Before we begin, I would like to know the location listed on the agenda was an error.
So the meeting location has been changed to the Sarge Little Hale for this evening's meeting
and we appreciate everyone's flexibility
and patience with the adjustment.
Due to the location change,
we decided to start the meeting at approximately 710,
to wait for anyone who may be coming
from the library auditorium,
and thank you all for understanding and cooperation.
So I'm going to call the meeting to order.
Good evening, welcome, and thank you all for joining us
tonight uh at our meeting of the Irina Planet Commission. Today is May 12th,
2026. In the back of the room on the side uh there's a table where you can
find copies of tonight's agenda as well as
staff reports for the items that will be heard tonight.
On the same table you will find request to speak cards
if you would like to speak to the commission this evening. Please fill out
the speaker card and place it in the speaker card tray. I have them up front. Once we begin
the public hearing portion of the meeting, each item will be announced with a brief description
of what will be proposed. After the presentation and questions by the commission, the public
hearing will be open and anyone wishing to speak to the commission on this item will be invited to
do so. When your name is called please come to the speaker podium at the front and each speaker
will allow three minutes to speak. Once everyone wishing to speak has made their comments a public
hearing will then be closed and we will bring the matter up to the commission for discussion and
decision. If you will be speaking to us this evening please be sure to make all of your comments
when you come to the podium as a courtesy to all comments made from the audience during
testimony or commission deliberation will not be allowed and will not be included as part of this
public record. At the conclusion of the hearing the commission options will be to approve,
continue or deny a project. Now I will proceed with roll call and confirm certain matters for
for the record.
I would like to note that commissioners Armstrong,
doctors, Jelnick and Marola are in attendance.
Excuse absence.
Commissioners under Obelinsky and Schmidt
have excused absences.
I am gonna be on the adoption of the agenda.
So I think director, are there any changes
to the proposed agenda?
I have none.
Hearing none, I would like to move forward
tonight's agenda. Do I have a motion to adopt the agenda? So moved. Do I have a second? Second.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion is approved unanimously and we have an agenda.
Item C is the public forum. The first item on tonight's meeting agenda is the public forum.
The public forum is an opportunity for you to address the planning commission on items that
that are not listed on tonight's agenda.
And it looks like we have several speaker cards
from the public in person.
I don't know if there's anyone online.
Yeah.
So I'm gonna call names in order
and you can come to the speaker podium
and name for the record and you can begin.
So the first card we have here
is from Christian Armanini.
My name is Christian Armanini.
I am the director of TOPS, the Arrenda Preschool,
which is a nonprofit co-op preschool founded in 1938
and is the longest continuously operating organization
in Arrenda.
My connection to TOPS began in summer of 1994,
when I sweet young as a teacher with my degree
in footage found with education,
and then spent another six years in 2002 to 2008
as a parent from my daughter, Lucy and Jane.
In 2010, I became the director
and I have been the director of TOS for the past 16 years.
TOS has been located at 10 Urban Way
on the grounds of the Arena Community Church since 1944.
Tops has served thousands of preschool children
across at least three generations
and many original residents attended his children
and now send their children to us.
Tops is here tonight,
not in opposition to the Vista Directed Project.
We support housing for window seniors.
I'm here because Tops deserves to be on record
on how this construction is going to impact our community.
Tops, and this is what I wish to be on record,
Tops was not included in the planning
and improve the process for this project,
despite being a tenant of OCC for 82 years.
As one of the longest standing stakeholders on this property,
our voice was never sought, never heard,
and never recognized.
We believe that it is an oversight,
and we are here tonight to ensure the record reflects
that times exist, that we are directly affected,
and that we should have had a place
in these conversations from the beginning.
We went in on record that the Alford classroom
children have used since 1944, a classroom without walls that is a park-like, private,
protected space central to how we teach will be permanently and aggressively changed by this
development. When the hillside becomes a construction site and eventually a building
that looks down into our yard directly, something changes that cannot be unchanged.
We also wanted on record that the construction impacts on our outdoor classroom,
have real and immediate consequences for our stories survive.
Families choose tops because of that outdoor space.
It is not the secondary consideration. It is often the deciding level.
We are a non-profit that depends entirely on enrollment to operate.
Years of construction, noise, dust, disruption,
and the looming presence of heavy equipment next to our children's
outdoor classroom will directly affect whether the families choose to be old.
And whether current families choose to stay.
We have already had families tell us they are considering withdrawing because of this project.
It stops and uses enough enrollment to close, but Rindell loses something and cannot get back.
An 88-year institution that has shaped this community's identity. We want that consequence
to be part of this public record. Thank you. Thank you.
I'll next call Lewis Mopeth. I'll also be talking about the the TOPS disability project.
I'm on the school board and there's been communication from
OCC and the construction group about a project happening. And I guess it's been pushed back
several times. So then they're saying, okay, it's going to happen. And so we were in a meeting with
them and we were walking through the, we got very little as far as construction documents.
And so I started to ask questions, well, when we did a sidewalk, you know, you see the retaining
wall that's jetting into the, our outdoor play space, and the construction fence that's going to jet
15 feet further into the space you know my immediate like how you know how does
this just happen so I started looking at the planning of this because I'm an
electrical contractor so you know I'm not part of this part but you know I
I know what happens July 2022 in this planning commission I see any any talk of talks or
any mention of talks in all the construction documents our building is called the OCC church
or fellowship hall.
Well half of that fellowship hall has been classrooms since 1940 whatever it was.
And so that gave me alarm.
So when we started discussing, especially after this construction is imminent, I'm like,
why weren't we involved?
There's talk of the views of the homes above, not obstructing those views, and it was great
care even knocking on their doors to go take pictures out their window well
there's gonna be construction you know 15 feet away from it's from preschool
you know why were why were we not included in that so that's when we
started talking and everyone was saying well yeah we we didn't we weren't really
told we were just told this was going to happen so I think that's why we're here
today and I wish we were here four years ago because you would have had people like this here
and you know I want to be clear there's things that can be done I feel like on this project
that would minimize what we feel harm to the school. So another you know for example the
entrance could be on the on the southern side instead of the northern side. Is that my time?
My understanding is we're not allowed to discuss or
Can I ask our questions or I have to wait for the public department first?
You can ask clarifying questions. But this is not on the agenda but you can ask clarifying
question. That's all right. I guess I'll ask the question. You can let me know if it's like a lot
or not. I don't recall this coming to the end of the commission 2022. So I was just wanting to get
some context from the planning department as to the history behind this project and the work done
because granted it was a long time ago but I really don't recall it. This being maybe it was a meeting
I didn't attend but just if there's any context that could be provided that would be helpful.
Am I not that clear on my question?
I'm going to answer because technically you're all
supposed to agree if you want that investigation put back
to the planning department and report back to you.
But as you heard the speaker mention,
it's a project that was approved a while ago.
I believe when I came on board, the project was being recorded.
I mean, some maps were being recorded at that time.
The environmental document, which I have had a chance
to look through was already completed.
I'll be honest, I have not heard of TOPS preschool.
I know Holden is in the area,
and I wanna just clarify OCC because we referred to,
they were in the country club as OCC,
but this is a Brenda community church, I believe,
we were referring to.
But the project was long approved
before most of my staff really got involved in it.
The environmental document was already done.
Noticing is usually by property owner.
And it sounds like there is possibly
a lease between top school and the property owner.
And so why that communication didn't happen there
or thorough communication on that end, I don't know.
But the project is approved.
And in fact, I was able to speak to Victoria last week.
Again, the plans are in building,
under building construction review.
That's very helpful.
Thank you.
Do you know when it was approved by James?
I can remember.
We can look it up right now.
Okay, thank you.
And I just yeah, I just don't know.
Okay.
It's the whole thing.
Yeah.
Okay.
Am I done or?
Well, you can wrap your comment.
Okay, but yeah.
So, and another thing, you know,
shows in the construction documents the driveway going up Irwin way and so what
it doesn't show is currently there's you have to go around it's not a one way
there's a one way going downhill so it looks like there's a one way going up
at four o'clock in the morning
right into the project. So that
would really hurt our drop off
because now we go around and
then we come back down the hill.
So there's just there's several
things that I feel like we
feel like we need to be addressed.
Thank you.
the planning commission recommendation the planning commission meeting was held on July 12 2022 or staff recommended the Commission adopted resolution and it was a mitigated negative decoration that prepared for the project we went to city council.
And the approval was held on August 16 of 2022.
Could they submit as part of that? I guess it's not a fair recommendation.
Typically, when we see stuff come to the commission, we see a lot.
We will ask for there to be mitigation for construction noise that we anticipate or construction
sequencing and just notification if people are going to be disrupted.
Was that something that?
Well, the process for EIRs, mitigating negative decorations, negative derivation requires
by state law, notification.
The thing is, it requires notification of the property owners.
So if OCC didn't inform, you know, TOPS preschool of it, I wouldn't have that knowledge unless
they came out during the hearing process.
Now, as far as mitigations, that just depends.
If you hear something at the hearing and you work it out with the applicants that would
be a ripple to them for mitigation measure, or the planning department finds that, no,
we're going to include this mitigation measure for your consideration, we would do that given
2022.
And do they have, just for a knowledge focused commission, do they have improved buildings
on it right now?
When I spoke to Victoria last week, she informed me they were on the review with Contra Costa County.
So there is opportunity as part of that process potentially.
I'm going to make a correction of process is gone. Planning is technically not no longer involved. We've met the planning and zoning law.
what I would be looking at is trying to bring her to the table or some of the
board members to the table but in essence the planning department is out
of that loop. We can't be the mitigators. The process is we approve the
building permit process but the building permits are dependent on meeting already
approved conditions of reporting. So it's whatever it was approved in 2022, that's what we look for.
If it meets that, those requirements, we move forward with the recommendation of the map,
which I was here at that time when the map was recorded, and as well as when the building permit
was submitted to the country cross county. And as part of that process, is there any onus
on that applicant if there's something that's substantially changed since 2022 till now this
part of that building design or building sequencing or anything the planning for approval
is there any part of that that is subject to being looked at again just thinking about that
but it's been a really long time. Yes, there was a change for the AVA access off of that
project in which we did look at the public works department and but that change has been approved
then now they're going forward in that process in terms of getting your building from that process.
I'm going to reserve my some of my comments and potential recommendations until after
I think this is what I made it for you. Yeah this is not this is not agendaized so
you can direct it back to staff and to return with a later further investigation and additional
comments. What there isn't a and you almost agree and vote on that. But this is not on
the agenda.
I guess one more question. I, all my time at the convention, I haven't really seen a project
that's been approved and then constructed significantly after the approval, where we've
had residents come back and say that they're impacted or weren't notified or there's just
substantial impact to them, has that been something that has been encountered in the
city of Arinda or something that you have experience with and how do we, is there a
path to typically navigate that? Because this is the first time I've seen an issue like this
arrive and I'm sure it's something that's arisen in other cities or things that
have come up that things got missed during the process of planning and
design and engineering. Well I don't know if it's missed. It was as I mentioned
before the planning and zoning process is notification.
And you can find that in the law.
The notification is for property owners.
I don't have an obligation to ensure
that every property owner informs their tenants.
It's not what the law says.
My obligation is an affidavit
that I sent out notice to property owners.
That's what I see happened here.
What we try to do, but I don't want to be,
and I don't want to have staff in the middle of mediating
between top school and OCC.
Another that we're out of that process.
Again, it's a matter of do I call up OCC
and say, hey, we've got some concern to parents,
and is there something he can do to meet with them
sort of rectify that. But as far as original, and it doesn't have a lot of development,
we're starting to see it now. But as far as other jurisdictions, I worked for Contra Costa
County for 25 years. Yes, I would hear that a lot. I didn't get notified. But the law says,
as long as I send you that affidavit, we have an affidavit, and as long as I send it by mail,
saying I sent it, I've met my abrogation under the law.
Okay, and I'm thinking more or less of an implication and more the fact that the actual
property is impacted with construction.
I think I heard the public say, like, there's a retaining wall, there's, like, construction
access, like, that property sounds like it's being used as part of a construction sequencing
plan.
And more around that, if there's any sort of path forward to discussions on what can
cannot be allowed for construction of something in that space and use of other properties within
the area. Maybe another way of looking at that too is I guess you know somebody you know has
a building permit or whatever and started a project but I don't know maybe there's somebody
notices some abuses of the or encroachment or different issues with the actual construction
itself that's going on. Like, would they have a recourse to address that, you know, what they're
saying that's being done under the permit? Well, that's where we have code enforcement.
But we work with Contra Costa County. We have been since 1985 when we incorporated.
And so we utilize the county inspectors for new construction. So, for example, when I have a
project where a neighbor believes something is not being constructed or retaining law
according to the plans or over the property lines, Contra Costa County steps into that
role to determine whether the property owner is meeting the set of plans that they have approved
enough. And if they are, they say, Arendo, we believe they meet. If they are, they will do a
would notice a violation and then also turn to Arinda to further pursue action.
This is really helpful. Thank you. And my thoughts is just typically as you guys know,
we don't really see a lot of development in areas that like there might be multiple developers
and multiple homeowners. We're mostly seeing confidential and like smaller like palsy development.
So because the first time that we've seen something this large scale actually remove
that. Okay, we will continue with the public hearing and call the third speaker, Steve
Austinfeld. All right, Gary. I'm going to stand by. So Steve Austinfeld, an 18 year resident of
Orlando, a children with two sons in their 20s now. They went through doing the preschools to tops
I'm here representing TOPS as a member of the Board of Trustees.
And I think one thing, I'm just going to build up what President Lewis has shared already,
filled in some of the gaps.
One thing I want to emphasize is that we've talked about this before and soon to be found
out about it, the board level, and we are in support of the contract.
We've had a long-standing relationship with the church, as it's noted, a great relationship
with them, a great relationship with the senior housing community out there.
We're just very concerned about this project we're just going to warn you about, it was not one I still know of concerns so soon.
I think just to bring to light, or to emphasize the depth, or really with raising concerns for parents with her, many complaints and concerns from the parent community at TOS, since this came out just for the last few weeks.
I thought I'd read some of what we shared with the church, because to your point they are a landlord, we're not a landlord.
And so we've shared with them these concerns.
Actually, it's almost for a plus twist.
One, redesign the Vista Verde project
to eliminate any use of entry onto or encroachment
into the premises both during and after construction.
Two, commissioning a study
by a qualified independent consultant
to determine the impact of noise, dust, fumes,
and awake construction conditions
on top school children and staff.
and implementing all recommended mitigation measures
and monitoring protocols prior to the commencement
of construction.
Three, ensuring all construction activity
that could affect tops, including heavy equipment,
operated equipment, on demolition,
file driving, concrete work,
and similar activities occur outside of tops
and operating hours with the specific schedule
to be set forth with a written protocol.
Four, rerouting project traffic
to avoid the drop off in pickup areas and routes
used by the Tops families
and implementing enforceable track control measures
to protect children and families.
And lastly, the VISA verdict project plans
to eliminate the ability of anyone on the project site
both during construction and after occupancy
to view the Tops play yard,
including to incorporate design changes
and physical screening measures.
So my objective to try and you just gave me a sense
of some of the concerns that we're specifically spelling out
that we think are really going to impact
not only children but the staff at Topps.
I don't think it's an understandable issue shared
in terms of this puts Topps future
that there's no strength at all
this operating business in or in the at risk
given parents concerns right now
maybe they need to pull the children out of the school.
And I think I'll just say it's pretty personally
but thinking about the schedules
we've had just in the last week or two
If we could join Magic Wand, we'd like to halt construction
and ideally get parties together with your support
and help make the facilitation,
try to find remedies to these issues that are stressed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Anthony Valmose, seven.
Thank you.
Good evening commissioners.
Also, please speak on the same topic.
I'm speaking tonight as a concern
to the greater resident,
and a member of the community directly affected by a VISTA version project.
I want to raise a serious concern about the current status of the project and its potential
impacts on your decreaseable.
We've recently been informed by the contractor that the VISTA version project is moving forward
with construction potentially beginning as early as July of this year.
However, the plans that were approved by the City Plan Department in 2022 appear to no
longer be the current plans for the project.
The contractor has told us that the plans have changed significantly since the 2022 approval.
We have been shown screenshots and received information during a site walkthrough,
indicating that the current project design may have direct impacts on the urban preschool and surrounding area.
One of the most serious concerns is access.
Urban Way is the only way to access the preschool.
What we have recently been shown by the contractor
indicates significant impacts to Urban Way,
including trenching through the street
that appears to require perfect closure during construction.
If Urban Way is closed,
access to the preschool will be eliminated.
That's an immediate safety,
operational, and family access concern.
These impacts were not identified on the original study,
and they were not reflected in the plans
approved by the city in 2022.
To date, we've not been provided a full,
the city's approval. The city's
whether the Planning Commission has evaluated the updated 2025 plans and whether any new impacts
to the urban preschool have been studied and addressed. So my estimate is straightforward.
Has the City reviewed and approved the most recent version of the disinfected plans?
Have the access impacts to Irwin Way and the urban preschool been formally reviewed?
Has the City determined how preschool access will be maintained during construction?
and that the updated plans have not yet been fully reviewed. I respectfully ask that the city
require complete review before construction is allowed to proceed. The preschool serves
young children and families in this community. Before construction begins, parents, staff,
and neighbors deserve a clear, complete, and current information about what is being built,
what is changed, how access will be preserved, and how the city is protecting the safety and
operations at the Priestly. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Flarnia Marchelin.
Hello. I'm Flarnia Marchelin. I'm a mother of one of the students at Tufts and we're going to also
speak about we faced a very good project and I was very concerned with caring about potential
impacts the school and for my family in Topps is more than just childcare and education but it has
become really central to our community here in Aravinda and we actually moved here partly for
Topps to be five minutes away from a school that we found to be a really great place for our daughter
And the concerns about ruins and dust and debris,
I mean, that is making us reconsider
whether we can keep our tops and that could
affect our decision about is this the best place for us
if we have to go out somewhere else.
Yeah, in terms of whether we stay in our end of the event.
And yeah, then I think the point about our own weight being
closed, we would have to.
withdrawal payment so it's a big concern for all of those parents and
families who are you know relying on the school that's been there for over 80
years. Thank you for hearing your comments. Thank you. Next comment we have
from Tony Martinez. Hi, I'm Tony Martinez. I am the Tufts Board President. I have three
children who have all gone through Tufts, and so Tufts is very dear to my family. Like most of them
have mentioned, that it has been very alarming that Tufts wasn't notified about this project,
given that we just signed a lease with them in 2023, and this project was approved in 2022.
Also, I want to note that in our lease, our current lease with Miranda and Community Church,
it clearly states that OCC grants tops an exclusive right to use the promises described
in Exhibit A attached. So that's a problem. And the problem is that they now have retaining
while they're coming into our yard and they have now doubled the land. So I think that these are
concerns that the city wants to address and we have addressed them with
Urundah Community Church. It's kind of fallen on deaf ears so I wanted to come here today.
I think it's also very important that a lot of the studies that were done
the traffic study, the environmental review,
and other funny documents were not,
talk was not considered.
And it was very apparent when I met with all the teens
of Rick the Senior Housing Foundation,
a regular community church, the builder,
the previous builder, and also a few other members
from the church.
And they didn't even know that a builder didn't know
that toxic was listed, which it was a huge problem.
And recently, what we were told,
because there is a new builder,
well, you guys should be happy
because now they at least know about you.
This is like a vulnerable population that we're dealing with
but we know that seniors are vulnerable,
but also children.
And this is the future of arena.
So I also have an email from my father who hasn't yet come to talks,
but he's enrolled in his daughter, but possibly will be just annoyed.
And he's an environmental attorney and he, um, he said,
unfortunately, I cannot attend the planning meeting tonight.
My primary concern of the project is the potential impacts of our children.
desk with diesel emissions, it says PM10 and PM2.5 can expose risk particularly to young
children to censor them.
I briefly review the project that he's going to go into in more detail but it was just a
problem.
Thank you.
And we have a speaker by Yvonne.
I forgot to write my last words so well.
Yvonne so well?
Yeah.
Okay thank you.
I am also a board member at TOPS and a parent and have been with TOPS for four years and
think of TOPS as helping to help us parent our son. He's been there since he was two.
And so we are talking about two to four year olds at TOPS. We're talking about the staff
at TOPS. And what's been very clear tonight is that TOPS was certainly not considered.
and the planning department, the city council that all the information to make an important
decision about the project and plans and the project and the plans have since evolved.
And so the construction that is anticipated is not the construction that you all approved,
it's not the construction that was considered, it is certainly not the construction that
are taking into consideration the environmental impacts we just heard on a very long-form
operation of two to four year olds. And so, you know, there's the, we haven't been considered
in advance and when looking at the plans we're certainly not considered in the force of the
construction. That the, you know, as you've heard from the other public comments, the routes in and
out of the school the shouldn't be necessary for construction and more
problematically that as you just heard from Tawny that the the church has
double least in hand and so the plans are actually not in accordance with their
other agreements of contracts which is problematic and so there's a lot of
substantial changes to the plans that really need another look and again not
from a place of opposition to the building and the design and the need for
a low-income senior housing and rent-out, certainly it is in
consideration alongside the other considerations of what it means to do
construction around to the glory rules and what it means to do that kind of
construction and, you know, without considering, you know, one of the longest standing schools.
So I find it hard to believe that TOS wouldn't have been considered throughout, but I think that
oversight warrants on its own a look and a reconsideration of these plans because you
didn't have all the information we learned to make a farm decision. So thank you very much.
Are there any more public comments member Nuru and online?
Okay and I know we're not we're not going to discuss or take any action on the items
I just wanted to pass my panel with the commissioners if there's any follow-up questions or
applications needed.
I had a clarifying question for when the commission learns of a topic that's not on the agenda
that wish to be discussed further, what is the appropriate way to get the, to have it
be an agenda.
you make a motion and you all vote for it to come back as another agenda item
placed on the agenda or you can defer it back to the Planning Commission or excuse
me the Planning Department for further investigation then report back on or you
can decide to make an agenda. Commissioner Jelena, I know you have a question.
Hi, can I make a recommendation? I'm not just kind of sure of your discussion. I guess my first thought is, I would like to recommend we talk a lot just in a context. We talk a lot about, we have one more announcement to Rinda, we want to develop a Rinda, and we don't want to do that if we sense the community.
what I'm hearing is like this is 100%
at the expense of the community
and one of the first bigger projects we've seen.
And so this will set the tone
for what construction looks like
and what developers are expectation
with developers and builders.
And there's a wide range of developers and builders.
And I think we owe it to the community
to set a standard of working with the community
and creating an atmosphere that takes into account
the fact that there's a preschool.
lot of people move to arena for the school districts. Like it is I think a privilege that
we have such great schools and preschools and for this to have such a detrimental impact and this
being one of the literally first housing projects I think that's going to break down. I'd like to
put forward some sort of recommendation to staff to research pass forward for this to be able to
address the concerns that have been highlighted and to also have discussions with the developer
builder because there are remedies to this. I've built that school before. You can put
sound barriers. You can put sound walls. You can reseque with construction. You can reduce impacts.
What I'm hearing is the developer and the builder is not working with this community,
and so I am concerned setting the standard for this being the first project that we're seeing.
That being what housing and rental looks like, that it is something that comes at the expense
of our community and at the expense of things that we love dear and I don't think that's what we
want. So in I guess I'm looking for a path to staff to recommend like how do we bring this
an agenda item, how do we look into more, how do we research what we can do where this is at today
to mitigate some of these concerns. I know I heard you can't open like the whole thing.
I cannot keep the initial jello neck. This is a proof project and a lot of what I heard tonight
is the civil matter. I heard Elise. I have power but I don't have absolute power. And so Elise is
not within our realm. That is a civil matter. I heard particular matter 2.5 and particular matter
10. One of the commenters, it's here in the minute it mitigated negative decoration. There are
mitigation measures that are talking about fugitive dust control. I can't reopen this and I don't
believe after 2022 the statute of limitations probably for litigation has probably already
passed. What I don't want to get involved in is being a mediator for something that's civil.
So if the lease wasn't acknowledged I don't want to be in the middle of that. What I
could potentially suggest is perhaps reaching out to the board of directors which is Victoria who
talks to me quite often and letting her know I'm hearing of these you know concerns but I have no
power to make her come back and change her plans or that we've already approved that's currently in
the building department as we speak. I don't have it the statute of limitations is most likely gone
but if you look at the mitigated negative decoration, here's your fusion of dust controls
measures. Here's your noise measures. They look at sensitive receptors, sensitive receptors of
children, elderly. I'm not sure what you would want me to come back with. That doesn't pull me
into a civil, a civil matter. I have some comments on that. And thank you for the clarification
regarding the civil distinction. I did hear that there's a potential that the 2022 plans
are somehow different than what's being currently seen. Some questions about
what's even happening at the moment. So maybe perhaps, and it sounds like we might need a motion,
But potentially I'm thinking I would lean towards a recommendation of like you referenced
investigating to even see what if there are any potential options or opportunities. And I don't
know if it would require discussion with the city attorney or I don't know I would leave that to
back to your expression of how you want to explore the options, but hearing a number
of citizens addressing this issue, I just want to make sure that we're at least seeing
if there's any options.
And just to kind of clarify, I don't, I agree that I don't think the lease, that's a separate
issue.
I don't think that's something that we obviously have any control over.
I agree with commissioner Armstrong really, if we can ask the planning department to say, to even give us the context of what was approved in 2022 first ones in with the building department.
Now, are there variances if there are variances what are they just so we understand and also if there's any sort of discussions that we can have with construction sequencing or any.
If this is something we're going to continue to see with development coming into Arendelle and the developers and the builders and how they treat the community I think that's a separate thing that as we're building like our housing element like how we're cutting a lot of these conversations, I think it'd be helpful to bring that context in because I think there are things that the city can do to put a little bit more onus on these developers for how we want them to work with our community.
that's yet I think with respect for the wider community and that this is not an
agenda topic and people in community don't know we're discussing training I
think it is important that we if we make a motion the motion that is to discuss
this topic officially with some sort of investigation or summary of this project
what was approved what was not approved there's obviously some civil things and
some landlord relationship things that are well outside the
scope of the city. But there are some things that we may have
heard. And maybe just present to us in an agenda item, the
facts of what is poured on what warrants something being a
departure from the plans that were approved, the right bodies
that the deal with that. And what's within the remit of the
planning department in 2006 to deal with versus the county
versus civil courts, et cetera.
And if I can just, yes, you have the motion.
Well, then do I have a hand hand hand?
Yes, Dan, I know oftentimes we just do something
called a study session here, right?
Where there's perhaps in the course of your investigation
or just sort of taking a second look at this, you say,
there is literally nothing in the scope
of the planning commission.
I think it's still worked, right?
Having a proper agenda item, I feel like this is good.
We've got an hour long discussion
on item one isn't on the agenda.
Not that it's, I mean that in the sense
that I don't think it's fair to the rest of the community
to have too much of a discussion.
That's actually, we don't want to do that.
So, and sort of the recommendation being
either a study session or is there something
for discussion, right?
To just have a proper follow up as an agenda as an item
so that we're following the procedure.
And a result of that discussion might be
that a further action we'd recommend,
but at first we need to have that.
Okay.
So I'm hearing commissioner Morola has a motion
And I know the record is kind of rolling.
No, Commissioner, if you want to state
that you have a motion and what the motion is.
Let me give this a try with the help of my peers here.
What I would like to move to do is
broaden as an agenda item for us to study this project,
to understand the facts of this project, what was approved,
and any known departures from that.
I don't know if that can be in the first set or not,
but anything can give us as much facts as possible
and invite the community since it's an agenda item,
of course, to discuss those concerns
from all parts of the community.
I don't know if someone can make that sound better.
That'd be great.
I'm hearing a motion to make this an agenda item
and a study session.
So.
I'll let you, uh, well, in, uh, the next meeting dates,
may 26.
Yeah, that would have to be part of the motion.
So I would, I would move to make me 26.
Okay. So, uh, we have a motion, um,
and then to make this topic and agenda item for May 26
as a study session and a back gathering.
Yeah, we'd request staff to present the summary
and facts of the status of that project.
Do I have a second?
I second.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Aye.
So the motion has passed unanimously.
So with that, I think this item,
we can move on to our agenda.
Thank you.
So we are at item D, the consent calendar.
The consent calendar section of the agenda consists
of items that are acted on in one motion,
unless the commissioner or member of the public
requests that the commission remove an item
from the consent calendar for discussion.
By approval of the consent calendar,
The staff recommendation will be adopted.
If this is removed by the consent calendar,
the commission will follow the procedures described
in the agenda for new public hearing.
May I have a motion to approve the consent calendar?
So moved.
May I have a second?
Second.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, it's unanimous.
So we will go to item E, policy matters.
item E1 updated planning commission policy
and procedures manual.
The staff recommendation is to adopt resolution 26-02
amending and adopting the planning commission policy
and procedure manual.
And we have a staff recommendation from Clara Cross.
Yeah, no official formal presentation on that.
This is something that was on my to-do list since I started when I saw August 2015.
It was our last update to the rules and procedures manual, although we blew it a little bit tonight
on our hard things, but that's okay sometimes, I don't think that.
This is basically working with our meeting clerk here, which is the administrative assistant
here.
planning. We just basically updated it looks like a lot you see a lot of red line but what really is is moving sections to other places relocating and our rules is basically in line with city councils rules.
We updated the last I think the last meeting he had a comment from the or not
we that was on the civility and and
Speech conscience section. So we make sure that was updated
By that we took out warnings and rest section
Made it dark, you know, but those were really all it was is moving around updating it making sure it was consistent with the city councils
wasn't regulation so I definitely want to recommend that you adopt the resolution 2602
amending and adopting the planning commission's new policies and procedure manual with a change
to the staff report to reflect what you are calling ours rules and procedures so that would
be my recommendation unless you have questions. I have a handful probably very nitpicky but I
Um, 2.1, that three ending time, um, meetings, meetings, little journey.
See at or before 10 PM.
So I appreciate that.
Um, and that, um, majority votes are required to continue the meeting to a
specific time in past 10 PM.
Yeah.
I then see, um, there's a unanimous vote required, uh, to continue
meetings beyond 11 30 but then a continuance beyond 11 shall specify time
of adjournment is that a typo should those both be 11 or two thousand three
ending time it's honestly just confusing and so if that is in fact correct maybe
someone can just explain to me what that means and we can figure out slightly
more plain English I do think just make it a more easy to understand this oh
Oh, okay. So we can I mean, it's like we're going to 10pm and then we don't do 1130. And then we sometimes jump back to 11. And I'm very confused. And then they actually means in practice. Right. And then they say special special at a time that we're doing it. Correct. It's kind of something city council does.
That's not on record, no, okay, okay.
We can say 10 p.m., and it's really up to you.
You can say 10 p.m., hard stop it, or you can say, if it reaches 10 p.m., we just need
a unanimous vote to continue beyond that.
We don't even have to put 11 at that point, or 1130.
Yeah, I feel like there's too many steps in the process, yeah, where it's like, okay,
we have a 10 p.m. adjournment,
and honestly I feel like we can change it
to where we take out the 1130
and make it to where it's an anonymous vote
to continue beyond 11, you know what I mean?
And just take out the 1130.
So we need to be at the 10.
If we feel we are going over 10 o'clock,
or basically at 10 p.m.,
there is required a majority vote
at the Planning Commission is required
to continue the meeting to a specific time.
And it stopped past 10 p.m.
If let's say that's set at 10.30
and then we're at 10, I'm not saying we put this in,
I'm just trying to understand what this means.
We reached 10.30, which was the majority vote agreed to time.
We can vote again to continue?
Yes.
Okay.
I think maybe it's just still language
and we should put that pace more than one such continuance
maybe adopted should go upfront.
And that, I don't know, do we agree on the times
like after which it's unanimous and not majority anymore?
I don't know, honestly, my brain stops socially.
I think this came from-
City council.
Yeah, and some of the files I know
when I first started learning mission,
like they would go on very lengthy
And the problem was like, it's hard to reset
a new planning commission date.
So I think that's where this language comes in.
It rarely happens.
I'm honestly fine with just being like,
you could continue to extend and definitely
pass 10 p.m. as we both would.
I think it's such a, it's something
that just is very difficult.
I think that we should have some sort of
hard to see, I'm not gonna say
beyond which a unanimous vote is required.
I hear you that it's hard to reschedule something,
but I also think about like members of the public.
why are we all staying up until 11, 11.30 in cases like that
debating probably something very important
and having really important discussions.
And I can just see that sort of in all likelihood,
the quality of that conversation is probably degraded
right by that and yes, you want everybody to be heard.
So maybe I just suggest a couple of clarifications
to make that clear and not necessarily change
the intent of that, which is that if any continuance
is going beyond 1130, right?
Let's say we've done one at 1030
and then we've done another one at 11, right?
If we're gonna vote to continue at beyond 1130,
then it has to be news.
So again, it's not changing the content of what's here.
So what was really, what happens at 10?
There's a vote, right?
And then once it hits, what's the next time marker?
I don't know where to look for it.
I think honestly, if we just delete the e-continuance
beyond 11 o'clock, I'll specify time of adjournment
because you've already said the majority vote
has to include a specific time.
Actually, if you just strike that, it's probably okay.
Sorry about turning too long.
No, no, it's okay.
Attentant.
No, that's right.
Yeah, yeah, that last sentence.
Myth one check.
I have more, but if you have one, I'm not doing...
Yeah, sorry, real quick.
This might be a clear, sorry, good.
No, I just wanted to make sure
I caught a commission of doctors first last sentence strike.
No, sorry, the second to last.
They continue to be on 11,
shall specify time of adjournment
because we've already said that in a sentence too,
that a majority vote of the planning commission
is required to continue the meeting to a specific time
past 10.
So I think deleting the second to last just helps it.
Yeah, that's very fair.
Mine's a fair question.
I think it's just my own ignorance here,
but the language of continuing versus adjourning.
So meetings will adjourn out of before 10
and majority votes need to continue at the past then.
But what if you don't get the majority to vote?
Then it adjourns at 10.
What if there's an agenda remaining?
No, I'm still remaining on that.
Didn't you have to push it to the next meeting?
Is that inherently in here?
or is it somewhere else? I just want to make sure that we don't get into a long open forum
and it's 10pm and we've actually to continue the agenda, we actually have to naturally
vote and we don't. And then somehow the meetings ended, despite not getting into the topics.
Maybe I'm making it a bigger concern and more concerned about than I should be.
2.4 is your adjournment. So that one moves on the Commission on Adjourning Regular,
that's the new key, special or adjourned special meeting to a time and place specified in the
order of adjournment. So if you had, let's see, but we don't get the majority to adjourn it.
You got to keep going. You got to join somebody when you get the vote.
In the last sentence here in 2.4, when the order of adjournment of any meeting fails to
state the hour which adjournment we need to be held.
I guess my concern is that I think 2.103
says it could be auto adjourned if we don't get a majority
to continue. Right. But it appears further down the section just pointed out
you actually need to align on if you adjourn when to meet next. Yes.
Which I assume needs majority. Yes. So I'm just worried that you can get into a
place where but the meeting ends but there's actually no alignment on
continuing the agenda as well I might be overthinking this is a problem then I
would bring it to the next meeting. Great wonderful I don't know if we need to
change it that adds can be German or into 2.1.3 that says it's German the remainder
will be re-scalded or something.
Remaining outstanding, but gents.
Yes.
Yeah.
I'm probably never thinking some.
Can you tell us what I'll just look at?
The first case scenario.
I don't know.
In fact, you are.
Okay, all right.
Okay, 2.9, I'm just curious to understand
why regular was taken.
This is all regular meetings
if they're planning commission on the shelf,
it will be recorded and regular was.
Is we can have a special meeting?
Sorry, so that's what I understand.
Are there cases, like I know sometimes City Council
has special meetings that are actually behind closed doors
after consulting with the city attorney
is sort of like a particular topic.
And so we haven't had one in the, you know,
two whatever years I've been.
Yeah, we will never have a closed meeting.
It will be either regular or special.
The special just means that it wasn't approved when you guys adopted your meeting elder.
Got it.
Okay.
So like if you had a cancel meeting because we didn't have form and you guys pick another
date to hold the meeting, it's a special meeting because it wasn't a part of the room.
Right.
Or you have to even be a cancel meeting, we can say, oh, we have the special project.
We're on the timeframe and can you all meet on X date?
Yeah.
It's considered special.
That's all verification.
Thank you.
Thank you. I was just curious because I have a sort of city council, um, you
know, thank you. I think that's it.
Okay. So if there are no further questions of staff, I will open the
floor to the public, uh, to see if there's any public comments.
There's no one in the room. Is there anyone online?
Then it closes the floor.
There's no public comments and I'll bring the matter back up to the commission for discussion and action.
We need comments further.
So we will ask do we have a motion from the commission on this matter.
Thank you.
And I'm going to move it to.
Adopt resolution 26-02 and then they,
and adopting the planning commission rules and procedures.
With the edit.
At its mentioned tonight.
Yeah.
Sure.
That's what you're looking for.
Do I have a second?
And we'll do a roll call vote.
Commissioner German Commissioner Moro.
Commissioner doctors and Commissioner Armstrong.
Motion is carried with Commissioner voting favor of the motion.
I have continued public hearings.
There are none I have G new public hearings.
Consider a recommendation to the city council regarding amendments to title 16 subdivisions and title 17 zoning of the random municipal code.
To establish limitations on parcels created pursuant to Senate Bill 1123 California Government Code section 66499.41
A staff recommendation is to adopt resolution 26-04,
recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance
amending Title 16 subdivisions and Title 17 zoning
of the recommended municipal code, OMC,
to establish local limitations on parcels created
pursuant to Senate Bill 1123
under the Government Code Section 66499.41.
And we will be having a staff presentation
from Commissioner Planner-Darrin Hughes.
All right.
Good evening members of the commission.
Associate Planner-Darrin,
here as I'll begin this presentation.
Hopefully, this is a little bit of a dense law
in terms of how it impacts Arinda,
hopefully by the end of this.
you'll be mostly on my brain brainwave,
but feel free to ask any questions that you need
because it took a little bit to explore through this.
So just to provide a brief overview,
and this is the Starter Home Revitalization Act.
We commonly refer to it as SB 1123
because that was the big portion of the act
that came in and made some amendments
that ended up applying the provisions of SB 684
to single-family residential and that's when it was determined that that was going to actually
create an impact in the community of Arinda. But I'll refer to it as much as possible for the rest
of the night. It's the Starter Home Revitalization Act because it's kind of encompassing all these
different pieces of legislation. So it mandates ministerial approval for subdivisions up to 10
lots with up to 10 units on eligible single-family parcels. So the ordinance that we're bringing
for tonight is an ordinance at direction by City Council after we provided them with a briefing
a legislative update for these laws. And these particular items that we're going to be looking
at are specific portions where the law, the state law gives local jurisdictions discretion
over what they can and cannot permit or allow in conjunction with something that comes under
the starter home revitalization act, a project that comes forward. So we would be looking at
amending the random municipal code to prohibit ADUs and subsequent SB9 lot splits on parcels
that are created through the starter home revitalization act and also strictly enforce
the state's restrictions on sales. We'll go over a little bit better here. So framework
for accessory dwelling units. I'm going to talk about a couple of related laws and provide you
with some updates on how we process certain applications and what impacts those have had
in Orinda because that's where we're kind of drawing some of our information on how the
starter home revitalization act is going to help. This is how we're projecting the starter home
revitalization act will end up impacting Orinda and it also interacts with these particular laws.
So the first one, ADUs, January 2017 is when State Law came out and said there's got to be a
ministerial review process with all local jurisdictions. So that was the first big update,
but it wasn't until January 2020 that there were big statutory updates that took place. So these
were things that address certain barriers that homeowners weren't able to overcome with most
types of applications. They were still having to run up against various barriers,
particularly financial barriers. 2020 is when we really started seeing ADUs and Arinda kick
off. I think the first couple of years, we may see this in a couple of slides, but first couple
of years, we saw about 10 ADUs per year and that ramped up to somewhere between 20-25 ADUs per year
you know. So, we do have ADU regulations codified in 17.3.4. Actually, here it is. So, 2020 through
2020, and it's actually a few more than I thought. So, 20, these are ADUs that were permitted
and applied for from 2020 to 2026 within the, or at the building department. So, you can see in the
last five years we've seen 149 total ADUs get a permitted or are in the process for permits.
So it is one of the most significant ways that Miranda builds housing. We are pretty much at the
top of the ranks in Contra Costa to build a production of ADUs specifically and people
are taking advantage of this ministerial process. So it's another state law that came into effect
as of January 1st, 2022. This is a state law that's known as the Jumplex Law and specifically
there are urban housing developments and urban lot splits as a part of this law. These are two
different components that basically allows a ministerial approval for SB9 for these new
single-family residences. So this isn't something that's limited to the same sizes of an ADU. This
is something that says you can have up to two homes permitted on a lot that is zoned
single family residential for ministerially as long as you're meeting all of the objective
standards of the code. What this ended up doing and you will have known this from the
if you look at 2019 and see the number of applications that came across the planning
Commission's counter hearing schedule. On any given hearing in 2019, you'd see quite a few.
I haven't seen that significantly because the default process now is SB9. Most people who
want to build a new home in Arinda are going to do what they can to design that home within the
confines with the specific objectives in mind and not try to exceed that in any way, shape, or form,
which means that they qualify for SB 9 as an urban housing development, and that means that
they're not coming forward with a discretionary review. Subdivision for urban lot splits, that's
something for homeowners to take advantage of. It's explicitly supposed to be for someone who
lives, resides on the property. They sign an affidavit that states that they will live there
for, or they intend to live there for at least three years, and they can go through a lot split
process that allows them to split their lot into roughly 50-50. And it ignores quite a few of the
subdivision standards that we have. So we have, for instance, minimum sizes for lots and various
minimum sizes, minimum widths, minimum depth, lots within particular zones. And the urban lot split
process allows people to basically say, we don't need to, we can't apply those. You get to go
through this ministerial process to turn your unused vacant space into space that can be sold
off to someone else or developed how you see fit. So, we don't really have anything that codifies
SB 9 because we just adhere to state law when it comes to SB 9. It was effective January 1st,
2022. The only piece that was codified where we had some discretion from state was that we could
codify the number of or limit the number of ADUs that were allowed on a parcel subdivided under
SP9 so someone does a subdivision the number of ADUs is limited to one per unit essentially
is basically how it works so that essentially if you're starting with any basic lot whether
just one single family residential lot you can subdivide that and have two units on one side two
units on the other side, but the maximum potential for a lot is four units. So that's where we're
going to see some of the differences with the law that's coming up. So since this started in
2022, we can see that there were a total of SP9 units that were entitled and three that
are active or incomplete. I believe that might be two that are active and incomplete and 19 that are
are entitled as of today.
There may have been a change last week.
SB 9 plot splits, we've had seven complete and are entitled
and four in the process of the four in process.
One is about to proceed to becoming fully entitled.
Seven of those projects, the SB 9 projects
included ADUs and JUs, so you can see that sometimes
people will propose a new single family residence
and an ADU that is associated with that.
Typically, the way that we see this used
is for developing a single new family residence.
We have, in only two or three scenarios,
seeing someone come forward with a second residence
on a single family residence whole lot.
And this graphic just gives a general idea of,
you know, people can start with no units,
one unit, one unit, and an ADU,
and you can do various things through the SB9 process
that will generally allow you to have up to four units
in various combinations.
So that brings us to the Start-At-Home Revitalization Act.
So this is also a ministerial approval.
We have 60 days for processing subdivision application.
Basically, this can be a subdivision into up to 10 parcels
for the development of up to 10 residential units,
reason that highlighting this language is because it doesn't have to be one to one. There's nothing
that states that you have to come in and have one parcel per each unit that you want to propose.
Someone could in theory come forward with a development that says I want two parcels. One
of them is going to have nine units on it in the small apartment style and the other one's going
to have just a single family residential home. SB-1123 is what expanded this. So first it was
of SB 684. Then it was expanded by 1123 in order to apply to vacant single family lots
up to 1.5 acres in size, whereas previously it had just been multifamily lots. And then
AB 130 came in and further modified this in order to allow this designated remainder parcel
to retain an existing structure. So the idea with this particular thing is, vacant doesn't
necessarily mean vacant, someone can come forward to us and have a single
family residential home on a lot, so a development that already exists there,
and they can say we're going to designate the portion with the home as
the remainder parcel, it doesn't count, and then what they carve off from that
becomes a vacant parcel. The only caveat to this is they would have to look at
that vacant parcel that they are, sorry, the designated remainder does operate in
in accordance to our subdivision standards,
which means that they would have to meet
those minimum lot size standards.
So you can't just come in like SB9 and say,
you know what, I just get to carve off a part of my parcel.
You still have to meet the subdivision standards
for the parcel that isn't technically a part
of this start-long revitalization act application.
So to be eligible, there are these five primary criteria,
maximum size can exceed 1.5 acres.
There's a caveat to that with designated reminders.
I'll go over in a short while.
Vacant, it can't have a permanent habitable structure
and there can be no tenant occupancy
within the last five years.
Of course, this does not account,
this does not count for a permanent habitable structure
that's been designated a remainder portion.
Infill, at least 75% of the parcels perimeters
must have joined qualified urban uses.
So there are multiple parcels in Arrinda
that may not qualify just because they are,
let's say on the outskirts of the city,
bordering just complete open space.
There's no qualified urban use,
which is usually other single family residential.
We may be able to say,
someone may be able to make the case
for parks, commercial locations,
but something has to be,
has to be surrounded substantially
by things that are actually developed.
Another example is if it's a parcel
in the middle of a bunch of undeveloped parcels,
it's not going to fall apart.
It has to be established appropriately.
So it cannot be a lot previously created by SB9
for this app.
So you can't just keep going down another trail
and get these smaller and smaller and smaller parcels.
And then fire safety is kind of the biggest one
for a render.
So fire hazard severity zones.
You can't be in the vary by fire hazards,
verity zone and take advantage of this particular law.
So...
Well, I'm not sure that we're in this,
I don't like weird things about it.
We're gonna drag away and...
Hopefully there's no mouse.
Oh, no mouse.
Okay.
We don't have a pointer.
I can go up there.
Go up there.
Go up there.
Go up towards the whole point.
Yeah.
Yes, this is the only piece of wilder
that actually qualifies and deal with the civil issues.
of being in the plan development there in the HOA. But this is one portion that's along,
I think, the paintbrush street. That's Wilder. Sorry. That's Wilder. Okay. So this is Wilder.
We're downtown here. Yeah. South of the window. Yeah. We're at the window.
See some blank space here where the this basically goes. They get moderates.
Just something that's potentially a little bit difficult to see on this projector. But
there's moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones that kind of circle around El Rinda.
This has a big impact on a lot of the development applications that we take in. There are certain
fire restrictions and additional setbacks to take into consideration when people are proposing
projects in the very high fire hazard severity zone. But for the purposes of this law, there is
no development allowed. The reason that I'm showing this map that's slightly
clicked on this screen on the left-hand side is that's just those are all of the
vacant housing element sites and I have categorized them into sites that are
larger than 1.5 acres. There are only 54 of those in sites that are smaller than
than at most 1.5 acres.
So that's 201 parcels.
So those are what we would consider the prime parcels
for someone to come through with this law and develop.
However, if you look at where the very high fire
hazard severity zone, at least for now limits that
or prohibits that development,
we're looking at 50 total parcels
that could possibly qualify that are 1.5 acres or smaller,
and they're outside that very high fire hazard severity zone.
So it's limited in its potential here,
but that still doesn't stop someone in,
oh, and I tried to show my mouse again,
but something that's outside of the very high
very high fire hazard severity zone has a lot of lands
and can potentially subdivide
to meet those minimum qualifications
could potentially come forward with a proposed development
under the Starter Home Revitalization Act.
Additionally, there's no real provision
to stop someone from purchasing a property,
demolishing a home that at least hasn't been rented out
for the last five years and then utilizing this law,
seeking an application under this law for development.
So there is more potential than just those 50 parcels,
but we haven't gone through on a case by case basis
to assess things like, which of these parcels
are actually surrounded substantially by bulk
by dripping uses, which are going
to have access considerations.
So there are a lot of things that will prevent people
from taking advantage of this to a certain extent
because when you talk about having
those multiple additional units,
you talk about a lot of restrictions
in our just baked into our topography here
that are going to make it so that developers
don't have the easiest time providing
the appropriate site access for these projects.
I just have a couple of questions
to ask if you have any thoughts on that.
Sure.
So for the sites that they are in Miller
that are allowed to be developed,
what in theory would happen if as they're developing
and if it's a portfolio do not converge to red,
just because that seems to be what's happening,
like, because the entire map is updated pretty frequently,
what happens to that application?
like if it's in process or if it's approved,
like is that attractive?
I can say that if it is approved,
they've already received their entitlements.
There's no going back prior to that.
I believe if it's in process,
you can correct me if I'm wrong,
but if they went through a pre-application process
where they lock in their rights,
where basically they submit an SB 330 application
that states that this is,
I'm going to develop this project,
lock in the current regulations for 180 days then we would not be able to alter that I think just
based off of the changing zones. I believe that if the zones were to change mid-application for
someone who did not go through that process, then we would make in that case they may end up not
being able to be entitled we may have to provide them with a letter of denial at that point. But
because these projects have a maximum of 60 days
related to time by us, which doesn't mean that it's
60 days because there's some back and forth usually involved in that
where the shop is not moving, because these
are fairly short turnaround projects, I would be surprised if a future change
to the very high fire hazards, Faraday zone,
would result in too many disruptions with that.
Yeah, usually there's a date they usually give you a date and say by this time you have to have,
you know, they might say you have to be in building by that point. So it'll give you a
date and that application has to meet that date by certain.
All right, so requirements, things that we have to allow. We have to allow the parcels to be as
small as 1200 square feet. The average floor space across the
project cannot exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet. So this
is supposed to be starter homes. It's supposed to promote
these smaller homes overall. There is nothing in this law
that says that I can't develop a whole bunch of 500 square foot
homes so that you can get one 5000 square foot home and make
those averages work out, but if someone were to propose doing that they would
have to, they would have to come forward with that development application all at
once because when they propose the development it has to meet those
standards. So they, we would never with any luck, we're never going to be based
based off of the way that this is written and worded. We're never going to
be faced with someone saying they're going to produce you know nine
different 500 square foot units, one 7,000 square foot unit on under this and then
And they only come forward and do the 1,7,000 square foot units because they wanted to use
that to get away with a larger house than they could otherwise get away with.
So development would have to occur all at once and meet this requirement.
We cannot impose a floor area ratio less than one for projects that have 3 to 7 units and
1.25 for projects that have 8 to 10 units.
So compare that to Orinda's current floor area maximum set at 0.2, so 20% of the lot
this is quite significantly different. The reasoning for this is to allow, you know,
if you have a loft that's 1200 square feet, we would not be able to impose a floor area ratio
that says that your maximum home size is therefore 1200 square feet. Someone could
absolutely use the 1.5 or sorry 1200. We can't say 0.2 for instance, impose our own standard,
which would result in that 1200 square feet being you know only 240 square feet for our standards.
And so how does mathematically, if you still have some amount of setback from original lot lines,
you have a 1200 square foot lot, how do you put a 1200 square foot building on a 1200 square foot
lot when you still have setback? So floor area is not just the ground footprints, there can be
be multiple stories. So that's what this is trying to make sure that we, yeah, this allows
people to do that. That's the biggest piece is not allowing, making sure that we're not
imposing standards that wouldn't allow someone to build up. So as an example, we have a 27
foot, two and a half story maximum. Someone could say, you know what, I'm going to subdivide
such a manner that I'm going to put eight units in one structure here, you cannot impose a floor
area ratio less than, in that case, 1.25, which might allow them to actually build a little bit
higher than our normal standards for single-family residential lots. Because if our height standard
is what creates that limitation, then we would have to say, okay, we have to waive that for
this part of the project. And that's still all ministerial and the fact that we have objective
design standards does nothing in that case. We have objective design standards and we can,
and that's I think the next slide, but we can impose our objective design standards correctly.
But that being said, our, well, I'll get to that in just a moment. So rear side setbacks can't be
greater than four feet from the original lot and no internal setbacks between new units are required.
that's to allow you know things like condos. The city cannot require more than one off-street
parking space versus our current floor requirement and cannot require the space to be imposed or
covered. That last piece is a little bit different than SB9. SB9 does also and ADU law for the most
part also limits our ability to require parking to one space. This one also says it can't it doesn't
have to be enclosed or covered. Typically what we see with ADU projects, well, ADU projects are
kind of all over the place because sometimes they convert garages. Typically what we see with
SP9 projects is they build a new single family residence and they want a two-car garage because
that's pretty standard for this. Of course, a smaller home like this I think we would expect
more often to see single car garages. So we can require adherence to all objective
standards. So we've got the citywide objective design standards that were just approved by the
city council last week, just last week. So that is good to go. Anyone who comes in with a project
would have to adhere to those standards insofar as they don't violate the other tenants of the law.
So as an example, if someone were to come forward with a multi-story eight unit development,
we have small standards for the smaller scale apartment style buildings that we would be able
to put into effect for that particular development. We can't just come in and build a glass tower
going straight up with units one on each flight. And then let's see, I already said that. And then
lots created under this Act generally may not be sold individually until they have been developed
in accordance with the Act's requirements. So there is a whole series of provisions that the
state law says you can't sell off these lots individually unless they've been fully developed.
So, in theory, someone can come forward with a development application, get one lot developed
as long as it's important with, you know, that average on size, but then they'll sell it a lot,
develop the next one, sell it all, develop, sell it off. The only exception generally is they can,
two exceptions, one, they can sell all lots together to a different developer, or two, they could,
They could develop everything but one lot that they created
through the subdivision and sell off that last lot
that is vacant, so it's just one little caveat.
So if someone ever comes forward with a two lot subdivision,
they could develop one
and then just sell the other vacant parcel.
Is that all tracked by the county assessor or any again?
And like, who and how are we keeping track of all this?
That is what has been proposed by the by staff and city attorney working together to try to figure out what is going to be appropriate vehicle to ensure that these laws are developed accordingly, because it's very plausible that someone would come for a subdivision and get that reported
And then it may take years or even a decade to get all those lots developed.
And we've seen it happen in multiple instances.
There are still certain subdivisions in ARIMDA that have many vacant laws associated with them.
So as part of reporting the final map, we would have all of the standards.
That's the current proposal.
We will take all of the tenets of the state law and say, this has to conform to these specific requirements of state law.
law. So that's how we're able to say, you know, someone comes
forward in the future with a development, they look at the
parcel map and we say, Oh, they've got to develop it this
way. We also have a newer permit tracking system coming on board
that's going to allow us to flag these issues, not issues, but
flag these sorts of laws and say this law was created in
accordance with this act. Here's the link to what's required for
development and on this particular site. Density. This one's also important. So if it's a lot that is identified in the housing element as something that can be that we had count towards our regional housing needs allocation numbers, then any development has to provide at least the realistic capacity that we listed.
And I have this tiny, tiny table that no one can read.
But basically, we have a big table at the back of the housing element that identifies all of these vacant lots and gives the numbers associated with their potential for development.
These calculations were based just on the size of the parcel and the zone that it was in and how many times it could be subdivided in theory within that zone.
So generally speaking, most of these say one or two units and some of them, not very many of them, but some of them have higher unit counts because they are larger lots.
Most of the time, those ones are probably not going to be eligible because they are larger lots larger than 1.5 acres, but some of the some of the RL6 and RL10 zones have some of these
some of these unit council associated with them. All this basically means is someone comes in and
says I want to utilize the starter home re-vitalization act they have to provide at least one or two homes.
But that changes when it's not identified in the housing element. There's some math here but the
way that this ultimately shakes out for Orinda based on certain state requirements is that
subdivisions would have to develop at a or not the subdivision but the development project would
have to result in 13.2 units per acre. It's a little bit weird and I think that this was adopted
from kind of blindly from when it was just SB 684 and applied only to multifamily housing.
But what this effectively means is that the maximum average size of the newly created parcels
is going to be 3,300 square feet per unit. So that's the average size per unit.
And what this means is that someone who wants to do a remainder parcel is limited to about
three quarters of an acre. So they don't get that full. If you're designating a remainder parcel
and then cutting, get the subdivide. Because it wasn't in the housing element and you have to
build more densely you are limited in the size of parcels that you can make and you're only
getting about half the benefits out of that. It just means that if someone were to come forward
on such a parcel they would likely be developing a couple of units in a much more compact fashion
than we would normally see or maybe look like a couple of eighties together essentially.
So assumptions we've talked about this a little bit. But we're looking at this at the start of home revitalization act and anticipating that it's going to be a little bit more like sb nine in terms of its impact in a render so harder to take advantage of.
It is a little bit more open because you don't have to be a homeowner who lives on site in order to take advantage of subdivision aspect of it.
But topography, access considerations, fire hazard severity zone restrictions that don't
exist in SB9 or ADU requirements for the most part, and just generally a higher barrier
to entry for this type of development, I think means that we are going to see some applications.
We know that developers are interested in asking and doing their research at communities
to see what's going to be eligible for this type of application, but we don't anticipate
it's seeing a whole bunch coming across our desk,
maybe about at the same pace,
if not a little less than SB9.
But that's changed our projection at this point.
So far we only have one, I believe,
yes, one active application for SB9,
or sorry, for the start of Home Revitalization Act,
and two prior inquiries that haven't been resumed
the city in the last half year. So the policy decisions, we're allowed to determine a couple
that is an old slide that we don't need. So proposed ordinance, we're looking at a couple
of specific things that were, we were given a little bit of discretion with the state law.
The first is to enforce sale and lease restrictions as it states in the law. The law does give local
jurisdictions, the ability to waive that portion and say that people can sell these off however
they see fit, but we want to codify the fact that we are that we are not going to do that.
Number two, prohibition of subsequent SB9 urban lot splits. This just prevents someone from being
able to do a lot split or a subdivision under the Starter Home Revitalization Act, get 10 different
lot, and then come back in with individual, it would have to be individual homeowners later,
but individual homeowners wouldn't be able to come in later. And further so, these smaller and
smaller lots. The potential of leaving this open would be that you could end up with 20 lots.
Very unlikely, but we could. And then prohibition of ADUs on subdivided parcels. The law gives us
discretion as to whether or not we're okay with allowing ADUs and junior accessory doling units
when we brought this back or when we brought this to the City Council originally to get their
feedback on what they would like to see. We gave them a range of options from fully allowing ADUs
on these subdivided parcels to absolutely not allowing them to kind of in between allowing
them with certain on certain lot sizes. They ultimately opted for now to go with a full
prohibition and see how the law progresses before we determine whether or not we want to allow that
additional flexibility for accessory dwelling units at some point in the future. This is just
the language of the ordinance. I'm not going to read over this. This is in the packet and the
agenda as an attachment for the proposed ordinance, but we are essentially proposing to amend Title 16
in order to address the sale and lease restrictions and the prohibition of subsequent urban lots splits. And Title 17 in order to clarify an ADU section that no ADU or JDU would be permitted on lots developed through the Starver Home Revitalization Act. So next steps. If you adopt this resolution tonight, the proposed ordinance 26-05 will be presented to the City Council for consideration.
that is likely going to happen in June timeframe.
And then the staff recommendations
to adopt a resolution 26-04,
recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance
mending total 16 subdivisions in total 17
to the municipal code to establish local limited parcels
created pursuant to Senate bill of 1123
under the California Government Code section 66499.4.
And with that, I conclude staff's presentation
and open it up to the commission
questions. Thank you. Thank you.
That was super thorough. And I think just the more that we kind of repeatedly wrang
some of these policy matters, it just helps me better understand and kind of put it all
together. So appreciate the super thorough presentation. Um, I was reading, um, it's
not the actual amended ordinance, but, um, you mentioned that city council interacted
staff to consider policy options for exercising local control over the application of a stop,
particularly concerning personal's adjust in case evacuation routes, and no offense or staff
needs at the time for further research into the fire evacuation route policies. I'm mainly just
curious like just does the ordinance need a placeholder for that? Does like the timing of
adding any of that impacts or legal defensibility down the line? I just again was sort of curious
because it felt like this was a bit of a it's not yet. Yes Commissioner I should have mentioned
that I meant to mention that on the one of the last slides there. Yes we were directed to come
back and consider this was a proposal by Nick Wornoff who came forward and said you know we
we there could be grounds for looking at particularly evacuation routes and a new
development along evacuation routes establishing a policy that would prohibit that.
brief discussion at that hearing acknowledged the idea that the you know setting a blanket policy
would be above and beyond what the state law actually allows which is that you know someone
comes forward with a specific application and we have the ability to deny that with a preponderance
of evidence that shows that there's going to be an adverse impact on health and safety.
So we're trying to right now determine what that appropriate route may be.
we've only started discussions with, I've spoken with HCD, I've spoken with the Fire District.
So it's something that's in progress. We, as of this morning, I have a an outline of a couple
of policy related tools that we may be able to use to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis.
And I anticipate that that's going to be something that goes to the City Council,
at least for a very cursory initial discussion.
Hopefully we're prepared for that in a couple of weeks time
when this goes back before the city council,
we would get direction to then come back and,
you know, actually propose any specific policies
that come out of that discussion,
which presumably we come back
through the planning commission at that point
because almost certainly it is something
that would require another ordinance change.
So the way that we have this drafted right now
based off of how this is placed into that title 16, which
is closer to subdivisions, we would anticipate
being able to make amendments to that in the future
or additional sections below that.
We're not 100% clear on exactly how that's going to flow,
but I don't think that anything that is in this ordinance
right now would have to be revised
to accommodate those future suggestions,
because these are very specific points
over which we have their control.
And right now, we want to just come forward with that
because we do have an active application right now
that if they get approved for their subdivision,
we want to ensure that we have the tools
that we need to ensure that development unfolds according.
So there's nothing that we're doing right now.
Basically, we are just recommending it.
But does it mean nothing for habit?
This group, city councils, and there needs to be involved
from sort of further amending some of those ordinances
after additional research,
and I don't wanna, like, do what we can now,
and let's discuss, settle it and sort it out,
and should we choose to limit again in the future?
Yes, we're not limited in our number of amendments.
Yeah, and then Darren said it at the end there,
I think what I pushed forward with the city attorney
and the city manager is where I said to them,
is don't let perfection get in the way of something good,
and the fact that Darren mentioned,
I already have an application, it moves fast,
and then you come in with that agent.
It's all the kind of stuff, yeah, all the work.
And then so that's why I wanted this part set,
so 82, no SP, yeah, yeah.
But we'll come back.
Thank you for your clarification.
And I may not have connected those dots quite appropriately,
but when I talked about how many ADUs
could be developed on a particular parcel,
if you were to look at this and we don't have this in place,
in theory, you could come forward with 10 units,
10 ADUs and 10 junior accessory dwelling units
all in one application.
It's gonna be stacked up.
Yeah, it's gonna be stacked up.
I don't even have that at all.
Great.
Okay, no thanks for the question.
There's no questions.
Okay.
Are there any public topics online?
There's no one in the room.
No, Chair.
Okay, thank you.
that. So at this time, Uh, the
public comment portion is
closed, and we're going to
bring the matter of, uh, to the
commission for, uh, or action
and or discussion. May I have
a motion from the mission on
the side? Sure I moved to
Do I have a second.
We have a second. And we will do a roll call vote.
Commissioner jelly.
Commissioner Marola.
Mr.
Doctors.
And Mr. Romshon.
And I am.
And I am.
I am.
I am.
Thank you.
I'm.
Thank you.
I have a second.
I have a second.
We have a second and we will do a roll call vote.
Armstrong and I, the matter passes unanimously and I will read the appeal
rights. A decision by the planning commission is final unless a written
notice of appeals specimen of the appeal is submitted to the planning
department during normal business hours within 10 days, 10 calendar days with the
appropriate fees. The appeal will be considered by the city council if you
challenge any actions on the agenda in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the planning commission at or prior to the public hearing. The time to file
action to challenge the decision is governed by the code of civil procedure section 1094.6
item h other commission matters uh there are none listed uh item i planning commissioner's report
i have no report item j planning director's update uh yes you you've heard one already
Daren mentioned the citywide objective design and standards work by City Council with your
modification of course when we clarify project applicability we added a user guide in there as
well to help residents. The IHL inclusionary housing ordinance is going back up. It was directed
to go before the portable housing subcommittee. We did go before the portable housing subcommittee.
we looked at four different things was reducing. We had 15% where we were looking at 15% of affordable housing units for projects reduced down to 10%.
And so we were looking at four different areas. And I'm really just giving you a heads up because if we do receive direction move forward on May 19 open the back before you again with the with that ordinance.
And then last, just more of a FYI,
yesterday was a downtown revitalization
and planning subcommittee.
And so there's talk, just so you know and aware
of a pilot program for a facade improvement
for all the businesses here.
So if that pulls the news forward,
that requires an ordinance and a task.
And that's my opinion.
OK, now we've reached the item K, the adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjourn?
I move to adjourn.
OK, have a second.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Motion passes.