City Council Regular Meeting - February 17, 2026

Transcript

Warning: This transcript is automatically generated by machine and may contain errors, including misheard words, misattributed speakers, and omitted passages. Always listen to the audio or video recording before assuming the transcript correctly reflects what was said. Do not rely on the transcript alone for quotation, reporting, or any other purpose where accuracy matters.

As many of you know, we had to start a little bit late.

We had a workshop from five to seven that ran over time,

but really thank you all for those of you

who've been having to wait.

Tonight's regular meeting, I'm calling to order,

February 17th, regular meeting of the city council,

and we will begin with the pledge of, oh, roll call,

and then pledge allegiance.

Note for the record that all council members are present.

Thank you, and with that,

we'll do the pledge of allegiance.

Please stand.

Council. I 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

Do I have a second?

I move we adopt the agenda.

Do we have a second?

All in favor.

Aye.

Great with that.

There are no items for the good of the city.

Tonight we'll go to public forum.

The public forum provides an opportunity

for members of the public to speak on any item

within the jurisdiction of the city council

that is not on the agenda.

Additionally, a speaker has the option

of addressing the council of an item

not listed on the agenda.

If that speaker will not be present

when the agenda item is taken up.

With that, we ask people to limit to three minutes

and I do not have any speaker cards, I don't think,

for public, yes, I do have someone for public forum.

Reed Robertson.

Oh hey, hi, Reed Robertson, Linda.

I came by regarding insurance.

I, it's a big problem and I would ask you guys

to talk to Rebecca Cahan and Tim Grayson, our Senator,

and assembly person. What's going on right now is I know that you guys had I

wrote a letter last month it was published and they were into news about

really how the Department of Insurance seems to go. They are hiding behind Prop

103, a vote that was taken in 1988. I was at Sleepy Hollow seeing my ABCs. I never

got to vote for that. It introduced price controls and created the

California Department of Insurance. They are hiding behind that vote to kind of

of keep their own jobs and things.

I would ask you guys, I don't have Kayhan's cell phone.

I saw her at the Roundup maybe a year or two ago.

She didn't even wanna be introduced as the assembly person.

She was with the sleepy hollow moms.

I would ask all of you guys to talk to them.

And really, Ricardo Laura, he has immense amount of power.

He's the only one that can bring it down.

He can call a press conference and just say,

listen this has failed please vote it back out it never should have been

voted in I never got a chance to vote for it it needs to go now we can take it

a good example I know Darlene has seen me down on the date at Casa Renda I was

having beers with Cara down there in October after my high school reunion

Casa Renda's insurance has gone up dramatically I mean I think 10 times it's

it's gone up. There's theater square. I don't know how it hasn't gotten foreclosed on. The

operating costs have gone up dramatically. You've got a declining office space. You've

got exploding insurance. Basically the Department of Insurance by not allowing people to properly

price insurance premiums as people have left. And they're not going to come back. Laura

has no credibility. I can't imagine anybody voting for him in November. He's the perfect

person to do it. Let him have some dignity on his way out the door and just

take it down. I mean we're going bankrupt the care plan or the fair plan

that's not, that's insolvent. You guys know that. I think Darlene was in the

article that the Arendelle News wrote about it so you know that. That it's not really

insurance. It's a fake insurance. Anyway that is what I came here to ask you for.

I'm not sure, please talk to Cahan and Grayson

and see if they can do something.

I mean, Laura is gone anyway in November, so.

Thank you very much.

And I would just note that we are not able

to respond to speaker comments or questions,

but really appreciate your coming to speak tonight.

Thank you.

The next item on the agenda is the consent calendar.

I am not aware of any changes

item. And so we would like to

get to the consent calendar.

Would anybody like to pull any

items for further discussion?

Okay, which item? F3. We have a

request to pull. And are there

any other changes? With that,

I'll move that we get asked. We

didn't get any speaker cards

for any of the consent calendar

items tonight. Okay, thank you.

item five. Um, we had this

item on item F five. In his

correspondents, he recom He

requested that the item be

pulled. According to your rules

and procedures. Um, the person

who requests that, uh, would be

given an opportunity to speak.

He is obviously not here to

speak. So I'm just letting you

know that if you want to pull

item f five, you certainly can.

Um. But that there is no one

comments here at the dais. Are there any other changes other than F3 with that? I would

move that we adopt F items F1, F2, F4, and F5 on the consent calendar. Do I have a second?

I'll second it. Thank you. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. And with that, on F3, Vice Mayor Gee, would you like to?

Yes. Just really quickly, and I'm sorry I pulled it on an evening when we're already

time constraint. But I did want to thank our city manager and I wanted to thank all of our managerial staff at the city. Reading this report on the status of our employment and our employees and our turnover. I just think it's worth a comment to say thank you to all of you.

Many of you may or may not know that the private sector would kill for numbers of this low in terms of turnover rate and for a little city like Arinda, the ability for us to have continuity to keep

our staff and you know to continue to have the talent that we have in such a small community.

I just think deserved a shout out of thank you because these numbers are really good.

So I just wanted to say that and acknowledge that and that's all.

Mayor because this is a public hearing, we pulled the item and it's a public hearing.

I'll need you to open and close the hearing.

Yes, I'm happy to move that we review and accept the report.

I'll second that.

All in favor?

Aye.

It's approved unanimously and thank you for that comment.

We don't have any other public hearings.

We'll go to policy matters,

and H1 is the art and public places committee

2025 annual report,

and it looks like Todd Trimble will be leading us off.

It again for an annual, there we go.

Report from the APPC.

As most of you know, the APPC now is,

what are we up to, seven or 18 years started in 2007.

It was an amendment back in 2018

that among other things directed the committee

to provide an annual report.

So I think we're on number seven or eight or so here.

You're only, we're asking you to accept the report

and of course ask any questions.

I will come back after the report to wrap it up

and prepare us for the next item.

But I see we are fortunate to have both the chair

and the vice chair of the APPC here today.

So, Rich Thompson, who is, you all know,

who has been with the APPC at the very beginning

and played a large role in its creation,

is gonna lead you through the annual report.

Thanks.

Well, I'm the first to admit I had no real idea

we've been this long.

It seems like such a short time.

And it's exactly the appropriate time

to take a look at what we've done,

what we've learned, and how we go forward.

So that's the focus of the report.

We're so unique in the sense that we focus on borrowed art,

not just owned art.

Moraga has adopted our program as well,

but we're the only ones I know about who do that.

And it was a surprise to me

that when we looked at where the effort is placed,

both staff, everybody concerned with the program.

It's worth the borrowed art.

And another way of saying this is that

owned art is quiet art.

And so the question, how come?

You're looking at five pieces that we've asked

for permission to accept as owned.

And there's only been eight in the entire history

prior to this time.

So what's going on?

Really two things.

Our local artists who have provided us

with so many pieces these years are aging out.

And they're downsizing and they're showing their appreciation

by offering their works to us because they want them

in a safe and admired place.

That's really about it.

Just those two revelations I think are enough

to guide us in the future.

So I'll take questions if there are questions.

Yes, Council Member

I just wanna thank you and the Art and Public Places

Committee for, you know, extraordinary work.

I think it's very unique the way this works in the window

that we have been able to have such incredible artwork

and we've been able to do it thanks to all your work.

And I know it's literally hours and hours and hours of work

including physically installing pieces,

reviewing contracts, doing a lot of that.

And I know our staff works a lot in collaboration with you

and I think our staff for that too,

but it really is a unique situation

where we have this incredible local art all over our city.

And we have it on really kind of, I think,

a shoestring budget that the Arinda Community Foundation

supports, you know, so we're really lucky

and it's something that I've always treasured.

It feels like Arinda.

When you go and sit on a bench,

there was a mention of this in your report.

See, I did read it.

But it feels like Arinda when you go and sit on the bench

and the bench is this beautiful piece of artwork, you know?

So first, thank you all.

And then I had a few different questions

about how touching on what you were just referring to,

but also there were some membership changes on the committee

and so I wanted to hear how that was going

and if you had any feedback or any ideas from the committee.

And there was some discussion last year

of maybe bringing in different artists.

I was interested in that.

And then I had some questions also about

sort of the borrowed versus owned art.

But maybe I'll start with that.

Which one would you like me to answer first?

Really, your thoughts on, first of all,

how to bring in a new artist, changes in membership,

anything you wanna speak to,

this is our opportunity to hear your thoughts

and opinions and ideas and we value that.

With regard to new artists, that is always our priority.

Vice Chair Shell and I were just yesterday

out to the Glasshoff Ranch,

which is about an hour's drive.

And on this 20 acres at one time

We're 700 works of art.

This fellow, Philip Glasshoff and his son, Chad,

were so prolific.

And he just boggles the mind.

So we've got our eye on one piece

that has yet to go through committee,

so I won't comment on it.

but it's just one of the extraordinary treasures

that this community has, that often lie hidden.

The committee to me functions as it should.

Everything is brought, nothing is kept out.

Anybody can bring anything, say anything at any time.

And when it comes time to deciding

to recommend a piece.

We don't just accept a four to three vote in favor.

We talk until it goes to a seven odd

or a pretty close to seven odd.

And I think that served us well.

The background of the committee is quite varied.

all have a very strong interest in the program

and have showed that I think our last three or four meetings

have been 100% in attendance.

So with that, I'll just thank the committee

for what they're doing and we intend

to see that way in the future.

Right, thank you.

Did you have a follow-up question?

I have other questions, but if other I can wait and follow

others.

We're looking at you.

OK.

So I noticed in the listing of the rent borrowed art

that it seemed like there were a lot of pieces

that were expired.

And so one of the questions I had is, what is?

wrote down actually when you said owned art is quiet art right and that was

something that was always in the the mission of this committee as it was

ingrained or sort of as I understood it in part was to make sure that art

circulates and that's why so much of it is borrowed as opposed to owned right

so with that in mind you know the report now this year was the first time it was

suggesting that maybe half and half is sort of the right balance for now. But is that

because of the pieces we have that are owned and certain of those? So two questions, I

guess, from that. And really, my questions are really, I'm probing for your thoughts

and opinions on this, is for the art that, first of all, for the art that is expired,

right? What is the plan? Should we be renewing contracts? Because we want to keep loaning

that.

So what are we going to be doing

in that art and if so, is there

any bandwidth to do that?

Because I love that we've been

able to while we kept the

mission of this committee sort

of get up to speed on legal

requirements and things like

that, because that's what

concerns us sometimes.

And, you know, we've amended

the bylaws.

There was a suggestion in the

report that maybe we needed to

amend the bylaws before, but it

seemed like the cap on borrowed

art was still well over.

It was like 39.

because, I guess the other thing was, you know, are there certain types of owned art that it makes

sense for the city to own? For example, benches versus art on a wall, right? So if you could

speak to any of that. Well, certainly with the pieces that we have where we are no longer in

contact with either the artist or the artist's lover is in charge now. We've tried repeatedly.

With no response, I honestly don't know quite what to do. There are pieces, for example,

surveillance, the Roberts piece that's in the library. No other piece, I can't imagine any

piece that we would borrow or buy would ever go there. So, you know, it's a unique situation.

I hope it stays. I assume that that's been reviewed from your perspective.

if we were told to dispose of it.

I'm not sure what we would do.

Okay, so for the stuff that says expired,

is that because we have lost contact

with the original owner or artist?

Yes.

Okay.

Well, let me just add to,

and I think I know what council member Long-Counties,

there is a long list on our list of showing expired items.

And we're gonna touch on that a little bit in the next item.

It's kind of blends,

but you're right.

Rich is right in the sense that we have a few pieces

where the artist has passed away,

we've lost track or can't communicate with the heirs and so.

The other, most of those are the effects

of a very active committee and kind of Sheena and I

being at a point where we're trying to keep up

with those loans.

So last year we approved a new loan agreement,

a longer term loan agreement.

So we're in the process now of reaching out

with Rich and Shelley's help and the committee's help

of getting in touch with those artists

whose loan agreements have expired

and getting ready to initiate

the new five-year loan agreement.

So we anticipate most of those items that you show expired

are gonna be, will be having a new agreement here

in the next couple months for a longer term.

If that's, I think that's kind of my,

maybe what you were referring to.

Yeah, though I'm hearing somewhat conflicting information

do that. Um. And then in terms

of other certain types of art.

Rich that you and the

committee members believe. It

makes sense for the city to own

versus borrow. Uh I don't think

there's that distinction. Um,

we've never we never viewed it

right and proper that we purchased the uh, uh, calling, uh, Selleck's benches. I think

as I pointed out in a report, it's better than that, you know, catalog marked bench

where, uh, it doesn't give that, it doesn't say anything about the, about the city. As

far as the number of, of borrowed pieces, that is very fluid. I put, I suggested that

suggested it could be as high as 30 or 31.

The staff has to answer that one.

If they say, look, you know, we're just not,

we don't have enough time to process that.

We'll back off.

I don't think there's any,

we don't have any goal about the total number

of pieces that the city might take.

One of the gray areas, if you will,

is what constitutes a proper place

to put art in the city?

And I can tell you that I can only answer that

when I see the piece.

We've had a piece hanging from the pond wall,

if you remember it was the lady in Freefall

that brought the nasty letter from one viewer.

That's, I don't consider that an approved space.

So who knows?

We just sort of play this thing along as we go

and everybody brings their ideas and we just go with it.

Thank you so much.

Hi, I'm going back to the concept of borrowing

and owning and the ratio of borrowing to owning pieces.

Obviously it's growing, growing towards the 50, 50.

And I know you can pull out all the benches

and the numbers look a little different

and it makes the borrowing look higher.

How many times has a borrowed item gone back home,

back to the owner?

Do we really just tend to keep the bulk of the loan pieces?

Or do we really turn them over and send them back?

No, we really turn them over and send them back.

Like say, if you take out the ones

where we can't find the person to get them back to you.

Right, so how many a year or five years are we returning?

I'll get you a number.

It's just a feeling.

It's a good question.

It's rolling, it's moving, we're actually returning these.

I'm frankly trying to go through.

I would say that over the, say 18 years,

we probably turned over our bar items at least twice.

Okay, so to me that says,

well, I'm not supposed to,

I'm only supposed to ask questions, okay.

Never mind.

Yeah. Excuse me.

Again, what about, it comes down to what is the piece of art?

If you take these pipes,

I'd be very happy to turn those over

every two or three years,

because I know there are a large number readily available.

And that's one thing people tend to notice.

And so, luckily, we have an opportunity right now

to take on more.

I'll tell you, we've been offered seven.

So, we'll take three.

Also, where else in Arinda can we display art?

Have we thought about things outside,

sort of the downtown or the city proper?

Yeah, we, the artists are very clear

that they prefer a place where people congregate.

or passed by, or see their works.

So where we put something is often determined

by how the artist feels.

For example, one of the pipes that we're getting,

the soccer player by name,

the artist was very adamant about it

being where kids are playing soccer.

And so the suggestion was, staff's suggestion

was go to Wilder and between field one and two

where soccer is played hours.

He said, no, I think this is for kids.

And so we're gonna put it next to the playground

in a very protective site.

So it's so peace-specific.

Yeah, so it's driven by the artists mostly.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

I had one.

When we were doing the welcome to Orinda sign

at the crossroads, I think Plaza, we're calling it now.

There's a, there is a spot sort of to the left

of the sign on land that we own that could be used for art.

Is that something that you guys have discussed

for a rotating piece at this point

or is that not on the table?

We have not discussed it.

Okay, great.

That might be something I'd ask the city manager

to consider following up with the committee

or liaison to the committee to consider

because I do think there's room I believe

for both the sign and some art.

So just wanted to explore that.

And with that, we have not opened it to public comment yet.

So I don't have any speaker cards for H1,

but would anybody like to come and speak on this item

and see none.

I'll see if anybody would like to comment

on the annual report.

Council member Hoxie.

Thank you so much for bringing the art to our community

and for sharing the report with us tonight.

It's interesting to hear about the balance

between borrowed and owned art.

And I know we'll discuss it a little bit more

in the next item,

but no, I think we're very lucky as a community

to have this resource in our community

and this beauty added to our community.

I already think that I'm gonna echo what I said before

and that would feed it,

but thank you to the entire committee for all your work.

And I mean, just to hear that a committee,

all seven of you attend and sort of argue to consensus

or at least discuss to consensus shows a great deal

of engagement and sort of love for the work you do.

So thank you.

You know, the one thing I want us to consider though

is I do wanna make sure that when we are sort of

considering that balance between, I guess, two thoughts.

One is to consciously try to continue rotation of art

to the extent we can.

We upped the contracts last year to sort of five years,

up to five years, and that seems to me

that if the norm would be sort of rotation

up to five years, that seems to me the goal

that we would wanna strive for with most of the art,

just so it can be seen by a lot of people

and we can continue to change what's here.

And of course, there's gonna be unique pieces

that we wanna keep, right?

And if we have the opportunity to do that,

but I do wonder if going forward,

I guess I'm still leaning a little bit in my mind

towards the sort of original vision as I understood it,

which was we want mostly borrowed art and some owned art.

That doesn't necessarily mean

that we're not gonna accept all the,

we're not talking about the next agenda items.

I'm not commenting on that.

But at the same time, just that's sort of the balance.

And then the other thing is, what I was referring to,

just, you know, for my colleagues is this packet page 176.

And if I'm reading it correctly,

then except for the three items at the end,

we really need to enter new contracts with a lot of this.

I mean, some of it just expired the end of 25.

So I feel a little better about that.

But, you know, and I know some of this has been donated

You know, I'm not going to

get caught up in that. I think

we need some clarity from

committee members or community

members, but I you know, it's

sort of the lawyer in me would

really like this paperwork to

get caught up, and I think we

need some clarity on how that

happens going forward. And I

guess I'm looking a little bit

more. To maybe staff or for

understanding of I think we

just think clarified

looking at this, I thought maybe there was a mistake

or I was misunderstanding, it kind of shocks me,

but I'm not necessarily putting that on the committee either.

I'm not sure.

Let's just address it going forward.

But otherwise, thank you for everything.

Thank you.

And I would just echo thank you.

I continue to believe that this committee

is one of the brightest spots we've ever had

in Orinda, one of the most successful.

And I love it, I enjoy it.

even pieces that have been there a long time. I still find myself looking at, so I just want

to thank everyone. You guys do a fantastic job and just very much appreciate it.

I too am just really proud of all you guys have done for so long and it's an honor to be part of

your, be your liaison and I'm very impressed with the continuity of your committee. Very little

change and, you know, so much stability, as well as this great attendance, it's very stable and

it's got to have, it has, your leadership has to have something to do with it. I really commend

you for all you've done. Thank you. Appreciate it. And at the risk of just overwhelming you with

shameless praise, I was, the one thing I would just add is how impressed I was at the citizen

of the year presentation, getting the slides and the backstories on the pieces and the artist and

and there's just so many, there's so much depth of discovery

that most or in the citizens don't go beyond

how attractive the pieces are,

but I was blown away at the education

there is to be had in those pieces.

So I would even encourage the committee

to keep thinking about ways to share all the information

that's on your website with, you know,

whether it's kids or adults in the community,

it is a wealth of just,

that. We thank you for that.

And with that, I think we're

going to just keep you guys

around for item H two. Is there

anything else on H one? I just

want to say, I think for all of

us, each and every one of us,

thank you also to the Linda

Community Foundation. Oh, yes.

I mean, really, we are so

appreciative. That's true. Do we

need to do a motion to accept

the report or can we just move

I think you can just move on.

Thanks.

We'll go on to H2-2.

The item is to accept artwork donations

of current loan.work to allow

for continued public display through the APPC.

And it looks like Director Trimble

has got our next item.

Thank you again, Madam Mayor, council members.

Again, for the record,

Todd Trimble, director of parks and recreation,

and it leads right into it.

And some of the questions that the council members

that I've asked, I think Rich answered very well.

I think we're in a...

The time that I've been here, I've certainly seen,

and I agree with Rich, that a large number

of loan pieces have gone back.

Like he had kind of estimated probably twice over.

There's no doubting whatsoever

that the great majority of own pieces we have now

were once loan pieces, if not all of them.

So that's a typical pathway, of course,

especially with, as Rich indicated,

Artists are starting to get older

and we're having more trouble tracking them down

in other areas and stuff.

But I think this was kind of a unique time.

We haven't had a period where we've had

so many donation possibilities.

And I think it's one of those

that kind of goes with the times.

I think there's no doubt about the continuity

of this committee, just one change in the time

that she and I have been here over that,

but it's been positive.

they're very involved and I think our only trouble admittedly

is keeping up with such an active committee

and bringing in these art pieces.

And of course, even with that,

time's gonna bring change, I'm sure,

but we wanted to bring this,

take an opportunity like Council Member Mall County indicated

now we're coming into some requesting the approval

of acquiring some pieces.

and back when I started,

and I know anywhere on the council back then,

I know of course the City Attorney was here,

that there was an emphasis on borrowing pieces

and or loaning pieces,

and over time that may certainly can kind of make a turn.

There's no doubt,

I don't think Rich alluded to the fact

that not only do we rotate loan pieces

that we have on site with us,

whether it's three or five years,

It's not uncommon for us to relocate own pieces

from time to time.

You've seen several different items have moved

throughout different places.

Some have gone and some have returned.

We've even had load pieces go back to the artist.

The bear, for example, and come back in a different place.

So that's happens throughout the,

I totally understand and I get so used to walking by

these pieces just to and from the community center.

But there has been ample opportunities.

and I know the committee is always on their mind to,

hey, this would be a great place

for this new potential loan piece.

Whoops, there's something there already.

We'll move that to someone else and put that there.

And then again, that's to their credit

to be able to have that vision.

And as Rich alluded, in many cases,

the artist has a preference.

In many cases, they leave it to the committee

to identify a location.

So it's been really enlightening

and rewarding to basically sit back

and watch these guys do their thing again

with almost always a full contingent of committee members.

So I think that being said, I mean, we've got to a point.

I have, these are the items that were being considered

for acquisition via donation.

I brought just a couple of pictures of them

in case you're wondering.

This piece by Katie Cassita is a prime example.

The artist passed away.

I know Rich has had some difficulty

communicating with the heirs.

We think we have been successful in reaching,

I think, her son, Rich.

So we're working on the agreement with him.

That piece, by the way, how do I go back?

Well, the Cassita piece, if you don't remember,

was originally up at city hall in the roundabout

in the center of the traffic circle.

And it since was moved,

it's been out at the Art and Garden Center

for a few years now.

This piece is right out in front here.

So donated piece from a,

it was, the artist is Trey Hill

and it is owned by a local citizen

who's willing to donate it.

Same with this piece,

IO, which is in the planning department currently.

And then two kind of indoor pieces by this artist

who has a piece up at city hall,

some of you are familiar with,

and then a piece right here outside this door,

just on the other hall there

that's hanging on the wall there.

So those are the pieces that we're asking for consideration.

We're happy to, you know, there are references

as alluded to in the policy about, you know,

the changing or the preference over one of the other.

We brought that up to,

and I know several members have kind of alluded to it.

It's not something we need to get delved into deeply

and even cause it's not part of the report,

but it is, if it's discussions that we want to have

at a future meeting about emphasizing loan versus owned

and things like that, we can certainly, certainly do that.

But at this point, we're leaving that opportunity

for requesting your feedback on that in addition

to the determining whether you'd like to move forward

and approve this, the resolution

for acquiring these five pieces.

And I'll cut a question.

Can you run through each of the five pieces

and tell us the story?

One, you mentioned that the artist is deceased

and you're in touch with the heirs,

but how about the other four?

And also I wanna know if you talked to them

about other alternatives, not taking the donation.

We talked to them about returning it to them.

Right. I think this piece is the one piece

that I think we're in a situation embrace here

where it was a loan piece.

Katie Casita has passed away.

Her surviving years are kind of out of the area

and less accessible.

they did not express an interest in which,

correct me if I'm wrong, of taking it back

and in lieu of that offered to donate it.

So in that case, it's a tough one.

I mean, we could have, by the letter of the agreement,

certainly could have, one option would be to take it back,

find out where they are and take it back to them.

But that's here.

So the alternative is these two pieces

long-standing pieces, this one and this one that are on loan. And in lieu of

extending the loan agreement, this particular owner neither, both of these

pieces are owned by a local citizen. He's not the artist and he offered to

donate them. They're pieces that are a little bit different. This one is is I

think more in line with what we'll typically see which is very low

maintenance and an outdoor placement which we have we have so much more

flexibility to place things outside. There's many more options. This one needs some protection

and cover, maybe not out in the middle of the park, but they're very low maintenance,

so is IO, which has been in multiple... In my time here, it's been in three different

locations at the community center, I believe it was at the Art and Garden Center, I could

be wrong, right, Gina? And now it's at the planning department. Same story. A local citizen

who was willing to keep it on loan but but offered a donation and the

committee discussed it and felt it was a piece that would require

virtually no maintenance. We own it if we want to move it, if we want to put it in

storage, if you want to. Did it come up that they didn't want to

take it back? I don't think so. I think it was probably an option of

continuing it, continuing on the loan or take an opportunity to

it. These two pieces similarly a little different because they are indoor pieces they're not

I would say not typical. We don't have a very you know I think what five out of 50 you know so less

probably less than 10 percent of the total are kept indoor. I think we have five pieces that are

on display indoors right now over the 50 something so this piece I think has been here

through the extension or the entirety of the original loan two years I think same with the

other piece the basically the artist was can't remember show if she's if Ginger is downsized

moving out of the area or just wanted to offer it

in lieu of taking it back and finding a place for it,

wanted to offer it as a donation.

So a type of piece like this, we could certainly find,

like I said, the window pieces, indoor locations

are a little or less flexibility with that,

but we have identified a place or two

where they could be kept for a good period of time.

We have a couple options for that.

And there's the other one.

to do. Do you have a story on

that? Both the same. Those are

but these last two pieces are

by the same artists of similar

material. Similar size. Do need

to stay indoors. Um. Um so we

do have a couple of options for

the locations where they could

stay for. Uh for the foreseeable

future. I'm curious about

storage. Let's say we take

to allow the flexibility of putting new pieces

in their place if we chose to?

Yes, I think pieces again, like this per se,

that need a wall to hang on to be exhibited,

and it's an indoor space, it's a little less flexible,

but there's a handful of options.

Outdoor wise, and in my time here,

I can't think of an instance where we have done that

with an own piece, but I think we certainly could.

That's another one of our criteria

that the committee really focuses on

is looking at pieces that require very little,

if any maintenance for the most part,

this piece probably wouldn't,

but it's like anything's not gonna last forever.

But we don't have a designated place per se council member,

if it was one of the larger outdoor sculptures,

potentially it could be moved to the maintenance yard

or another location where it could be kept,

but not having the rest of the facility impacted really.

And if we accept these pieces,

do we have any obligation to the artist or the donor

to keep them on display?

We have certain obligations

to that, I don't believe, and I don't have the loan,

excuse me, the agreement in front of me,

but I know that there's certain obligations

that they need to provide us

that we would provide to them as long as they're on display.

It's my understanding that we don't necessarily

have to keep them on display.

If we're owning them, we have the ability to,

to, you know, put them in storage, like you said,

move them, even sell them.

That was my next question.

we dispose of them if at some point we decided we didn't have a need or room for them in the city?

That's my understanding yes by the agreement. Thank you. Are there any other questions?

For the the two hanging pieces, silence and geometers choice, I was curious just because I

know we have the APPC here too. Members, if anyone wanted to sort of speak to the thought process on

ownership of those pieces because since they're hanging inside, they strike me as this sort of

piece that we would want to go elsewhere, right? So even if we could theoretically under contract

destroy something, it's art. I don't want to see that happen, you know? So no, no, no, I'm agreeing,

you know, or sell it or something like that. It just feels like if the artist made it for public

space. I feel, I'm wondering, is there, you know, I know what we can say and under contract,

but what's the expectation of this artist? So I don't know if anyone, if it's permissible to have

invite them to speak to that if they'd like to, not to put you on spot, but if you want to.

Because we want to do right by this if we accept it. I'm Shelly Hubner, I'm happy to respond,

but I still want my three minutes after. I was going to say, I was going to speaker card for later.

So, um, Yonky Ginger Lackey is a very dear friend of mine. She was my first grantee in 1976 when I

started work at the San Francisco Foundation. She was a budding young fiber artist. She has

since become an internationally renowned sculptor, sculptor artist, a professor emeritus at UC Davis,

an absolutely fabulous person beyond that, a refugee from Budapest when she was a child.

She has really, she really represents the American dream and I was bowled over when she called and

said, Tom and I are downsizing and we can take these pieces back Shelly, they could hang in your

living room but I would love to give them to the city of Arinda who has been so generous with me

allowing me to show them. This is an incredible personal gift of hers by an artist. I mean I don't

know what they're valued at but they are beautiful and they reflect I think the artistic spirit in a

way that that really speaks well to our program. So that gives you an idea. This is not something

After you said, I don't have room for these, or can't get rid of these, she just produced

a beautiful book.

They are both in the book.

We are so lucky to have this opportunity, and I would be so sad if we turned it down.

And I do believe based on the contracts that we've had and what we would offer, they're

ours.

They are ours in perpetuity.

We can do whatever we wish with them, including dispose of them.

So she is offering it as her gift.

Pardon?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that at all.

I'm just wanting to, that helps me here

understand the expectations and the context, thank you.

I think, and I would say, the others certainly,

in having heard in the committee about them,

we are lucky to have these opportunities, that's all.

And this is not like the artist's dregs

in any manner, shape, or form.

These are all beautiful, special pieces.

I hope that helps.

Thank you.

Are there any more questions before we go to public comment?

Shelly, you might want to stick around.

Seeing none, we do have a speaker card from Shelly Hubner.

So please come on back and we'd love to hear more.

Thank you.

I'm Shelly Hubner, as you know,

current vice chair of the Art and Public Places Committee,

first appointed by this council in 2019.

Time does fly.

Over the past seven years,

it's been my pleasure to serve

under the able leadership of Rich Thompson.

Unbelievable.

And also to collaborate with dedicated

and conscientious volunteers and staff

and to witness firsthand the Orinda APPCs evolution

into a regionally, if not internationally

respected public art program.

Orinda has a unique opportunity here

to accept as outright gifts,

The work's currently on display of four highly

acclaimed artists.

The late Katie Cassata, as we talked about,

Yaki Lakey, you're seeing on the screen,

Trey Hill and Joseph Swosky.

These are offered by the artists themselves

or by a local donor.

Each piece continues to be enjoyed

by Orenda residents and visitors alike.

Each complements other works, both owned and on loan,

and each requires little or there or no maintenance.

This, these were some of the issues that were discussed

at great length in our committee.

While the committee does continue to embrace

the program's policy favoring loaned works, and we do,

this council has a history of accepting,

even at times purchasing selected pieces.

Each of the pieces at issue is exceptional in its own right

and promises to inspire and delight our citizens

for years to come.

I therefore urge you to approve resolution number 626,

authorizing the donation

of all of these artworks to the city.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none, we'll bring this back to the group

discussion and um deliberation. Would anyone like to lead us off? Anyone?

I probably know the the least about it but um I I'm in totally in favor of accepting these um

you know they're beautiful um if um you know I I really appreciate your comments Shelly quite

honestly, and I'm gonna make another comment

a little bit later about something I hope somebody

in the community would be willing to take up,

but I had no idea, you know,

and I've looked at these pieces for a long time

and I had no idea of the artist background.

So, and I agree with the mayor the night, Rich,

we had the opportunity to honor you as citizen of the year.

I was equally blown away with the artists that were there,

the information and the background.

So I think we're a small city and I love the rotating art

and I appreciate that you guys make an incredible effort

at doing that.

But we've also cherished some of the pieces

that we've really accepted.

And I think it's amazing

that people wanna share it that way.

So I don't see that this is a burden on us.

And I think that we should be honored

you know, that we really have the opportunity to keep them. So, in that sense, I'm totally on board with accepting them.

Okay. No, I agree with Councilwoman Gee, and I think that the committee is recommending it to us,

and they were the ones who were really vetting these, you know, artists and these pieces of art.

So, I'm in favor of it to follow their recommendations.

And I think we're very lucky.

I think we're very lucky.

And I do hope we still we at another time go back and talk about the balancing

And we're grateful for all the thought you put into this.

And I think we're very lucky.

I think we're very lucky.

And I do hope we still, we at another time go back

and talk about the balancing act and just revisit that

and get comfortable, more comfortable with it.

It seems like, well, anyway, yeah.

Someday we want to talk about it again,

but for tonight I move that I support

acquiring these five pieces.

Thank you Council Member Milka.

Yeah, I agree with you Council Member Riley

and I do wanna thank our Vice Chair for the background

and then the story, the narrative, the history is important.

I guess, especially with pieces that are indoors

or hang on the wall, I do wanna make sure

that they're rotated only cause this artwork is so beautiful.

Everyone should have the chance to see it.

I'm a firm believer in public museums and public art

and really, you know, because when it rotates,

it brings joy to so many more people, right?

And I know that that's part of what this committee's

mission is and so, but in this case tonight,

I'm prepared to accept all this with the reassurances

and feedback that we've been given.

Thank you, nothing to add other than that I have

tremendous confidence in this committee

and I really appreciate how much you put into all of this.

I also think the pieces individually are very versatile

and they're beautiful,

and that makes us very easy decisions.

So does anyone want to make a motion?

Yeah, sorry.

One thing I neglect to ask earlier is I did want to see

if I know this was the staff recommendation,

but since we have our city attorney here

and our city manager,

I just wanted to see if there was any sort of concerns

or maybe sort of concerns,

I think we're restricting it

to this time. This isn't

necessarily a precedent for

the future, but also just any

thoughts, this is a good time

to hear them from me.

I think in preparation for this

item, and it was discussed

amongst the members of the

executive team when we were

talking about agenda planning

is this, you know, the idea of

owning art wasn't something

in. I think it's a lot of

things. We wanted to see more

loan pieces wanted to see that

rotation wanted to see that so

I think to both. I think you

and council member Brian. They've

also mentioned it, but I think

there probably does need to be a

conversation about what would

you like to ultimately see out

of the public art program. You

know, working with the APPC long

term because. You know, we will

have more owned art than loaned

loan pieces and we're finding that more people want to donate. We probably do need to circle

back with you and make sure that everybody's on the same page about how you want this program

to operate long term. Thank you. I think that was helpful. Yes please. I'm going to try to

work this in so I don't get in trouble so I'm looking at the city attorney so if I'm getting

in trouble just stop me but I would say that you know what Shelly and the vice chair shared with

us about this artist was amazing. Okay. And I really appreciated it, you know, but I would

love it if maybe in thinking of the committee go forward that to me this would be a fact,

you know, the history of art here in the community and the background and all this information.

It would be a wonderful project for a community book. So I think that that would be a great

a challenge for somebody to take on.

And if I got in trouble.

taking the spirit it was intended.

Do we have a motion to accept it

or the name of further comments?

I'll make a motion that we accept these pieces of art.

Great. Do we have a second?

All right, seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Passes unanimously.

Thank you so much you guys.

And with that, we move on to item H3.

That's an update on the transit oriented communities policy

and acceptance of a $300,000 parking management grant

from the MTC.

And it looks like Darren is going to be our presenter tonight.

All right, good evening Mayor Iverson,

members of the City Council and members of the public.

I am Associate Planner Darren Hughes,

and I will be presenting item H3.

So the impetus for this item is an MTC grant

that was awarded back in November of 2024.

This is a technical assistance grant

that staff took note of in October of 2024

quickly applied for this and was awarded it.

Subsequently, the amount of time that has gone on since then

is largely due to, it seems a length of time

before MTC has gotten to get these grants really moving.

So this is in the amount of $300,000

is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of parking strategies for downtown Arenda.

So, I'm briefly going to give an overview of the TOC policy. The scope of this policy,

it applies to pretty much all rail systems, transit stations on rail within the TOC policy.

this policy. It applies to pretty much all rail systems transit stations on rail within the region.

This is a fully elective set of policies, but it's basically looking at a number of areas in which

cities can promote transit use through density, affordable housing policies, parking management,

and station access. Staff did provide an overview of this back in January of 2025,

but there were a lot of questions in terms of how this was going to be implemented going forward.

So the primary reason for the overview that we're looking at tonight has to do with the

recent updates that we have and that we understand from MTC. So there is an OBAG, which is one Bay

area grants tie-in. So OBAG-4 is this next cycle. OBAG is how MTC distributes the Federal Highway

Administration funds. One thing that we learned early on in the discussion of TOC policy was that

there was an intent to tie those funds. Previously, it was identified as all of those funds would

would potentially be tied to TOC compliance

and some nebulous idea of what that meant.

But more recently, as of January 28th,

a resolution was passed by the MTC board

that basically established the framework

to be split into this county program

and regional program amounts, very similar.

So $365 million for the county program,

which is administered by the counties

that was prior, previously known as the County

and Local Jurisdiction Program and $360 million

for the regional program, which is run primarily by MTC

to support their particular initiatives and interests.

Within that, the regional program on,

in January of this year, MTC,

the board elected to make this TOC set aside

$45 million. However, there is a caveat to that, that is going to be, they're going to

analyze and assess how that tie in is going to work and how an assessment of a jurisdictions

conformity with TOC policy is going to actually affect the availability of those grants. And

they have made this, or they've given this a little bit of flexibility to even decide

that they're not going to tie even this 45 million dollars in funding to the awarding

of these grants, and they could pull that back and just put it into the regional program.

So that is, that remains to be seen.

And given those uncertainties, so what we are seeing is MTC has not yet finalized the

compliance scoring methodology.

Whether evaluation is going to be a pass-fail or if it's going to be a tiered system, we've

been exposed to some tiered systems before. We don't know the thresholds for eligibility

if there is going to be a tiered system. And we don't know whether the old bag tie-in funding

will be maintained going forward. So, because of that staff's recommendation is that the

council defer consideration of any formal commitment to MTC, TOC policy given that currently

it is a moving target. So, the scope of work looking at the grant,

$300,000 for consultant services.

We will be looking at this to evaluate existing policies

and requirements, to assess possible policy adjustments,

to explore transportation demand management,

and to recommend and draft potential alternative policies.

So looking at these particular subjects,

transportation demand management,

these are a series of policies that would be required

developers or property owners who are proposing development within the

downtown area. There's a tie into this with our environmental impact report and

the requirements that we have for that to assess when projects would actually

qualify for that. So this could potentially look at what those

requirements could possibly be that we would implement. But these policies are

all meant to offset vehicular use. They pertain to things like providing subsidies for transportation

for mass transit, which city employees, for instance, receive. Parking maximums and minimums

and maximums, we would be looking potentially at evaluating parking standards and evaluating

policies related to shared and unbundled parking, which are all policies within the MTC's TOC

Um, so we will do that. Um,

Also, um, that relates to

parking management policies. Um.

The parking management district.

This is an idea that predates

our application for this

particular, um, uh, for this

particular grants. Um, this

would be the idea that we

could coordinate or better

coordinate city and private

residents who would need to be parking in the downtown.

And then finally, coordination with BART.

We would be looking at coordinating the total parking supply if we can envelop BART's input

into this process and see what we can do to utilize the resource that is the BART parking

to support downtown events in downtown commerce.

So some tie-ins to the six cycle housing elements.

We've got two actions in particular that address parking requirements and things the city is

supposed to be looking at.

Action three of shared parking regulations.

So consider adopting shared parking regulations where it can be demonstrated that there will

be no parking shortages.

So this would be a study of those provisions and ultimately recommendations for if there

could be suitable policies for downtown Orinda.

And then in action four, E, revised parking standards to ensure parking is not a constraint

on the development of housing, the city will review and revise current parking standards

to ensure they do not constrain the development of housing, analyze existing parking standards

for residential units to consider modifications to the zoning ordinance, review parking standards

for housing for persons with disabilities, and consider parking reductions, eliminating

parking minimums, and explore instituting parking maximums.

So this resolution commits the city specifically to evaluating any policy recommendations

that come from this study in good faith.

That was MTC staff's primary concern when we spoke with them about the tie in and the

relation of this particular grant to TOC policy.

The concern was not that we were committing the city to TOC policy and fulfillment of

TOC policy.

The concern of MTC staff was that sometimes these grants are performed the work is done in various communities and then they sit on the shelf for a number of years and get forgotten about. So the resolution commits the city to to bring that forward to city council for future review and assessment for whether it's going to be applicable to or any policies could be suitable for a window.

It doesn't commit the city to adopt any TOC standards or to adopt any specific policies that come from these from this grant and it doesn't commit the city to ensuring future compliance.

So the primary, the key point here would be that implementation of any such policies still remains at the city council's discretion.

So the staff recommendations to take the following actions,

adopt resolution 0926, accepting a $300,000 grant

for technical assistance for parking management

in downtown Orinda.

And two, to defer consideration of any formal commitment

to MTC TOC policy compliance,

until the assessment methodology has been finalized by MTC.

And we anticipate for next steps,

if this resolution is adopted,

we would work with MTC staff and a selected consultant

to refine the scope of work,

to make sure that we are fully addressing

all of those items,

particularly within the housing element action

or implementation actions.

This would cover approximately an 18 month period,

although MTC staff has indicated

that a longer period of time may be necessary,

particularly where concerns around the status

of the BART stations currently lies.

we would expect to conduct some public outreach,

stakeholder interviews,

and eventually probably in the back half of this grant,

come back before the planning commission

and city council for some study sessions

to provide updates and review the policies

that are in draft format at those times.

And we also anticipate returning to the city council

when more concrete information about MTC's approach

to TOC policy has been solidified.

And with that, I conclude the staff presentation

and welcome any questions or comments from City Council.

Can I, Mayor, before you guys get started,

I just wanted to make one just correction note.

On the agenda itself,

there were three recommendations listed,

but in the staff report, there were two.

That was my editing as we were putting together the packet.

So I would suggest that you stick

with the two recommendations.

The second, in the agenda itself,

but also asked the council to basically set item.

Actually, I'm too is to comment on the scope of work,

which I think you would do as part of your discussion anyway.

But just note that there was a discrepancy

between what was on the agenda listed as a recommendation

and what was listed in the staff report as a recommendation.

There was one less item in the staff report recommendation.

Which one is the one that is not?

Staff report is the agenda is incorrect

and the staff report is correct.

question is which one in the agenda of the three? It was number two. Number two is the one that is

not correct there anymore. Okay thank you. That I would first ask if there are questions. Yeah please.

What makes us, how do we know that we have all this discretion that we are not committed to

anything? What's telling you that? Where does that come from? That's coming from our communications

with the MTC staff and what they've relayed to us so far about this and ultimately solidified

by a resolution that we're assigning that states that that's what we're committing ourselves to

that we then hand over to them. Okay so then it's in writing later okay um because it seems

like we're putting a lot of value on that in this presentation. Yes. Yes um I had one other question

But I think it's slipping away.

I'll come back.

I guess the only, I have some comments,

but the only question I have is,

you know, accepting this grant,

which was already, you know, conferred upon us or whatever.

It doesn't have any kind of a tail or whatever,

because we know that there's uncertainty

about the BART station itself.

So if we accept this and move forward with this work,

there's you know we don't have to pay it back we don't I mean we get we get to

you know have this grant sort of free and clear no matter what happens is that

true that is correct vice mayor the general idea with these grants is that

the the hope from MTC is that they're going to come up with policies that are

both in line with the community's vision as well as in line with TOC policy or at

at least get someone to move towards TOC policy.

But there's no expectation that things

will actually be implemented via this grant,

because sometimes they're just,

the recommendations are that something may not be suitable.

And there is no language in acceptance of the grant

whatsoever that requires us to pay it back

if nothing does get implemented.

I remember my other question. Please. Can we delay the start? So like wait till after the election?

Or do we have to go forward with some kind of study right away? Is the comment or the question

in relation to whether or not there's going to be an active BART station in Arinda? Yeah. Okay.

the housing element. Um I think

There's some actions in there

that you have to take, and this

will cover a portion of those

actions. Uh but additionally,

there's other parking

management and demand analysis

that could help inform. You

City Manager. There is what I would say is there is plenty of work to do for considering

parking management in downtown Orinda that isn't directly related to the BART station.

Essentially, while this is around TOC policy and how things link to the station,

that's not the primary purpose of this particular analysis for parking management.

There are other TOC related policies that talk about station access, and while we are probably

going to be considering that to the extent that we can in the future when that gets resolved with

BART, most of the work with this grant has to do with parking in the village area, the village

district, and the theater districts, the portions of those which are within one half mile of the

the part station.

There's some questions, Dennis, in some ways to me, it's like you're speaking in tongues

or something. I have trouble understanding what you're really saying. Um, are we talking

at all about looking at the feasibility of parking meters or paid parking in Orinda?

Is that part of this grant?

That is actually one that could be portion of the grants. That wasn't specifically within

the scope of work. It is one of the items, um, that is within TOC policy is instituting

it's not going to be so

challenging. Uh, I think that

that's the way that we're

probably getting paid parking

where there isn't paid parking.

I think that's probably worth

at least addressing because we

have a basically a buffet of

policies that we have access

to. Um. And there shouldn't.

From staff's perspective. There

shouldn't really be any reason

why we can't at least address

it and talk about its

feasibility. Um but I don't

anticipate that that would be

one of the primary

When it comes to parking minimums, there is AB 2097, which is already in effect, which

basically removes the local jurisdiction's discretion over enforcing parking minimums.

And so when we think about the TOC area being within one half mile of the station, that

That same logic applies to the TOC grant.

It's one half mile up the station.

So if we are looking at adjusting parking requirements,

that is probably one of the recommendations

that may come forward

is eliminating those parking requirements,

but that would simply be in line

with state law at the moment.

Okay.

To what extent there was a reference that,

there was, for the L-Bag funding,

you had the county funding, the regional funding,

and then there was a cutout for the TOC compliance funding.

That's a current state of it.

For the regional funding,

the language that stood out to me in the staff report

was that it had to be aligned with MTC priority

and programs, and to what extent would maybe the,

Do we know to what extent with the report that being done by this grant also help us

be in alignment with MTC priority and programs?

What does that mean?

I also sometimes find myself reading the reports and going, okay, but what are we doing with

this money?

what is, you know, when we talk about transit, can we somehow rope this into, you know, we

just got through a study session, and another matter where we kept hearing about walkability

and I sat there through the whole thing going, we've got to get people out of their cars

to solve our traffic problems, you know. So, to what extent could some of what's in this

report, and I did read it, you attached it, but I'm still not clear on this, help us address

walkability, getting people out of their cars. You know, I understand that. Are there positive

things that we can do with this funding in this report as opposed to restrictive things?

I guess that's kind of how I'm phrasing it. It's fortunately, it's a pretty open ended.

It's a pretty open ended grants. We have a scope of work that was kind of the can scope of work

that we applied with. But MTC staff has been absolutely open to exploring multiple avenues

with this. We have $300,000. We're not going to spend that just on saying what developers

may or may not do when they implement or when they have a new project that comes forward

in downtown. So the idea of enhancing walkability, while this grant won't necessarily be looking

at how do we improve the sidewalks and the ways that pedestrians connect from one portion

the environment to another. Looking at things like the parking management district concept,

the backbone to that is trying as much as possible to promote a park wants sort of district and

find opportunities to network parking solutions where people can feel a little bit more

comfortable about parking in places that might currently say this is only for patrons of this

the city of Toronto. And so I

and I think it's going to be

really good work with the

community. And it's going to

come up with a series of

policies that are just kind of

Um. Big overarching policies

that don't really direct

directly address anything that

is happening on the ground. The

hope is to be able to actually

get in and work with the

community. Work with local

property owners work with

businesses in order to come up

with some potentially suitable

solutions to what is

have the rezonings in place.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I mean, I don't know if this is the right place,

but I would love to be able to talk more

about a range of things that could improve walkability,

could get people out of their cars

and even focused on downtowns, shuttles, the walking.

I ride BART, I've walked over to our council meetings

from BART, I commute to my office in Oakland.

Sometimes I'm one of the few Orwinda residents

to be able to do that. So I'm

not going to be able to stop that

when my teenagers take my cars,

but adults, kids. But, you know,

so I have the connect to window

was a great start. I think we

can do more. So I don't know

when I would love for that to

have an opportunity to talk about

it sometimes. Sorry, I'm beyond

questions set now, but so as part

of the Council's strategic plan

was to revisit Connector and

development? For the next two year cycle? And then just to look at other things that

we could be addressing as part of ConnectorRinda. I mean, Darren, would it be helpful if you

just explained what a transportation demand management plan is for? Because I think that's,

it's really intended on being a guidebook for the development that's to come, correct?

Yes. And actually this is something that I only discovered last Thursday when I was doing

research, I had a 1994 copy of the original municipal code in front of me. I found out

that we actually had a previous ordinance on transportation demand management that looks

like it went by the wayside with the updating to the newer, to the revised municipal code

in about 2000, 2001. So it's actually nothing new to the city. But the whole idea of that

particular program is we say we're going to identify these are, this is how this project

could potentially or projects that bring this type of traffic or have this kind of use could

potentially impact downtown Arinda and how people get around and how people park. And

transportation demand management policies are a series of policies that we say if you're

going to build in this nature and to this intensity and you're going to have this impact

on the community. These are the types of policies and programs that we want to see in place

that are active at your development in order to help mitigate that. So I mentioned before

subsidies for mass transit is one of those types of policies. Shared parking systems,

shuttles those are all part of this. There are additional having bicycle parking on site and

access to showers and lockers inside a facility is actually usually is actually a really useful

tool in some some locations. So it's a there are a whole series of possibilities for how that could

book if someone comes forward and says I'm going to build this. After going through this hopefully

we will have the recommendations that guide us on exactly what's going to be effective when people

propose projects of certain natures. Can I ask one more question I'm sorry you talked briefly about

you know parking management districts and I know at least on the theater side of a window the impact

and there's a lot of people

that the owners of theatre

square parking changed their

validation and so it's made a

big impact on the parking on

that whole theatre side on the

street and difficulties with

parking for the movies and so

would this sort of address that

sort of situation where you

want to have the theatre square

parking more in concert with

the surrounding parking so that

people actually would have

somewhere to park for a movie.

Yes council member that's

the top of my list of people to reach out to when we are getting this going and we have

stakeholder interviews. The theater square has a parking management plan in effect since

1987 so it's a potentially a little outdated at this point hasn't been addressed in a long time.

There was an adjustment to it I believe in 2001 that was not renewed in the subsequent year 2002

But that the agreement that's in place that management plan is one of the biggest ones that

impact downtown Arrinda and that parking is one of the biggest sources of parking for downtown

Arrinda on that side. So that is definitely a high interest for staff to pursue is bringing

bringing the management for that particular property to the table to figure out how we can

better utilize those resources. That's great and prior to COVID we had issues with people

parking at Theater Square and other places for BART. Since COVID, BART ridership is down so much.

I don't know that that is still an issue but hopefully the day will come where BART ridership

would go back up. Will it also address sort of protecting downtown parking to you know people

a lot of people going to the

businesses as opposed to

parking all day for Bart.

I'm sorry I missed what would

would this be looking at that

as well even though it's not

currently an issue. Yes it's

not. So that is something that

I have brought up with M. T. C.

staff in some initial

discussions that we had because

one of the questions that we

received was what parking

about the attempt at parking pass programs for those neighborhoods that were adjacent to BART

just prior to the pandemic where there was a major overflow issue. I did also bring up,

and this is an interesting note, some of the troubles that were experienced by subway and

the coffee shop, Starbucks, some subway and coffee shop at that location between

the hill that people used to park along, and the BART station. One of the major reasons cited by

both of those businesses when they closed down was because people stopped walking that direction.

So it kind of goes both ways. There's some positives to people parking there,

and there's some negatives. So that's something that I would expect within the scope of work

that we address and that we consider a little bit more thoroughly in anticipation of a time where

there may be overflowing overflow parking there again. Thank you. Looks like there's

some more questions. Yeah. Are we going to procure a new consultant for this? How are we

how are we obtaining the consultant services? The consultant services come from the from the MTC's

bench. They've identified MIG as a suitable consultant. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you

saying. Were there more questions? Okay, great. I'll see if there's any public comment. I don't

know any speaker cards. So with that, I think we'll bring it up here for discussion. Would anyone

like to lead us off? One thing that I would like to see happen in this in terms of the scope is,

as you just mentioned, Darren, and my colleagues may not know quite as much as I do, but we had

multiple parking studies done in the past. In fact, you're right. The biggest one was right before

COVID and had a whole different set of concerns and issues. But I think it's important that at

least in a summary way that those past studies get re-summarized. I would hate to see this all like

sort of completely be a situation of reinvent the wheel

from the very, very beginning,

because there was a lot of work done in the past

on some of these topics.

I guess to the extent, I mean, $300,000 is not

very much money, but to the extent possible,

I guess I would also like, if they have the ability

in terms of policies to have any insight to, you know,

some of our neighbors here in Contra Costa County maybe particularly Lafayette. I do know one way

to get all of the seats full in here and council member Hoxie mentioned it which was I remember

the discussions about you know paid parking and how that was going to be the downfall of total

civilization and yet I still seem to see Lafayette is so crowded you almost can't get into it even

even though they put a parking meter absolutely everywhere.

So, you know, I'd be kind of curious as to

just from a policy standpoint,

doesn't have to be the knits and nats

as to other jurisdictional experience

that might be of interest to and applicable to Arenda.

May I jump in?

I normally try to go last,

but this is one of my favorite subjects.

You know, I do wanna address sort of this fork in the road

because these questions about parking meters

are only the beginning, right?

This is an MTC grant.

And while free money seems like what's there to talk about,

it's free money and we're not obligated,

this is all about urbanization

and parking meters are only the tip

of the urbanization iceberg.

This is, transportation demand management is code for

get people out of their cars, right?

Under parked buildings, make people share.

And just to address how I think about this,

I really look forward to solutions

because we're under parked as it is now.

And so if you, for example,

the 25A Aranda Way project started with 75 parking spots,

wasn't feasible, came back and asked

for half as many parking spots, wasn't feasible,

came back with no parking spots and all of our surprise,

we looked at it and said, well,

he's surrounded by a sea of parking.

So there has to be a price

rather than make each individual building

park their full potential capacity.

If sites that have more day use and more evening use

can share parking resources,

you can actually have a more walkable community, right?

That shared parking is something that Arenda

that is ultimately going to need because if you look at the Morrison's side of the theater

side of town, it's way under parked, right? That half of our main street can't provide

parking. So this study, you know, I just want us to be realistic that these are urbanization

solutions and policies and consultants, but we do have a parking problem and we can't

grow without solutions like shared parking,

and maybe paid parking, and things

that get people out of their cars.

And so I'm ready to embrace that as the place for refreshing

and revitalizing and making our village more of a village

and less of a suburb.

But this is not totally free money.

And so I think these questions and these sort

of existential questions are really important for us

to talk about.

I guess I'll chime in.

Bottom line is I think I agree with what you're saying,

which is that I think you're saying we should accept this.

Oh, I'm sorry.

And I support it.

Okay.

I guess I think we should do it

and we should do it now while TOC guidelines

are not as restrictive as they might be.

So I kind of feel like we should jump on this now.

I do think what I was asking a lot of questions about

is I needed to understand better what it was

and why we need it.

And through both the answers that staff provided

and the comment you just made, Mayor,

I do understand it better, right?

And I do think we need it.

And I think we kind of need it

for Linda's vision independent of anything required of us.

I also think ultimately, we're just too small a jurisdiction

to not have the support of MTC grant funding

for our infrastructure.

So I do think that to the extent we can do something

that our city ultimately needs and do it in a way

that it might help us be compliant

with requirements in the future

that would help us get additional funding

to create these walkable spaces, right?

And resolve traffic issues, I think we should do that.

I mean, I will say one thing.

I personally would love to never see any paid parking

in the Linda myself, right?

But I recognize that that's, you know,

we need to look at all sorts of solutions.

And also, I also personally have never had a problem

finding a parking spot anywhere in the Linda,

except for 4th of July, right?

And so, you know, what I think is people can't always park

right in front of Pete's, right?

when they get their cup of coffee.

They might have to walk two or three blocks, right?

And for some, if we're talking about accessibility issues,

real accessibility issues, that's a serious concern

and I'm hoping that we can address that, right?

But to the extent it's an inconvenience

because you want to have to walk three blocks, you know,

we do have a lot of parking.

We just have to be better at how we use it, right?

Which I think is sort of what you were giving me some ideas

and you know, and I also like the ideas of walkability

and shuttles and getting people out of their cars.

I think, you know, we do need to do that eventually.

So I support this.

That's about Riley.

I think, at first I felt like we were,

we were diving into a study

when we don't have all the development.

And so it felt like, you know,

the cart before the horse and whatnot,

but maybe the more I get comfortable with this,

it makes sense that you have all this in writing

and in a plan, and that might attract development

or might give some assurances to people

as things are being developed.

Then my other comment is,

I would love to see shared parking pursued

before paid parking, and I'm sure we will do that.

It's a natural thing to do, but I just wanted to say it.

I look at so many parking lots that are empty

because you're not getting your dog groomed.

So all those spots are empty, right?

Or anything's full in front of the cleaners,

but you would park down below and anyway,

but you don't wanna park down below

because you're going to the cleaners.

So anyway, I mean, you don't know

if you're supposed to park down, right?

So the idea that everybody can park where they want to park

and everyone's cool with, owners are cool with that,

then that would be a good step forward.

Anyway, I support this for now.

I don't really honestly think we're not gonna be,

get our hands tied by TOC policies.

I feel like they're still gonna come, you know,

into the picture and that we're kidding ourselves right now

that we're just gonna be completely up to our discretion.

But that's just me being a little bit of a naysayer

and a little just cynical or suspicious.

Anyway, I support it.

Thank you very much for all your hard work.

And we all probably, maybe four of us need a little course

on your terminology, Dan.

It's very foreign to some of us.

If I can just jump in with a thought on that.

You know, you mentioned that this is coming from MTC anyway.

Remember that it's already state law

that we cannot require parking minimums

within a half mile apart.

and this grant only affects that half mile.

So, and you remember all those waivers and concessions

for all that, you know,

member of the inclusionary housing ordinance

and all of the density and the density bonus laws?

They're going to waive parking.

So even if we try to require it,

we're going to be under parked.

And so this grant, I think,

I think of it as a defensive move to be prepared

for an under parking redevelopment.

I think most things that read about will be under parked.

we're seeing it in most other jurisdictions

that new buildings don't have the same car ratios

as buildings did 10, 20 years ago even, so.

Can I ask one more thing?

And that's about enforcement.

So currently we do have rules that say,

you can only park for an hour

in front of Pete's or whatever,

but I don't see a lot of enforcement

and I don't know if that's one of the strategies

that you'll be looking at as part of this grant.

I do believe council member that enforcement could be considered as part of the policies.

I don't think that was at the forefront of the considerations here.

But it is definitely something that I can take down as a note to discuss with.

It just seems like a step before paid parking would just be to enforce the

time limits that we already have on our parking, limited parking spaces.

But I think in general, we need to pursue this grant

just to understand better,

how to better manage existing parking

and the private and public parking

so that we have more of a pool of parking.

I think those ideas are important

and we have to look to them.

I totally hear you on that, but I also,

and maybe I'm totally off base on this.

I'm kind of looking to our city manager,

but my understanding is most parking enforcement programs

are paid by meters.

So they kind of go together.

They typically do, but we do have parking enforcement.

We have a full slate of parking enforcement staff again.

Okay.

It's just one concept that I just wanted to make sure

was included as part of the discussion.

I was on next door this weekend, poor me.

And if you think people don't like meters,

look at how they feel about the private parking meters

and Lafayette and the rapid ticketing of those people lose their minds. So that's the one

thing is I would say we need to be careful on the enforcement is that that it creates

enemies. I hear you. It's just one one idea that I think should be part of a larger picture

of discussion. Does anyone want to make a motion if we don't have further comments?

I move that we adopt resolution 926 accepting a $300,000 grant for technical assistance

for parking management in downtown Orinda and defer consideration of any formal commitment

to NTC TSC policy compliance until the assessment methodology has been finalized by NTC.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Thank you. Great. All in favor.

Hi, I passes unanimously and we

will move along to item H four,

which, um, proves to be

interesting. This is an update

from the Bart board workshop.

I believe this is going to be

there. Is it city manager

giving this report? Um, both

the shuttle. I'm sorry. This

report here and council members

of the podium as I've been

the board. The board is now

evaluating its options as it

relates to their continuing

deficit, which is sizable for

the organization. It is

estimated that they will run a

deficit of $370 million in the

coming year. And the BART board

the cost of the BART system.

staff to come up with operational scenarios to look at reductions. And they looked at

ridership out of the network of stations that they had and made recommendations of how they

would systematically start closing stations should that need to be there if there was

no increase in their revenue.

for the meeting. Um and, um.

Lucky for us. Linda made the

first top 10, but this is not

the top 10 we'd like to be in.

And so we wanted to pay close

attention to that conversation.

Wish on listened intently on

that conversation. I was out at

a conference. But before we

even had with Sean, listen to

that meeting, and I believe

others might have tuned in as

we spoke to our director.

When we spoke to the mayor and

I spoke to a director win and

addressed our concerns and then

summarized our concerns in a

letter format to the BART Board

prior to their meeting.

I just wanted to make sure that

the council had an opportunity

to discuss this matter because

it's timely.

The topic is there.

that we have no idea at this point other than it will be extremely impactful if the station were closed.

I will turn it over to Roshan to give you a summary of what was discussed at the meeting and then we can open it up to comments and questions from the Council.

Thank you, Linda. It was definitely a lively meeting. I think one of the emphasis that the board of directors wanted to emphasize is that this is transparency in government.

So that was repeatedly stated.

So they looked at a three phase budget framework,

if the measure fails.

So this measure is supposed to bring about a half cent sales

tax for Contra Costa County, Alameda County,

a one cent sales tax for San Francisco,

approximately that's bringing in about 53 million.

That's important to state because they're at $376 million

deficit gap that they're trying to close.

What was emphasized at that meeting as well is that

even if this measure passed,

they're still at $70 million deficit each

for the next five years.

They looked at a five year operating

operational financial system.

So there's still at a $70 million deficit.

But what they brought before the directors

is this three phase framework where,

as Linda has mentioned,

Aranda is one of those top pin stations

that would be shut down and closed.

And again, this is the measures they're bringing forth

if the measure does not pass.

So they looked at the three phases.

Phase one was start to look at a 30% fare increase,

closure of the 10 stations, a 63% train hour cut,

and it would involve deep service cuts

for the workforce reduction.

The phase two was approximately six months later,

and that would be a cumulative 50% fair increase

based on observed conditions of the closed segments.

They would look at their study options

and trade-offs for stopping train service.

Their phase three was looking at stop passenger services

if BART cannot operate safely and legally.

They would look at revenue impact,

excuse me, their revenue impact to the closed station was unknown. They don't know largely

it's untested. They don't understand what their compounded risk will be. But they did

understand which were their concerns. They did understand that the non-service strategy

may reduce the net costs, but the risk of infrastructure must be mitigated. New maintenance,

Liabilities, vandalism, trespassing, unsafe conditions,

public nuisance, safety hazards,

increased customer complaints, track allocation issues,

facility buildings such as elevators, escalators,

fare collection, equipment are all compounded risk

and are unknown.

So having stated that, I'm gonna say, again,

lively conversations from many of the directors,

very strong opinions.

Many of them did not wanna see the closure

of the 10 stations within phase one,

and asked BART staff to come back,

possibly looking at phase two

as part of the station closures.

So the next steps that they have,

or BART staff has within the next two to four weeks

is what the directors wanted,

which was alternative analysis,

which is one of the directors really pushed

wanted details on bankruptcy and insolvency, although the BART attorney did say the district

is not close to insolvency, but there is an assistance to come back with that information.

Additional budget outreach clearly stated to city managers. What agreements can they

make there? What are some of the TOD programs that the city managers may be working towards?

they want to look at long-term trade-offs like loans versus deferrals. They want to look at

possibly sequence station closures and then there's something they mentioned that provide

annual cost savings for items in their financial and efficiency plan. So within the next two to

four weeks, BART staff is supposed to be coming back with this sort of information. They also

wanted potential modifications that looked to discuss a budget that must be balanced for the

fiscal year 2027. But moving station closures into phase 2 and implementing instead of a 30%

fair increase for phase 1, implementing a 50% fair increase in phase 1 instead of 30.

So that was mainly their discussion and talking about a 70% reduction with station closures

is a significant risk. They are concerned, but unknown risk to them at this moment.

Just a little quick, directors, there's some strong opinions. The president, Melissa Hernandez,

definitely was highly, you know, against the closures. I mean, her perspective was, you know,

city of Dublin, one of the fastest growing. We've done our part, her words, we've done our part to

to bring housing, which is what ACD is telling us to do

and MTC is telling us to do.

She felt that the sales tax,

the highest that's brought in is from Alameda County.

And so she had a strong stance against closing the stations.

One of the questions was brought to the BART attorney.

Do they have the unilateral decision to close stations?

The BART attorney did confirm that is within their jurisdiction

and their parameters, or purview, I should say.

Many of the other comments from directors was, again,

pushing the closure as far back as they can

into that phase two analysis.

Looking at the regional impact this might have,

there was an analysis I thought was quite impressive

that Bart Stapp brought up and said,

just take the yellow line.

The yellow line is Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill,

and let's say how many passengers that we see at a peak hour, peak hour trip, they said you see about 4,000 passengers. The comment was the equivalent to bringing those 4,000 passengers into another station would require 120 buses.

buses. And so this is sort of the regional impact that they're, you know,

considering and looking at and how that's going to impact our freeways or

how these Caltrans and how that's going to impact our riders and their ridership.

So the criteria that they only have for the closures is low ridership. That's the

criteria, and I think the directors is looking for a little bit more in terms

of that criteria. There are two stations that are low ridership, that's Milpitas,

and Barriessa. However, they're not looking to be closed because apparently there's a VTA bar

agreement that's established with those stations. I have no more to add. Was there any conversation

about public advertising or marketing that could be done to increase ridership? I mean, we all know

that ridership went down considerably during COVID and it really hasn't come back, but BART's

It's made a lot of investments and the new gates and such

to decrease homelessness on the trains

and improve safety on the trains.

And I haven't seen any public announcements

or awareness of sort of the changes they've made

to try to increase ridership.

Councilman Hoxley, that was actually brought up

and one of the comments someone said is,

this is the information that the public needs to hear.

Why do we wait to the end of the meeting

to say these things?

And so they did talk about how to build confidence

And their writers again, how to, well, they did a survey,

a resident survey, and they said 67% of the residents

don't ride BART, they're non-riders.

But then they looked at,

the reason for why they did not ride BART,

they said crime and cleanliness of the station.

So in response to that,

they did have BART police present,

and exactly what you've mentioned,

they advocated that they have, you know,

increase the security of the fare gates.

And they've said they've already seen an increase

in the revenue of the fare since those new gates,

although people still get through.

But that has been an increase in the revenue

in terms of fares.

They mentioned that they believe and feel

that the trains are a lot cleaner

since they've changed from the fabric seating

than they once were.

They also believe and have expressed

that they're safer than they have been

with the presence of bark police.

So that did come up and there was a short presentation

around those things.

And then one other question was,

did they do any sort of study to see if they increased fares

by 30 or 50%, what it would do to ridership

and would the negative impact on ridership,

be offset by the increase in fares?

My concern is that that won't really increase total revenue

in a positive way at all.

No, I think you're at the meeting Councilman Hoxie

because that did come up as well.

And so they're trying to figure out this ridership part

and how they're trying to target that 67% that don't ride.

And so part of what DART staff is supposed to come back

with is some of their approaches to,

how can we attract more of these riders?

They've already spoken about crime.

They already spoke about timing lists,

but that is one of their focuses,

the target that it increased the ridership.

But as you have said,

and they recognize that ridership also alone

is not gonna close that deficit.

It takes multiple approaches.

Thank you.

If I could just not amend,

but add on to the comments that LaShawn is making.

I'm looking at the BART website right now

to see what they've said specifically

about FAIR stuff and the movement,

they posted an update on their website today

regarding the alternative service plan

where they indicate that the station closures

would move to the phase two,

they're confirming that in writing,

and also noting that they would assess ridership

and revenue impacts and the performance

during that first January, 2027

through that immediate cost reduction.

and that the increase in fares and parking fees of 30%

would, an estimated average fare would be $6.38,

they're accounting for people

that make a lot of more of the short haul trips

as opposed to the long haul trips

from the end of the line stations into the city.

I think that's reflected in that number.

And that they will be discussing this

on their February 26th agenda

as for information and possible action.

I'm sorry. Um, was there any

update or maybe you mentioned

this and I just didn't

comprehend it. But in terms of

the phase one, phase two and

phase three, what's the timing

of that? Do you know? I have in

January 20 27. That was the

phase one is January 27. Uh,

I think that we need to have

the. This is one fiscal year

of 20. I think Yeah. When's the

sales tax measure supposed to

go on the ballot? Was it

November? Well, it's just

presumably it's being placed on

the ballot by not. By Bart, but

by voter initiative process,

which would then make them

eligible for 50 plus one.

Majority vote as opposed to

we have to be to in August have to be to the different register of voters offices please.

Just what is important to note about that is the ballot measure will be in five counties

in the Bay Area. It'll be Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara. And with

the strategy of the 50 plus one citizen initiative ballot measure, my understanding is it needs 50

plus one in the combined vote of the five counties.

So, that would be the total vote,

and if it passes with 90% in San Francisco

and less than 50 in Contra Costa,

that may all work out just fine

because it's the combined total vote of the five counties.

I believe that's correct.

Osa's looking at me, but I have a different forum

in which this gives us all the time.

So it's my understanding that that's exactly how it's supposed to work.

So so voter turnout, well, voter turnout should be pretty high in this November.

But but voter turnout is is a key factor in it as well, because the 50 plus one is measured against voter turnout.

Is there any discussion of revisiting what stations are on their list?

I mean, right now, my understanding

is that the metric that they were using to determine it

was solely ridership.

There weren't any other factors in coming up with that list.

So the lowest ridership stations,

you would assume, Arendelle's a small town,

has smaller ridership than maybe some

of the larger communities that have larger ridership.

So I think they solely looked at ridership.

They didn't look at any other constraints potentially

that could operational constraints

that they might have to talk about with station closure.

I heard it a little bit differently.

I just, for dialogue,

when we were getting sort of,

we had a private meeting before he said

the 10 were just straight lowest ridership

of the one they could legally close

because they wanted an objective standard.

But if what you said about how they're gonna move

station closures to phase two is correct,

that means all 15.

So it's gonna be 10 plus then five more in phase two.

but if it's zero and then phase two would be 15

with also significant trained size cutbacks,

schedule cutbacks, there's a whole,

I mean, I think it was something like 70% capacity reduction

across stations and schedule.

So now there wouldn't be a 10.

Now it's just straight to 70% reduction, I think.

So I think that's the first meeting change.

that's what I had to 70%.

Okay.

Are there any other, I mean, this is a huge topic,

but are there any other questions

in terms of this update and briefing for now?

I have a comment, but you can call public comments.

Okay.

Do we wanna talk about next steps for us as a council,

but what else we can do?

Why aren't we-

Accepting the report.

See if there's public comment,

and then I'll bring it up for discussion.

And since I don't see anyone from the public,

I think we'll close it and bring it up.

And I'd love to hear your thoughts, please.

Well, I just did.

But anyway, we're here just to accept the report, I guess.

But do we want to do something more?

Do we want to talk about what we could do as a group

or as a city?

Should we have a plan of action?

Yes.

Quite a bit.

I would definitely want to hear other council members' perspectives. I heard the consensus

of putting together next steps. We've already done our outreach to Director Rinn. I've already

talked to the president of the board. We've already put in writing our objections. I mean,

one of the things we could do is sort of better understand the economic impact to Arinda.

I would assume that the other, if it's the Bay Area Council that's going to take the

lead that perhaps they would be doing some more macroeconomic impact analysis.

I don't know what.

Did you actually get an opportunity to talk to Emily?

I didn't have a chance to talk to her, given the limited turnaround time in the holiday

week end, but she did say that their analysis was purely based on ridership and there wasn't

right now, they haven't done it yet.

I think I fully understand what you're after and I would be shocked if they're not going

to be working on that as well, but we can explore that further.

I think it would be helpful, and that's one of the questions we're all going to get is

what's the impact going to be if this doesn't remain open?

I think the Arinda voters will care about that question.

And to the extent that it's something that's being addressed at a macro level, and we could

extrapolate what that means, that would be great.

But if we don't see any progress on them moving forward with any sort of economic impact study,

of what it means to make these types of service reductions,

then I would maybe advise the Arinda City Council

to allow me to find somebody who can help us quantify

what the impacts could be to Arinda

by not having the BART station.

Right, and to our home values.

I'm sorry?

And to our home values in Arinda?

That could be part of the analysis, yes.

That was my question as well.

Mm-hmm.

I mean, I remember my mother pulled me out of school

on September 11th, 1972,

and we wrote Bart for 60 cents all around

because you could buy a ticket for 60 cents

and ride it like a Disneyland ride, you know, at Loop.

And there were bands and balloons.

And, you know, it was a big deal in a window when Bart opened

and it would be a real tragedy

if Bart closed for our community, in my opinion.

So I think we have to do whatever we can think of to do

to convince the Bart board.

And maybe it's looking at those numbers differently,

like comparison of percentage of riders

to actual number of people in the community.

Also looking at how many people come to RideBart

from other communities like Moraga,

because a lot of Moraga residents RideBart out of Arrenda,

and also whatever we could do to help publicize

and improve BART ridership,

so that people understand that BART has made changes

because I think that the perception in our community,

particularly amongst our older residents

who don't commute every day,

is that it's not safe for them.

If they wanted to go into San Francisco at night

to go to something in the opera or the symphony or whatever,

they don't see BART as a safe option for them.

And I don't know what we as a community could do

to try to change some of that perception,

but it seems like it would be in our interest

to do so as quickly as we can,

because I think that even if they raise the sales tax,

the ongoing operating budget issues are not gonna go away.

And I'm concerned that really it's the drop in ridership

because of COVID that just has never come back,

that maybe the traffic itself will eventually cause people

to say, I can't stand it anymore and get back on the train.

But until that happens, it's in our interest

to make sure to keep the trains running

and the stations open.

And I think we have to in some way partner with BART

to make sure that we do our part to make that happen,

whether it be through our Arrinda communications

with residents or anything else we can do,

because it really, I think if we did a study,

we would see it would have a huge negative impact,

both on our small businesses and on our home values.

And I think that's not something we can let happen

without a fight.

just also wanted to share that I know that some other communities who have, you know,

regions that have are in the top 10 as well are looking to do things like have a town hall with

the BART director or, you know, I think basically calling attention to themselves and to the facts

that support continuation of that BART station in their town. And I appreciate the advocacy and the

letter from our mayor and city manager and your advocacy with director Wien and and you know I've

always believed the squeaky wheel gets the grease and and we have a lot to be squeaky about here

for all the reasons that council member Hoxie just articulated and so a report like this would help

but also I think decisions are being made very quickly is sort of what I'm hearing and so if

I don't know, you know, certainly on social media, our residents have a lot of opinions about this and they're not happy, you know, and I don't know who needs to hear it, but I just want to throw that out there.

I just want to respond on two things of what I heard in the BART meeting. Number one, you know, a lot of people's first reaction is this is just a threat, right?

This is a bluff because they are manipulating

the political process.

It was very clear that this is not a bluff.

If the measure doesn't pass, whatever's on the November

ballot, the magnitude of cost cuts,

they are going to need to cut 70% capacity,

and that means it's everything.

And the other thing that I think is not helpful

is this finger pointing about whose station gets cut.

Because now that it was very clear from the meeting

last Thursday that trying to pick 10 station was just, I mean,

if you think we're convincing,

listening to the Dublin and Tri-Cities people who've built so much housing and

they were going to just get lopped off, it is wildly outrageous and unfair.

And so the who station kind of advocacy I think is not as constructive as the

more positive about this measure has to pass

or the bad things will happen.

There's not a lot of in between.

And I really like the idea of positive messaging

because I do think it takes this,

a sense of this is all a ploy and try to get people to,

I think getting people to take it seriously

is one of the most helpful things,

and I'm sorry, I've got my back turned to you guys,

that we can do is to advocate seriously.

Two other things, city manager, you mentioned a strategy

or a comment with me the other day

about how we really need to get these cities

to require their workers to come in five days a week.

I mean, that's another way to look at this.

The ridership is not just the senior citizens in Arinda,

it's the 40 year old who's going to San Mateo

or San Francisco or whatever direction.

but most of them still don't have to go in

five days a week.

Just three maybe, you know, anyway,

I don't know if we can put pressure on those kind of cities

or how we can deal with it from another angle like that.

I think one of the things that'll be important to watch

is the Renaissance of San Francisco.

There seems to be a bounce back of the city

in terms of its economic vitality and areas

they're starting to see things change.

I think so goes San Francisco,

which could potentially help ridership

if we could get more businesses back in San Francisco

in those districts where commuters will want to go to

and know that they're gonna have a good experience

working in the city.

I think that's part of this whole calculation

and it sounds like at least the city is working

on trying to figure out their economic future

and the changes that have come post COVID

and with this new mayor in place

that they're trying to make strides in that area.

I think that could help build ridership on BART.

And if they could convince people that coming to the city

and going back to work is exciting and it's important

and they can convince their employers

to wanna have people back in the city,

that also will go a long way

in helping ridership numbers increase.

But at the same time, Bart's now having to make

these decisions and choices about service cuts.

And so once you start cutting service,

you're gonna impact ridership and it could be terribly

counterintuitive to the efforts that they wanna make.

One other idea that I'm thinking, just throwing out there,

I wonder if it makes sense to work with all of the top 10

cities in some kind of advocacy approach.

I've reached out to the Contra Costa County cities

that are also on the list

because they're closest in my network.

I also know the network of Alameda County.

I don't know the network outside of that,

but I know that there was at least consensus from,

I think it was North Concord Martina Station

that they'd like to maybe work together.

our issues might be different or unique from their issues

because oftentimes they have other stations,

but each station has its own sort of core

kind of economy around it.

And so, but yes, certainly reaching out

I've already tried to, I mean,

I've tried to cast a wide net last week

and the limited amount of time we had

before the start of the meeting

and including reaching out to the Bay Area Council,

reaching out to the sister communities

that are also in the same boat as we are

reaching out to the director,

reaching out to Tim Hale at CCTA

to really get a sense of how things are there.

And I don't know if vice mayor has any comments

about what's being discussed at CCTA

with respect to this change,

because it is impactful to bus service

and other services to the region.

No, I had lunch with Tim today.

And yeah, this is a very big deal.

I would definitely emphasize

the ongoing communication collaboration with CCTA

because they're gonna be a focal point,

especially for the county.

and there are multiple fortuitous reasons

why that's a really great idea.

But I guess to follow on,

I think the one thing I would say,

and there's a lot to this,

and there's obviously gonna be a very big

and very sophisticated campaign

that goes with the ballot measure,

but I think one thing that I would hope to see,

which I don't believe I've ever really seen

in Orinda enough and I and I mean this kind of across the board part of it is our size part of

it is our history but while we as a city cannot be in the business of advocating you know the way a

campaign advocates I think one of the things that we have a history of doing is being too quiet

with educating and communicating with our residents, and I do think that this is a particularly

germane topic to really be out and front and center like the town hall with the bar director

with the city council with um you know just a lot of communication a lot of articles in the

news, a lot of making sure that people really understand this, because while we generally

have a pretty high voter turnout, you know, again, we're a bit of the part of the reason

these days, we are a low ridership station. And believe me, we didn't used to be in the

past before the line was extended. And you know, many of us remember the days when you

You couldn't have parked a park to save your, you know.

So the reality is, is just really getting the information

in a way that, you know,

we're projecting much more involvement

than I think we've ever done on any issue in the past.

I think it's just gonna be important within the confines

of what's appropriate for us to do as a public agency.

but I have the good fortune,

maybe the misfortune of understanding almost everything

about this issue and all the players involved

and all the people involved

and the campaign group that's gonna be involved.

And I know how genuinely serious this is

both for the short-term and the long-term.

And there are long-term strategies

that need to happen as well.

But I have a feeling, and I've expressed this to you,

that I know so many of our residents so well

that I think there's going to be a terrible tendency

to just say, ah, it's not that big of a deal,

or this is just a big bluff, or hey, I don't write Bart,

I don't care what happens.

and you know, I just think that there's,

and Tim and I also discussed today,

and I don't know if our council is aware of this,

presumably so, this is public information,

but Contra Costa County in June

is going to have a sales tax measure as well

for the general attempt to recoup monies to, you know,

cover the losses from the federal government

and the situation that they're doing.

And I'm very, very deeply worried about that.

I'm deeply worried about that tax increase

being so close to the November tax increase.

So I think collaborating with our county representatives

is gonna be important as well,

because I just think that this year's gonna be

an overload of voting information.

I guess the good news is it's probably an overload

of political attention for a lot of reasons,

but I just think that we're in a situation

where we're gonna have to be very forceful

in our communication of trying to help our community

understand what this is really all about,

and making sure that they really do have the facts

and the opportunity to have the facts.

Because I know, you know, we all know just from living here

and having lots and lots of friends

and connections in the community, you know,

that people form ideas that are 10 years old

and they stick with them.

And I think that, you know,

the environment really deserves us to do our best

to make sure people have the real current information.

I really appreciate all the comments

and I'm very convinced that any messaging

does need to be positive.

And, you know, all the questions raised.

I mean, I am wondering if there isn't some

community education forum that we could host.

And I feel like our residents would appreciate it

where some of this facts could be presented

and just a chance to get questions answered,

this is the budget, this is what's before you,

this is how long the tax is.

I mean, I heard about the county tax

on the primary ballot and was sort of terrified.

My first reaction was, well, what's

going to happen to this measure?

But it is temporary.

It's a five-year, I think.

And actually, the transit measure is a 14-year.

Supposedly, I mean, a lot of cynical taxpayers

would say nothing ever goes away.

But both of them have sunset.

Yeah.

And that was designed to compensate

for just the federal government losses.

And it was a health care and SNAP benefits

and things like that, so it's hard to argue with.

Every horrendous citizen is paying 9.75%.

I know.

Any one of these passes,

we're breaking that 10% psychological mark.

And so I actually think it would be helpful

as we get closer to really understand

where all the things coming on the June ballot

and the November ballot that are gonna be tax increases,

because I think otherwise we risk knee-jerk rejection

from overload or that psychological barrier.

So there's a lot that we're going

to need to be talking about.

Well, there was no action on this item.

It was really just to get feedback,

see if we're, you know, it sounds like the council wants us

to do some proactive communications,

fact-based communications, outreach with our other

stakeholders who we could enjoin with in terms

of our outrage of the potential closure of our station.

in a positive way, and deliver that message.

The council would have to be positive.

It's been time of the hour here.

We're getting towards the end of our meeting,

but I appreciate all that feedback,

and I just wanted to make sure there was a forum here

for the council to discuss it,

since it's so top of mind and certainly timely,

if Bart is going to discuss it again next week.

So I'll send an update via my weekly update

from anything I learned from February 26th.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

And by the way, thank you so much for getting this right

on our agenda because we're all getting questions, I assume.

And so it truly helps having this forum.

Are you ready to move on to items H5

or would anybody like to have any final?

Can I make a recommendation on H5, Mayor?

Can we push that to the next meeting?

I know you guys have been sitting since 5 p.m. in meetings

and I don't know if we'll be able to get through it

before 10 p.m. it's up to you I'm just making the offer the suggestion if we

wanted to push this to the March 3rd meeting I'd be happy to do that I've

already checked with Casey his availability he's available on March 3rd

and by then we'll also know all the bills that have been introduced by then

I'm in favor of that I'm in favor I would ask that transit in some way maybe

be at least a question when it comes back I don't I mean I don't want to give

some of the discussion we just

had on our last meeting. We

can definitely do that. I know

in the interest of time and

you basically, I don't know if

you might be better to have a

full sense of what all the

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Great.

I think that we can move to councilmember reports.

Sorry.

Off my printed agenda now.

Hold, please.

You are correct.

Council member reports are next.

two meetings that I was in since the last time we met.

One was Senator Grayson's fire meeting.

I think that was since we last met, wasn't it?

Couple things, SB 959, which is the one

that Mayor Lautica at the time was instrumental

in bringing forward, which allows schools

to still get money if they close on the advice

of fire official or the fire agency

for imminent fire danger.

And that can be in their judgment.

So it could either mean there's an actual fire in the vicinity

that they don't want to have to deal with evacuation

or that conditions are sufficiently hazardous.

It does not mean a red flag day.

There's a little confusion there.

That is progressing well.

They would love letters of support by the end of February.

So people we know in the school community or us,

we should be advocating.

doesn't seem controversial but it's got lots of friends. Caltrans put together a

really helpful list of constraints to vegetation management and mitigation

measures that they see in current laws to try to get that legislative effort to

things like the CEQA waivers for for doing firebreaks. So they're identifying

more things like that that are easy constraints to try to knock out. They

gave an update on insurance. It's a bigger topic, but they're really doing

what they can to try to dialogue with the insurance companies and the

commissioner. Um, and I think oh, and then they're also getting some grant

money from the state that will be for home hardening grants. And of course,

we're going to have as part of our legislative policy to try to have high

fire severity areas be prioritized for those grants. So, um, a lot of good news,

a lot of specifics, but a lot of good news. Did I forget anything from that meeting?

No, I think you got it all. I was just going to add that the brainchild of that legislation

was really our city manager. So I want to give her the credit and worked really hard with Rachel

from Senator Grayson's office. And I'm so appreciative that they did it.

Thank you for following up. I think it's important for all of us to to reach out to our fellow

elected representatives everywhere and contacts everywhere throughout the state and encourage

you know let them know the significance of that legislation to Arrinda. Thank you and then I'm

just gonna a few quick announcements from the mayor's liaison meeting. The Friends of the Nature

area is starting to have public forums to discuss designs and ideas. John Muir website

is the way you can get on that list to follow it. Arundah Action Day is April 25, the Rotary

Crab Feed is March 3rd, and February 27th is the Arundah Community Foundation anniversary

party upstairs at the Library Plaza, so those are some events of interest. The Akalani School

district talked about some of the significant cuts that they're going to start making. So

if that's an interest, an issue of interest, the coming year you're going to start seeing,

you know, cutting muscle, not fat. And so that'll be something you can ask those representatives

about. Nancy Kandersky is our local rep. So I think that was everything. Oh, and Taboor

is sending three delegates. Now Slotka is going to be one of them. But there are two open slots

for delegates and I don't do not currently have a plan to go. So if anybody's interested please

let her know. And that's it for the mayor's stuff. Who else has got stuff to share?

I just quickly mentioned while Darlene was out of town I attended the

Lamorinda Program Management Committee and the Lamorinda Fee what's it called and Financing

authority meetings and the big news was that Linda is going to be chairing both those committees

for the next year. We voted you in in absentia. And otherwise, I did meet with Whitney Simon of

who's the manager of the school bus transportation authority and talked to her about upcoming school

school-based related issues. They haven't had a meeting since they don't have a meeting scheduled at this time, but I think those were the big things I wanted to mention.

I want to say congratulations to the Vice Mayor because that's a huge honor to be chairing those committees.

Well, really, it really is and it's really important for our region, so thank you. This is our service.

meeting? Well, I have one better than that. It's widely believed that tomorrow night I

will become the chair of Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Um, and the, uh, so I believe that

is very fortuitous timing for a lot of reasons. Um, and I'm looking forward to it. I'm also

looking forward to a schedule this year that's going to look like I never retired, only I

I get a lot less money.

But I am very much looking forward to it.

And in addition to all of the very top of mind issues

about BART is I expect to be spending a great deal

of time this year on Contra Costa Transportation authorities

need to renew the ballot measure.

And that is the believed strategy right now

that in 2028, CCTA will have a ballot measure to renew the county half-cent sales tax, not

to increase it, but just to renew it, because as you all probably remember, the agency will

cease to exist in 2033-34 if the is not a ballot measure renewed.

So it's it's a very important issue and it's an extremely important issue to all 19 cities

in the county obviously including us because as you all know we get money back that comes

back to help Arinda on a lot of different issues from that sales tax.

So I am looking forward to it this year and it's going to be a very a very intense year

of a whole lot of issues.

There's another item to note which I also think is a really good thing is tomorrow night

the change of leadership on the CCTA board will also result in Sue Noack from Pleasant

Hill becoming the vice chair and as many of you know Sue Noack not only also lives here

in the county obviously but is also currently the chair of MTC.

So it's a very good time in terms of leadership

from Contra Costa County,

in terms of the regional issues for the Bay Area, so.

Thank you so much for doing that.

It's a big role and we are lucky, thank you.

Anyone else?

This is something I'm doing in my individual capacity,

not as council member, because it's a political role,

but I have the opportunity to meet

So I want to start with some

insurance commissioner

candidates. So I'm meeting with

them to Let them educate them

on our issues locally because.

It just I mentioned it in part

because of the public comment

we got earlier. So. Also thank

you. Anybody else? With that

we'll go to city manager

reports. Thank you, Mayor

members of the council.

the city. We will be answering

community member questions and

demonstrating for them how the

public facing tool works. I'm

assuming out of that. We'll

have that session and we'll

have another session in the

evening. I believe on February

24th as well. It's all

available. Information is

available on a render ready

dot com. And on the city's

website and through the

school district. Uh, Randy

Union School District for, um,

our normal now cadence of

quarterly meetings. So that

will be with the new two

representatives, uh, sitting on

that, um, that two by two. So

we'll be meeting Wednesday at

5 30 at the district offices.

I'll leave it at that. Can I

can I ask a question? Um, are

we allowed as city council

members? The Ladd restraining

is virtual, correct? It is

It is virtual. It's webinar based. Are we allowed to join without causing problems?

I think you would just go on and log into the Zoom and stay quiet. That would be ideal.

If there's nothing else, I would ask if there are any matters initiated.

Seeing none, I move we adjourn. We adjourn. Adjourn.

City Council Regular Meeting - February 17, 2026

Agenda

1. February 3, 2026, Regular Meeting

Transcript