City Council — 2021-09-28

Call to order, we have a quorum and we have the roll call please go.

Oh I see you I can't hear you okay Councilmember Francina here and Councilmember Haney

also present

And the winning design, which is called Ohio's 100 is by Anthony McMahon. And it is our guest drumroll please. It is this piece by Anthony McMahon. And so let me kind of blow that up a little bit. So that piece is the winning piece, it will be the poster available at Ojai Day this year. I'm sorry and so we want to take the opportunity to remind everybody to save the date for Ojai day which is Saturday October 16th as I mentioned here at Libbey Park And with that, we thank everybody who participated and we selected the winning poster last week. So Mr., or the winning artist, Mr. McMahon wasn't able to attend he had a conflict but we will thank Anthony McMahon and we'll present the prize to him.

But we wanted to reveal that to the public and remind everybody to keep an eye out for it at Ojai Day coming up on October 16th so. With that, those are the two presentation items for today.

Thank you James and congratulations Anthony McMahon what beautiful work by so many talented artists get blessed in October 16 mark that date. Any commission reports James.

Let me ask Gail, did we end up having any commissioner reports.

No. Thank you. So we'll move on to public communication, any public communication on Zoom, Gail? No,

none on Zoom. None on Zoom, sorry if you couldn't hear me.

One second everybody talk amongst yourselves. Okay, we have. For general public communications bill Miley Carolyn gold was sir I'm sorry if I mispronounce your name Wendy Larner and Wayne Maynard. So, start with Bill Miley.

Okay, good evening. For the record my name is Bill Marley and I'm going to speak to the presentation for the employees. I applaud these folks who are providing the services of government for the public benefit. In this particular case, those who have been here at least five years and up to 20 plus. I want them to consider that they are providing expanded benefits of government for not only the 7000 people who live here in a city but for the people that live beyond the city limits And I take the point of view that public service, in my opinion, carries really special appreciation.

And I want to thank them for that. Thanks. Thank you Bill. All

right. Yeah, absolutely. Okay Carolyn Goldwasser.

Okay, can you hear me okay? Okay good. My name is Carolyn Goldwasser and I live nearby and thank you. I want to thank you first of all for having these meetings out in the park. I think it's a very nice thing and secondly and I hope more people will start coming as it becomes a more regular thing The second thing is, as I'm walking here tonight. I find that the button on the south west corner of Ohio Avenue and signal street, the push button that you make the light change is missing a little thing you push.

So, that's something might want to check on the main thing I came to talk about is the water situation. The amount of water that is used by everyone taking showers, washing your hands, whatever. All of that can or most of it gray water can be used to water the trees, the plants and such around in town without having to make it so that people can't water their yards or must plant something that doesn't require any water And the city could lead the way to inspiring people to do that by taking a lead from the wash stations in the bathroom right over here and let me park, running the water that goes down the sink from the hand washing basins out to the nearest tree or two.

And, you know with some signs. Hey, we're doing it, you could do it to not that hard and it will help keep the trees alive, which will help I think prevent some of the fire danger perhaps And in an overall long-term perspective, it will save water that would otherwise be running down the drain to the ocean which doesn't really need more water. We need to keep it here in the valley directed toward our trees and plants.

So that's my comment.

Thank you. Thank you, Carolyn. We can check on that button, James.

Yes, we'll take a look at. Okay,

thank you. Next we have Wendy Larner.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight I want to speak on the issues that are on consent calendar one E and one K. I oppose the recommendation that the City Council adopt this resolution confirming once again, the continuing existence of a local emergency due to COVID-19 such a resolution allows to the appointed Director of Emergency Services in this case our city manager Emergency powers that are under normal circumstances preserved to the people.

Wear masks, refuse service, stay home from school, take experimental drugs, et cetera, et cetera. Since by any definition, Ojai is not in an emergency situation any longer. Does the combination of circumstances or the resulting state call for immediate action? No, this is ongoing action we've been dealing with this for 18 months. Is there an urgent need for assistance or relief? No, we have it handled as you've just Heralded the city employees, they've done a good job. And they're continuing to do it in those that work in this capacity. The COVID-19 situation is not fully manifested as calls for in the resolution, so it is not posing extreme peril to persons or property within the city and is not likely to be beyond the control and capacity of the services personnel equipment and facilities of the city.

It is time to yield the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness back to The people please remove from the consent calendar until evidence that the circumstances still meet standards of emergency, namely unforeseen and urgent need is forthcoming. You're setting a precedent right here and right now to abridge the People's Right without justification You who we have elected to represent us are betraying your oath and your moral responsibility to us, to do no harm. For the sake of truth and freedom and real justice, do your job. Have the courage to do your job.

Item IK, the coronavirus emergency response. No OHI specific data was given in that report And I think that would be of public interest. And the number of hospitalizations of Ojai residents, the number of intense care, the number of deaths, the number of those that fall in the three categories among the vaccinated, the partially vaccinated and the non-vaccinated, that is all information that you need to present us to justify this. I do believe it's unjustified. Thank you.

Thank you, Wendy. Next we have Wayne Maynard.

Good evening. My name is Wayne Maynard, resident on Gridley Road and I'm here to ask the city to look into an issue for me. The property I live on is zoned for one acre, it's R01 zoned. There's a section of five acres that's south of Grand that's between Gridley road in Los Alamos that is zoned for five acres. In that five acres there's only two parcels that are one acre mine and one of my neighbors The other three acres that zoned for one acre has seven legal lots on it.

And so, because you're going to be going through your general plan amendments and stuff I think that this would be an opportunity to look at my situation perhaps others in the community where the zoning doesn't match the existing lots. For me, I think it's a potential issue because the one acre zoning is a lot different than the zoning requirements for building. Quite a bit different with side yard setbacks. I don't think there's any limitation on the total area of a building footprint within the one-acre zoning. So when you create these smaller lots, I think it has effect on the neighborhood. So I appreciate if you would evaluate the warning.

Thank you Wayne.

I think Mr Maynard has my email address and he can email me and we can get back to him, or yeah. And if not, if you want to give me your contact information so

okay great. All right, we'll move on to the consent calendar, sir motion to approve everything

moved to approve

second

second.

Okay all in favor. Wonderful. All right, we will move on to the public hearing adoption of an ordinance amending the residential growth management plan to extend term by two years to October 1 2023. So we'll open the public hearing and James We have a recommend presentation.

Yes just a brief staff report. The city has had a residential growth management plan in place since 1979, what staff is recommending today is extending that by introducing are starting the process of extending it by introducing an ordinance to extend it for two additional years to 2023. Just a little bit about the residential growth management plan and what it does.

Prior to 1979 when it was introduced the city of Ojai is experiencing rapid growth in population, utilization of resources and deteriorating air quality. In the 70s for example, population of Ojai increased by 22%. In the 80s and 90s this dropped to about 10% and more recently has dropped even more so. And on average since the plan was adopted the city has grown less than 1% per year and some of this is likely attributable to the residential growth management plan A residential growth management plan helps to address those issues mentioned earlier, it helps to preserve the natural environment, helps to preserve open space.

In Ojai one of the criteria we used when we developed it was trying to also help protect Ojai's small town atmosphere and aesthetic qualities One of the key elements of a residential growth management plan is that they provide what's called an allotment, which is a maximum number of new housing units that may be developed in a year. Or that may be allotted in a year, which helps to limit the amount of growth within a city.

And so, and that number is based on the city's population. And so one note that we made in the staff report is we are recommending adopting or introducing an ordinance to extend the current manage growth management management plan to 2023. It is important to note, we've all talked at some of our recent counts Council meetings about how there are state housing laws that are starting to take away city's abilities to, to regulate regulate some of these issues or place any limitations. There is a senate bill 330, which was adopted in 2019.

That prohibits cities from implementing growth management measures that limit the amount of new housing units to be permitted. So that is in effect now, so one question people may have is if the state is limiting that why would we continue to adopt and our recommendation is to adopt and extend the residential growth management plan because SB 330 is expected to sunset on January 1st 2025 It's always possible that it occurs before then, and but that is right now when it's scheduled.

And we are so we are recommending continuing to adopt the plan so that in the place of an event of sunset or repeal of that state law then that the city's growth management plan will remain intact So, with that our recommendation and I think the city attorney might add something but our recommendation is to introduce the ordinance to extend the term for two additional years to 2023. And

very briefly man counsel to further points one sp 330s extension of the prohibition or limit on implementing growth management plans to 2025 was extended last week, the week before The other thing to be aware of is as another example of why staff recommends adopting this even though it's currently. Uh, someone academic is because there are possibilities of the ballot box next year changing the situation.

A statewide initiative was filed with Attorney General for a title and summary last week that would if adopted by the state electorate. restore local control over housing and override all of these state laws. I am obviously have no crystal ball as to whether it will or will not pass statewide, or whether they will or will not secure enough signatures but that's an example of why we recommended staff that we go ahead and extend the growth manager plan so that if and when any of those state situations changes, it can then be in place.

Thank you.

Any public comment on zoom on this item.

Yeah, we have one public speaker listed but it's Mr Miley who is there in person.

Okay, we have Bill Miley and Wayne Maynard for number two.

Good evening again. For the record, my name is Bill Miley. My family and I have lived here since 1968. So I am aware of the growth management plans in the past. So I agree with the city manager and planning director that as a backstop document, backstop being my term Recognizing the current state law and keeping us in place for a few more years, for many more years.

I do think the date should be changed to, I originally wrote 25 now 2030. I will probably not be here then as I'm 88 right now. Rather than 2023 so you don't have to do it again. So that's what I suggest, I like it, but it probably should be 230. Thanks. Thank you bill.

Wayne Maynard resident of Ojai. My concern with, with this ordinance I don't have an opinion which way to go just want to throw it out there is we also have currently adopted was SB nine which goes into effect in January which allows some single family lots to be subdivided and build additional lots, some, I think that this ordinance probably is in conflict with that as well.

And so, my concern with having a conflicting local ordinance with state law is that when the city tries to apply the ordinance with whatever provisions they might feel they can is going to potentially lead to non uniform enforcement among different people is my concern is it so if one person comes in and tells the city what they're going to do they're gonna apply as best they can one way, and somebody else that might be treated a different way. So I think it's really important that you're adopting ordinances that are in conformance with state law.

That's my opinion. Thank you.

Thank you Wayne. Okay no more comments so we'll move on to discussion.

Yeah, Mayor had a question for staff. Um, I thought Mr. Miley suggestion was interesting especially in light of the last a paragraph on page three or four where staff recommends extending the growth management plan to be implemented once SB 330 sunsets are in case of modification. Would that make sense for Mr. Miley's suggestion to be taken in light of that logic, to make the sunset date 2025 rather than 2023?

Yeah, I think that would be completely reasonable. The reason why we had originally put 2023 was we were trying to line it up with the general plan update where we could then kind of fully vet it and make some recommendations. But I do think with the news that SB8 extended SB330 last week, you know, it would make sense to just leave it in place till 2025. We can always revisit it earlier if we need to.

Thank you. I had a couple questions for staff so the original growth management plan was established in the 60s am i correct? I'm sorry, it's right here. So between 1979... so I understand the reasoning why in your presentation then but we've had numerous discussions regarding growth here in Ojai since then and there was no information provided regarding how many houses, how many single family dwellings were built here last year?

I believe last year, I believe there was one. But it may have technically been this year so is either one or zero our

allocations, year to year to date right now we're 199. If I'm reading this correctly so we had one last year. And then how many the year before and how many of the year before. So, I understand the necessity for this at its time. I just don't know of the necessity today, that's my concern. And then my thinking goes along with Mr. Maynard regarding the new statutes that are passed and how we're writing an ordinance that actually goes against them Under the guise that well it's going to be repealed or it won't be, you know they're just there's a lot of gray here so I'm just conflicted in it. To be honest with you I.

I think one of the problems that we've had in the state of California is a lot of communities taking these growth management plans and using them to make determinations as to how not to build, which in turn has created the crisis that we're in today. Which is there's not enough housing stock in the state of California for its people. That's the concern I have now in Ojai. Again, if we only had one person building a single family house last year, it's really not an issue.

So you know, I'm going to more likely go along with the tide here but I'm concerned that as we address affordable housing in our community and in the communities surrounding us that we don't allow Management plans like this to prevent us from actually doing what is right for our communities. So again, that's where I've bounced the ball here between two hands. I'm concerned that I understand why it was needed then, I'm not sure if it's needed now based on the information that we have available to us today and I don't necessarily think The governing body in the state of California is going to retract any of the movement that is moving forward right now on creating housing.

So I'm not sure even if we did pass this, if something greater might come down the road and just say this is irrelevant or Or, you know it's non usable or, or. And the last question I had is where we grandfathered in when SP 330 was passed or was our ordinance mood at that point also,

so it was moot at that point and to your point. Right now, our growth management plan is in would be in conflict with state law SB 330 and SBA SP nine. I think one challenge and you know it's not unusual for for cities like Ojai is these are one size fits all housing policies being developed by the state and pushed out across the entire state and oh hi, I think everybody here knows Council knows is not one size fits all, and these policies don't necessarily make sense for Ojai. That's where for us, you know this policy has been a policy that was developed in Ohio like you said quite a while ago 1979 but one of the ideas is the state has preempted the city. This would be us putting something as a backstop to borrow Mr Miley's term. I believe he said backstop but it would backstop that but it isn't conflict with the state at this point, it wouldn't be an effect until that state law changed.

Okay, thank you.

We do have one more public comment on this I am Larry Steingold.

Thank you very much, I do appreciate all your efforts for going through all this. You mentioned state control losing rights Do we ever hear from our state senator, our state legislature about coming here and selling giving up our rights as a town. How about all the other cities do we just roll over for the state for the county we have said we have rights here to.

That's right, I assume supplant them. I'm not sure of the Constitution in California or the Constitution. I have no idea. All I know is how many people on the City Council are against giving up rights to the state from Simi Valley to Moorpark whatever other Thousand Oaks all the other towns We keep rolling over and giving up rights to the state. Well, why not just let them run the city?

And just give up your job and tell the county supervisors to give up theirs and let's just run by the state because that's what they seem to be doing every time they turn around there's another law. And you and the city, you guys okay gals and guys we just roll over and go, oh okay well we'll just make amendments and we'll just do. Well whatever happened to saying no? Where is our state legislature? They're supposed to represent us they seem to be rolling over for the state whatever the reasons there are I know one size fits all and they're trying to solve a housing crisis and they're trying to solve all these issues created by other issues by other laws and by other permits and plans but this just keeps going on and on so when do you put a stick in their spokes When do you say, no go screw we're done?

Okay. We're a city we stand on our own. We don't want anything from new people. You got Caltrans running through the middle of town dictating what we do and what we don't do. You now have other things going on. So I just think it's time that the city gets organized, contacts the other cities and say hey if we're gonna just keep rolling over for the state why don't we just pack it in? Why are we here because the state doesn't want to do what you're doing but they certainly great on telling you what to do so now you're making everybody else jump through hoops so that they don't have to do it Well, they should come down here and let them do the weekly meetings and do all the grunt work with all the employees that everybody has. Let them run the state and it'll be one party or one group, one office, one legislature.

They can run everything. I just think it's time that enough is enough. And you've got to take a stand on saying we oppose SB9 and line up with all the other cities that say, wait a minute unless that's giving them cover so that they can get out, they can get away from their clientele, their constituents this way. They go, Hey, it's not our fault. It's the state. They can build wherever they want. We're just going to bet it's not our fault. Don't blame me if they're building a factory in your backyard or an apartment house right next to your residential home Not my fault, it's their fault. It's the state, what can we do?

Anyway, thank you very much.

Mayor Sixth.

Thank you Larry. We'll move on to discussion.

I'd like to add something just a fact we're not discussing but just a fact on your point. First of all this city, this council supported the city joining with 300 other cities in the State of California formally requesting through the League of California Cities that Governor Newsom veto these bills I know it's not an answer to your question. Okay, all I'm saying is I think this just happened. And so there is a lot of due diligence going on by, I would say Mr. Summers 300 cities plus are looking into the implications now that the bill has been signed and studying it and looking at it very carefully because nobody... There was a massive level of discontent in this state right now on this among many, many cities.

So I'll

just note as well, at least one lawsuit was filed. I think yesterday or this morning by a Los Angeles nonprofit that tends to fight against the state's overreach and housing issues, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. They filed suit against SB, the state on SB9. They've had some success in the past and that one will be one to watch. And as you know, the 300 odd cities that opposed it are taking a look at it And the most important thing is, of course, the legislators listen to the people who vote and who come to their events. So anyone who isn't already involved communicate your displeasure to the legislators.

The city, of course, took a position on the legislation can't campaign for individual members of the State Senate or the state assembly but the public can.

Thank you. All right moving on to discussion Well, I just like to say in response to you Randy and also to support what Carolyn said. Okay. Ojai is unique because we have our own water supply, we don't rely on any imported water and we really need to take care of our watershed as we move into the 21st century or keep going in the 21st century which is an extremely dry century compared to the 20th century. We're experiencing aridification which means it's permanent versus a drought which is not permanent And Lake Mead, which is our largest reservoir in the country.

It supplies much of the Western United States and this reservoir is at its lowest level since it was built in 1930s. So in terms of growth we really have to wrap our heads around that as we move forward. And so that's why I would support this and if you need it.

Mayor I'm going to make a motion. If there's no other discussion, I think, I can't spend any raise some good points as did Mr pendry but i think in light of the overall situation is most prudent to pass this as a backstop with the date extended to October 1 2025. That's my motion.

I'll second.

Can we could we have the roll call please go.

Yes, thank you Mayor. So as you mentioned this item is before city council tonight to, to make essentially one decision tonight which is deciding between the two potential design options for Maricopa Highway. One design option and I'll share my screen in a moment but one design option that will show is a class one bikeway or a bike, a bike way that is Similar to the Ojai Valley Trail is essentially how I would describe it. It's on a raised curb and that design has an estimated cost of $1.27 million. We have Currently have $1.25 million available in the grant for this project.

The other design is a class four bikeway, which is a street level design protected by bollards and that design is approximately $675,000. Both of those designs and both cost estimates were included in the packet for City Council On just kind of as a reminder of how we got here, we met on August 3rd. We reviewed those two designs but Council gave direction to staff to remove the design elements of on street parking and on street planners and delineators from the design, and then develop those designs to a point where costs can be determined, and then return to council for decision between those two. So that is what we are here to do tonight. And I will pull up three images quickly as I try to share my screen again.

So the three images are, first is the current design that people are familiar with. Let me zoom in. Now a couple of the major distinctions from this to what we are proposing is in the current design there's on-street parking and there is... The current design has the fire engines using the detouring through the bike lanes in an event of emergency The revised designs.

Too

many pop-ups. The revised designs, this is the Class one design, which is as I mentioned the estimated cost is about $1.27 million. The couple of changes is the onsite on street parking has been removed this vehicle shown here is not parked it's intended to illustrate a vehicle pulling to the right into what's called a slip lane to allow the ambulance or emergency vehicle to utilize the travel lane.

So the change there is that the vehicles would pull off into this slip lane, emergency vehicles would remain on the left and then the bike lane and pedestrian path are up on a raised curve on this class one type. And then I'll show quickly the class four design which is similar except for the bike path Again, it shows the slip lane for vehicles to pull over. It shows the emergency vehicle using the travel lane to obviously if there's no emergency on either of these designs the vehicles would be traveling in the travel lane, but this shows the emergency situation.

And then this version the class four has a 10 foot class for bike path. That has a that is separated by some sort of delineator what we're recommending at this time are these, these white bollards. If Council chooses to proceed with the class for design, but this would be the separated class for bike path. And then the sidewalk would remain as it is located now and the with the pedestrian traffic using that sidewalk.

And so those are the two designs. One important note as well is that on the class one type, because the path would move both out but also back to accommodate the area it would impact some of the eucalyptus trees. So the proposed design here shows oak trees that could eventually replace the eucalyptus But the eucalyptus would be impacted. We expect that the eucalyptus would be impacted if we proceeded with the class one design.

So that's just kind of an additional factor but so what we're doing tonight is we are presenting these two designs, the cost estimates for council to review and determine which design, which would then proceed to a 30 60 and 90% design. And so there will be opportunities to review in more detail multiple opportunities but what we're asking for tonight is direction on which of these to proceed with the direction Which was already given but to confirm that we're moving the on street parking and, and moving in this direction. So with that we do have a representative from Alta who I believe is zooming in, but with that alternative over to to Marin Council and if you have any questions for myself or the altar rep. We're happy to answer them.