally, is that possible without reintroducing?
It's possible.
And tonight is an introduction of an ordinance.
If you wanted to make any modifications to the ordinance, you could do that this evening
before we would bring it back for adoption.
We do have some language about that we could propose to strike out this particular portion
of the code that I can bring up at the very end.
In terms of the idea of the basis for the maximum setback, the basis of a maximum setback
in general is the idea that the closer you bring things to the public right-of-way, the
more pedestrian-friendly it's going to be.
35 feet doesn't seem to have much of a basis in contributing to that goal because usually
you think zero to 10 feet.
That's what the downtown objective design standards require, for instance, in many instances
is bringing things closer to the street so that people have more immediate access to
them.
35 feet is arbitrary.
That's two car lengths.
You don't generally think of that as being something that would promote that environment,
is again why I think that staff could foreseeably on alternative projects see that this gets
knocked out during design review to better enhance that connection between the right
of way. So in terms of why 35 feet was proposed, I wasn't part of those discussions. I imagine
it had something to do with pedestrian and it had something to do with the fact that
the Chevron site actually meets those requirements. But since we can see that the other sites
don't meet those requirements, it may not be a useful portion of the code.
But it is something that could also be readdressed in the future if desired?
I believe so, yes, we could revisit as necessary. Yes, I'm sort of looking for
what is staff's recommendation on given the given the comment and
the distances on the slide on this and maybe that's something to come back to.
But I think we just want to be clear about
when we're having this part of the discussion, whether or not all of these applicants potentially
would need to come in for site development review because if they have existing buildings,
they might need use permits, right? Yes. Or maybe not site development review.
Correct. The absolute requirement is that site development. So that was part of the proposed
have a plan in place. So we
would propose zoning text
amendments that a commercial
use permit would be required
and would have to be presented
at a notice public hearing with
the planning commission. So a
project that does propose any
sort of convenience store would
have to come back forward with
that proposal. Now design
review is almost always going
to get triggered because I
don't think there are very many
instances where a facade would
and a modification of a facade in the downtown area for non-residential purposes does automatically
trigger a design review. So pretty much anyone comes forward with a commercial use permit
for a convenience station, they're also going to be coming forward with a design review
unless they want a very interesting convenience store.
the city. I'm not sure I'm not.
Um no council member um it's not that they would ask for an if we struck this portion of the text
for instance it's not that they would ask for an exception permit or that they would change the
location of their building necessarily it's that during the design review we would have an
opportunity to work out um how they're going to better enhance connections with the pedestrian
environment if that is seen fit for a particular project coming forward. Okay so that scenario is
the city. And the city is if we
no council member. There's no definition of fresh food. This is something that was discussed
at the planning commission hearing where they did approve this. I had crafted at that time a
list of what might encompass fresh food and a definition associated with that, as well as
we had even explored minimum floor space that would be required for fresh food.
It was determined at that particular stage that that was potentially overcomplicating it when we
We have limited resources for code enforcement.
And I think I can offer an analogy right now
to the idea of overcomplicating that particular type
of definition.
We deal with ADU applications all the time,
and ADUs are required to have kitchens.
And then there are junior accessory dwelling units
that are required to have efficiency kitchens.
we did explore at one point trying to very rigidly define what that means and what it
could encompass and realize that it just creates a whole lot of potential for loopholes. So
pulling back from I think the idea with the Planning Commission hearing in this particular
item is pulling back from some rigid definitions and requirements will allow us to maintain
a discretionary approach should we be called for code enforcement because there is not
any appearance of fresh foods available there. So that was the planning commission's reflection
at that time.
I have, yeah. I know that when this came to the council a couple years ago, there was
a discussion, there were concerns then and some of those have been repeated about sort
of public safety and crime. And I recall a discussion because with our police chief and
looking at sort of if there was any data, right, that showed that the convenience stores
and I think that, you know, there are these extra mile storages in a lot of other communities,
Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Danville has all been mentioned. Is there any data showing
as to one way or the other as to whether or not that we're aware of as to whether or not
the introduction of those stores have drawn crime to the community. I don't believe that the
that we have received any data from the police department on this. I know that Nick Wornoff's
comments included some recent examples of incidents in I believe Walnut Creek and adjacent communities.
it seemed like two or three over the past several years. There have also been... He's also raised
points on the national crime statistic showing where things happen. I believe number four is for
convenience stations, but I mean that's superseded by other locations, the street and sidewalks and
highways and private residences and things of that nature. So we don't have hard and fast data for
or what this would actually mean for safety in Orinda.
I will offer that the police chief is here
if you want to ask him any questions.
His experience, he's been a police officer for a long time.
So he might have some experiences he could share with you.
I mean, I hate to put you on the spot, Chief Rossi,
but we are.
And where I'm coming from on this,
as I recall previously hearing from our police chief,
that there really wasn't data to substantiate
that there was necessarily additional crime
based on this type of a convenience store.
But if their data is different,
I just would wanna hear if we know one way or the other,
we may not.
Yeah, there's no specific data
that is associated to any of the convenience stores
that are in the city or in any of the contract cities
or any of the neighboring cities that are specific to that.
There's calls for service,
but we could go with alarms or other things
those things. Um, But as far as specific data showing that there will be that there shows that there's more crime occurring at Chevron mash 76 any one of the other gas stations. There's no specific data that we have showing that.
Okay. Thank you. Okay.
All right. I don't know if other council members have questions.
that. I guess I just wonder if.
Anecdotally other cities have
experienced additional crime at.
Convenience stores or, um. Is
there a sense that that would
bring another element of crime
into a render. Um it that that's
the station what it is now into a larger convenience store, that that would directly
correlate to an increase in crime. The crime statistics that I think that were referenced
that I had read prior to the meeting, we're talking about different geographical areas,
income levels, all things of a lot of different parameters that fall into that, that maybe that
convenience store at that location has a higher crime rate, but something of the similar size in
and another location has no crime rate.
So it's very hard to just say it.
This type of store is going to generate more.
And would the police department be at all involved
in whatever security system
that Chevron would be putting into this extra mile store,
or we have any information to the...
You might not know chief, but maybe Darren does.
Do we have any information about the security system?
did the planning commission talk about whatever security
the normal extra mile store would have?
Thinking back to that particular meeting,
I know that it did come up.
I know that Chevron probably is going to be able to speak
to this as the applicant tonight.
They had elicited some information.
I think that we're talking camera systems, alarm systems.
I don't know what additional measures are involved with this.
if I could just add one of the things that police departments typically do and I would say that chief and his department probably do the same thing here is something called crime prevention through environmental design it's called septed in the acronym that cities use where.
They can go in and help to work with retailers
to look at their systems,
to look at their arrangement of their inventory in the store
and help make suggestions on ways to improve their ability
to not be a victim of a crime.
Sometimes businesses listen and sometimes they don't.
But there are ways in which we could advise them
about things that they could be doing
to make themselves less vulnerable to that type of activity.
Thank you. Do you have further questions? I had one for the chief. Um,
because we, all the other questions were about data.
I'd like to ask your opinion as we think about this question about the 35 feet,
if we were to, uh,
redo the ordinance so that all four could more easily, uh,
come forward with applications for convenience stores.
Does that concern you and your team?
Uh, I have no concerns.
I think that the service that we provide the city is overly adequate. I think our response
time show that and our, our ability to be proactive and in those areas already with
the police force that I have, and that is slowly growing, uh, that it falls well within
the means of our ability to handle anything coming from any one of those stations. Thank
you very much. Um, are there any further questions for staff before we invite the applicant
the city of Toronto. Thank you.
Thank you. Um. I'm curious about
the 20% rule and, uh, 2200.
Minimum square feet, not greater
than 3000 and where all those, uh,
Numbers are coming from. And
what's the purpose again? It's,
um I don't know. We're only
analyzing whether or not the 35
foot rule would work for the
question. Yes, I'm so I'm
wondering about the purpose of
all that restriction is, Um,
Council member, I think that
so the 20% maximum size for the
particular parcel. That's
actually not all that unusual
to limit a certain type of use
to a certain percentage of the
parcel that seems to generally
be in line with what we might
want to see. Um, let's limit
the other stations that are
involved. Um they may be a
little bit more constrained
unless they are converting
service base as well. Um, based
off of this particular, um,
requirement. Um, but it is
another another piece that
is, um, I think that's something
that was originally proposed by
Chevron. Um, I did look a little
bit less at this for the, uh,
the other stations that are
involved. Um, they, they may be
piece that it generally feels like if you were going to propose a maximum size that
just dealing with one maximum size of 20% might make the most sense because we'd be
basically leaping from right now there's a 40 foot maximum size to say apparently maybe
that 40 feet is perfectly acceptable but for some reason everything between that and 2,250
square feet doesn't make any sense.
staff has a strong position on
that particular. Constrained.
Thank you. Was there anything
else? Council member Riley.
Well, I'm not sure I understood
the answer to the question.
What's the purpose of the 2200
to 3000 foot range? Why would
you add that when you had the
that we're bringing forward
.
I suspect it is site specific
mayor because Chevron did
propose that text initially.
Again, I can't speak to why
staff at that time thought
that that was reasonable.
This is just the ordinance
that we're bringing forward
after having worked with
Chevron.
Again, at this stage, I don't
know that it would make sense
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
The sales tax.
I don't think I've ever seen an estimate for what the incremental
sales tax could be.
Do you have any sort of rough guess as to what we could be looking at?
I think that's a question for the finance director, mayor.
Or finance director.
I think I could answer that question.
We're not allowed to disclose.
Individual.
Sales tax numbers for any particular business under state law.
businesses and a collective.
So we can't specifically tell you what that might look like.
I will note too that they will be making property improvements
and so you will see an increase in property tax
for that building.
It'll get reassessed as part of those building improvements.
That makes sense, thank you.
And then back to the fresh food,
just because I sat through many, many, many public comments
about when you say if someone calls for a code enforcement,
we all know that a bunch of junk food
and two dark bananas is not gonna get a call
for code enforcement.
And on the other hand, there was genuine community concern
and a lot of it, that this was meant to be a place
for people to get actual food and not beer and candy.
And I'm curious, you guys have had a long time
to talk about this, what is the realistic choice set
without overburdening the regulations?
But to have this applicant take seriously that requirement?
I know that we had discussed this at the last, I believe
it was the city council, or I might
be thinking about the Planning Commission hearing actually.
But I think there were a couple of, sorry,
let me back from that.
I don't know that we have any very strong expectations
on this being used to supplant the need
to actually visit a grocery store.
I think that what we would expect to see
is that fresh foods is a little bit more
in the lines of freshly prepared foods
that people can grab and go.
Fresh sandwiches, some fruits, some vegetables,
but nothing that you would say could replace a grocery store
or even a bodega.
So the reliance on such a store to provide fresh foods
is probably a little bit, I don't know that,
that would be sensible for the community
because we are talking about a community
that has generally high access.
I'm sorry to interrupt, we're not talking groceries.
I mean, prepared grab and go.
Yes.
Lunches and that sort of thing.
We're just talking about something
other than you would see on the interstate
and more akin to maybe even like a 7-Eleven.
So just to clarify, the question was not grocery quality,
but food versus candy and beer.
Right.
So I would expect that, because this, by the way,
this would enable them to sell liquor just based off
of the requirements, that it was actually
one of the purposes of that 40-square-foot maximum,
is that that doesn't allow for liquor
to be sold in a store that is that small because
of the proximity to the exit.
So I do expect that such a station,
we would see more liquor sales and more alcohol sales
and the junk food and beer and candy.
That's not, I don't think that's been something
that we thought would be allayed by proposing fresh food.
I think we're just hoping to be able to see
some amount of fresh food, usually probably again
in that grab and go sandwich department.
But I could leave that to the applicant
to discuss a little bit further.
Can I ask a follow-up mayor?
There's extra mile stores everywhere, right?
My anecdotal experiences, the offerings,
and them are pretty consistent.
Do we know that to be the case?
I mean, do we have any reason to believe
that this would be different?
I suspect that this is a good set of questions
for the applicant to come up and talk about.
That's part of their presentation.
Thank you, thank you, city manager.
And so. One question. Will there
be public bathrooms and who
will have access to them? A
council member. I would have to
review the plans to look at the
bathroom. It's been a moment
since I've tried to consider
something of that nature. They
will be able to answer that.
And if they are not able to
answer that, I'll look at the
plans before. Any further
questions or discussion. Thank
the public. And please come up
and present and when you do,
please let us know how much
time you'd like to reserve for
rebuttal before you begin.
Hi, my name is Jesse. I plan to
speak for six minutes and I'll
save nine for rebuttal. Good
evening, Mayor Iverson. City
We also appreciate that City Council previously unanimously approved the first reading of the changes to the municipal code
But we understand that out of an abundance of caution
Because of the passage of time and changes that have occurred since then that we're back here for another first reading
Since our initial first reading two years ago
We've been working with city staff to align on the terms and conditions of our offer of dedication
Shevron has elected to donate the former parking in Luffy to the city of Arinda to support pedestrian friendly initiatives.
In the amount of $24,000 and $24,874. We are providing this donation because we are a proud business owner and the Arinda community.
As a company owned, company operated site for many decades,
our standards for safety, cleanliness, compliance,
and operation are at the highest level for the industry.
We work hard to offer the best customer service
in the industry and a consistent offering of food, drinks,
and merchandise in our stores.
We want to complete this project so that we can offer
Arinda updated station bathrooms and the convenience
of a mart that is open after other businesses close down for the day. We welcome this opportunity
to again have the council review the project and urge city council to take the same action
as last time to approve the revisions to the municipal code to help bring this project
and all of its many benefits to the Arinda community that has continued to be supportive
of it. As we shared when this project was approved by council in September 2023, this
project will make for a more vibrant downtown. Our project would transform the station's unused
auto service space which have resulted in an essentially vacant building for many years
into a station with enhanced food and beverage offerings and fresh aesthetics
along with the potential for pedestrian access to San Pablo Creek. We've worked closely with city
staff and the Planning Commission for over six years now to ensure that the project's design
features including an overlooked deck showcasing the creek pedestrian oriented design access points
and seating are unique and will help advance the city's intent and vision for downtown as set out
in the Arundah municipal code and the city's guiding policies such as the Connect Arundah
master plan. As part of our project we have reached agreement with city staff on the terms
of an offer of dedication for the property adjacent to the creek to the city in fee
so that the city owns the land subject to Chevron retaining an access easement for the inspection
and maintenance of our adjacent land including the retaining wall located to the west side of
the property. Along with the dedication and fee we have agreed to provide a non-exclusive easement
along our north property line to create pedestrian access from Arinda Way to the creek. Since Chevron's
initial discussions with the city regarding our station project as I mentioned earlier relevant
California law changed, and the parking variance in Luffy no longer applies, we continue to
offer to provide a donation equivalent of the no longer required calculation of parking variance
in Luffy once the project commences to promote pedestrian friendly initiatives as outlined in
the letter provided in staff materials. We have reached agreement with city staff on the terms
and conditions of that donation. One change since we presented this project two years ago
is that the timeline for the offer of dedication has been extended. At the city's request,
in order to give ample time to execute, we've extended the city's option to execute this
transfer to 10 years. This gives the city the ability to make the decision to move forward
with the land dedication at any point over the next 10 years. In addition to the land
donation, there are many benefits to adopting the municipal code 25-06 as proposed, amending
morning. I'm so proud to have
the opportunity to share and
convenience items during
extended store hours compared
to other retail locations in
the city. I'm confident we're
offering the city a great
project that will benefit the
residents of this community. I
would like to thank city staff
for continuing to work with us
on this project. I'd also like
to thank city council for
considering the proposed
changes to the municipal code
and urge you to once again
Sure.
Can you talk about security, what kind of security
the convenience store would have?
Absolutely.
Absolutely appreciate the concern around safety.
It's something that we take very seriously
and consider very important at our stations
as a part of the community and also for our employees.
We have a global security team.
They're made up mostly of former law enforcement officers.
One of those members has already met with Chief Rossi
and former chiefs and have discussed the station project.
Crime can happen anywhere, and it
isn't a reason to discriminate against a certain type
of business.
We train our employees to handle difficult situations
with unexpected outcomes.
most of Chevron's, as I mentioned, the global security team, they are mostly
former law enforcement. They provide regular assessments of each of our
properties, each of our convenience stores and the entire property
surrounding it. They conduct safety and security assessments. They review those
results with the staff and with us so that we can make any changes to help
with the security of the site.
We do have a security system, camera system at every site.
We work very closely with law enforcement,
if anything does occur, to provide the video
and help law enforcement find whomever they need to using
our video.
So that is really important to us.
That's something that we do at all of our sites.
We have security standards that we deploy across all of our stations.
The site is no exception and I'm confident giving all of the experience that we have
operating stations and working with local police that we can operate the station without encouraging
crime in the area. One of the concerns in our community is underage drinking. Can you talk
about what steps you would take to prevent underage purchase of alcohol at the convenience store?
I can. It's something that we take very seriously as well. We're a company-owned network and so we
have frankly higher standards than most and we have a absolute zero tolerance policy with our
employees. We have an internal shop program so that's something that we fund ourselves. We send
mystery shoppers to every single station multiple times per year to ensure that we are that we have
we have the safety measures in place.
We encourage our employees to,
we have a policy to scan IDs, not just glance at them.
And we do that for anyone under 30
and that's what our mystery shopper program
looks for as well.
And as I mentioned, it's zero tolerance.
And so that's a very firm policy
and something that we deploy across all 300 company owned,
company operated stores throughout California
and the Pacific Northwest.
you ever been to a Wawa convenience store in the East
Coast? I am from Maryland. I sure have. I would love to see
something more akin to that in Orinda, where the actual hot
food, you know, morning coffee and pastries and sandwiches are
sort of at a higher level than we typically expect in a
convenience store. Is there any chance of something like that
occurring? Well, what I can tell you is we do need to have a
a consistent offer across all of the extra miles.
And so there definitely needs to be some consistency.
And we also want to provide products that customers want.
And so certainly, we may have more of one thing
in a location if customers really like that product
or a higher end type of product.
But it has to be consistent with our overall offering.
I can tell you, it's getting very specific,
but we have a coffee program
if you haven't been to an extra mile.
It's fantastic coffee.
The beans are ground right there
as you're getting your cup of coffee.
So we do have some of those things
that I think you're looking for.
I'm happy to talk about it more if that's helpful.
Some of the typical offerings
that we have within our stores.
I think that would be helpful.
Sure. Thank you.
Absolutely.
So we have, all of our stores have a deli section.
Often it's a, I wish I had a picture of it, yeah.
Okay, so you can see down on the bottom left
and then on the top right,
and you can see it a bit on the, in the middle section.
All of our stores have a fresh deli section.
Usually has a selection of fruit, salads, sandwiches,
hummus, charcuterie plates.
And this is a section that we do cater
to what sells well in that particular area.
So it can be in this open refrigerated section.
It can also be in a two-door refrigerator.
So the size really depends on how well it's selling
in each particular area.
We typically have, we have fresh fruit,
bananas, apples, and oranges.
Similarly, if they're selling in that area,
I will tell you that bananas are often a very high seller
at our stations.
So that is pretty typical that we would have those.
Trying to think of other fresh items
that we have that you might be interested in.
As I mentioned, the coffee.
We have hot food.
Typically, there's a variety.
You can see it a little bit in the top left picture.
But usually, it's a little hidden in that picture.
it's in the back left corner, there's a warmer region,
warmer, which will have different selections of sandwiches,
burritos, sometimes pizza, chicken sandwiches,
that sort of thing.
Does that help?
It does, how often is the fresh food refreshed?
I mean, I assume you don't let it sit there forever,
but is there a protocol as to how often
or how frequently it's refreshed?
You mean the items themselves?
Yeah, like how long would a sandwich be sitting there?
We'll follow, we follow very, at our company-owned stores
we have very high standards.
We follow all the food safety guidelines.
So it really depends on the product,
but I can assure you that they're fresh items
and we're gonna bring them in and bring them out
as we're required to.
And you'd mentioned there would be public bathrooms.
Will those be in the store or outside the store?
It'll be in the store.
And I will share on the bathrooms,
that is something we are very passionate about.
Clean bathrooms and bathrooms open to the public
are absolutely a part of our business model.
So that's a must-have for us.
And you mentioned extended hours.
Can you give us an idea of what that might look like?
Typically, our stores are open 24 hours a day.
I know there was a lot of discussion around alcohol.
alcohol at the state of California does not allow alcohol sales between 2 am and 6 am.
We absolutely comply with that. If our permit has different restrictions, we follow those
restrictions on the permit. But generally our stores open 24 hours a day, our bathrooms
open 24 hours a day. So should be accessible.
And the signage that you showed in the picture of the rendering was pretty low key is that
I think that's sort of the
intent. I mean, I want a big
flashing purple sign. You know,
I don't know. Yeah, the sign
that's there is that's what
we've proposed and that's
what's in the project plan. So
absolutely, that's that's what
we would plan on. Okay. Other
council members? Mine recovered
just now. Thank you. Sorry. I
if it's going to be. It's
going to be an existing little
attendant. Place all of those
functions are going to be
incorporated into the store
and that little. Place will go
away. That's correct. It'll
turn into another dispenser.
Do you have anything else?
Councilmember Riley. Hi, Um,
just a few questions. You
mentioned there's going to be
are they all outside? They are all outside. I know we have more than eight seats because
that was the requirement in the ordinance. I believe it's 12 because I think we have
two tables of four. You can see it in the picture there to the right of the station.
So I think there's a couple tables out there and then one on the observation deck. So I know it's
more than eight. Can't give you the exact number off the top of my head. And from the observation
that area of the site. Is there access to the creek? Is there a staircase or is it just to sit
up there and look down? It's just an observation deck and the access to the creek would be via the
easement down the driveway. And I saw a few parking stalls, lower lines for stalls, and I'm wondering
how many cars do you think can park around the structure? It's a great question. We have
parking stalls accounted for. And then in addition to that, what we typically observe is that customers will park at the dispenser where they fueled up and we'll come into the store. So that's an additional, even though that doesn't count toward our parking spaces, it is an additional 12 spots for people on our property to come in and visit the store.
okay and you know the space that is at the corner of Santa Maria Way and
Arrinda Way it's sort of a landscape corner, Santa Maria Way and Arrinda Way
yes I'm sorry what was the question? well I just want to first reference that
You know it's it's all
landscape. You're not thinking
about putting parking there or
could you think about you can
you can see it just slightly in
that picture. There are lines
just to the right of that
corner. And so two cars can
park one in front of the other
in front of that. But it's not
changing that area. Okay,
thanks. Hmm. So anything else
after? That's my rally.
Anything else? Good. Great. I
we will save I think nine minutes for rebuttal and we'll move to the public comment portion. I've
got six speaker cards and beyond that if anybody else would like to speak please just come on up
to the podium after that last speaker. I've got Brian Huberinger, I apologize if I mispronounced
your name. Good evening Madam Mayor and City Council members. My name is Brian Huberinger,
I'm a Lomber in the resident and I actually do work for Chevron too and I pass this station
just about every day. It's one of my hometown stations and every time I wonder wouldn't it be
nice if this could be refreshed, you know, pride as a Chevron employee as well as having the
aesthetics of the community be improved is important to me. I want to offer you a use case
that maybe hasn't been brought up. I'm a soccer dad. I drop my kid off at the field up the street
here. I have a few minutes and maybe I'll sit in my car or maybe I'll go to a new convenience
store sit and have a cold drink maybe do a little bit of work and enjoy the creek and spend money
in a rinda that I wouldn't have spent before and so I think that's what you're going to get. I mean
look at when you look at the pictures and you look at the design there's a lot of potential
there a lot of growth and so I urge you to approve and modernized a modernized property
that'll bring a benefit to the city so thank you. Thank you Mike McGill and just so people know Alex
Evans would be at the next speaker. Good evening my name is Mike McGill I live at 62 Scenic Drive
I'm a licensed civil engineer and a personal comment before I get to my chamber comments
I want to compliment the city and the staff for all the work they've done on this project.
It's just absolutely outstanding. So thank you very much.
The chamber has voted to support this project. We think it will add to the
ambiance of this part of the city. It offers lots of features. You've heard them from the applicant
tonight. I'm not going to repeat those for you, but I do urge you to adopt the
staff's recommendation this evening and thank you for your consideration. Alex
Evans. And after that, Sandy road cap is the next speaker. Thank you, Madam
Mayor, members of the council and staff. Alex Evans, city of urban the resident.
I lived here for 26 years and pleased to speak in favor of adoption of the
ordinance. I won't tell you the entire history or the story about this but
before I moved here Chevron approached me in another capacity in another city
and so they had two projects they were hoping to get done. One where I was a
member of the City Council in one year in Orinda. That project and the other city
happened. It's not exactly comparable. It's been more a question about the time
I don't know if this is good news or bad news or for against it.
It's not changing anybody's life dramatically.
There's not enough money coming in in sales tax or the property tax.
It's just not that dramatic.
I appreciate the great attention to detail you've given to this and the patience you've
shown and how much this project has probably improved because of that.
But you should approve this and we should all be able to get on with our life and stop
all. I don't know how to do
this. Please, don't make me
come back and talk about doing
this again. I love you all. I
appreciate everyone who is
doing this. Let's move on and
talk about something else.
Let's get this done and not
just have a bunch of empty
to our city, so please support this ordinance, thank you.
Sandy Roadcap, and after that Roy Hodgkinson
will be the next speaker.
Thank you.
I echo what others have said.
I think this project really helps
bring a thriving business to Arinda,
gets rid of some terrible eyesores, those empty bays.
It's got obvious community and environmental benefits.
I think people worked hard on a compromise with the fresh food question because I know
I shop differently when I'm in Safeway shopping for my family versus when I'm on the road
and the kids were fidgeting in the back seat and I just wanted to get some subs and some
box juice, you know, for the...
So I think everyone's worked together on some good compromises.
I urge you to support the amended ordinance and the negotiated dedicated land and the
the Creek access.
And I thought I'd add one final comment.
I respect the opinions of the prior council member
on legacy, but I'd also urge you to consider
that the world does change.
And I'm really happy to hear,
having served on the infrastructure committee,
that that problem of the nut of the private road funding
that council member,
Mall County Council Member G mentioned,
you guys are finding some creative solutions. I think the laser focus you mentioned on pedestrian
safety and evacuation and wildfire safety, these are the things that will really build your legacy
today. So thank you very much and please support the project. Thank you. Roy Hodgkinson and then
Ryan Crowell will be our final speaker. Thank you. I'm Roy Hodgkinson, current
Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce here in Arinda, a long time resident, and thank
you to the council members, staff, and public who have come together today to discuss certainly
the Chevron project, but more specifically the ordinance changes that are on the agenda.
And I'm in favor of both. The ordinance changes are really good in that they are both reasonable
and specific, the scope is narrow and has very limited down side as a result.
Now in more general terms, reasonable and specific guidelines such as these contribute
to an overall fair, transparent and predictable planning process.
Because you don't have to negotiate too much with people coming forward who are adherent
to the ordinances as written.
Now, that has the bigger implication
of encouraging outside interests to come and invest,
especially in improving commercial real estate that
has fallen into disuse.
And the trend in these times is that brick and mortar is going
away in favor of all the Amazon trucks that
patrol our neighborhoods.
So having Chevron willing to come in and invest
in completely rebuilding the property that they
have here in Arinda is an indication to others
that investment is welcome here and justifiable
because Chevron thinks it's justifiable.
We've seen examples of this in the reconstruction that
resulted in nation's headquarters
being in the theater district.
We've seen it in the redevelopment of the Bank of America complex with Creek House coming
along real soon.
And this is all about dispelling a perhaps unjustified reputation of the Orinda City
as being averse to change and development.
So I want to congratulate everybody in the Council and Planning Department and City staff
for rejuvenating the possibility of investment in Orinda.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Ryan Kroll is our final speaker.
Anybody else who'd like to speak,
please just come on up to the podium
after this speaker is done.
Good evening.
I'm Ryan Kroll, Mayor Iverson,
good to be here and council members.
I'm an attorney for Rebel Convenience
which operates the Shell Station
across the street from the Chevron.
And with me is Max Zek,
He was the general manager of Rebel Convenience.
As Mr. Hughes pointed out in his staff report,
he's done a fantastic job
and dealing with him is a pleasure.
So I think the city is quite lucky to have him.
But as he pointed out, Rebel Convenience is in full support
of the ordinance except for that one provision
about the 35 foot minimum or maximum to the sidewalk.
If that is imposed, then the Shell Station
and the two other locations that already exist
would not be able to use, utilize the zone,
the text amendments and would require a variance.
So we're asking today that that requirement be removed
in order for all existing locations
to be able to exercise it.
As Mr. Hughes pointed out,
35 feet was relatively arbitrary.
It's something that the Chevron complied with,
but the other locations did not.
And it really doesn't, from his perspective,
survey planning purpose to increase pedestrian walkability. Frankly, once you're at 35 feet
or 50 feet like we are, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference. The five,
six yards difference is less than me to each of you. And I don't think it's going to prevent
anyone from walking into our store. And notably too, that the police chief indicated he had
no concerns about the removal of this whatsoever. So we just asked that it be removed and just
want to remind that removal of that doesn't mean that we can then begin our project ourselves,
we would still require a use permit. Our facade would change. So we'd be going through the
design review process and Mr. Hughes reference and so there'd be plenty of discussion, oversight
and approvals needed from the city for us to go forward. Just removing it though would
allow us to just begin the process without needing a variance. So I'd be happy to answer
questions about that, but that's I just want to make sure that was highlighted.
The question um just one mayor if if the 35 feet if it if it were not removed, but it were
instead changed to something like 60 feet or would you uh be in favor of the ordinance then?
Well we're in favor of the ordinance and if you have any opposition to that?
now, and that's where we're
. No, I mean, as long as we
were able, it was moved to a
degree that we wouldn't have to
demolish our building and build
a whole new one, which would
make it, you know, financially
impossible for us to do this.
No, I mean, it's my thought
it's not going to take a lot
of time. Can we do with the
minimum square foot of 22 100?
Not to exceed 3000. Does it
work at your site? It could. I
mean, I think it's I ran all
this for my clients. I think
we're slightly over 3000. We
thought we might be able to
carve some out with I heard the
discussion before of the 20%
that might just be simplest.
There wasn't a large concern on
It would be simpler if it was removed, but that's not the focal point of our concern as compared to the 35-foot, which we just couldn't deal with that.
And is the thinking that Shell's going to eliminate its service station, its car service?
That would most likely be, yeah, the intent. That's, you know, no green light formally has been given, but that's why they asked me to come down here to talk about this.
talk about this is that, yes, it would be a Bay conversion and turn that into a larger
C store so we could serve the public convenience through an array of products.
And you'd also eliminate the car wash?
I'm sorry, what's that?
Would you eliminate the car wash?
No, no plans to eliminate the car wash.
And that's Mr. Zach, he's the general manager, that's why I bring him along because he's
smarter man than me if you can answer those questions.
Thank you.
Thank you. Council members. Is there anything else before that speaker leaves the podium
and then we have another public speaker, Julia, please come forward. Good evening. Mayor Iverson,
City Council and city staff. I'm speaking tonight as a community member. As you know,
I grew up in Orinda and have lived most of my life in Orinda and my family has called
Arrinda home since my grandparents first moved here. I join the other members of
the public who have spoken in favor of approving ordinance 25-06 as proposed to
update regulations governing convenience markets and ancillary retail uses its
service stations. This ordinance will allow for projects like the Arrinda
Chavron Station project that I had worked on for many years to proceed. As
others have noted there are many community benefits that this project
would provide, including a more attractive and modern looking station and expanded food
offering, creek overlook deck, and the first electric vehicle charging station at a service
station in Orinda.
Updating these regulations are directly in line with supporting economic development,
which is listed as one of the city's strategic priorities, and also city staff had mentioned
those specific areas that it addresses as well.
Um, I've seen the concerns and heard some of them tonight regarding crime, as well as
also the suggestion to remove the requirements to improve their walkability of downtown.
During my work on this project, I had multiple conversations with police chief Ross, our
current police chief, as well as our past police chiefs, as well as my knowledge of
the operation of Chevron stations.
And to me, the police chief not having concerns.
To me, their expertise carries weight, and I trust their assessment.
In terms of the security measures, as Chevron had mentioned, there is a corporate security
team, our global security team that's actually here with us tonight, and they work closely
with the station.
And I'm also familiar with the safety protocols that are in place to work to lower the chances
of crime and as you heard Chevron say crime can happen anywhere and it's not a
reason not to have this type of business. In terms of the walkability of downtown
I was part of those conversations and city staff at the time had wanted to
make that link and in terms of the the length of space had thought that was an
appropriate distance in terms of to help to increase the walkability of downtown.
As a community member I personally like it but obviously I want to see
this project move forward. Um, the reason I like it is because I do
think that it links with the vision for for downtown and walkability. So with
that, again, thanks for the opportunity to speak in support of ordinance 2506
and in support of the project. I appreciate the time of city staff,
Chevron and our city council and certainly city staff and city council's
dedication to our city. Thank you.
Thank you. And ask if there's anybody else from the public who'd like to
speak before we bring it back for rebuttal. Seeing none I will ask the
applicant if they would like to come back and do any rebuttal or or not. We're
excited about our project and the benefits it would have for the Arrinda
community. Our project is aligned with the goals that the city has for
reinvestment and revitalization of downtown and for business growth. Our
project will increase food offerings and offer the community a convenient place
to purchase fruit, sandwiches, coffee, and convenience items. Our proposal will also remodel the existing service bay building into a beautiful store that's unique to downtown Arinda, maintaining the country market feel of a traditional main street.
We're ready to repurpose the unused building to increase retail options supported by folks in the room tonight, especially on the village side of town.
As previously mentioned, this is not our typical store exterior.
It's very distinctive to represent the character of Arinda,
and has taken a lot of input from a lot of people over many years.
Frankly, the store wouldn't look like the other 300 stores in our network,
but we think that's great.
We have done a lot of work to understand the preferences of the citizens of
Verinda and modified our project to fit within your downtown vision and goals.
Some of the points that have come up around revisions to the ordinance, the wording, for
the 35-foot maximum for the entrance, I'll just share for the history, well, I'm actually
the fourth person in my role that's worked on this project. So I wasn't here myself,
but I have been handed down the history. We have been working at least six years,
but I think more than that, with staff and the Planning Commission to design the station
in the city's vision of a pedestrian-friendly downtown area. We spent years, time, money,
resources, designing the project with all of these ordinance changes in mind,
our preference would be to keep it because we've spent the time and the resources designing it to
fit with the ordinance as it's written. However, if that's going to keep we don't want to let that
stand in the way of the municipal code changes that we know are necessary for our project to
to move forward. And so with that in mind, we can support it. Both the changes to the
size of the building and the distance from the sidewalk for the entrance. Overall, I'll
just share that we really see this as a win-win project. It'll come with an improved look,
enhanced product offering, the creek overlook deck, the electric vehicle charging station.
And we hope that you understand the benefit of our project
and ultimately approve the ordinance required
to allow this project to move forward.
Thanks for your time.
Thank you very much.
Are there any final questions for the applicant?
I had one and it's rather insignificant
but I thought I'd ask anyways.
Would there be any wifi available to people sitting there
drinking their coffee, enjoying the Greek?
That's a great question.
We hadn't discussed that one yet surprisingly.
I'll put it in the suggestion box.
yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you for all your time. Absolutely. Anything else? Great.
Thank you very much. With that, we will close the public hearing portion and bring it up
to the council for discussion and for direction to the to the staff. Would anybody like to
I'm going to leave this off. I mean I'm okay I unless Councilmember Riley wants to start. I don't want to know. Okay. Okay, then I'll just jump it.
I really appreciate all the public comment that we've received. And I know that folks took time to come here or to write in.
public comment we've received is sort of really interesting
because I think it's very reflective
of where our residents are right now
with development and change, right?
And specifically structural change.
And I think that the concerns about, you know,
how change will impact public safety and traffic
things like that are very valid and not to be minimized at all, but I do think that some
of those concerns are not necessarily, whenever there is a fear or a concern, I want to always
look and see if do we have any data to back that up or have there been really specific
And so, you know, on one hand, there's some trepidation
among some members of our public.
And I do want to recognize that.
But as we've been doing this in listening
to all the comments today, you know,
there's a huge amount of pros with going forward with this.
And, you know, I think I see a lot of benefits
with this project.
It's really nice.
It's a really, you know, I think well done design
that fits with our community.
We're filling vacant space, empty bays.
And it's vacant space that has been sitting there
for a really long time.
I believe as I think it was Mr. Evans that said
that if this project doesn't go forward,
it will probably sit vacant for a long time more.
And I don't want to see that happen.
You know, the Creekside seating area and the public bathrooms available to or customer bathrooms and a charging station and, you know, encouraging outside investment in Arinda and then just to have the convenience of a place where we can get, okay, is it going to be, you know,
I'm not expecting market hall type offerings,
but I think that a good cup of coffee
and a good sandwich goes a long way.
And sadly, we don't have too many options in Arenda
for some of that around here while you fill your gas.
So I would really like to see that happen.
And then the possible creek dedication
and is clearly very supported
by the Friends of Arenda Creeks that matters to me.
The fact that the chamber has taken the time to be here
and to express its support.
I'm grateful for, and that matters to me.
So I support this.
I am really curious to hear from my colleagues
about the 35-foot requirement.
And I would also be curious to hear from our staff.
I'm looking at our city manager if there's a recommendation
on sort of how to handle that.
To me, it does seem arbitrary.
And the comments seemed as to whether or not
to deal with it tonight or to deal with it at a future time.
I guess I'm looking for some guidance to my colleagues
and to staff from that.
But that's where I'm at.
Great.
Would someone like to speak next?
I was very impressed with the design presented.
And the interior pictures of what it might look like
were very helpful as well.
I think there are very few places in Arinda
to have a cup of coffee and get a quick snack
for our children to get a quick snack
on their way to their soccer game.
I often have a weird half an hour in between meetings
just to have somewhere to sit where you could possibly
think a second, make a phone call, have a cup of coffee
or a iced tea would be great.
I appreciated the addressing the questions regarding underage drinking and security.
Obviously there are no guarantees with security.
I understand that.
But having some confidence that all appropriate measures would be taken and that Chevron really
is concerned about the safety of its employees as well as the safety of our community means
something as well.
Chevron has been a good partner to Aruvinda over the years and that matters too.
I feel like it's time for change in Arrinda.
I'm happy to see small steps moving forward.
I've lived here a long time as well.
And there has been very little change in here
since I grew up here.
So I also am in support of this.
I like my fellow council members are a little,
I'm a little unsure about the 35 foot question
and would like to continue to discuss that further.
but I think this particular project looks like a very positive project in addition for
Linda, and we should move forward with it. Council member Riley, would you like to jump in?
Sure. I also am in favor of this. I think the time is right. And I think there's been a good
deal of effort put into it to create a very appealing gas station market. I mean, it's
hard to do much better than have a trellis and have an observation deck over a creek. So I think
it could be a nice addition and I can see a lot of people enjoying all kinds of things about this.
As far as amending what we have on the specific rules, I would, my gut tells me it's pretty
the way it is, but I also think it might be best to go slow, see how this rides, let's get this project done, and maybe, you know, adjust the 35 foot rule later.
Vice Mayor Chit.
Thank you. I echo my colleagues. I'm overall very, very happy with all the input that we've gotten and appreciate everybody's comments.
I'm very appreciative of how much effort Chevron has put into this.
It's not lost on us, your comments about how many managers you've gone through and some
of our residents' comments about how long this has taken and I'm very appreciative of
the design.
I think, you know, for what it is, it is really, really well done and I think it is
a far superior thing than to continue to let the empty building just sit there and rest
away.
So, you know, I think it will be beneficial and I'm very appreciative of all the work
that went into this from a lot of different angles.
And I think that, you know, some of the concerns of the past, again, I think Sandy said at
times change, you know, I think a lot of the things that people were worried about 20 and 30 years ago
are just not the same things we're worried about today. So, you know, I think it can be a nice
addition and I'm supportive of it. I'm not, I'm not feeling any strong need to preserve the 35 feet.
I'm not even sure I feel a strong desire that the square footage has to be explicit if it was a
of the lot. I honestly think that there should be a fair amount of discretion for our design
review and our planning commission to look at different sites individually. But I'm,
you know, again, I don't want that particular item to be the stumbling block of approving
the ordinance. So I'm open to whichever way the council wants to go at this point.
I wholeheartedly agree with Vice Mayor G's approach.
One thing that nobody's mentioned
is that we have already approved this exact ordinance.
So if we were to take a different tack,
we would have to have a very strong justification.
And so I was very mindful of that coming into this,
that it's not a new question.
We are respectfully revisiting,
but it's a really good project.
I mean, it's had a lot of thought,
And I was there at the very first joint meeting
with the city and the planning department.
And the original design looked like every other extra mile
on the interstate.
And they have made so many changes in accommodations
with the observation deck.
And the site, if you walk it, it's a beautiful site.
And it's going to be cool.
And people are going to love it, which
brings me to the question about how
address the other potential future sites. You know, I do think we need to be
mindful that whatever we do tonight will either be a constraint and we'll deal
with it later or we'll be just opening the door and the one thing I would
like to try to do, if we can do it tonight, great, I do not want to hold this
project up one more minute. But if we can create use permit findings that give a
filter for quality, because I'm not convinced, I mean I watched the, you know,
Momoshun's gas station when it went through its process, I saw the 76 when it
got its hydrogen pump thing and nothing changed, I think there was a green
chain link fence or something. There's, we've we've seen variety of projects
come through and I would like to see this kind of thoughtfulness and project
quality without the six-year process. And so if we can come up with use permit
findings that say they are pedestrian oriented and consistent with some of the
you know the vision for the downtown precise plan about how it connects the
community. It serves more than just cars on the interstate a qualitative finding would be to me
would be as good as the building square footage or the 35 foot setback so long as it forces the
conversation about how it relates to people biking and walking to those sites. So if we can if if our
city attorney and city manager think that they could make those modifications. I mean obviously
people agree for the second reading I would love to hear people's direction for that and if not I'm
happy to kick the can and deal with it later. I guess that was my concurring with your tone
for tonight. City manager do you guys have any direction to help us think about the change
question. So I would probably would turn over the conditional use permit question to the city
attorney about whether or not you can use the conditional use permit process to deal with
perhaps aesthetic or site planning issues. So maybe you can answer that question and then I
can talk specifically about the ordinance revision if they're interested in that.
All right, so I would suggest everyone turn to packet page 142, which is where the proposed
criteria for issuance of an approval, a permit for a use like this, both here at this site and then
potentially at the other sites. So this is the proposed ordinance language and you can think of
all these as criteria. The 35-foot requirement appears at B, at little B, little Roman three.
And I think this whole text here, little woman three, is trying to get at how do you make
the site orient not just to the people who arrive in vehicles, but also to people who
might walk up on the sidewalk. Okay. And the way that we'd previously considered doing
that was by having the 35-foot proximity requirement and a wall that has to run 25 feet roughly
parallel.
Okay.
So I think that there's a rational basis for that.
If you wanted to keep it in the ordinance, just to be clear, that's the universe we're
operating in here.
We can establish local land use regulations, but they have to have some rational basis.
So I get a little nervous when we talk about things being arbitrary.
Just want to make clear.
time you have a number, you know, it's a line, right? And so there's some, there's going to be
cases that fall on either side of the line. I don't think that that makes it arbitrary in the
sense of lacking in rational basis. You know, anytime you pick a number, you're just going to
have use cases either side. If you wanted to change Little Roman B to make it shorter,
and instead say something like, the building containing the proposed use shall include a
to pedestrian entrance oriented to a sidewalk in the public right of way. I think that would
get at some of the same feelings that people are describing here, but might not have the
35 foot number and might not have the 25 foot number. So that would be my suggestion. That's
rather long answer, but I think that gets to what I'm hearing here.
And none of the council members had commented on the building size of 2,250 to 3,000 as
a range versus 20%.
Do any of you have thoughts about whether you would like to change that or keep it as
is?
Well, 20% is a separate requirement, right?
And I don't feel the need to
change that right now.
The square footage, personally.
I don't either.
I don't quite understand where the square footage came from
and why it's here.
And on the other hand, it didn't seem like it was
objectionable.
seems like that at least on the maximum side would make it so it wasn't like a mega liquor
store market. I'm struggling with the 35-foot question more than the size question.
Can you explain again, Mayor, the proposal in terms of what the alternate, I'm not clear on it.
For example, changing the 35, I understand it's not arbitrary. I didn't mean to say that it had
no basis in ration or thought. I guess I was saying in terms of picking 35 or 60, I didn't see
a strong, I didn't see a policy reason why that number couldn't be increased, right? But a
different approach towards it was I didn't quite get. So just the fact is, this is the only, when
When you think about Darren's siting chart,
this is the only one that meets the criteria.
That's, I mean, going back to it,
there was a law that goes back to the city's founders
that was very dearly held.
And so I believe the tone when all of this started
was to make this set of changes as narrowly,
factually applicable as possible to only be this site.
And so tonight we're thinking about it differently.
We're having this conversation for the first time.
So the 35, frankly, I think it was
because it only matched this one site.
And I think that that 2,250 to 3,000
was likely related to this application.
So if we think about changing it,
the question is what would be appropriate
and do we wanna make something that is easy for all four
do we want to sort of keep it narrow and then make variances as variances are needed? I think
that's maybe the question before us. I guess from my perspective I want the ability for the city to
take it on a more case-by-case basis because each of the sites has something different to offer.
So I worry about you know sort of making it seem like we're giving some sort of blanket approval
tonight for more than the project that's in front of us. I feel like what's in front of us is what
I'm most concerned about tonight. Can I just make offer a couple of pieces of information? So this,
regardless, so if the zoning changes go through regardless of what decisions are made around this,
this is a conditional use permit. So there would be a process for each of these applicants to come
like to propose. I think they
would be able to come in
through the city process to see
if they can form with the
zoning requirements and they
would have a use permit. So
there would be a discretionary
action that the Planning
Commission would take. As it
relates to the proposed square
footage, I just. Went and mapped
it and tried to measure these
sites. Two of the sites are
about a half acre and two of
the sites are about a quarter
I think that's maybe trying to hedge against larger buildings on these larger sites. I'm
just giving you some context starting sort of bigger and working back down too. Instead
of working with the footprint, you can see why you wouldn't necessarily want to see 5,000
square foot buildings for a variety of reasons, including they probably wouldn't have market
demand to have that high of a square footage for buildings of that size because they couldn't
buildings of that size because they couldn't necessarily park it the way that they would want to from a market perspective. So I just I'd share that just as information to say this probably falls within that 20% generally for the uses that are currently in town.
My concern is if the use permit findings are fairly easy to meet, even if there's a discretionary
review, the people doing the discretionary review don't have a lot of latitude to not
say yes if it meets those check boxes and what we saw with this project was we had a
design review conversation where we could talk about the way it related to the sidewalk
and we could talk about the seeding and the making it a country market, right? A country
market feel was a huge change in this project to the positive. How can we accomplish that
goal?
Yeah, I think we're just, and Darren could speak to this too, if you'd like, I think
we're just trying to, and we don't see this as likely, but there is scenarios in which
they potentially would not necessarily change the facade of the building.
In that case, there wouldn't be site development review, so you would have less discretion.
The uses with Rebel speaking at the public podium, obviously changing a service bay
into usable retail space would probably trigger a site development review permit.
And in the case of Mash's side, if he was interested, I believe he'd also have to convert
a service bay.
So that would have site development review.
I don't know what the situation is at 76.
I'm assuming that they have rollups.
This looks like it's a tire shop as well.
Yes.
Yes.
So if there's any conversion there, it most likely would trigger site development review
with it, with the conditional use permit.
Is that accurate, Darren?
Yes, that seems about accurate.
But I think it is very unlikely that we would see any proposals come forward that would
not trigger designer view.
And also I can read off the commercial use permit standards if you would like that this
does refer to.
This is an existing section, 17.36.1.
I'm just going to read through the standards themselves that have to be, the findings of
fact that have to be made.
A, the uses of benefit to Orinda residents as well as to visitors.
B, the use will promote a diversity and variety of commercial uses and will not contribute
to an undue concentration of similar uses.
C, the use will not adversely affect
pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
D, adequate parking exists.
E, the use will contribute to a vibrant, active pedestrian
environment and an intimate scale village ambiance.
F, the use does not create excessive noise, litter,
or other enforcement problems.
G, considering the scale and design of the exterior
and the quality of the goods and services provided,
the use is reminiscent of a traditional Main Street
environment, and H, under all the circumstances and conditions
of the particular case, the use will not
have a material adverse effect on the health or safety
of persons residing or working in the vicinity.
So I do believe Steph generally feels
that those particular findings would be what we would use,
even if someone were not coming under some form of design
review and site development, to be
able to request additional changes
and have a little bit more of a conversation with anyone
proposing a change to a convenience store.
Am I the only one who just heard
that every single gas station currently offers service
and will stop offering service if we do this?
And it's funny, because if we were converting convenience
smarts to service bays, that wouldn't be popular either.
but I worry about creating a service desert.
If we, I just, Darren, if what you read is that
it doesn't create a concentration of use.
If, you know, the first one goes forward,
there's no concentration.
The second one, there's no concentration.
Then the third one, we decide that this is a problem.
How does that work?
I think that would largely be on the planning commission.
Initially the planning commission to make that determination.
I think that you're right.
This would be a matter of who are the first two projects
coming forward where we can make those,
make the, easily make the case that we're not talking
about a concentration of use.
We're not talking about eliminating too many uses
in the city that currently exist.
And then once that third one comes through,
that becomes, I think, a more difficult conversation
and a more difficult argument to be made in favor
of that particular finding.
So it is going to be a case by case basis
that gets handled and it's going to be dependent first on the planning commission and then if any
appeals were to be received from a decision they make to the city council. I guess I thought that
there may have been a suggestion or possible suggestion from our city manager, city staff,
or city attorney on how to deal with the 35 feet. Yes. And I think you, I just missed it. So if you'd
like you could prove the ordinance as proposed if you'd like but if you find
that the 35 foot and the 25 foot requirements are not what you have in
mind I would suggest changing little Roman 3 to say the building containing
the proposed use shall include a pedestrian entrance oriented to a
sidewalk in the public right of way. So thinking about the Chevron station
this would have if this was the requirement they would still need to
propose an entrance on that end of the building because that's what's facing
the public sidewalk not just the entrance facing the gas station and I
think that requirement could be met at the other stations as well they all have
walls facing a sidewalk. I'm sorry you said it would or would not apply to the
the city's own. What is the
the sidewalk. It's not a good
I guess I don't understand that. I'm sorry. The approved plan. The planning mission approved has two entrances. Because of this little Roman 3 requirement. I see. Okay. So what Chevron brought to us tonight has two entrances. Yes. Thank you. Are there any safety issues with two entrances? I mean, I don't know. This is how I know. I don't know.
I believe that that would be primarily on the applicant and the operator to provide
that information, but I can say that the register is oriented. If you're looking at the floor
plans, the register is oriented in the corner that is between those two entrances. So the
entrances would go immediately by the person who is working on site.
Okay, thank you. Okay. So I think there's consensus that we want to move forward for this. Right. And so what is everyone's, I guess, I'm a little confused as to what everyone's thoughts are on the three.
I'm not hearing a consensus yet, so I would love it if Council members G and Riley could maybe
opine a little bit more specifically about what you would like to see.
Just Councilmember Riley. I think I said it before and I haven't changed my mind that I think
we should go forward and make this project happen and put on hold any changes to the 35 footer
other square footage rules. I'd like to see this go well. I'd like to see us consider the possible
loss of all the service stations, the car service that would be eliminated at other stations and
I don't know on balance I think we should just make this one project work. I'm completely open
that approach move forward now after the city manager's comments I'm fine with
leaving the square footage as it is in here that seems like a good idea I also
would you know be fine with the city attorney's suggestion for could you in
fact could you say it again oh said I'm seeing three options here adopt the
ordinance as is in the packet. Delete the entirety of Little Roman 3, or keep Little
Roman 3, but try to massage it, change it a little so it is a little bit more flexible.
And when you say make it a little more flexible, that would be some, would that be changing
it to like 60 feet or would that be something like the pedestrian entrance facing the sidewalk?
Yeah, it could be any of those things.
And I would recommend you ask Darren as the planner here
what he, you know,
is there one approach that's better than the other?
What is the planning perspective?
Cause I'm just telling you the options for drafting,
not which one's better or worse.
Can I make one comment before Darren in?
So just, if the council wants to see each one
of these projects, don't change what we have in here, right?
So unless, if you remove the requirements
for the 35 foot and change it to something else,
those projects will stop with the Planning Commission.
So if you have interest in looking at these
on a case-by-case basis,
you might wanna leave that language in.
I just wanted to make sure you understood
that these decisions won't necessarily come to you unless,
and if you have an interest in looking at
what each of these service stations might try to propose,
that would be the opportunity for you to do that.
I really appreciate you saying that
because I was concerned that passing an ordinance
that is likely to need further amendments or variances
was going to be a burden on the planning staff
and on potential applicants.
If that's not something that is problematic for you,
it seems like there's some interest
in just doing what's before us
the city's approval. And so I'm
looking at the variance versus
trying to draft from the bench.
Um, Darren would love your
thoughts. Sure I would point out
that a variance would still
actually be on the table for
any product that does want to
come in and say, let's say this.
This portion is not eliminated
from this code. Someone could
request a variance from that.
That gets submitted to the
planning commission for review,
alongside a design review. Um,
as well alongside the
the city council at that stage unless someone were to appeal a decision which they could do for any
aspect of the project because a variance would not require an update to the code. It's only if
someone were to come forward and say hey I'd like to update the code rather than go through
a variance process that it would then come back before the city council. So procedurally I don't
think it's that much different if rebel alliance were to come or not alliance, rebel convenience
were to come forward with an application for the site across the street. And we kept this
portion in. What I would project is that we would see a designer view a commercial use permit and
a variance at the very least that would be reviewed by the planning commission. It doesn't
add any time to the project except for making the additional findings for a variance which can be
quite stringent. But I think generally speaking the case could potentially be made because if this
code goes forward as it's currently proposed you can potentially write the findings and make the
case for this not allowing something that was allowed at an alternative site. There are
stringent findings for a variant so it would be handled at the planning commission to figure out
whether or not we could meet them but it wouldn't necessitate coming back to the city council
necessarily. I do agree with OSA's statement earlier or proposal earlier for making this
just a little bit more flexible. The idea of changing number three to the building containing
the proposed use shall include a pedestrian entrance oriented to a sidewalk in the public
right of way. If we were to make that adjustment that would allow this project to go forward and
then that would allow for basically equal treatment for any other station in Orinda that wants to come
forward it wouldn't hold up anything. We could still be back here with amendments to that
ordinance next week and the project would proceed as has been proposed. So I think from
staff's perspective the 35-foot setback is fairly arbitrary. The idea of increasing it
sounds even more arbitrary because a maximum setback of 60 feet, 70 feet doesn't really,
There aren't very many instances in planning
that I can think of where that's in a zoning code.
So I personally, I think staff would be in support
of that minor adjustment for flexibility's sake.
Can I, please.
So interestingly, this discussion has made me wanna,
I'm happy to have more discussion,
but I actually am thinking that the fact
that we're spending so much time talking about
what to do with this B3 makes me think
that I don't wanna make that determination
in drafting tonight.
I am convinced by reading the ordinance
and what you pointed me to
that actually I don't view it as arbitrary
because I think it's very connected to pedestrian access.
I think that there is clearly an openness
to revisit it in the future
expressed from the feedback you've gotten,
But I would really like to move forward
with what's the staff recommendation in our agenda.
And so unless, I mean, I'm prepared to make a motion,
but I don't want to stop anyone
from expressing more opinions.
No, I agree with what you said.
I'm seeing a lot of nodding heads.
So if you'd like to make a motion, please do.
Okay, in that case, I will move to
that we waive the full reading of the text
introduce ordinance 2506 amending section 17.23 definitions and section 17.85 downtown
commercial district use restrictions of our municipal code to update regulations governing
convenience markets and ancillary retail uses at service stations. I'll second. Great. Can we
Councilmember. Please have a
with the direction to please come back
with a second reading as drafted.
We didn't talk about the Creek setback.
Does anybody have any direction as to the drafting of,
I'm sorry, the dedication of land and the Creek easement
to add to that action before we move on?
I feel like at this time,
we should move forward with what we've got
and wait on discussion of that until a later time.
I think that was also something we were able to explore
through discussions.
I know I feel like I was able to ask my questions
about that of my city manager.
And I was confident that the 10 years is a lot of time.
I think we wanna see it happen sooner.
Sooner, but the dedication is an important thing
to the city, so.
And council member Huxley, I would just clarify
this is the time like there it won't come back another time it will be
approved and then get delegated to staff so we'll we'll see it when it comes
back for a second reading but this is the time to give direction if you have
any. On the language of the offer not whether we accept the offer that would
come back at a different time. So the acceptance of the offer would be the way
it's drafted currently and the way I unless you give me direction otherwise I
that as well. So, um, you know,
I don't think that's true.
That's why I was would execute
that acceptance at some date in
the future. But if it's the
council's desire to take that
action, you know, that would be
good direction to have so that
we have that in the in the
record that the council wants
to take that. No, no, no, no.
Okay, Okay. That's what I was
trying to figure it out. Yeah,
I just thought if there's
anything about the offer of
dedication and easement that
you guys would like to give
direction on. I just wanted to
I'll just do that. Thank you.
Okay, great. I do have, uh,
comments for the city attorney and I'll I'll submit those in
writing for you to consider. But it's all just drafting to the
indemnity and and some of the Aziz language.
With that, we are ready to move on to item H. Is that we're good.
Is there a city manager is there a staff report for this or just bring it up?
This is an annual item in which the mayor makes recommendations to the various committee
commissions and liaison appointments and so the mayor and I talked about it multiple
times trying to put together a proposed submittal to the balance of the city council for your
presentation. Thank you for
your consideration, and that
is what's before you tonight
in red is the changes that are
being proposed from 2025 to
2026. Those are all in your
packet and the mayor. Certainly
if you have any questions, the
mayor was person making those
recommendations and so she can
help to answer those questions.
I would just note for the
record. We did get some
correspondence from the friends
liaison to the Friends of Brenda Creeks already and so we will just respond to them with that
but there's no action item there. If there are no comments or questions we can also take a motion
to approve. I just before we have a motion want to thank the mayor for putting a lot of time and
effort into doing this. I would just mention that Recycle Smart is really popular.
And thank you all for all of the thoughtful input.
It was what prompted the suggestion
that we bring the council member reports forward
is the really high level of interest
that all of this council showed in schools
and fire and infrastructure.
And everybody kind of wants to understand deeply
what's going on in all these different levels.
And so it was a really informative process.
I would just like to thank you as well.
I'm excited about the list.
Also mentioned in my conversation with the city manager
and for all of us, it's really helpful
if the staff who are supporting all of the subcommittees
let us know ahead of time
what the schedule of that committee is,
how often it tends to meet, who the chair is,
and sends us any agendas ahead of time
so that it makes it easier for us to participate,
not every time they meet,
but just to understand what's going on
be able to participate. I really appreciate that and I would add the
fact that we had this conversation today where one of our organizations you know
they didn't really know that they had a liaison and when I was several of these
liaison roles are pretty dormant and so maybe something we can do that's a
little bit new and this is maybe more of the city clerk of just be to just make
an introduction to for every role that whether it's a liaison role to just
introduced to the head of that organization. So there's a direct link that's made and for
when we are liaisons to committees to introduce to the chair of that committee. That's something
we actually have never done before and so it was a little bit up to the council member to sort of
take it on themselves to reach out and if they didn't do it kind of nothing happened. So that
might be just an incremental thing we do. I guess I'm always try to also be like, I think that
ideally that's great but I'm also trying to be real sort of sensitive to staff timing and
you know we don't have all the resources of some larger cities. So I've always understood it and
I don't know where I actually got this understanding from, but when I as you know as liaisons at least
to the agencies, right? The partners. It's really on us to go make that initial contact.
And if we don't know who was supposed to contact, then we can of course reach out to our city
clerk or city manager and find out those contacts. But I do think that we already have a pretty
active, we have a very active volunteer population in Arinda and therefore we have a lot of city
and that's fabulous, but I guess I'm sensitive to creating more work, so I'm like, in an
ideal world, yes, but, you know, it's a great point.
I retract that and each council member is hereby tasked with knowing or asking for an
introduction for everything they're appointed to.
I think that's a great suggestion.
to the mayor and council, I've
already told staff to reach out
to the new, because I think
there'll be new incoming chairs
from many of the city-sponsored
committees and commissions.
In those instances, we'll make
that e-mail connection between
who the new chair is and the
council member liaison, and I've
also directed staff to ensure
that you are CC'd on all those
agendas, so if you're a liaison
whether that be East Bay mud, East Bay parks. I do see that more the responsibility of the council
member, primarily because there's other elected officials that you would be liaising with. And
so you could just reach out to the other elected or a member who represents this area. And then
some of these smaller nonprofit connections, I think would also be more on the council members
to reach out and just make those connections that I'm your liaison for the year.
right? Great. Do we have a motion to approve? So moved. Let's second it. All right. Can we get a roll
call vote please? Council member Hoxie? Aye. Moulkani? Aye. Riley? Aye. Gee? Aye. Iverson? Aye. Thank you.
With that, I believe all we have left is matters initiated. Does anybody have a matter initiated?
I have one, and not sure how what you're going to think about it, but the No Left Turn on
Ivy has been out there for years.
It was supposed to be, we were supposed to be talking about it more back in October.
It keeps pushing.
And I actually read the TSAC reports and have heard from teachers getting ticketed that
that they have been actively enforcing that no left turn
and they've been ticketing our parents and teachers.
But we can't ask them not to enforce a law
that is out there in existence.
The matter initiated would be to ask
if at our next meeting we could consider removing the sign
as part of the data gathering and next steps,
which was what staff initially recommended
so we can determine the permanent change
because there was from my questioning to the city manager,
there is nothing short of that,
that can alleviate enforcement and ticketing
while we make the permanent decision.
So, sorry.
So we're not discussing it now, but what would be,
so the agenda item for our next meeting
or a meeting soon would be-
Would be a removal of the sign
pending the permanent decision.
And hopefully as part of that,
the ability to get some data while the sign is down.
Don't we have a study session coming up on this?
Yes, we do.
I think we should wait for the study session.
I do too, sorry.
That's why I said it was a question,
but I appreciate the opportunity and the consideration.
With that, if nobody has anything else, we will adjourn.
Great, thank you.
Thank you, Mayor.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Could bank your guy.
Can I count?