CC WS PACKET 02242026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

From:Dr. Bibi Neumann To:SA City Cc:Charlie Yunker; Wendy Webster; Tom Randle; Jan Jenson; Lona Doolan; Nadia Elnagdy Subject:February 24 Work Session – Follow-Up Questions and City Code Comments Date:Saturday, February 21, 2026 6:44:07 PM Dear Mayor Webster and Members of the City Council, Please include the following written comments in the record for the February 24, 2026 Work Session. Before addressing the City Code updates, I would appreciate clarification on two matters arising from the February 4 Special Work Session discussion regarding immigration enforcement. At that meeting, the Council directed legal counsel to draft an amicus brief and discussed providing towing and storage assistance in ICE-related scenarios. Since that time, a resolution was read publicly at a Council meeting, and $15,000 has reportedly been administratively allocated for towing assistance. However, I have not seen any update regarding the status of the amicus brief, nor any publicly available information outlining the process, eligibility criteria, or application mechanism for the towing assistance program. Could the Council clarify whether an amicus brief has been drafted or filed (and if so, in which matter), what the anticipated timeline is if it has not yet been filed, and how residents may access the towing assistance funds, including qualification standards, documentation requirements, confidentiality considerations, and whether participation implicates public- record disclosure? If continued discussion is anticipated, I respectfully suggest placing the amicus brief status and towing-assistance implementation details on an upcoming Work Session agenda so that prior Council direction can be transparently followed through. With respect to the proposed City Code updates dated February 24, 2026, I appreciate staff’s effort to present the materials in redline form and to seek Council direction prior to formal public hearings. My comments below focus on clarity, implementation structure, and fairness; particularly where the draft text relies on cross-references, placeholders, or procedural mechanisms that are not fully outlined in the packet. Regarding the Vision Triangle amendments, I understand the goal of moving from general visibility language to a defined, measurable standard, including a 30-foot curb-line sight triangle and an 18-inch height limitation for obstructions. The specificity is helpful. At the same time, implementation details matter. Because the standard is measured from the curb rather than the property line, residents will reasonably need clear public guidance on how measurement occurs on sloped lots, irregular intersections, and corner conditions. The draft authorizes removal within a period determined by the City Manager or designee, not to exceed 90 days after written notice. I recommend clarifying what documentation accompanies such notice, how measurements are verified, and whether there is an appeal mechanism if a resident disputes the determination. Clear process prevents inconsistent enforcement and builds trust. Regarding impervious surface calculations, clarifying that only impervious surfaces within the legal parcel boundaries count (excluding the public right-of-way for both numerator and denominator) resolves a longstanding misunderstanding. I encourage publication of a simple illustrated example so residents can easily understand how compliance is calculated in practice.