City Council Regular - July 7, 2026 - City of Orinda Meetings

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.

good evening we'll call the meeting to order and welcome to tonight's july 7 regular meeting

of the city council i apologize we're starting a few minutes late we're just finishing a closed

session where there are no items to report just a quick announcement this is our first time back

on zoom since the pandemic so there's going to be a little bit of fumbling our way through the new

format but we're excited to have people from the public able to participate remotely and we will

see how that goes. Also our assistant city manager is um I would say semi chair whatever chairing the

meeting managing uh from the staff position so Douglas you're welcome and thank you.

Um with that uh Sherry would you please take the roll call or just note we're all here?

Okay note for the record that all council members are present.

Thank you, and if you'll all please rise we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance. 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 all. Thank you. I already did the uh close

session report there is uh nothing to report for that and with that uh we will adopt the agenda.

Are there any changes to the agenda?

Hearing none, do we have,

I'll move we adopt the agenda.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

And with that, we'll go to items of the good of the city.

We do have one tonight,

a proclamation declaring July, 2026,

as Parks Make Life Better Month.

It's a relatively short proclamation,

so I'm just gonna read it.

And we have both Todd and Sheena

from our Parks Department here tonight

the city of Arinda Parks and Rec Department plays a vital role in enhancing the quality

of life for residents by providing exceptional parks, open spaces, recreational facilities

and programs that promote health, wellness, lifelong learning and community connection.

And whereas the Parks and Rec Department offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities

throughout the year, including youth sports leagues, summer camps, preschool and youth

enrichment classes, adult fitness and educational programs, senior activities and excursions,

that serve residents of every age and ability and whereas the department brings the community

together through beloved annual traditions and special events including summer concerts,

movies in the park, seasonal celebrations, community festivals and other family-friendly

activities that foster civic pride and strengthen neighborhood connections. And whereas the Parks

and Rec Department works in partnership with local schools, community organizations,

volunteers, businesses and dedicated residents to provide high-quality opportunities

for recreation and community events and whereas access to quality parks, recreation programs,

and community gathering spaces contributes to the physical, mental, and emotional well-being

of individuals and families while strengthening the social fabric that makes Orinda such a special

place to live. Whereas the California Parks and Rec Society statewide Park Makes Life Better campaign

recognizes the essential role that Parks and Rec play in creating healthy, vibrant, and connected

communities throughout California. Now therefore be it resolved that I, Brandon Iverson, hereby

proclaim the month of July 2026 as Parks Make Life Better Month in the city of Arinda and encourage

all residents to attend community events, enjoy our trails and open spaces that make Arinda an

exceptional place to live, work, and play. Todd, would you like to say a few words, Ashina?

I appreciate you said it all. The biggest thing we'd want to emphasize is thanking you for all

we're proud to be what we

believe is essential service

in keeping the community of

Arinda happy, healthy and

connected. So we should your

support. Can I say something

that we'll see if anybody from

the public wants to if anybody

else from the public wants to

say anything and seeing none.

We'll see if any council

members would like to speak. I

just want to congratulate you

guys for all of the effort

that you're doing to make

congratulate you guys for all the wonderful activities you promote and support and your

staff has obviously done a fantastic job and you're doing a great job leading them.

Thank you, Todd.

Yeah, just to echo that and especially right now when you're in the thick of it

with all the camps and all the kids, but we get the weekly reports and it's really incredible what

you're doing for our residents and and our children. And I'd just say I almost never read

proclamations all the way through but I was so tickled when I was reminded how many things you

guys do and it just was fun to go through the the vast menu of hardware and software and

community connections so thank you. And if there's nothing else on that item we will go to public

public forum. I think I'm going to skip the spiel for now because we have a pretty thin

crowd tonight, but public forum is when members of the public can speak on any item that is

not on the agenda. We'll ask people to limit their comments to three minutes and they can

also speak on items that are on the agenda if they won't be here later. Sherry, is there

anybody on Zoom or otherwise? There is not. Okay. With no one for public forum, we will

we'll go to council member reports.

We'll go this way.

I just wanna thank the city and the Arenda Association

for a wonderful 4th of July.

It was a great parade, as always.

And we know a lot of work goes into it

and it was really, really fun.

So just great thanks for that.

And otherwise it's been relatively quiet

from a meetings perspective, given the holidays.

Council Member Wolkhane.

I'm just going to echo Councilmember Hoxie's gratitude and also to a special call out to

our police chief, Chief Rossi, for the fabulous transportation in the parade, although we

did feel like what was the line? Chief Rossi and friends, I think I'm quoting the Vice

Mayor.

and the Riley family dogs. We came in third but other than. I was going to ask council member.

Mount Connie. Did we have a we had an infrastructure subcommittee since our last. You did. It was

definitely since our last one. Yeah. Yes. We had it on June 22nd. Do you want to give an

an update or do you want me to jump in?

I don't want you to go ahead and follow up.

Chief Rossi, did you miss your shout out

or did you hear that in the hallway?

We're doing the hallway.

Oh.

We want to reward positive reinforcement

so we don't have to decorate again next year so I'm sorry.

So we have an infrastructure committee meeting

on June 22nd and pretty, pretty.

We reviewed all the items that we're still

reviewing the storm drain survey is getting really, really close. But it's not done. It's

not completed yet. And we but there's, there's amazingly a lot of targets that they have

been able to identify that weren't previously identified. And so I think we're going to

looking to get a report back on that and I'm looking at our city engineer and our public works

director but I think sort of by the fall is when we're thinking, correct? Okay. And you know there

was some discussion still about we gave feedback that we wanted to sort of the full range of options

consistent with sort of when we discussed the issues previously at the council, there was a desire to sort of understand beyond,

beyond the

proposed revised resolution that had come to us previously, there was also a desire for additional options. And so we were presented with that and looked at, you know, a full range of additional options. And the idea was for all of

those to be more developed. We gave some feedback on how those additional options could be more developed and brought back to first the infrastructure subcommittee again, and then after that to the full council together so that

there was a more holistic picture being presented. I think we've done a lot of the data collection and we're getting close to being done with some of that data collection.

and so you know residents are asking what's the next step and in looking at the next step

we want to look at that full range and I'm going from memory I neglected to bring my notes with me

but I'm going to look to the vice mayor to fill in maybe some gaps. Yeah I think the only other

thing that got discussed in the meeting is beginning the process of recognizing that to

wrap this all up eventually to bring it back for real decisions is going to require some

cost estimating of various activities and so I think we initiated the beginnings of some of

that work with the staff. And I can't remember anything else that was significant. I'll look at

Siva and Scott wasn't there. Siva did we miss anything? Full range of options we were that

that's correct we were looking at also you know even if it's not even ballpark costs like to get

started. So when we look at options we're looking at what that's gonna do. Thank you for the more

detailed update. I know that subcommittee is a very substantive one. So I know we appreciate

hearing what's going on. Anything else from? I have a different topic. I distributed to

Linda and the Planning and Public Works staff the Contra Costa Transportation Authority call

projects. I know staff was already involved, already looking at it, but here

over the next few months we have the opportunity to submit requests for

funding for two projects here in Arrinda that would be very positive if we can

find projects that we can obtain new funding for. So that's underway.

Timetable is to, I think the submittals are back to the transportation authority

in August and ultimately the transportation authority will be

submitting them to MTC in October. So somewhere along by hopefully by the end

of the year there's some indication of whether we may be able to obtain some

additional funding that would be new funding to us. So and the other item

relative to Contra Costa Transportation Authority is we do continue to work on a

a whole extensive range of activities that have to do with building a new future transportation

expenditure plan. So there's a lot in motion going on with that. And I'll keep bringing

back highlights when we get there. But we are having a very key board workshop next

Wednesday before the regular board meeting in terms of those activities. Lots going on.

Thank you very much. Councillor O'Reilly, anything?

Nothing this past couple weeks, but next week there are a few meetings I'm going to go to,

library and historical society, and maybe something else I can't remember.

Yeah, I agree. There are a couple meetings coming up next week. I think we have a Tri-City meeting

with Lafayette-Maraga and the downtown economic development meeting is on the 15th. I don't have

anything to add other than what a really hugely successful July 4th parade we had. So with that,

was there anything else? I forgot my notes with updates today. So I was looking at my calendar.

Remember things, but the new leadership panel that we participated in at St. Mary's. That was since

since our last council meeting, yes.

Yep, please go ahead.

There was a panel that it's a leadership class

for two or three days that a St. Mary's professor does.

And I don't know how, but she invited

the two of the mayor and I,

and otherwise it was a council member from Moraga,

a former Moraga council member and a Lafayette council member.

was all women and it was to a group of women and they had a lot of really interesting questions

and they were all very very pleased to hear that we were an all-female council and you know we

talked a lot about leadership and how that doesn't necessarily look different but how it looked for

us and it was a really interesting thing that happened in our backyard so I just wanted to share

that. And with that, we'll turn it over to Doug for the city manager report. I have no

report this evening. Wow. Your big spotlight moment for my big chance. Yeah. Take up some

air. We will see if there's any public comment on any of those reports. Uh, Sherry, is there

anything from the, there is not from zoom. Okay. With that, we will go on to the consent

calendar these are items that are voted all in one motion I know we have a

request to pull item I for so if somebody was going to pull that there's

already been a request on that one that's the safety element update but does

anybody else want to pull any other items for discussion or comment okay

seeing none I will move that we adopt the consent calendar do we have a second

Thank you. Um I'll second. All

in favor. Hi. Um I don't uh, I

thought, um, Doug, do you want

to? I know we didn't have asked

coal if he would present a

little bit, but do you want to

kind of introduce the matter?

Sure. So the item I for is the

2026 safety element update.

We're going to have Cole has

slip our assistant to the city

Thank you. So this safety element update is the first one that we've ever provided to the City Council.

We plan on providing an update to the City Council on an annual basis moving forward.

It provides an update on the roughly 60 different safety element items.

another 14 wildfire plan items, another 14 implementation action items, and about 45 evacuation related items.

So it's very comprehensive. I'm not going to go through all of those items with you tonight,

but I did think it would be nice if I read off some of the ones that we wanted to highlight for you.

And then because we did get a couple of comments

related to this item,

we have some information to address some of that.

So to begin with,

let's start with some emergency preparedness

and evacuation items.

So staff is very happy to announce

that we have completed emergency operations plan training

for all staff, and we have completed a tabletop exercise

in coordination with MOFD, the city of Lafayette,

the city of Moraga, and Contra Costa County, OES.

This is the first tabletop exercise

that the city has ever conducted

while anyone on staff has ever been here.

So quite a large accomplishment and really great

to be able to do with all the partners

we know we would be coordinating with

In the event of an emergency situation, we were also able to complete the highway. 24 median cut evacuation improvements, which provide additional emergency traffic routing capabilities during evacuations.

And we have continued to use LADRIS evacuation

modelings to evaluate different evacuation scenarios

and analyze the different things that we

could do related to traffic and evacuation planning

to make sure that we're well prepared

in the event of a scenario.

On the wildfire preparedness and resilience,

we have secured and anticipated $1 million

in funding for work on the North Orenda Shaded Fuel Break.

we anticipate receiving that money in about this spring ish of next year.

Once it gets through the final congressional appropriations process and

actually ends up on our plate.

We've also expanded zone zero implementation around city facilities,

making sure that we're doing our part, uh, to,

to maintain our facilities for wildfire.

We've also completed some targeted fuel reduction efforts,

along important evacuation routes in the city.

And we published the second edition

of Plants for Fire Savvy Landscape.

This is a really big hit.

So get your copies while you still can.

Supported SB 959 school closure legislation.

This is really important because it would allow our fire chief

to declare a local emergency on a red flag day

for other circumstances.

And then the school would be able to close

the confidence it would still get funding for that day from the state. And we've also continued our

ongoing efforts on wildfire communications through things like Arenda Ready and all the other

publications that we do. On infrastructure and community resilience items, we have joined the

Contra Costa County Regional Alternative Compliance, JPA, to provide additional regional

compliance options for stormwater treatment. We've also continued to advance storm drain

mapping initiatives and we've strengthened the community center's role as a resilience hub

through the installation of solar and backup power improvements. And then lastly on the highlights

from the safety element update, we have continued some of our other efforts related to wildfire

fuels mitigations with the CHIPR program and other items. So to directly address some of the public

comments that we received, specifically those on EV 9 and EV 10, I have an image pulled up for you

on your screen. What EV 9 and EV 10 really speak to is the ability of Arendans to get out of the

the City of Arenda and on to Highway 24 in the event of an emergency. So what I wanted

to share with you here is how the median cut project addresses that concern. So that red

route that you see there on your screen is the standard route that people would use to

get out of the city. So in this scenario here, we're assuming that there would be Contra

so there would be two lanes on Moraga Way going north,

or there would be two lanes going south on Camino Pablo.

The concern here is that the on-ramps onto the freeway

are only one lane, so the concern there

is that that could create a bottleneck.

We feel like the median cut project addresses that

because it opens up an additional freeway on-lap

for each row of traffic.

So that white marker that you see there,

that's the route that vehicles can now take. So now there's two different lanes that they can use

to get either direction. They would pass through the median cut, which is that little green thing

on your screen, and then they would be able to get onto Highway 24 accordingly. This is in addition

to kind of just the reality that those on-ramps can split into two lanes. So while it

is you know technically only one lane out of the city in the event that there's a fatality we

or a concern of a fatality because traffic is backed up we can split that into two lanes and

put people there. I tested out myself this afternoon I parked on the side there and a truck

came by me with a you know it was a big F-250 with a trailer on the back of it so I'm certain

that we can fit two lanes of traffic going on each of those off-ramps. That was interrelated to

EV 9 and 10 on EV 18 and EV 22.

Each of these items was addressing some conversations

that we need to have with BART.

We haven't had those conversations with BART yet,

but it's in our work plan to get to those.

And we just wanna let everyone know

that we haven't lost track of those

and we are planning on working on that as soon as we can.

On WFR 10, there was a question regarding the city's efforts with MOFD on the use of

emergency vehicle access roads.

This is something that we consistently have conversations with MOFD about.

It is important to note that whether or not those EVAs are used requires cooperation with

MOFD.

So really, our role in the process is to continue having conversations with them, letting them

know what our concerns are about those, and trying to work toward solutions that we can

both agree to, which we continue to do.

In fact, we're having a meeting with MOFD tomorrow.

This is a regular meeting that staff has on a monthly basis with MOFD, and we're going

to have that on the agenda for that meeting and continue to have those conversations.

On WFR 11, there was a question about how the city has worked with local partners to

address evacuation capacity and emergency response capabilities.

I think that that tabletop exercise is probably the best example of that.

We had the city of Lafayette Police Department there.

We had the city of Moraga Police Department there,

Contra Costa County, OES,

we had some folks from the community warning system there,

and of course, MLFD, our police department,

and it was an all staff meeting for us.

So that was really a great opportunity for us

to increase the capacity that each of our organizations

have to work together to address evacuation scenarios.

And we think it was very successful.

We hope to have more in the future.

We're just getting our after action report back now

from that meeting.

And we're starting to think about what the next step could be.

Is that a functional exercise?

Is that another tabletop in a couple of years?

Those are really the types of things

that are gonna help us to increase

evacuation capacity moving forward.

That's almost all of the items that I wanted to address.

There's one more question about

when does the Moraga Way bike lane improvement project start?

And the answer to that is we don't know yet

because that project is waiting on grant funding

to get dispersed from the federal government.

We have to wait till we get that money

until we can actually release an RFP for the project.

And that's when we would know what the timeline

for the delivery of it would be.

That's all I had to provide you with.

there is a resolution that is attached to this item.

And the recommendation from staff

is to adopt the resolution

which adopts the safety element update.

Thank you, I'll ask you to stick around for a minute

in case there are questions.

So I'll see, does anybody have questions for staff?

Seeing none, I'll ask if there's

any additional public comment.

You mentioned some of the questions

we got in writing before.

I don't see anybody here.

Sherry, do we have any public comment from outside?

We do not.

Okay, with that, does anybody want to discuss

or shall we vote to somebody who want to make a resolution?

A motion?

Brief comment.

I know we have public comment on this item,

written public comment that we've all received and read

and I just wanted to thank Cole

for an excellent, really excellent presentation

that not only I thought addressed sort of the highlights

of a very dense document in a very understandable way,

but also I think really addressed some of the public comment,

written public comments we got.

And I do think that it,

I like that we can bring this to a public comment.

I mean, I want this to be,

I don't want to have the safety element updates

be a consent item.

I do think that it's nice to have a brief presentation

because there may be members of the public

that are interested in it.

And I think it highlights how much we've done.

So congratulations to all of staff

for all the work that went into this.

And it really, I think summarizes

some incredible accomplishments

And while we have so far to go in this area, we've done so much.

And thank you.

Just a quick ditto.

I really appreciate all the work you put into this and I appreciate how you gave us a nice

summary and how you directly responded to all the concerns that have been written in

advance.

Thank you so much, Cole.

Thank you.

And I just do want, without sounding too repetitive, I want to remind everyone that the comments

about infrastructure. The next CCTA transportation expenditure plan is our best opportunity to

define projects or features or activities that we would like to see funded in a new

measure. So that is really important for our staff to be thinking of in terms of are there

specific infrastructure improvements, or are there specific other activities that might

be supportive of helping our safety element?

And just one other I know I got touched on, but one other thing that I think is important

to remind everyone is that the smart signals program is also a very positive ability to

assist during an evacuation and it should be fully complete before the beginning of

2027.

Great points. Thank you. I just noticed the fire break point because we don't talk about

it as much. It's not as much in our control, but that's a really, really meaningful citywide

safety improvement. Very exciting. I also appreciated you mentioning things other than

fire preparation because we had that little earthquake from Wilts about a week ago, and

it was a reminder that the safety element is more far-reaching, and so I appreciated

your touching on that in your highlights. Was there anything else, or do we have a motion?

Anyone?

One more little, please?

Just what your comments, Mayor, just made me think. I know we have been communicating

about the improvements, the median improvements, but to the extent we can continue to sort

of get out to our residents what we've done and why we've done it. I loved the map you

put up because you showed how two lanes go, right, in one direction or the other. And

so I don't know if sort of, you know, for social, so little annotated video talking

about it or something like that. I think we need to just continue to put the information

out there as much as possible. And I know we've done it. I've seen a post, I think,

about this before. But if we can keep that front and center, that would be great.

Do we have a motion?

I'll move approval of adopting the resolution to accept the safety element update.

And a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

And again, Cole, thank you for coming

and doing that little impromptu presentation.

We'll now move on to item J1,

and that's a public hearing with proposed amendments

to the Title 16 and Title 17,

that's subdivisions and zoning of the municipal code

on the subject of the Senate Bill 1123 implementation.

And it looks like we've got Darren Hughes

from planning to present.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council,

members of the public.

associate planner Darren Hughes here to present on item J1 once that pops up on the screen.

All right so this is the proposed ordinance 26-05 this for the starter home revitalization act.

So this is um this act we talked about this back in March on March 3rd at the City Council we

provided an overview of this and received City Council direction but this allows for ministerially

subdividing eligible single family residential lots into up to 10 parcels for the development

of up to 10 residential units. This law gives us some explicit discretion to, or sorry,

the ability to exercise our discretion as a local jurisdiction over three particular

items. The first is the waiver of property sale restrictions. The second is subsequent

ministerial lot splits under Senate Bill 9, another act that allows ministerial lot splits

at single family residential parcels and then the allowance of accessory dwelling units

on these parcels. So this ordinance exercises the city's discretion on these particular

three items based off of City Council direction. So March 3rd, we provided an overview to the

City Council to talk about the impacts or potential impacts of this bill and what we

seeing and receive some direction from City Council on where we should be

bringing or what we should be bringing into a proposed ordinance we follow that

up after drafting after drafting a proposed ordinance we bought that on May

12th 2026 to a Planning Commission hearing where we also provided them with

an update on the bill and an overview on what it would allow and they voted

unanimously for zero to recommend that the City Council adopt this proposed

We'll go ahead and go to the

next slide.

So I'll provide a very brief

overview of the ordinance.

So this is, it requires

ministerial approval, which is a 60-day

maximum process for subdividing eligible

residential lots into up to 10 parcels for the

development of up to 10 residential units.

The important note there is this isn't a one-to-one

on those parcels, so there are a lot of configurations

that could come forward in an application.

SB 1123 was effective in July 1st,

on July 1st, 2025, and expanded site eligibility

to include vacant single-family zoned lots.

Prior to this, it was for multifamily zoned lots.

This limits it up to 1.5 acres in size

for those single-family zoned lots.

and then AB 130 came along,

went into effect at the same time,

and it allows a developer to designate a remainder parcel.

And that would be a circumstance

where someone has a developed lot

and they say a portion of my lot

that meets all of the other subdivision map act

and the subdivision requirements in Orinda

is going to be a remainder, doesn't count.

And the rest of that could be used and considered vacant

for the purposes of going forth

with a starter home revitalization act subdivision.

So, five pieces, five big points of eligibility.

One is maximum size, can't exceed 1.5 acres.

Two, it has to be considered vacant,

so there's no permanent habitable structure on it,

although that again was modified

by that designated remainder law

that allows someone to carve off a portion

of their parcel to be considered vacant.

There can't also have been tenant occupancy

within the past five years.

So you can't have a circumstance where someone

was renting out a parcel and then decides

it's more economically advantageous for them

to kick the tenant out and then demolish that

and consider it vacant at that point

for the purposes of this bill.

Infill, it has to be surrounded by on its perimeters,

at least 75% of its perimeters have to be surrounded

by qualified urban uses.

So what this might exclude are parcels

that are at the edge of the city,

that don't have any borders with other developed parcels.

Parcels in the middle of a bunch of other vacant parcels

may not be eligible.

It just depends on the math around

how much of their perimeter is surrounded

by those urban uses.

It has to be established appropriately,

so someone can't go through SB 9, an SB 9 subdivision,

carve their parcel into two,

and then use one of those halves

to subsequently go under the Starter Home Revitalization Act.

And then finally, it can't be located

within a very high fire hazard severity zone,

which is much of the Western portion of Arinda.

So some of the things that we're required to allow,

parcels can be as small as 1200 square feet.

The average floor space across the project

can't exceed 1750 net habitable square feet.

This is supposed to be smaller homes on average.

We can't impose a floor area ratio

less than one for three to seven units

or 1.25 eight to 10 units.

So this would allow theoretically for things to be developed

in an upwards manner more

or occupy more space than we might normally see

because for a specific parcel

because these are smaller parcels on average.

We can't require side and rear setbacks greater than four feet

from original lot lines.

And no internal setbacks are allowed between new units.

So that is very much in line with what

we see with SB 9 and ADU laws.

And then we can't require more than one off-street parking

space.

And we can't require that parking space

to be enclosed or covered.

We can require adherence to all objective standards,

the city wide objective design standards for single family homes, multi family homes that would apply to any projects that are brought forward on these on these parcels. We can. We cannot, however.

that would be a good example.

to proceed. And then what's created under the Act generally may not be sold

individually until they have been developed in accordance with the Act's

requirements. So that is to state that someone couldn't subdivide into 10

parcels and then just start selling them off individually without having them

developed first. So the proposed ordinance 2605 focuses on three of these items. One,

We have discretion in the state law to waive the sale and lease restrictions, but we are

opting through this ordinance to confirm that we are committed to not waiving those particular

restrictions.

Subsequent SB 9 lot splits, that is something that could be permissible by state law, but

we are allowed as a jurisdiction to state that we are not going to allow that going

forward.

And this is just to manage this compounding of smaller and smaller lots because in theory

we could have 10 lots that are very small by Arinda standards and then homeowners later

on could go through an SB9 lot split process and turn those 10 lots in a very extreme scenario

into 20 lots.

And then for now we are prohibiting ADUs on new lots.

So basically every, while there is not a one-to-one requirement, any sub, uh, for units two lots,

any subdivision that can have up to 10 lots on it can have a maximum of 10 units.

Um, and a lot of those units, those units may be the size of an ADU, but we can't, um,

ministerially approve ADUs in the future.

Let's say when a homeowner moves in, owns that home, all of the homes have, uh, been

have. That they would not be

then built out on these lots

then they would not be allowed

to create yet another unit on

these small lots. So these are.

I've listed on this side and

the next slide the title 7 16

and 17 amendments in case we

need to return to these, but

these are just implementing

what I've just discussed. So

one additional one additional

assess the idea of evacuation safety analysis,

what kind of policies do we have in play?

What could we potentially consider in order to ensure

that we are safely developing these lots?

This was prompted at the suggestion of the resident,

Nick Warnoff, who recommended that we create a policy

that would prohibit development within 100 feet

the evacuation routes. Staff did meet with HCD staff. Approximately, this was back in

apologies. This was at the beginning of April and at that point HCD staff in reviewing what

it was that we were discussing and the possibility of coming up with something that would create

a prohibition on development at these lots confirmed to staff that this would basically

be interpreted as a blanket prohibition or an additional restriction on top of the restrictions

within the law already.

And so staff's intent at this point is to undergo some additional analysis in order

to figure out what policies we have on the books that we can leverage and make sure that

We are being very clear about that are used to ensure safe and appropriate development

at new subdivisions, at new developments, highlight these particular constraints.

So it's very clear what the process is for applicants.

This isn't just a free for all generally in these locations.

So we're looking at leveraging existing wildlife urban interface development constraints.

the entirety of Verrinda has been classified as wildlife urban interface, and there are

a series of restrictions and additional considerations and additional requirements that projects

need to meet, particularly related to access, the width of roads, the maximum length of

roads to dead end locations, location of fire hydrants, even the requirements around plantings

that are adjacent to homes.

looking at these series of policies in order to help identify which of them generally present

some reasonable obstacles to just wholesale development under under a bill like SB1123.

We're also looking at using using evacuation modeling software, so the city's ladder software,

in order to establish some objective constraint thresholds and that would potentially look like

setting a baseline, and once you can show that a cumulative number of projects exceeds a certain

baseline of, let's say, evacuation time frames, then we would be able to say we can't have any

development beyond that point. And then we're looking at potential new policies regarding

access management. So Steph anticipates coming back at one of the future meetings. I believe

the target is July 21st to discuss these policies and our considerations in more depth.

So the recommended recommendation for tonight is to introduce and waive the first reading of

ordinance 26-05 amending title 16 subdivisions and title 17 zoning of the original municipal code

to establish local limitations on parcels created pursuant to California Government Code section

and 66499.41.

So if it's introduced tonight,

this item would be brought back to city council

on July 21st for Orson after as possible

for a second reading and adoption.

And we'd come back with that comprehensive review

meeting the city council's other direction.

All right, and that concludes staff's presentation.

If you have any, I am open to any questions.

I'd like to lead us off, Council Member Hoxie.

Hi, thank you.

I'm struggling with the setbacks and zone zero and how close together these dwellings might

end up being because if there's only a four-foot setback but zone zero says you're not supposed

to have any structures or anything within five feet of the perimeter of your home how does that

all work? What would that look like in actual development? Council we see that right now with

with some applications, we see that for ADUs,

we see that for additions to people's homes

and for new SB9 units.

They go through a process of review with the fire district

and the fire district looks at these projects and says,

okay, you're within X feet of a property line.

By our standards, we, in a lot of cases,

they will come forward and say,

you're supposed to have 30 foot setbacks.

And there are exceptions to those 30 foot setbacks

that are allowed in certain circumstances

if the applicants can show that they're able

to mitigate those particular features.

So sometimes what that might look like

when someone's proposing an ADU

that's four feet away from property lines

because, and same as SB9 units,

those are allowed four feet right now from property lines.

And that includes technically

in the very high fire hazard severity zone.

Often that will look like MOFDE

requiring clearance around it.

So just nothing but hardscaping, no plants nearby.

There are additional measures that go into play.

I think some building code standards come into play.

Certain openings adjacent to property lines,

if they're within five feet of a property line,

can't be made so you can't have windows on an ADU

or on a single family home at a property

or very close to a property line shared with another property.

So there are a lot of things that we're seeing

that applicants are having to go through right now

that are additional constraints in the cause.

I think, generally speaking,

a little bit more back and forth

and a little bit more review,

and we're seeing more frequent cases

where someone comes to us with an application.

We require approval by MOFD, they go to MOFD.

There's some things that they need to have revised,

and eventually we get back a revised plan set

that meets some of their requirements.

So a lot of that discretion

is enacted by MOFD plan checking.

So these are essentially almost like townhouses,

but they don't touch, right?

So eight feet is like four feet and four feet.

It's the width of this table pretty much.

Is there any, do they have to form homeowners associations?

Is there any coordination that the developer has to do

amongst these properties?

That I don't think that there are a lot of requirements

in state law related to that.

I would have to do a little bit of research

order to figure out what the law says about what the ownership structure ends up looking like.

Okay, so it looked like to me from what you were showing that the developer would then sell off

each individual unit home when it was built on the lot, but you're not sure if there has to be

be any sort of homeowners arrangement amongst those let's say 10 units.

Correct. We don't see any of that in current state law with SB 9 units. For instance we

have had developers purchase pieces of land and develop a number of units. We generally

don't see two SB 9 units on one single parcel that hasn't been previously subdivided. But

We have seen developers purchase a couple of parcels, develop a single family home in

an ADU on one, a single family home in an ADU on another and sell them off individually.

I don't think that there's anything in the state law that would bar that from happening

with this particular law.

But it's not the only paradigm.

I think there's a decent chance that that would be the most common approach in Arinda

is that developers would potentially use this

to carve a couple of additional lots

that they might not have been able to get before

and develop a single family home on that and sell that off.

That's generally speaking what we see in the Arinda market,

but it doesn't necessarily preclude someone from coming in

and saying, I'm going to propose this 10 unit development

that is just a small apartment building

and then rent all of those units out.

So we just haven't,

I don't know if we would see that intermendo.

There are some implications of the law

that we haven't fully explored.

And then what about the access to the units?

Like, do they have to build any infrastructure?

Because depending on how it's situated on a lot,

if they're homes that are in the back

or whatever, they may not have access to the road.

Yes, we do have, so that will be part of the next session's

analysis a little bit, is kind of highlighting

what those regulations are.

A lot of those are enacted by M OFD's regulations.

There are minimum road widths for access.

There's minimum turnarounds for certain lengths of road.

We actually see requirements up to 28 feet wide,

depending on where they're located.

So access is definitely one of these strong considerations.

we have definitely had talks with developers

in the last half year as the law kind of spun into effect

where the developers were looking at sites

that ultimately they decided were not going to be suitable

just because the access requirements,

the maximum grade for a driveway leading up

to a particular potential home

was just going to be too great to make it profitable.

Thank you.

So can you remind us, I'm struggling to remember,

are people allowed to demolish an existing single family home

in order to undertake this option under this law?

Yes, Vice Mayor, there's nothing in the law

that states that you can't do that.

The primary consideration there is that it can't have been

a rental property within the past five years

in order to do that.

But we see it with SB 9.

Some times we will have applications

that are for new single family residential units.

A new home is going to be proposed

that is taking place of it,

that is replacing an older home.

So they demolish the older home,

use SB 9 to get the new home in place ministerially,

just to streamline the process.

So there's nothing in state law

that would prevent that from happening

with existing homes in Orinda,

as long as they're meeting all the other requirements.

Generally speaking, if you see a home get demolished

in order to take advantage of this fall,

that would have to be on a parcel that is a,

I mean, meeting all of those other requirements

would have to be outside

of the very high fire hazard severity zone.

It would have to be a maximum of 1.5 acres.

and the various other restrictions that are in play

would still be in effect.

And then just a quick follow up to that,

all of the new units that are built, whatever they are,

and whether they're intended to be rented or not,

are they all reassessed at fair market value

for property tax purposes?

Yes.

The requirements, I think you've already answered this,

but just to be clear,

because it confused me with the verbiage.

Infill, there was a term, qualified urban uses

includes single family home residential use, correct?

Yes.

And then I had sort of a follow-up

to Council Member Hoxie's questions

in that part of this is trying to understand

the starter home revitalization act.

Like so you can have, I understand the rules and regulations.

What I'm trying to do is wrap my head around what that looks

like potentially in Arinda and just understand it better.

And I think your questions touched on some of that.

But, you know, so I understand that if you have like a 1.4

acre property, it can be subdivided into 10 parcels, right?

Or even 11 potentially if there's already a home there,

right? And then you could have townhomes or smaller homes that don't touch, but there

was something in the in the presentation that made me understand, and I think I missed this

before, but can it be that it could be split into 10 lots and then you build upwards on three of

the lots, so you build sort of an apartment like situation or condos or something like that, and

I'm going to go back to it.

And then could you then keep

six of the lots empty and sell

a, you know, unit together with

one of an empty lot so that

you're essentially turning this

into what looks like an

apartment area.

And then have just one parking

space required?

Is that sort of what I'm

understanding?

I just want to understand what

I think these are good questions.

I spent a lot of time trying to figure out ways

to break this set of rules,

things that people could try to take advantage of.

I even reached out to some former planners

and current developers to try to get an assessment

of just how squarely can this be.

It's all speculation, but what you're describing,

in theory someone could subdivide into 10 parcels,

but then only develop on three of those.

But the sales restriction component would be a problem there if you have a whole bunch

of parcels that are undeveloped and you've developed the first ones, maybe not that full

10 units.

Maybe all of those undeveloped parcels have the potential to add another unit to them

to get up to that number 10.

You still wouldn't be able to sell all of those off individually to individual homeowners.

you have to develop on them under this subdivision act.

The exception to that,

and this is based off of reading

through the sales restrictions,

some of the lots that can be subdivided can be common space.

They can be open space in some way, shape, or form,

or something used for the purposes of just enjoyment

of the full development.

So you can designate those,

but generally speaking in a subdivision,

those get designated up front.

They're not going to be subdivided in such a manner

that they can be developed on.

But the major control point here for all of this

is that when we go through the subdivision process

and we approve that final map,

we can put all of the standards and conditions

on that final map.

So if you did something, in theory,

you could subdivide into 10 parcels

and think that you're getting away with something

by developing 10 units on one of them

and saying, well, I got you.

Now the rest can be developed

because clearly I made these parcels happen.

But the Subdivision Map Act would limit

the total number of units that could have been developed

on that to 210.

So if they do it that way,

then they're just creating a bunch of vacant lots

that will never be utilized around,

except maybe in theory if that set of units

gets demolished at some point in the future

and they'd spread the parcels out a little bit more.

there are a lot of odds and ends of configurations

that you could fathom with this.

For instance, the average 1750 square feet requirements.

In theory, you could propose a whole bunch

of 500 square foot units and one very large unit

that kind of breaks that mold.

You would not, as far as I'm aware,

we would still be able to apply all the objective standards

of our code, which caps things at 7000 square feet,

or for these smaller parcels

at much smaller square footages.

So there should be a limit on what someone could propose

in those circumstances.

But I think for the most part,

what we would be relying on is that the standards

that we can basically

weight into the final map itself.

As far as what we typically might see here,

we don't really know that yet.

We've only had one application,

we only have one application that is currently in progress

and is to create four lots,

presumably to develop a single family residence

on each of them.

And what I would say my inkling at this stage

is that's probably going to be

the more common use of this law.

We've never seen or we've rarely seen SB9, for instance,

absolutely maximized to where you can develop two units on.

Or SB9 is an example where you could have a developed lot

with one single family residential parcel.

You can buy it, move in, subdivide it

so that you have two parcels now.

You can build another single family residential unit

on your parcel, build two of them on the other parcel,

and then sell them off as you see fit.

Well, the other two would have to stay together, but-

can I just ask a really quick, but there's nothing that requires the development to be

detached or to be detached houses. And I'm just asking because the nomenclature is starter

home, but it could be a starter home, can be apartments, it could be condos, anything.

Correct.

I had one other question, but please go ahead. Maybe. No, um, this, my other question goes

to the issue of sort of the evacuation thought in terms of the feasibility of categorically

prohibiting development on parcels within 100 feet of evacuation routes. And it sounds

like HCD and the staff report verify that the evaluation has to be done on a case by

case basis. And so what I was thinking and reading that is instead of sort of a blanket

prohibition where I can see where that would be something that HCD would balk at. Could

sort of being within 100 feet of an evacuation route trigger sort of a utilization of an

evacuation analysis that included the modeling we have or something like that to assess on

a case by case basis? In other words, instead of a blanket prohibition, maybe the circumstance

of being would trigger a case-by-case evaluation because that really is then looking at what the

danger at that particular property. So that's just the idea. I don't know if that's something

that was discussed or we have discussed this to a certain extent. I would have to defer to legal

counsel on the exact ways that we can implement such requirements because to me it's still just

just a little bit nebulous and unclear as how far we can go

in requiring the applicant.

When you look at HCD's response letters,

technical assistance, their letters to communities

where these types of issues are brought up,

where something, some project has been denied

and they point to this health and safety standard section

of the government code.

Their typical analysis states that the onus is on the city

to make those determinations.

We can have standards in play and we can have

specific policies that identify the safety concerns in play.

But we, as far as I'm aware, the brunt of the work

has to be done by the local jurisdiction to say,

this is not going to be able to meet those findings.

And therefore we can deny the project,

but I would defer to city council for further information.

All right, that's me.

So we, staff and I have been working to try to get something

ready to bring back to the council

and we're not quite there yet,

but we are thinking along the lines of,

how do we meet the standard that's in the government code,

which I'll just read it, it's in the staff report.

We have to be based on a preponderance of the evidence,

project would have specific adverse impact

on public health and safety.

So a finding has to be made preponderance of the evidence,

public health and safety,

and then for which there is no feasible mitigation.

That's a lot of layers.

We have to be able to, on a case-by-case basis,

make a determination to adopt findings.

So what we're doing is we're looking at rules

that already exist out in the world.

MOFD implements most of them that are geared

to how do you protect public health and safety

when you're doing a subdivision?

So that's a really great source of information.

and then thinking creatively beyond that

to the extent we can.

But I will say this is a very, I read it to you,

it's a very challenging standard to meet.

Thank you.

I had two questions.

First of all, the Planning Commission,

were there any comments or questions

that are relevant from their discussion?

No, I think most of the discussion was centering

around an understanding of the law,

same as the prior discussion

that we had with the city council.

that I don't believe that there was anything in relation to tonight's ordinance beyond

a very positively localized support for enacting those standards in order to maximize our local

discretion.

Terrific.

Um, this question was already asked and answered, I'm going to ask it again, um, I, the, that

standard about the urban and the infill use, the 75% felt to me like it was more aimed

jurisdictions like a San Francisco or in Oakland where you've got single-family parcels in

urban or infill settings where commercial and residential are a little mixed up.

A place like Arinda where there's town and then it's entirely residential. How far did you go

to really make sure that those those words urban and infill just feel so specific to not

We are going to have a little

bit more about your certainty

level on that.

I can say I'm actually quite

certain on that one and part of

the reason is because that same

terminology is used in a couple

of other laws as it pertains to

for instance commercial

development along downtown

corridors.

So we've looked into what that

qualifies and I know that we've

had some interesting potential

cases that we haven't fully

resolved where we might look at

and that's going to be able to

do the same thing. Um, you

know, across from Orinda Grove,

does does qualified urban

infill count if it's like a

common open space? Is that a

parcel that could qualify as,

um, urban infill? And while I

don't necessarily have the

answer on that right now,

unfortunately, no one has

proposed anything that would

challenge that. Um. Residential

is a qualified urban use. Um

to a certain extent to qualify. I think there's a little bit of language around what kind of park

that is and how it like it has to be a publicly accessible park of some form. But it's a pretty

broad term that just indicates that something has to be developed. And then for the stuff that's

not developed, usually it has to at least be zoned for that development. So I can look at that just

to be a little bit more certain, but I'm above 90% that that is going to apply to Arinda.

I'd be delighted if you could maybe just send a private follow up.

It sounds to me like what you're saying is it's urban means not open space, but urban.

Because I was thinking of if sleepy hollow is urban, then what's not urban?

But it sounds like what you're saying is it's not open space, but that's the line.

Correct. I think that's one of the biggest lines, not open space,

not a vacant lot that has just never been developed in some way, shape, or form.

I think there may be some other negatives

that are brought up as examples in the law,

but I'll find that explicit piece

because if I recall correctly,

the portion of the law that says urban info points

to a more commonly used piece of the law.

Thank you.

I didn't have any other questions.

Were there any others for stuff?

Okay, with that,

and I'm trying to remember the public hearing format,

I believe we will open it to the public

for questions and comments.

We did get some written comments.

I don't see a lot of people here tonight.

Anybody from the public want to get up and speak?

Seeing none, do we have any from online?

We do not.

Okay, and with that, we'll bring it up for discussion

and potentially a motion.

Would anyone like to lead us off?

I mean, I think we have to adopt the proposed changes

or whatever you want to call them,

but it's sort of a scary proposition

for a small town like Arinda

to have the possibility of this kind of development

which is very different

than the kind of development we currently have.

And I think it might be something to bring up

with the M-O-F-D in a two by two

as far as it seems like they have as much power

with. As anybody to uh, Act on

the health and safety and fire

evacuation concerns, uh, that I

would guess neighbors of this

potential property might have.

Um but I think we should move

ahead. Any other comments? Um I

state laws regarding housing given a very long list of them.

But I would also suggest,

I mean, I certainly am totally in agreement

with everything that we're going to do

because we're allowed to do it.

But I would also suggest that for the long run,

this particular piece of legislation would be an area

that I would suggest would be ripe for us to be discussing

with our partners in Lafayette and Moraga

in terms of future amendments to this legislation

or differing legislation that might,

because I think, I agree with Council Member Hoxie,

this is a very scary proposition

as to what people could potentially come up with.

And I do think it would be very, very concerning

to our community on so many different levels,

whether it's fire safety or attractiveness or anything

that you can think of.

I do think it's really a very frustrating piece

of legislation.

But I would suggest that it be high on our list

for future discussions about what can be done.

because just because something becomes a law

doesn't mean it can't be changed, amended, have new laws, so.

Yeah, that's a good point.

I do wonder, I mean, I was sort of in my head,

as you could say, but my question is trying to,

like Council Member Hoxie was,

play out all the different permutations

of what could happen.

But I do think that what is more likely in Arinda,

Frankly, just because there's a community

of mostly single family homes

and sort of a value placed on that.

And so there's an economic incentive to continue

to build that and maintain that.

And so I suspect that the way this would play out

in our community would be more consistent

with the build that currently exists,

of course, there's no limitation there,

but I suspect that may be the case,

but in terms of the resolution before us,

there's, I, you know, favorite.

Yeah, I think we have to go forward with it.

In my mind, it's absurd, but I'm hopeful

that it will be, there'll be very little opportunity,

but I can't see people doing it.

I'm envisioning tiny homes in Orinda and you know,

that where we have really, really small units, I don't know.

I'd be very surprised, but I guess I also am hopeful

because we really haven't seen the maximum use

of the duplex and the ADU thing

that the worst case scenario has not happened in that case.

And so I'm thinking maybe we won't see it here too soon,

but I agree with Vice Mayor that this is something

we should definitely talk to a La Marinda folks

and see what we can do about amendments in the future

or watch it together.

Watch it closely.

I have very little add.

I thought the comments tonight were really thoughtful.

And I agree that the resolution before us

is kind of a no brainer and most of tonight

was an educational exercise to continue

to really understand 1123.

I really agree with these comments that the reality

is likely to be far less scary than the possibilities

as we've seen with SB9, which was terrifying.

And when I first saw 1123, my jaw was on the ground,

but the more we've now talked about it several times,

talked about it offline.

And I think we don't have any starter homes

and things like duplexes or triplexes

or four units that are a little smaller,

that's maybe okay.

I mean, because a lot of the housing inventory

we're losing are smaller homes.

Some of those ranchers and bungalows,

they get torn down for a huge lot filling spec homes.

This is a little bit of an answer to that trend.

And so maybe some modest good things

that our actual starter homes will come out of it.

And I don't think we're gonna get 10 chiclets

on a single family parcel,

but really appreciate that spirit of continuing

to see what we can do to improve and clarify

and make sure that they're safe.

The fire hazard severity prohibition to me

was the biggest comfort of all,

is knowing that they're not gonna push this density

where it's high severity and they're not.

So that was also, it gives me some hope

that there's a common sense implementation

that's actually gonna be nice,

but we're obviously all over it

and really appreciate the planning department's

ongoing educational efforts to make sure that the,

not just us, but the public understands these state laws

and what they mean, because there's a lot.

So thank you.

I didn't have another comment

other than supporting the resolution.

Eric, can I ask one more question?

Thinking about this, and one of the things that deters ADUs

and other building in Arrenda is the cost of building,

given the topography and the expense.

And I was just wondering,

are there any restrictions on people bringing in prefabricated homes on these lots?

We do not have any restrictions on prefabricated homes. We do have objective design standards

that generally focus a little bit more on massing. A lot of the prefabricated homes

that we see for ADUs, for instance, are probably small enough that they are not going to ever

really break the bounds or the molds that we have within our objective design standards.

I don't know to what extent the objective design standards may take issue with some aspects of

prefabricated homes, but I suspect it would be fairly minimal. What I can say is that for all

of the ADUs that we have approved in Arinda, I'm kind of surprised that it's actually a fairly

small percentage that actually utilize these prefabricated homes. And one of the biggest

reasons is building pads. Most people are developing these smaller homes in the spare

space that they have and the spare lots that, you know, just have been difficult to develop.

When you look, for instance, at the list of lots that are vacant right now in Arinda,

they're the ones that have sat the longest, generally speaking, because they're very difficult

to build upon. And so prefabricated, prefabricated manufactured homes benefit from being able

to just slap them on a pretty simple slab on grade configuration. And usually that aspect makes it

so that it is not as affordable as you might hope. So we don't see them frequently, which is not to

say that we won't see them. It's just it's not a common practice. Thank you. I just may I just

want to thank you for your comments because I think you know I when we think about building

more duplexes or condos, which we very much need in a render.

We think about putting them downtown or closer to downtown

because it's closer to transit, walkability, sustainability,

and fire, evacuation, right?

But the reality is we do need those.

And so let's all hope that this is implemented

in a way that makes sense in our community to the extent it is.

So there's a good reminder that maybe that will happen.

Thank you.

have a motion or any further comments? I so move. I'll second. All in favor? Aye. And with that we

are unanimously approved on ordinance 2605 and to come back at a, I guess our next meeting.

And with that we have policy matter K1 which is an overview of our proclamation practices

looks like Cole's gonna present, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor, members of council.

So at the April 21st, 2026 meeting,

the city council was reviewing updates

to their council rules and procedures,

at which time it was requested that staff

do a comparative analysis of how other communities

go about issuing their proclamations.

So I got to do a fun exercise

where I called some of the clerks around

Contra Costa County and some other neighboring areas

and asked them, what do you do?

And so we came up with a lovely table

that details how Arinda compares

to some of the other communities here.

I'm gonna go through some of the things

in this table here in a moment,

but before I do, I did wanna briefly state

that there is no recommendation from staff on this item.

this is information only.

I think one of the things that I learned from this exercise

is just about every single city does their proclamations

in a little bit different of a way.

And most of them have tailored them over time

in a way that fits best for what they want them to.

And if council wants to issue any direction to staff

at the end of this presentation and your discussion

about how you would like to update the council rules

to best fit the things that you would like to achieve.

You are certainly in your power and rights to do so.

And if that's the case,

then we would bring back a resolution

to update your council rules at a future meeting.

So there are a few different categories

when we're talking about proclamations.

The first of those is approval method.

And what we found was some communities

approved their proclamations on a case by case basis.

So for example, Parks and Rec Month comes up,

either the city council or the mayor or staff

would take a look at that one as an individual basis

and decide whether or not to approve it or not.

Other cities, what they do is they have a big long list

of all the proclamations that they plan

on adopting throughout the calendar year.

and then they'll adopt that list all at one time.

So a couple of different flavors there.

Then the approval authority was another thing

that we looked at.

Again, it's very different.

Some the approval authority is by council.

Some it's by the mayor.

Others it's by the council and the mayor,

which is what we have here in the city of Arenda.

And in other places, it's the mayor,

but they've designated that authority to someone else,

like the city manager,

or it's specifically called out in the rules

that the city manager is responsible

for determining what proclamations are issued.

So again, a lot of different ways on deciding

who gets to say yes or no to any one proclamation.

When it comes to initiating proclamations,

we found, again, a lot of differences here.

Individual council members in some communities

were able to propose a proclamation

and others the request had to come from the public

and others, the request had to come from a board

or a commission.

So a variety of methods there.

And then when we're talking about actually awarding

the proclamations, again, a lot of different ways to do it.

Some just issue the resolution.

Some have a public presentation that may entail

a reading of the resolution.

Some just have the mayor read the resolution.

Others will have it rotate from counselor to counselor.

And then in the town of Moraga,

they have a councilor read one of the whereas's

and then it goes to the next councilor

to read the next whereas and so on and so forth.

And then in other communities,

they won't do the presentation

at the city council meeting at all.

They'll only do them at a specific event

related to the proclamation,

or they'll just mail the proclamation

and that will be that.

but there's, again, just so many different ways,

so many different options for the council to consider here.

No staff recommendation.

With that brief overview of everything that we found,

I'll turn the meeting back over to the mayor.

I guess, first we'll open it for questions

or to see if, I believe it was Council Member Raukani's

initiative to bring this up.

So to see if there aren't questions,

if you'd like to lead off your thoughts.

I don't have questions, I do have six things thoughts,

but let's get public comment first, sir.

City Council Regular - July 7, 2026

Agenda

2. June 16, 2026, Regular Meeting

Transcript