Good evening and welcome to the Novato City Council meeting for Tuesday, July 22nd.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

One nation.

And it's all being just called roll.

Councilmember Eklund.

Present.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Present.

Councilmember Milberg.

Present.

Mayor Pro Tem Farak.

Present and Mayor O'Connor.

Present, thank you.

There was no closed session this evening, so our first item will be a ceremonial presentation for the Fourth of July parade winners.

I'd like to invite council and the members of the Fourth of July Parade Committee to meet me up front, please.

Thanks.

Okay.

So this is one of my favorite things to do because this is the coolest trophy in all of Nevada.

Straight up.

I'd like to introduce you to some members of the Fourth of July Parade Committee.

We all know there's a Fourth of July Parade.

What you may not know is that it's entirely hosted by volunteers every year who start planning.

You've probably started planning already, frankly.

Fifteen people put that put it on.

It's close to a hundred floats, if not more, every year.

And they do such a terrific job.

So I just wanted to introduce you to Jennifer Goldfinger, who is the chair, and I want to give her the opportunity to say a few words and also introduce the members of her committee this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening.

I hope a lot of you came to the parade.

I know that some of you did.

The chief did, I know, and other people.

Um hope the council enjoyed being in the parade again.

To my left is Beth Windsor, who coordinated the judges who decided on the winner.

Uh next is Sue Royce.

Next is Tim O'Connor.

Mark's not on the committee.

Um, and Sophia Osotio, who is one of the vice chairs, and she does the volunteers and Lord knows what else, but lots of stuff.

Um, we love doing this, it's a labor of love.

Um, and as Tim said, we are already starting on next year's parade.

So if you're interested, please join us.

One thing we will be needing is lots, lots more event day volunteers.

So planting the seed early.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer.

And so this evening we get to recognize the best in parade winner, which for this year was Rhythms Performing Arts.

And with us is Kate Kenya.

Come on up, Kate.

So you get to take home this beautiful trophy in a minute.

Um Kate, along with Amanda Nelson, co-owned Rhythms.

Um, this is not their only big achievement this year, it's also your 20th year in business, if I'm not mistaken.

So 20 years uh educating and teaching and supporting Nevada's youth.

Um I've been to a few of your shows.

Um I'd say on an average year, you've got to have a couple of hundred kids come through your doors, right?

Yes.

So over 20 years, what, thousands of children probably?

Yeah.

Like the impression you guys have made in our community is magnificent.

So not just congratulations on this, but also 20 years of wonderful work.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Would you like to say a few words?

Oh, sure.

Well, I just was so happy when I was um getting ready for the parade with the kids, and we were all waiting for our turn to go.

And I looked around, and there were so many amazing volunteers putting it together.

And um, and it's so fun.

I don't know if you've ever been in the parade, but everybody waiting for their turn all goes and looks around at everyone else's floats and says hi to all the people they know.

And I really think it's one of the most small town, um, wonderful traditions that we could have.

And so it's it's just really great to be a part of it, and I really appreciate the people who put it on.

It's fun for our kids, and it's fun for our town.

So thank you very, very much.

Thank you.

We'll look forward to seeing your auntie next year.

This is for you.

Woohoo!

Pride of Place, and that's that would be great.

And if you want to head down to Monica right here, she'll take your photograph.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, and congratulations.

Thank you for everything, guys.

Oh, that's it.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh moving on.

The next item of businesses approval of the final agenda.

I make a motion.

We approve the final agenda is submitted.

I'll second the motion.

Thank you.

And Laura, if you'd call the vote, please.

Councilmember Eklund.

Aye.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Aye.

Councilmember Milberg.

Aye.

Mayor for Temperature.

Hi.

And Mayor O'Connor.

Hi, thank you.

That passes 5-0.

Moving on to reports from the City Council and City Manager, and we'll start with City Manager Cunningham.

Thank you, Mayor.

One announcement tonight.

Please join the Novato Parks Recreation and Community Services Department this Saturday, July 26th for our next hot amphitheater night sponsor of the Hamilton Amphitheater.

This free community event will feature live music by the popular cover band Pop Fiction from 6 to 8 p.m.

And for more information, you can visit the city's website.

Thank you.

Councilmember Eckland.

So it's been a busy two weeks.

Amazing enough.

And that includes some fill.

So it's kind of a little bit complicated and a little bit controversial as well.

We also had a discussion about Highway 37.

The Bay Conservation Development Commission is one of the regulatory agencies that have to approve that.

And because there's going to be some fill that may require our approval, we're being kept in the loop in that regulatory area.

Most importantly, is tomorrow.

This is our second webinar, and I sure hope that city staff might have already signed up for it.

I don't know if it's too late or not.

But what the they're talking about is how to uh create a sub-region plan at sort of a local government primer.

So this is going to be really important because each city and the Bay Area has to develop if you have any shoreline.

I think there's like four or five cities that are not on the shoreline of the Bay.

So they don't have to develop it, but most cities have to.

And so this has to be approved by BCDC.

And I think the state attorney general as well.

Um, where we approved the uh Plan Bay Area 2050 plus.

And so this obviously has the new housing numbers for this next cycle.

So um, and so this is part of something that's going to come out with some new numbers for all cities and towns in the Bay Area in the future.

We also had um a housing meeting on the 10th of July, legislative and administrative on the 11th.

Um, I also participated.

I serve on the Highway 37 um meeting.

Well, the we coordinate between Marin and Sonoma and Solana, and so uh we met at the Marin County Board of Supervisors, and so we're talking about Highway 37, making sure that we're all coordinated between the three counties and the cities that are on the committee.

So those are the highlights of what I did this last couple of weeks.

Thank you very much, Councilmember.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Thank you.

Yeah, I attended the new employee welcome event over at City Hall offices, and it was wonderful to see the new employees that have come on board and their positions.

Also attended the MCE Board of Directors meeting, and the only thing we really discussed, the big meaty one, was a new commercial program for businesses.

Also, the concert on the green right out here last weekend, and it was a wonderful band, wonderful event.

It was very well attended.

And then lastly, I attended and was uh asked to be a speaker at the American Cancer Society, which was a great event also out at all of school on Saturday, and they asked me to talk about my late wife and what she went through with cancer and how the American Cancer Society helped her and I.

And that's it, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Milberg.

Thank you, Mayor.

On the 14th last Monday, I attended a TAM administration projects and planning executive committee.

Just a couple quick items to report out.

Um working on a uh traffic signal modernization study, which is from a grant from MTC.

Uh the the request for proposals out, and they'll be due back in August, early August.

There's also a travel behavior general public survey going on, which I've alerted the staff to.

Uh, it is online, and they're definitely wanting the public to uh to take advantage of that survey.

Um they also uh talked a lot about the Marin Sonoma Narrows project, it's ramping up to be finished, which is just amazing after all these years.

Um the HOV lanes will be open by the end of the summer.

There's gonna be a ribbon cutting probably in October, and I'll I'll keep informed about that.

Um what I understand is the HOV signage is starting to go up.

I believe in Marin County, it's August 5th, if I'm not mistaken.

So we'll start to see that, but it won't go live until the uh the HOV lanes are are contiguously ready for opening.

Um also just quickly about the Marin Sonoma Coordinated Transit Service.

Uh they're calling themselves mascots, and it's made up of the uh Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District, Marin Transit, uh, TAM Transportation Authority and Marin, uh Sonoma Sonoma County Transportation Authority and many other transportations authorities with the understanding of trying to look at a one entity mindset.

And so they did a survey way back when and looked at uh increasing ridership for the individual uh individual um riderships, but focusing on more of regional transit service, and the changes that are being um talked about are gonna be starting in spring of next year.

For your edification, um they're gonna the main one I feel for for Novato is they're gonna be discontinuing the Golden Gate um Transit Route 101 north of Novato.

Uh they're gonna discontinue that because SMART has actually taken over that and is now um uh utilized for all the frequency and and needed services.

So they're gonna increase the SMART frequency and additional time spans.

I believe running SMART up to 11 15 p.m.

Um they're also gonna be offering uh Golden Gate Transit 101's offering all day frequent express service from Novato and San Rafael to San Francisco.

They're gonna stop doing the local San Francisco stops and just do one stop for transit there.

There'll be also an improvement in the local bus connections to SMART and Novato that means Marin Transit.

And I've been asking questions around what what do we really need?

And so hopefully, if you can please go on and fill out that survey.

Uh my assumptions are that people want to get connections better to SMART, and so hopefully that'll come into fruition.

Um I also attended with Kevin the new employee welcome event.

Did a the HR did a great job on that.

I think some of you are in the audience tonight.

Thank you so much.

It was very welcoming, and I think everybody really appreciated and enjoyed that.

I also had a SMART uh Board of Director meeting on the 16th, and uh we've received information that our July average weekday, and this was back in the middle of July, was estimated to be over 5,000 riderships per day, which is really what we're going for going forward on average for the lifetime of SMART going forward.

It was the highest June ridership with 120,578 total riders.

Um there's also a tremendous uptake in the Smart Connect, which if you haven't done that yet, you could take a uh uh smart train from here to Larchburg, pick up the Connect train, take that to the Larksburg Ferry, and take that to the city.

Um it's a pretty pretty amazing.

They're doing special things for this for the Giants game over the summer.

They're also taking a look at the smart pathway counts, which are quite high, over 125,000, uh equal for pedestrian and um and uh bicycles now.

Um, and then we have surpassed the goal of one million riders in FY25.

So those are some of the um main things.

There's also some interesting uh activities going on around right-away uh that's mentioned in the executive director's report.

If anybody has any questions about that, I'm happy to answer offline.

Uh lastly, I did also attend on Sunday the relay for life uh Marin County at Olive School.

I want to recognize Stephanie Rugani and the team did a great job.

I think they've close to be realizing like $36,000 in uh in uh uh made money, so everybody had a great time.

There's tremendous amount of activity that goes into the coordinating that.

So it just goes to show how wonderful this city is and how much people appreciate all that uh the city does.

So thank you so much.

That's my report.

Thank you very much.

Very pro tempharak.

Thank you so much.

Um I was traveling for work, so I don't have a huge update, but my kids did attend the City of Novato's gymnastics camp, and they said it was the best camp ever, and they can't wait to go back.

So thank you, Park and Rex.

Um, that's a big win because they've been to a bunch of other camps and that topped the list.

Thank you.

And then I just had a few items to share at the opportunity to attend the first Friday event here on Grant Avenue.

Um, lots of great vendors.

They were a bit unlucky with the weather, it was a little cold and breezy, but the next one's on August 1st.

So if you're looking for something to do in the evening, I encourage you to stop by.

Um, I also attend at the Relay for Life opening ceremony on Saturday.

I want to thank the co-chairs this year, Stephanie Rogani and Dale Klein.

Um, it was really remarkable hearing people share their stories and talking about the impact of the American Cancer Society and just the community as a whole, really has made on their lives.

And I do want to take a second to acknowledge council member Jacobs.

He uh he spoke at the event, as he mentioned, he's underrepresenting himself.

Everyone I spoke to and heard from, they were really moved by his experience and his story.

So I just want to take a moment to thank you for taking the time.

And I know how hard that is, and I just really want to acknowledge you.

Thank you for that.

Uh, with that, that concludes council reports.

We're gonna move on to public comment.

This is general public comment for items that are not on the agenda or for items that are listed on the consent calendar.

There is a three-minute time limit.

I have a couple of comments cards to speak.

If you'd like to speak as well, please fill out a yellow card and hand it to the city clerk Laura.

Um, our first speaker is Karen Mortenson.

Welcome, Karen.

Hi.

Uh Karen Mortenson, I live in Marin Valley, um, Oklahoma, and I'm one of the uh very low-income presidents there.

I have a question, and this is not a polemic, this is really a sincere question that I have, which is as our elected officials, you have many obligations and responsibilities.

And I'm wondering how you balance, on the one hand, the need for you to maximize the honorable income that you can get for the city.

As on the one hand, and how you um dispose of that income that you can, and on the other hand, the moral responsibility of existing low-income senior housing.

And uh which one of those is the more pressing of the two.

It's a real serious question, I'm sure.

And I'm interested to see how you will resolve that.

I mention it now because we just made our first Sally making an offer and the first response from the city.

Thank you, Karen.

And then our next speaker is Patty Hoyt.

That would be me.

Welcome, Patty.

Hi, my name is Patty Hoyt, and I am a longtime resident of Novato.

I'm here tonight to talk about the many protests and rallies that are being held throughout Marin County.

On Thursday, we were at three Novato locations for Good Trouble Lives On, including a rally at City Hall.

I know there is also a crew that comes out to City Hall every Saturday morning, and of course, there have been huge protests here and lining the streets over the past few months.

I want to thank the City of Navado and its staff for recognizing our First Amendment rights, both to freedom of speech and the right to peaceful peaceably assemble.

I've joined with other Marin activists in planning these large-scale countywide Marin mobilizations, and we make a point of ensuring all law enforcement jurisdictions are aware of our plans.

We also include language in our vet in our listings that you know a core principle behind all marine protest events is a commitment to nonviolent action.

We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values.

In short, we are transparent about our intentions and we make every effort to ensure the safety of not only our participants but of everybody.

Minutes before the rally started Thursday, Navado Police Department reached out to me to express its concern about the use of amplified sound at the rally.

We did not have a permit on Thursday, nor have we ever had a permit.

Permits aren't really possible in the case of protests, as they require the assumption of financial and legal responsibility by the permit applicant.

Since the protest organizers are ourselves, volunteers helping citizens exercise their First Amendment rights, it's not appropriate for us to be asked to bear this financial and legal burden, nor are permits required for the exercise of First Amendment rights.

I would like to share with you what I shared with the officer.

According to the ACLU, restrictions on the route of a march or sound equipment might violate the First Amendment if they are unnecessary for traffic control or public safety, or if they interfere significantly with effective communication to the intended audience.

Clearly, given that we had our speakers above the green and all of the attendees were on the green or on the sidewalks.

Such limitation was entirely unnecessary for either traffic control or public safety.

I very much appreciate that the rally was able to continue with the amplified sound, and I felt it was worthwhile for me to come here to publicly express my appreciation.

So we're gonna keep coming back, and we will continue to be a part of both National Days of Action as well as individual actions.

But in all sincerity, I thank you, the Novato City Council, the City of Novato, and the Novato Police Department for all you do in acknowledging our First Amendment rights.

Thank you.

Thank you, Patty.

Our next speaker is Sergio Barajas.

Welcome, Sergio.

Hello.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members, and community members.

My name is Sergio Brajas, and I represent the hardworking men and women to the Carpenter's Union Local 35 here in Marin County.

I'm here tonight to speak about the critical importance of having strong labor standards in development projects in our city.

Labor standards are just not rules on a piece of paper, their protections, ensuring fair wages, health benefits, apprenticeship opportunities and local hiring.

The difference between lifting up our communities and letting them be weakened by cost-cutting.

When developers are not held to labor standards, we see what happens.

Out-of-town contractors, often bringing in out-of-town workers, paying them close to nothing with no health coverage, no retirement, no training, and no ties to Novato.

That means local workers are shut out.

Young people looking for a career in the trades are left behind.

And it's a disservice to the community while the developers walk away with the profits.

But when you require labor standards like prevailing wages, skill and trained workforce requirements and local hiring goals, you build more than just housing and commercial spaces.

You build careers.

You create pathways to the middle class, you invest in families who will live here, spend here, and give back here.

We urge you to ensure that all development in Novato includes strong labor standards because at the end of the day, the quality of project start with people who build it in our community, deserve nothing less.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Sergio.

Our next speaker is Sarah Sorensen.

Welcome, Sarah.

Hello, everyone.

I'm here to speak about increasing pay for Novato Police Department.

Our officers are the backbone of our great city.

I will admit I am by biased.

My boyfriend worked for Novato PD.

But even before meeting him, I had various interactions with Navado police over the years.

Regardless of the circumstance, they were always respectful, helpful, and kind.

Whether it was helping me when I was dealing with mental health issues, helping me when I was homeless, or even responding to a domestic violence dispute or a trespassing.

They always did the right thing.

Regardless of if I was a witness, suspect, or victim, they always upheld values of professionalism, courtesy, and respect.

Funding our police force to provide competitive pay in the North Bay market is essential to attract and retain our best officers.

Our officers put their lives on the line for us.

The least we can do is show our gratitude by compensating them fairly.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Sarah.

Our next speaker is Janine Bradley.

Welcome, Janine.

Good evening.

My name is Janine Bradley.

I am a 13-year resident of Novato.

I moved to Marin to be near my family in my senior years.

I found a home in Marin Valley Mobile Country Club.

Affordability was critical as no one wants to be a burden to their children or to a community.

I also wanted security to be able to live out my days without fear of depleting my savings before my demise.

And I wanted to live in a real community, not just a row of residences.

I wanted a community where people shared values.

I wanted a community where people networked and supported each other in good times and in not so good times.

That's what I call sustainability.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Janine.

And then our next speaker is Meg Jordan.

Welcome, Meg.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council members and staff.

I've been a resident as well at Marin Valley, the glorious community that Janine just mentioned.

In fact, I wrote an article in the Marin IJ a few years ago that got national publicity about it being a possible blue zone.

It is so well attended to in various health and well-being.

I'm a medical anthropologist and a retired college professor, and yet with my meager little college professor salary at a private school, this was the only place I could afford as a senior.

I'm 75 years old.

I moved here again to be very close to my children.

And I really want to thank you for your thoughtful response to our proposal.

We did a massive effort on that, putting together something, and we really appreciated the courtesy of your response.

And our pack is, you know, back rolling up its shirt sleeves and seeing how we can come to a place of uh mediated middle.

Our resolve is to become a resident-owned community and one that really is affordable.

And that's day and age.

If you listen to an NPR report this morning, a brand new book that's out that's saying there's absolutely no affordability in America in any town these days for people on limited incomes, very small incomes.

It was a stunning story on NPR this morning.

KQED, perhaps you'll have a chance to take a look at it.

But I really stand behind the fact that I know that we can work something out together.

Thanks for your efforts.

Thank you very much, Matt.

That concludes general public comment.

Uh we'll move on to the consent calendar.

I'll move the consent calendar and I'll second the motion.

Thank you.

Laura, if you'd call the vote, please.

Councilmember Eklund.

Aye.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Aye.

Councilmember Milberg?

Aye.

Mayor Temperature.

Aye.

And Mayor O'Connor.

Hi, that passes 50, thank you.

And the next end of our agenda is a public hearing.

So we're going to hold a public hearing and consider adopting a resolution adopting a mitigated negative declaration and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Olive Avenue Widening and Utility Undergrounding Project.

And SCH 2025 060166, project number 97-001 under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

So you're going to open the public hearing and call on Associate Engineer Peter Scala to open the item.

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council.

Thank you for your time this evening.

Can you speak into the microphone?

Yes, ma'am.

There, thank you.

Is that better?

Yeah.

Thank you.

I'm not used to this.

My name is Peter Scalum and I'm associate engineer with the City Engineering's Division.

I'm here today to open and introduce this item and introduce our consultant Rob Garnahan, Senior Environmental Planner for WRA, who will be providing a presentation on this topic.

Tonight we are here to ask City Council to hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution adopting a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring for and reporting program for the Olive Avenue widening and utility underground project.

Project number is 9701.

And this are the requirements for the California Environment Quality Act CEQA, and with that I'll just turn it over to Rob for a brief presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Peter.

Um good evening, Mayor and members of the council.

Um my name is Rob Carnahan with WRA.

We've been a consulting uh with the city on this project for a few years.

Um, and I'll simply uh would like to walk through the project and uh the CEQA uh process that we've um we've implemented for it.

Uh quickly I'll give a brief overview of the project, uh, the CEQA process as well as the regulatory agency permitting and the status of those permit applications, and then um talk a little bit about the next steps.

The Olive Avenue widening project um is uh a project with a couple of different elements.

Um primarily, the city's proposing to widen the segment of Olive between Redwood Boulevard and um the smart tracks, um, to add turn lanes, to add a sidewalk and bike lane, and to underground the existing olive uh ditch, which is you can see in the photos here from a couple of years ago and during one of our big atmospheric river storms, as well as underground the utilities along that segment of Olive.

This is an aerial photograph showing the site with redwood on the left and the smart tracks running up and down on the right side of the photo.

The blue line is the existing ditch along that segment of Olive Avenue, and then the sort of yellowish yellow line around that is the limit of the proposed project work.

The project, the objectives of the project are to widen olive in this stretch to improve safety.

It's a narrow segment of olive that is narrower than the segment on the opposite side of Redwood.

This would accommodate pedestrians and cyclists and also just provide for a smoother and safer traffic flow along the street.

In addition, it would rehabilitate the existing pavement in that section of Olive and improve the site distance at the smart crossing.

It would also replace stormwater drainage facilities to help alleviate some of the flooding that occurs there during storms.

It's a very low-lying section of the city, and there uh is periodic flooding in that area.

The main goal of the project is and it's been designed so that no flooding would not be worsened and would be improved in some areas.

And then lastly, to relocate the overhead utilities underground.

For the California Environmental Quality Act review, which is the main focus of this presentation, and requested action tonight.

We prepared an initial study, mitigated negative declaration for the project.

This was circulated for public review and agency review as well between June 4th and July 3rd of this year.

No public comments or agency comments were received on the ISMND.

It did identify potentially significant impacts of the project, having to do with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology, transportation, and tribal cultural resources.

The ISMND document identified mitigation measures that can reduce all of the projects impacts to a less and significant level.

The tribal cultural resources mitigation was developed in consultation with Great and Rancheria.

And they would also be involved in the monitoring, archaeological monitoring of excavation work at Olive Avenue.

The Olive Avenue ditch itself is considered a jurisdictional water resource under state law, and therefore any mitigation or mitigation to any impacts to the ditch must be approved by both the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

So the project, as it's presented in the initial study mitigated negative declaration, also, in addition to the Olive Avenue project, includes a habitat enhancement site that's located along Pacheco Creek within the city limits.

It's actually near the skate park.

This component of the project was intended initially to compensate for the impacts that the work along Olive Avenue would have to the jurisdictional resource, the ditch itself.

And the proposed work, habitat enhancement work at the Pacheco Creek site would focus on weed management and a lot of planting, vegetative planting of native trees and riparian vegetation along that segment of Pacheco Creek, which is very overgrown at present.

This was kind of the thrust of the project and is evaluated fully in the CEQA document.

However, over the last year or so, we also started looking at a new mitigation bank that's located at Halo Ranch along the Petaluma River.

And this new mitigation bank has been approved by the regulatory agencies.

And so the city has been investigating the option of purchasing mitigation credits at this at the Halo Ranch mitigation bank to offset the project's impacts at the Olive Avenue Ditch.

And in doing so, the city would uh purchase these off-site credits in lieu of doing the habitat enhancements at Pacheco Creek.

So at the present time, the city and and we at WRA are assisting with this process of working with the regulatory agencies on approvals for potentially using credits purchased at Halo Ranch to offset the project's impacts.

Purchasing the mitigation credits at Halo Ranch might run 150,000 approximately because there's no there's no long-term monitoring or reporting requirements for the city.

Whereas the cost of doing the uh Pacheco Creek habitat enhancements could run one to two million dollars over a long period because uh the regulatory agencies would be requiring 10 years of monitoring uh maintenance and reporting.

So it's it's there's quite a big difference between the two approaches.

Um so that was really the impetus for adding the Halo Ranch mitigation credit to the project.

Uh the final uh CEQA document ismnd uh does has been revised to add the Halo Ranch mitigation as a potential option uh for the city.

So the city could could do either one, they're both covered in the CEQA document.

Uh briefly, I'll I'll run through the regulatory agency permits and the current status with the regional water quality control board.

The final applicate permit application is being prepared.

The draft application has been approved.

Uh, we anticipate them issuing a permit for the project uh next month.

Um for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, they have already approved the project under their operation of law process that was just received I think a couple of weeks ago.

And then lastly, at the federal level, the Army Corps of Engineers did not exert any jurisdiction over the project, so meaning that there are no federal federally protected uh water resources that would be impacted.

So they issued an approved jurisdictional determination earlier this year.

Um so briefly I'll just mention the next steps tonight is a review is consideration of adopting the CEQA document for the project.

Uh there is still design work to be done.

Um there are uh the plans need to be further fleshed out, uh and construction level drawings and specifications are being prepared.

Um city staff will be bringing that level of detail, the project plans and designs back here to City Council for consideration and the authorization of a bid advertisement for the project, capital improvement project.

And uh, I guess that is it.

Uh I would any entertain any questions about the CEQA process for the project and any other aspect of tonight's presentation.

Thank you very much.

I'll bring it back to council for questions.

Councilmember Eklund.

Um thank you very much.

Um, first of all, um, question on the decision of whether we're gonna use the um Halo Ranch or do the Pacheco Creek.

When would that decision be made and by whom?

We are working with the regulatory agencies, specifically the Regional Water Quality Control Board, right now to try to nail down this precise mitigation ratios that would apply to any off-site credits that would be purchased at Halo Ranch.

Um I know because it's sort of vacation time right now, and and uh we're probably looking at some time in August for clarity on that, um, and that will help inform the city as to um the next steps.

So I asked who would be making the decision.

Uh would it be the city council or would staff be making the decision?

I would defer to Peter on that question.

Well, we have not determined if it's needed by council to make that decision.

However, the stop it's looking for the overall cost, and if we can purchase the credits with one-tenth of the other cost, and already running into some difficulties with budget, uh stop would probably recommend to purchase the credits.

Uh if you believe that it requires a council action, we would come to you.

This was just based on what was available when we started the process, the credits were not available.

We had only one option, and that was the off-site mitigation.

This become became available just fairly recently, I would say maybe two and a half, three months ago.

So I working with WRA, give them instruction to look into that possibility because I didn't want to.

We have to decide which one it's gonna be, but if we missed the boat, we wouldn't be able to go for the credits.

But now, by changing the document, we are capable or able to do either or.

Okay, Gary, um, is this the decision that can be made by staff or should it be coming back to the city council?

Would you like me to take it here?

Yes, please do.

Yeah, my understanding is this would be thank you for the question, Mr.

Mayor, members of the council.

My understanding is that that would be part of the package that we would bring back.

We have these two options.

You saw the differences in potential cost to the city.

We will make every effort to pursue the one that is the lowest cost.

Um, and so we'll know more about that as we go forward with this process.

So the council would be making that decision.

That's my understanding.

It would be part of the full package.

Yeah, because this evening before you're only the CEQA determination.

So at a future meeting, there'll be plans and specs and an award of contract after there's a bid for this project.

And as part of that, um, this determination will come back to council.

So I'm kind of curious as to um why the estimate is one to two million dollars for the Pacheco Creek.

Why couldn't we narrow down some of that um uh rehab um of the Pacheco Creek and spend the amount of money, because I'd love to see that money spent in Novato.

Um why couldn't we just spend whatever the um the Halo ranch credits is that amount of money, but actually spend it on Pacheco Creek, so we get something done in Novato rather than it being used for um another area that is not within our jurisdiction.

I would have Rob answer that question, but I believe that that's not an option.

There is available location where you can buy the credits and you cannot choose where what you want to do with the money.

But Rob can probably speak about on that.

Yeah, I would I would just add that uh for doing the type of habitat enhancement work at Pacheco Creek, the regulatory agencies, it's a different sort of um, it's a different sort of compensation level for the loss of the um jurisdictional waters at Olive Ditch.

And doing habitat enhancement work is not considered as robust uh a type of compensation as actually creating or protecting fully functioning wetlands is, and so it requires a larger footprint, a larger larger footprint, in which you would do that habitat enhancement.

So there's not um a lot of ability to shrink down the area.

We have to do a larger area in order to satisfy the regulatory agencies that would be approving it as compensation for the impacts at all of.

And we don't have any other project that we could do in Novato that would satisfy the regulatory agencies.

So have you looked at others that may not be quite as large as Pacheco Creek, but something that would satisfy that in this area?

We did look at a lot of different possible locations when we were first investigating this issue.

One of the things we were trying to do is look at sites that are owned by the city.

Number one, that wouldn't involve any kind of acquisition, land acquisition costs.

And then also sites that didn't have other issues.

One of the things that we liked about the Pacheco Creek site is that it's while it's a degraded habitat and it can certainly benefit from enhancement.

A lot of Hamilton Field is a historic, and there are a lot of resources there that once you start doing any kind of ground disturbance runs into additional, you know, permitting complications and approvals.

This one was, you know, clean essentially.

But I, you know, I I know this was a number of years ago, and I can't speak in any more detail on some of those other considerations and what those sites specifically were.

I'm sure we could probably assemble that information, but I can't speak to it right now.

Okay, well, it'd be nice to have some options in Novato.

Um, Pacheco Creek, when I looked at the expanse of that, I knew it was going to be a lot of money, and so I'm just kind of curious that there's got to be some other options around.

But anyway, so I have some other questions too on page nine of the um, I think it's page nine.

Um it says that Olive Avenue.

I see this is an undeveloped commercial property.

This is about the left turn lane, um, and improvement of that road there.

This undeveloped commercial property may be developed in the future, but no development of said parcel is included in the proposed project.

And so my question is is that can we condition this property that's not yet built on to help pay for the improvements that we're doing in that area, which are going to help them and allow them to be able to do uh that left turn lane going into their property, from what I could tell.

So is there a way for us to put a condition, and maybe this is more of a question for the attorney for us to condition whatever is built on that property that they would have to reimburse us because this is a lot of money and it'd be awfully nice to maybe use some of this money that hopefully we would be getting to help do somewhere mitigation, but um Gary?

Yeah, happy you chime in.

Uh so part of that will depend on what development is ultimately proposed with that parcel, but that development will likely be subject to some development impact fees that would be under your development impact fees that apply to all development of a certain type.

So there will be some fees that come likely for the development that's proposed there.

Um it is possible to do an ad hoc impact fee.

Um it requires that you do a study and make certain findings, and it's um a little more into your record that you need to do, so that is technically a possibility, but there will be some impact fees that come from the development for whatever comes in that parcel.

I also understand from speaking to staff that a development that was nearby, you might have to chime in here, Peter, on exactly where also development impact fees already, in the tune of several hundred thousand dollars that's going towards this as well.

Right, but this property has not uh paid those impact fees.

Right.

Right.

And so my concern is that if we're gonna be making these improvements, which will definitely improve the accessibility to their property, they should um uh pay uh pay us back for some of the effort that we're doing.

So is it too too late in the process for us to do that?

No, I don't think it's too late.

So I've um the way that the impact fees are charged, they go into a fund and then they have to be spent for the things that the impact fee is being charged for.

So they so there is a fund that goes for this and it goes into a CIP program.

So, in a sense, yes, that that development will be paying impact fees that will go towards projects um into a fund for the city, but including the improvements that we're gonna be making in advance.

Well, so I think the way to think about this with impact fees is that there is a CIP project and the impact fees are being charged for these specific things, and so everybody is paying into this fund, all development of a particular type.

So, in a sense, all development is paying for all of these types of projects for which the fees are spent for, not necessarily for this specific one after the fact, but all development is paying into those with payment of fees, so then what you're saying is that when if this property is built on, it's probably when, not if, um, that we would be charging them for their uh portion of the improvements that we're making on all of now.

Um that they would be uh doing that because we don't have to do the left turn lane now, yeah.

So I mean the way that the impact fees are charged and spent, it's not quite as direct of a connection as what I think you're um inferring here.

So there are a list of projects that the impact fees fees paid for, and those impact fees are paid and put into an account and paid towards those projects.

So this parcel once developed will pay impact fees that will go towards projects, not necessarily this one.

Just like all other development that's gone in, is paid into these, not necessarily in this area either.

And then there's requirements for how those impact fees are spent.

Um, and the city regularly uses those fees to pay for public improvements.

Yeah, I I guess I I would feel a lot better if we could charge some of the improvements that we're paying for now on that future development.

Um, but um Amy, did you want to add something?

I was just gonna say, so um if this does come in later and they pay the fees later, then it would pay for the next project on the list.

Um, so it may not be going to this one, it would go to the next one since the money that we have now would go to this one.

So we'll just kind of flow.

Okay, got it.

On page um 10.

I have two questions.

Um, it's on 2.31.

Uh the project component would mostly occur within the cities right away, but would require an encroachment permit from SMART and uh for the railroad crossing.

And um, have we been talking with SMART about this project?

Yes, and I know Peter's been involved in those uh discussions, so I'll let him field this one.

Well, we've been working with the SMART um many levels.

Actually, it's not just SMART, it's a CPUC, the engineering branch in Sacramento, and it's also federal railroad administration district seven in Sacramento.

They all have say into the alteration of the existing crossing at Olive Avenue.

We had to apply for a specific permit, which is ADAB, that's just the number of the general order, and it was submitted, and we're expecting to get approved in about a week or two, and that was done with cooperation and working together with SMART because they had to support the widening, and they also uh had to sign the letter of cooperation and support for that.

And um in 2.3.2.

Um it's a second paragraph, end of the second paragraph.

It's because the trench would not go under the SMART tracks, a new joint utility pool would be installed to enable the future option of extending the utilities overhead across the smart railroad corridors, part of another project to connect them to an existing PG<unk>E vault in Railroad Avenue.

And why aren't we doing this as part of this project?

Due to a coordination with PGE, SMART and many other entities, and limited time we can spend in that area.

This is considered that we can work only during a dry season, and that is from May 15 through October 15, uh, five months.

We cannot step into that creek for seven months.

Uh having to try to coordinate all of that would be just too much effort and it would delay the construction of the project.

So it's some time ago it was decided that it would be easier to temporarily relocate the overhead and come back with the joint trench and connect the dots and put it out later.

Um it was just for only for a little simpler approach and actual constructivity because the savings won't be that great if we were trying to do it all together, but it might delay the project maybe by two or three years.

Wouldn't we be saving more money if we did it now rather than waiting?

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

I'm sorry, wouldn't we be saving more money if we did it in connection with this project?

We did uh look at the options and the current estimates for doing the joint trench and like I mentioned coordination issues because it's PJE, Comcast, and Frontier on those poles.

Um building the joint trench would be about $400,000 right now, plus what we would have to pay to the that was just for EGM PG<unk>E and building the trench and taking down the utilities themselves, it would cost additional $60 to $100,000 apiece.

And if we by changing the approach, putting in multi-use path on the north side of the project where there was a concrete sidewalk originally scheduled, we are confident that removing the asphalt path will be much easier, and it would add probably only $30,000 to 40,000 dollars additional, but the project the road can be widened and built uh with trying to put in the wires first, it might delay by two or three years.

Okay, I have just two more questions.

If I may, I'd like to give the other council members an opportunity, and I'll circle back to it.

I'll circle back to the comment.

Thanks.

Uh Councilmember Milberg.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I just want to understand a little bit more about the uh Halo Ranch mitigation bank options.

Just becoming familiar with the cap and trade statewide, and I'm just wondering, it sounds similar to me.

Could you explain that a little bit more and what Halo Ranch, what it actually does as far as those mitigation credits?

Yeah, it's it's one of several mitigation banks that um are available throughout California.

They're in different types of habitat, different ecosystems.

Uh essentially it's compensatory mitigation.

So it's a if you have a project that has an impact to uh protected resource, whether it's jurisdictional waters or uh special status species of some sort critical habitat.

Uh and there's no way to um mitigate that on the project site, so in the same location that you're at causing the impact.

Uh a mitigation bank is essentially an approved, it's a financial, it's both a real estate and a financial venture uh in which uh private, usually private landowners have dedicated through a series of easements and regulatory, you know, they've set it up as a as an actual separate business entity.

They will uh dedicate a portion of their property to providing um essentially it's usually either land that is already offers that kind of habitat that's it's can be protected, or it's a property that has the raw materials where that kind of habitat can be created to replace um lost habitat elsewhere.

And so these banks um and my company does a lot of work.

I'm this is not my area of expertise, but I'm giving you kind of the the high-level sort of uh picture of it.

But um we work with a number of these banks throughout the state, and the Halo Ranch is a fairly new one.

Uh, it's about 10 miles up river of Petaluma along the Petaluma River.

Um, and it offer there's there's you know wetland habitat, uh variety of um uh riparian habitat, um, and so this this each mitigation bank goes through a fairly long process of regulatory uh approval, uh vetting uh biological and ecological investigation to make sure that actually what it is offering for sale essentially is quality habitat that can uh replace habitat that's lost due to projects like this one or or many other kinds of projects.

So that's that's kind of the big picture.

No, it's great.

You sound like an expert actually to me, but um is it does it have to be a like to like mitigation from what is being done at the site itself?

Yeah, so for example, I mean, you you couldn't mitigate for a loss of a jurisdiction of water by you know preserving Joshua Tree uh, you know, habitat in in um San Bernardino County or something like that.

So yeah, it does have to be like for like.

Okay, thank you very much.

That's my question.

Thank you.

And Mayor Pro Tem Farak.

Thank you very much.

Um I wanted to just dive in a little bit deeper on the storm drains.

Um, so just looking at the mitigation negative deck, um, on page three um two and three.

So you have a storm drain, so a twenty-five-year event and then a hundred year event.

Why are you doing two different ones as far as I will let Peter address that as the engineer?

Uh thank you.

Uh this was done uh by a another consultant with we hired, they did hydrology study for the area to assure that when we come in and do the improvements, they do not contribute or create more problems than we already have.

And those are two standard studies you do, and we are going with the worst one, but this is just to compare what we have to do.

Uh the problem in that area is that we cannot raise the level of roadway because it would create sort of a dam, and the water will not flow from the south side to the north side.

Part of the project we're actually adding three inlets on the south side by in front of the school bus depot and connecting them with box color, which has to be very shallow.

There isn't enough room to do.

It will be about eight feet wide and two feet deep to transfer the water, some of the water from south to the north and go connect with additional box culprit, which will be connected and then go underneath the velvet trucks and turn into the Rush Creek to make things a little bit more complicated.

There is also that railroad avenue ditch, which starts at Sweetzer Avenue, and that is the area where we had in the past a lot of flooding problems.

So the study was determining how and what will be the effect of us creating that improvement in there from the water being disposed properly and getting what it needs to go, meaning north and go to the levee and discharge into the bay.

So the study was there and we didn't do studies to determine what's the word.

Right.

Yeah, the model.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then Councilmember Eckens, you said it's another question.

Yeah, have two more questions and a statement.

Um next question on the mitigated uh document, mitigation document.

Um under 2.4.2, site preparation talks about the concrete line channel itself must remain intact due to known soil contamination in the area.

My question there is um why couldn't we remove um the um the concrete channel um from that area and then actually um uh clean up the soil contamination so that would give us more opportunity to do um planting all along that area instead of having that one section um uh stay the same uh with a concrete line channel uh because of that soil contamination.

I'm not sure I know.

I'd have to look at uh look at the map.

If you look at the document, it's 2.4.2.

And I I did give the these questions to um our city manager earlier, hoping that we would have some of the answers, so it wouldn't take this long, but unfortunately that's that's what we did.

Yeah, they um I received the questions um this morning and I provided them to staff this morning.

Um there were a number of questions, and I know that they've looked at most of them.

So what you're asking about is section 2.4.2 on page um 18 of the report, and it's about the Pacheco Creek reparian enhancement area, right?

And you know, like what is the contamination and why can't we just go ahead and clean it up because um it's gonna in order for us to do anything more in that area, we're gonna have to deal with this at some point, probably.

Yeah, the contamination in that area, it has not been fully um uh evaluated the extent.

Um there are known sites associated with Hamilton Field that are you know adjacent to that property, but the the contamination in the Pacheco Creek area, we we didn't have any kind of full characterization study um that was done.

So this was what we were trying to do with the designing the habitat uh enhancement for Pacheco Creek was um what can we do that would address the loss of the jurisdictional resource at Olive Avenue that the eight regulatory agencies, the regional board and the CDFW would agree to agree to essentially.

Um also we were mindful of the cost.

So we're trying to look at designing something that would pass muster with the agencies, but also not be.

I mean, it's already a as you could as you can see from from the cost estimate, it's already a large anticipated expenditure, but doing a full soil remediation and investigation would be quite a bit more expensive than that.

Um, and if it wasn't necessary to address the agency's requirements, it wasn't something that you know we certainly looked at.

I mean, I I think it it's it could be considered, um, but again, it would it would come with a a much higher price tag.

Okay, um, and we may not end up doing Pacheco Creek, even.

Uh it depends on the all those others.

My last question is um uh as if I read this correctly, there's gonna be one side of this of um the street where there's gonna be a bike lane and pedestrian in the same area.

Whereas on the other side of the creek, you're gonna have a separated bike lane or a separated pedestrian uh path or sidewalk versus the bike.

And so why aren't we taking advantage of the wide area that is along that street for us to do a sidewalk for the pedestrians and then a separated bike lane instead of having them combined?

I will answer that.

It may seem that way, unfortunately, we're dealing with existing right-of-way and condition.

We're dealing with existing right-of-way and existing width.

And the way it was presented and its design, there is just simply not enough room to put a separated pedestrian and bicycle facility.

So going eastbound, going from Redwood Boulevard towards the railroad tracks, you have existing sidewalk which will remain in place, and next to it will be standard bike lane going that direction.

Then we will have a traveling lane going eastbound.

There will be the turning lane which you both ways meet the double yellow and arrows that you can exit and enter the businesses on both sides of Olive Avenue.

And then you will have a through lane going westbound from railroad towards the Redwood Boulevard.

At the end, it will turn into dedicated dedicated left turn straight through and dedicated right lane.

And the minimum for multi-use path is eight feet wide.

So we chose to go with the option putting just one facility ten feet wide and accommodating both pedestrians and cyclists.

Okay.

Okay.

And I the comment that I wanted to make is I wanted to compliment Peter for all your work on this project.

I remember when we put this on the list to do at some point in the future, especially after Trader Joe's went in, this whole area really needed some work, and it's wonderful to see that you've been able to carry this all the way through.

So in 2025, we got that two blocks or whatever it is that uh is now gonna be improved.

So hats off to you, Peter, for the outstanding work that you've done on this.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Um thank you very much.

So we'll move on to public comment at this time.

If you would like to speak, please fill out a yellow card and hand it to the city clerk.

Uh I don't have any requests to speak.

Lord, you have any cards?

Nope.

Okay.

Uh we'll close public comment and bring it back to council for a motion in a second.

So I'd like to move the uh draft resolution.

Second.

Okay.

Uh any further discussion?

Not seeing any Laura, if you'd call the vote, please.

Council Member Eklund.

Aye.

Councilmember Jacobs.

All right.

Council Member Milberg.

Aye.

Mayor Temferak.

Aye.

And Mayor O'Connor.

Thank you.

Uh I.

Sorry, thank you.

Motion passes five zero.

I'll close the public hearing and move on to our next item.

Uh our next item is to hold a public hearing.

Consider introducing an ordinance to add section 4-4 to chapter 4 of the Nirvana Municipal Code to adopt and incorporate by reference the uniform code uh for abatement of dangerous buildings.

And finding the adoption of the ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

So I will open the hearing and I will call on Claire Harton, Community Development Director to present the item.

Welcome Claire.

Thank you.

Alright, so this item is a follow-up to May 20th City Council meeting.

And at that city council meeting on May 20th of this year, staff had provided an update to the housing element, our implementation work plan as it related to housing protections and tenant protections.

So this is part of that process.

At that meeting, council directed staff to bring back a few items, and one of which was to bring back this item of dangerous buildings ordinance.

So tonight is the hearing on that ordinance, and essentially what it is is adopting in our municipal code a reference to the uniform code for abatement of dangerous buildings.

And by adopting reference, it becomes locally enforceable, becomes basically within our code.

And so it as opposed to reaching out to some adjacent section, it becomes part of our code so we can enforce it.

And in terms of some of the background of this, you know, the reason why a city would uh approach buildings in this way and take this extra step.

So we don't necessarily have to, but the reason why is because it gives us streamlining tools and clarifications of what definitions are, what the administrative process is, all in one place.

And it's important to have clarity when you're dealing with deteriorating buildings because it affects our community.

As this slide shows, you can impact residents who are living in or adjacent to these buildings that are deteriorating and becoming hazardous.

It can add to blight in a neighborhood or a community, it can attract trespassers and criminal activity, and so it's really important to have the tools available to us and the clarity of communication about these tools and who how we enforce them and what happens and all the roles that we play in these activities in one place.

So the uniform code of abatement for dangerous buildings.

So what's in it?

What are we referencing?

And what we get with that reference is we get uh clear definitions on what constitutes a dangerous building.

So there's less ambiguity about under what basis did we make that determination.

Uh it standardizes our inspection enforcement procedures, so we're not looking at various sections in our code and then linking them up with various sections of state code, they're all in one place.

Um, and the same thing with what's the due process available to the property owner.

So, same thing.

They don't have to search around, they can find their answers in one place.

So it gives us more clarity in tools.

So, just to give an idea of all the different ways that you can describe a dangerous building.

Um, and it's actually uh really useful to have all these different ways because it circumstances um are different for different types of properties or in different kind of conditions.

Um, but basically, it provides us this umbrella um for finding um and making a determination of dangerous.

So it's as simple as uh an unsafe use of a building, so it wasn't built for that purpose, it's been used as that purpose, and now is rendering it as a dangerous condition.

It's collapsing or potentially collapsing, which could injure persons.

We've been recently made aware of situations like that, um, uh violations of all the various codes that we have.

Again, this is a great place to link up with a set of conditions as opposed to a variety of resources to make those determinations and uh other examples uh determined by a fire marshal to be a fire hazard or abandonment for a period of excess of six months, to the point that it constitutes an attractive nuisance or a hazard to the public.

So lots of different ways to define dangerous buildings, but all of them important.

So why adopt the code?

It's really to streamline the process.

So one of the things that I've worked on with community development, we've spent a lot of time with the building division on our customer service aspects.

But this year we've also just in terms of a service improvement, but also in combination with our housing element implementation, we've really been taking starting to take a good look at our enforcement side of the shop.

And we realize we need to do more in terms of clarifying the process, using good communication, and making it readily available for both staff as well as those that we're trying to communicate with.

And so this is part of that process.

And we uh accepted the additional days that a property owner would have to receive necessary permits.

It's more realistic to expect a hundred within 120 days.

They can beat that, great, but it gives a more realistic timeline based on just the process for if you've gotten a building to this level, you're probably looking at a pretty significant plan check.

So this is more realistic.

Well, that concludes my um report.

Um what I um didn't uh what I didn't summarize uh uh yet, but I just want to note that we are making also a CEQA finding, and there's a number of exemptions that apply to adopting a uh uniform code references as such as this, and so we've noted that in the staff report, and that concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much.

I'll bring it back to council for questions.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Thank you.

Thanks for your presentation, Claire.

Um, the 120 days to obtain a permit.

Are we talking about from the time a violation is written to the time they pro they turn in an application, or are we talking about also the time it takes us to review it and approve it?

Uh, that is a good question.

I'd have to look at the actual um code section specifically.

Um, so I I don't want to misstate what the answer is.

So I don't have that section in front of me.

Do you have that, Gary?

Yeah, happy to chime in.

Um so it requires once the building official issues the order, it requires that the order require the property owner to pull the permit within 120 days, um, and to also commence the work within a period set within the order.

So the order has to include a certain number of things, including poll permits complete.

Here's the work you need to do.

It looks a lot like a notice in order to a bait that you might see in a nuisance order or other things that have come before the council, it'll have a similar form to that.

Okay, so but then basically that 120 days does include our staff time to issue a permit.

It does.

What if they come in at a hundred days and leaves us 20 days to review and then they're in violation?

They do we have a set standard of time that we need to have it to us before we can review it and approve it?

Um, so that could certainly be included in the order.

So there's nothing in the ordinance that would prevent additional orders.

So the building official could say, for example, submit an application by X deadline, etc.

So this just sets like the outer boundaries of what needs to be required in the order.

Um ultimately it's on the property owner to comply, and so, you know, typically I think it's you know at least 30-day turnaround, and there's some deadlines in state law that sometimes apply depending on what's being applied for for the building permit, uh, but it's incumbent on the property owner who gets the order to make sure they get things in time and can comply with that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Eckland.

Uh thank you.

Um, does this um uh ordinance uh apply only to occupied buildings?

No, it does not, it would include vacant or unoccupied buildings as well.

Okay, so then um what my concern about this is um it could be used to um uh to remove a historic building, and uh I'll just take the Hamilton Theater as an example.

Um, and so would uh could this be used as a means to say, well, it doesn't meet code and blah blah blah, so we need to demolish this building.

Yeah, that's a good question.

So, the purpose of the code is to declare a building or have tools um available to a municipality to declare a building dangerous.

So, irregardless of its historic status or its property ownership, frankly, right?

So it's the objective nature of what is eligible to determine it being dangerous, and it has the criteria and then the process.

Much of that process would be for a private property, but your example there is for um public property.

So let me take those two parts separately.

So if it is private property and there is a historic overlay on it or it has historical significance, there may be other sections of the municipal code that we would have to look at in combination with this process, but this process would still stand on its own two legs because it's about building safety.

How we approach that might be different if it's historic based on other sections of the code.

So we might have a review process or a review authority that needs to review and accept that determination, but those are sort of concurrent.

If it's public property, like uh in the ownership of the city of Novado, for example, then it's the city's asset, and that is a um, those are decision points that the council would make based on the um the process surrounding that property.

So um it may be that uh there's a um activity that warrants uh inspection and may result in a determination that it's dangerous, but there's a lot of things the city can do just like a property owner, any other property owner, you can look to remediate, repair, um, of course, worst case scenario is is demolition, but you would have all these options to look at, um, and that's a different decision point than is it dangerous or not?

Does that make sense?

Yeah, that heightens my concern.

Um Gary, is there a way that we could uh say that this ordinance only applies if the building is currently occupied?

Yeah, I want to add a couple points uh before answering that question head on.

Um so this is a this is a code enforcement ordinance, and so it lives in the section of your code where other codes are adopted by reference, including the building code, but it is a code enforcement ordinance.

All court of code enforcement in the city is discretionary, meaning you never have to do it, it is an option to pursue, and the discretion lives with the community development director and also with your code enforcement officers here in the city.

These types of ordinances, including your nuisance sections and your fine and penalty sections, which live in 1-6 and 1-7, have similar provisions to this.

They're not quite the same, but they are similar.

They have sections about nuisance conditions for buildings being unsafe and not in compliance with the building code.

Those ordinances are about regulating external third parties, it's about the public standards that the city is is applying to everyone who owns a building here.

So for assets that are owned by the city, it's a separate process in the same way that you wouldn't typically issue a ticket to yourself, for example.

Um, you would go through a process like your budgeting process, your CIP process, your strategic planning, and you'd be giving direction to staff to repair or otherwise maintain an asset through that process.

It wouldn't be this process that would be used for that.

Yeah, I guess my concern is it could be used by the city, either staff or council, whatever, to make a decision about some historic structure that's not occupied that may that's old.

And so that's why I was thinking, why couldn't we just say that this would apply only to buildings that are occupied?

Because safety is the uh the ultimate issue here is that we want to make sure that people that are in buildings are going to be safe, and so I don't necessarily want to support an ordinance that could be used to possibly remove historic buildings that are not currently occupied.

Well, what I would say is for buildings that are on a register, local, state, or federal, or eligible to be on a register, this is a discretionary process that would trigger CEQA.

So we would need to be thinking about that.

So it wouldn't just be a unilateral order from the building official or code enforcement to demolish a historic structure to the director's point.

There's other sections of the municipal code and also state law that would prevent this ordinance alone from being used for that purpose.

And sometimes, um, separate from historic structures, there are some structures that are unoccupied, or portions of a structure that are unoccupied without going into details of recent um code enforcement cases.

Some units were unoccupied, and so if we're using that distinction, it could actually make it harder to use this uh in future cases where it's needed.

So why couldn't we just say that this on this does not apply to city owned property?

Well, I would say it that it doesn't already because this is the type of ordinance that is for external third parties and not for the city's own assets in the same way that you wouldn't issue a ticket to yourself.

So what you're saying is that I shouldn't be concerned about that aspect of it.

Um well, I don't want to minimize your concern.

So I don't want to minimize your concern.

What I'm saying is, like other code enforcement ordinances, if you think about you know your one-six or one-seven that talks about fines and penalties for violations of the code, um, you know, those code enforcement ordinances are also the city city staff would not be issuing a fine to the city, for example, right?

Okay, so the so essentially then this would not necessarily apply to city owned buildings, and the reason for that is you have a separate process in place, right?

So you all can already direct staff to do what you want staff to do with those assets, and you can budget for it and put it in a CIP.

So there's already a process in place for you to take the actions you need for.

So then how can we make sure that 20 years from now that the same opinion would be given?

Well, I would hope you'd have a city attorney that would reach the same conclusion.

Well, I can't be sure uh what opinion you'll receive in 20 years to answer your question, council member.

I just yeah, as you know, every city attorney can come up with a different reason for.

Yeah, I mean, I guess I'll put a different maybe a different perspective on this.

Uh the this ordinance authorizes the building official to issue an order to the property owner.

So the building official, under your scenario, would have to issue an order to the city to correct something.

And this and the building official wouldn't do that.

Right.

And also the building official reports to the director.

Okay, okay.

Okay, sounds good.

Then I'm comfortable with this.

And thank you very much for doing this.

Thank you.

Did you have a question?

No, I was just going to.

Um I just had one question.

Um, it kind of piggybacks actually on council member Eklund's question.

You made a reference to abandoned buildings.

I was just wondering how do you define an abandoned building?

Yeah, I don't have a the definition, it may be in that uniform building code.

I don't know if you're aware of that.

Do they also define abandonment?

Yeah, generally, uh without occupancy for um in the code says for six or more months before you can use this, uh, but you would need to show that it's not legally occupied.

Um, and so it's not just the absence of someone there.

There would need to be no legal right to occupy that building for a period of time.

So normally in a code enforcement situation, you'd be looking for things like um, you know, evidence that it's unoccupied, like it's not maintained, there's no water or utility accounts to it or boarded up in some way, and then there would be an inspection, perhaps.

So one of the things that might lead up to this is uh a um code compliance inspection that occurs, and then you might also have contact with the property owner.

So in order to reach that conclusion under six, there would be an investigation that would occur, and then the code enforcement building official would reach a conclusion on that.

And then I would um add that there is a qualifier here.

Um that it's to the extent that it constitutes an attractive nuisance or hazard to the public.

So it's not just it's vacant.

That's a actually a different type of ordinance that I believe is actually in our housing element.

So that would be handled separately.

That's where you are looking at vacant properties or underutilization of vacant properties.

So they're not to the extent this, um, but still underutilized properties is an interest of uh of the city, and we'll be looking at that at a future time.

This is when it's so bad that it's dangerous.

You know, it's it's attracting um people that could get hurt, injured.

Okay, so it's not just vacancy, it's also has it.

Correct.

Yes, it's not just vacancy.

That's what I was trying to understand because you know some retailer rental units they can sit vacant for six months because they can't find someone.

So we wouldn't render those dangerous.

Um those are underutilized.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Um those conclude my questions.

So we'll move on to public comment.

If you'd like to speak, please fill out a yellow card and hand it to the city clerk.

I don't have any request to speak.

Laura, none?

Okay.

Uh bring it back to council for a motion and a second.

I think it introduced an ordinance to the ad section 44 of the chapter 4 of the Nevada Municipal Code to adopt an incorporate by reference uniform code for abatement of dangerous buildings and find the adoption of the ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

I'll second that.

Thank you.

And Laura, if you do have a vote.

Council Member Eklund, aye.

Councilmember Jacobs?

Aye.

Councilmember Milberg?

Aye.

Mayor Pur Temperat.

Aye.

And Mary.

So we'll close the hearing and move on to adjournment.

Um our next regular meeting will be on August 26th, 2025.

My wife's birthday, she'll be upset with me.

Um, and I'd just like to ask Council if they have anyone that'd like to enjoy a memory of.

Please, Mark.

Thank you.

Um, hopefully nobody finds this tug in cheek, but I'd like to close in memory of Ozzy Osborne who just passed and oh meet our wonderful tech specialist.

Uh I know appreciates that, so thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, we're adjourned.

I don't think I would use that.