[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[1:16] I am.
[1:20] Hey, I see all council members are present. So city clerk, we're ready to get started whenever you are.
[1:28] Okay, the recording's going.
[1:31] Thank you. Good evening, everybody. Welcome back. I will call the Los Alto City Council regular council meeting of Tuesday August 24, 2021 to order at 7 p.m.
[1:47] City Clerk, can you please establish Cora? Sure, I'll call roll. Council member Leying. Here.
[1:55] Council member Meadows. Here. Council member Weinberg. Here. Vice Mayor Enaander. Here.
[2:04] And Mayor Flagger. Here. Thank you, Mayor. I'll five council members are present. Thank you,
[2:09] and I see that or City Manager is here at least I'm seeing his name, his first official meeting
[2:16] as our city manager gave England, and then also we have our city attorney, Julie Houston.
[2:23] So we all came back. So that's good. Welcome back. Next on our agenda, we have the
[2:30] pledge of allegiance to the flag. And we're very lucky. Today we will have Dia
[2:36] Hemant, who's a ninth grader with troop number 6, 0, 3, 2, 1 lead us in the pledge of allegiance, and as usual, we'll ask everybody to go on mute so that Dia can lead us and you can obviously follow her lead. So with that, Dia, thanks for being here. We'll turn it over to you.
[3:00] Thank you for having me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
[3:08] and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
[3:15] indivisible with liberty and justice for all,
[3:22] excellent. Thank you so much, DS. We'll have
[3:25] we don't have you here, have school started already for you?
[3:31] Yes, so I go to Los Altos High School and it's
[3:33] started around three weeks ago.
[3:35] Also, you're three weeks in, how is it going?
[3:38] It's going really well since I'm in ninth grade,
[3:41] it's like a big transition.
[3:43] So I have a lot of homework at all.
[3:45] That's true. You're a high schooler now, congratulations.
[3:48] Wow. Well, thanks for joining us.
[3:51] Excellent job. Thank you. Thank you.
[3:55] So our next item is report on close session and no action was taken. So I have nothing to report from our close session. Next we have our special item and I do see.
[4:09] Vice Chair Gary Crevin with the Santa Clara Valley Water District with us and Gary before you start.
[4:17] I quickly want to share because it's relevant to your presentation and also a couple of items on our agenda tonight.
[4:24] I wrote a mayor's desk column titled,
[4:27] Doing Our Part in Los Alps is to conserve energy and water and I've invited residents to share some of the ways they're conserving energy and or water
[4:37] and I'd also give in 10 suggestions.
[4:40] So I'll quickly share three.
[4:42] One resident said, they replaced all the sprinkler heads
[4:47] for their lawns with a low plain sprinkler head.
[4:50] And apparently that prevents the water
[4:52] from spraying everywhere and going up
[4:54] in the air, it's more targeted and focused.
[4:57] And another resident said they were using water.
[5:04] And then they're using that water to water their plants outside instead of using their sprinkler systems or they've turned off that feature. And then the last one I will share is another resident switched out their light bulbs for more energy efficient and energy saving light bulbs. So I told them I would share them at the council meeting. Thanks to everybody who reached out and commented on the column.
[5:29] And so at that Vice Chair Cremant, I will turn it over to you and thanks so much for being here.
[5:37] You know, it's very timely that you're presenting to our council.
[5:40] And as I mentioned, we do have a couple of items really talking about how is a community we can address this drought that we're facing.
[5:49] Well, thank you for the invite mayor and thank you for sharing the tips.
[5:54] I will see if I can, I don't want to one up you, but I might have one tip or two.
[5:59] So, in any case, my name is Gary Creman, Vice Chair of the Valley Water District.
[6:04] I'm your neighbor. I just live over the line in Los Atos Hills on Page Mode Road.
[6:11] Unfortunately, I'm here mayor, vice mayor, council, staff, public, and a bad situation.
[6:19] We're in a pretty extreme drop. These have been the worst two years in recorded California history.
[6:25] And it's kind of time to take action and it's especially important in less altos because you only get your water kind of in one way and you're kind of at risk.
[6:40] So before I get started, I kind of do we have the first slide?
[6:44] Let's see if we can get it.
[6:47] Yeah,
[6:50] so that's what some of these stuff actually looks like.
[6:54] Where our water is. Why don't we go into slide two and I'll just say next slide.
[7:01] You know, before we go into what we do, I just want to mention, I don't know if anyone is a reader of California authors,
[7:07] but John Steinbeck in the beginning of east of Eden, one of my favorite Steinbeck said that
[7:13] never failed during the dry years that people forgot about the rich years
[7:17] and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years and it was
[7:22] always that way. And if you actually look at the numbers you'll see that.
[7:26] But before I get into the grid situation where I want to tell you a little bit
[7:30] very quickly because I know you have a lot in your agenda. I look at it. What
[7:33] value water does, we do three major things are 810 employees, 610 million
[7:42] budget. We give clean water to most of the county affordable and safe. We do flood protection.
[7:49] And we keep creeks healthy. And some of the pride not only do we provide you your water,
[7:55] weather through wells or cow water, where we wholesale. But we do a bunch in Los Alto's.
[8:01] We've given tons of money whether it be projects like the living, you know, the exhibit on water
[8:09] conservation at the historical museum and the gardens there, the redwood nature preserve.
[8:18] We preserved some habitat over there.
[8:21] We did mid-pen over $600,000 for stuff in Los Altos the last couple of years, et cetera,
[8:28] et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
[8:28] Over a million dollars, just and in grants, but the big thing we do if we could go on
[8:34] to the next slide and all the creeks that don't be in permanent intake is we provide water.
[8:41] So this is how Los Santos gets its water.
[8:46] Basically at the end of the day it all comes from the
[8:48] series so when they talk about importing water from hundreds of miles we do that here in Los
[8:53] Santos. So we get it as a wholesale or value water. We either spread it on the ground for those
[8:59] people that have wells, or we give it the cow water,
[9:03] who sets the prices and the terms,
[9:06] we don't set your prices, or anything associated with it.
[9:11] And they give it to whether you're wherever you live
[9:14] on spring or road, or you're out communal.
[9:16] So if we could go on to the next slide,
[9:18] so that's how Los Alto is, and this is how water,
[9:21] so that's where you get it, and we're gonna go into,
[9:25] not only does where Los Alto gets it,
[9:27] but where the county gets it,
[9:28] because this is just not a lot of self-tose crisis.
[9:32] This is a county-wide crisis.
[9:35] And the mayor who worked at the accounting building,
[9:37] I'm sure she's got an overview of that.
[9:40] So in any case, water in California is used three ways.
[9:44] And this is the fight that's been going on
[9:46] since the gold rush days between the environment,
[9:49] which gets 50% of the water, agriculture, 40%
[9:54] and urban users, 10%.
[9:57] And this is a system that was built for 10 million people.
[10:00] Local kind of finished up in the 60s and now we got 40 million people and that's part of the problem. So if you go on through the next slide, this is how actually water is used locally here in the county, 55% of it's used in the home, 30% to use for business, only 8% used by agriculture, which is different than the rest of the state. We do have agriculture in South County in Morgan Hill and Gilroy, but it's much smaller than the rest of the state.
[10:28] So where you can move the needle a lot is indoor use in outdoor use and I'm going to tell you some of the services we have, but I don't think this is going to be a surprise to anyone a lot used by our gardens and trees, but we do not recommend not watering your trees if you're going to cut anything else you do lawns and then indoor use and I don't think this will surprise anyone anyone.
[10:54] where the water goes on an indoor usage.
[10:57] And by the way, we'll talk about tons of problems
[10:59] on programs we have to help.
[11:01] So if we can go on in the next slide,
[11:03] I'm going to kind of give you a super wonky slide,
[11:06] but this is going to explain the problem.
[11:08] So if we look county-wide,
[11:11] and this includes what comes to Los Altoes.
[11:14] 30% of the water is water that rains from the skies
[11:17] that goes in the aquifer, or we keep in reservoirs.
[11:20] We're looking at the left side.
[11:21] 50% comes from hundreds of miles away as far as way above the Sacramento Valley.
[11:29] 40% comes across the San Joaquin Sacramento Delta, 10% from Hatchetchi.
[11:36] Those are communities just to the north of Los Altoes.
[11:39] That would be 90% amount of fuel, 100% of Palo Alto, and 2-3rds of Los Altoes.
[11:45] That's kind of the breakpoint for the Hatchetchi water.
[11:47] 5% is recycled and I'm going to tell you in a little while about some money that you don't
[11:53] know that's coming in the lot of stuff, which is a good thing. I don't think anyone's going to
[11:56] turn it out. I'm not talking about the residents, but to the city. And then we consider conservation
[12:01] as a way of increasing water supply, although it's really under demand side. But here's the problem.
[12:09] Okay? So that's where the water comes from. The problem is the drought and our reservoirs. The big
[12:14] problem is it hasn't been raining in our state and I'm going to show you something on the next page to show you we're in the worst type of drought you could have the exceptional drought and but I'll show you some graphics on it.
[12:26] So, we're not getting rain, we're at risk of draining down our groundwater aquifer.
[12:33] The reservoirs we store half our water locally and Anderson reservoir.
[12:38] Unfortunately, we bewildered it only as 3% water in it because of seismic reasons.
[12:44] So, the water we get when we don't have water stored is from something called the state water project.
[12:50] That's about 20% of our water whether only given 5% of the normal amount of water and the federal project is only giving us 25%.
[12:59] So we're facing these cuts right there and in the big place we get water plus the headshot system looks like they're gonna cut that in half and
[13:07] then we got we got water stored in different
[13:12] aquifers, but unfortunately most of it's south of us and
[13:15] The way we get it out is we send it south to people and then those people who have water coming down
[13:20] towards us, give it dust, but there's no water coming in any of the canals, so there's no one
[13:25] to trade with or swap with, and we're trying to buy emergency water, but it's pretty hard to
[13:32] purchase because everyone's fighting for it. I'm going to show you some graphs, and even if you can
[13:36] buy it, getting it here is hard. So we're we're super recycled water, but there's less water in the
[13:42] system. And conservation, which is kind of a source, it's really dependent on you, the public
[13:50] participating. And we actually, our first numbers were not very good, although it's kind
[13:56] of early to tell. And valley water, unlike the city, we don't have regulatory powers in the same
[14:01] way to regulate water use. For the most part, all we have is carrots, we don't have any sticks.
[14:07] So if you can go under the next page,
[14:13] here's part of the problem, if not the biggest part of the problem.
[14:17] The entire, almost the entire state, not the whole state,
[14:20] is an exceptional drought.
[14:23] So as you go from yellow to black, it's the worst.
[14:30] Way worse than anything we've seen since 1977.
[14:36] And everyone's fighting for it.
[14:38] our board did call for some water shortage emergency, so did the county, and so did the governor.
[14:46] So we're working through our partners to do. So problem one is the drought. I mean this is the
[14:51] critical part of it. There's just no water in the system, and I'll show you some graphs if we want
[14:55] in the next page.
[14:59] A lot of us.
[15:00] Some of us come from the business world, and I like to think of, well, what's the price out there? Well,
[15:07] it's in a warranty I use that word, wonky again, but the price isn't per acre, what covers an acre
[15:13] of land of water. And the price is around $200 for the last couple years. And then when this
[15:19] drought hit and the snow pack didn't have very much run off the price jumped to 900, which is 4.5
[15:28] times. So we tend to get a better price that value water than 900, but not much lower. So the run-out
[15:35] from water sheds are horrible. Everyone's fighting for it. The state is decided, we're only going
[15:41] to give you 5% of normal. We're the central value, the federal project, they're giving nothing for
[15:47] agriculture. And for M&I, they're kind of giving just health and safety water, which is the minimum
[15:52] you need to survive. There's no snowpack, and I'll show you some pictures. And the
[15:57] reservoirs upstream of us with a water is stored years of water. Usually, they're at
[16:03] historic lows and what's there is being saved for fish. And getting that water, even the
[16:08] little runoff across the Delta is super hard because what's happening is the bay and the ocean
[16:15] is pushing in. And the water, you've got to release water into the ocean. So the salt water
[16:22] and getting the system, which would be catastrophic.
[16:27] So you can just see, look at the price, that's bad news.
[16:30] I mean, this is set of bad news stuff.
[16:32] Why don't we go on to the next slide of bad news?
[16:35] The next bad news is climate change is coming home the roost.
[16:40] There's snowpack, because the snowpack is not what it used to be.
[16:45] The precipitation, we're having more precipitation, which is good,
[16:50] But less snowpack, which is super bad because 30% of the water is stored in the snowpack and there's hardly anything in the snowpack.
[17:00] I mean, I was just foolishly climbed my Whitney about a month ago, and there was, when I did about 10 years ago, there was a lot of snow.
[17:08] There was no snow when I did it a month earlier. It was just nothing up there, and I mean that's not a big data point, but pretty scary.
[17:17] Because of this, we don't have any place to even store the water that's running off,
[17:23] et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So if we go to the next slide,
[17:27] so all this bad stuff's
[17:28] happening. So what can we do about it? Well, we can look at water conservation. If you remember
[17:33] those graphs, you know, 80% or so of the water, maybe it's 75% in the county, 27% indoor residential,
[17:41] 20 and a half, 7 and a half percent outdoor residential 30 percent business.
[17:47] We can actually move the needle if we do something about climate change.
[17:53] So we got a lot of free stuff to give folks.
[17:55] We've been giving grants to people to rip out their lawn.
[17:59] We just double the grant.
[18:01] We have free rainwater barrels, kind of like the ones you see in Schupe Park, sister rebates
[18:08] gray water, which is taking kind of what runs off in your wash or what's in the shower,
[18:13] and turning into something you can put in your irrigation. You want to tip here's a tip.
[18:20] What I found is most gardeners feel the more water the better things look and the better that
[18:26] do their job. One thing you can do is go talk to your gardener and say one walk my irrigation
[18:34] system for leaks, too. It's surprising how many people have leaks and too. I'm not going to
[18:40] fire you if you're not keeping water on it. We're going to drop so be kind with the water. Oh,
[18:48] we have things will come out to your house and inspect it both indoor and outdoor and we won't
[18:53] share anything that we find. We have a cool website that it's like Amazon and we have a shopping cart,
[19:01] but it doesn't cost anything to get things like water efficient, shower heads, et cetera.
[19:07] So, I mean, you can get up to $3,000 for just taking out your lawn and if you have any
[19:15] businesses, we have all this stuff that will give you for free to help work on your business.
[19:21] And in fact, for larger businesses, you can get over up to $100,000 in this stuff.
[19:27] All right.
[19:28] So we got good water conservation programs
[19:31] because we're big believers in carrots, not at the sticks,
[19:35] but if we go under the next slide.
[19:41] Oh, this is another cool thing we're doing.
[19:43] We're recycling water to be able to use it on irrigation,
[19:50] including red woods because we came up with $16 million
[19:54] to help upgrade the plant, the wastewater plant that
[19:59] I lost out to her sister's part.
[20:00] Part of with Mountain View and Palo Alto in a couple other cities. So that would be like lower sewer rates
[20:05] as the way I think of that. Plus, we plan the buy, the affluent, the wastewater discharge. And
[20:11] we cycle it. And that will be paying the highest price ever for wastewater. People use
[20:18] your own pay for wastewater. But that's money that will flow back to the city, depending on how much
[20:23] we buy from the city, we'll probably build this new plant
[20:28] in either Pelaltoe or San Jose.
[20:32] So this is definitely one thing we could do,
[20:34] we get 5% of our water now from recycling and purification.
[20:38] We can raise that probably with the Pelaltoe plant,
[20:41] but 10%.
[20:41] So this is definitely a solution,
[20:43] and everyone's gonna ask about decalinization.
[20:46] I'm totally for it.
[20:47] The problem is, the ocean's pretty far,
[20:49] and the coastal range is in the middle,
[20:51] And the amount of energy to lift the water over the Santa Cruz mountains is the price would be just out of reach.
[21:02] So, I'm for it, it just doesn't work well here.
[21:05] And the ocean is full of salt.
[21:08] The wastewater doesn't have as much salt, so it takes less energy.
[21:11] All right, I'll make this quick, because I know you have a lot of things to do.
[21:14] We do have a plan, but it's not like Mark Zuckerberg can go write some code and solve this problem.
[21:21] This is a problem we're going to be facing, even if we have a wet winter for a year or two.
[21:27] And if we have a dry winter, we're going to have to do some pretty, we're going to have for some additional authority and maybe work through the cities to do some heroic efforts.
[21:41] So it's not in joke. I know we had crisis overload. We all do, but this is yet another crisis there.
[21:51] your list, but this is very serious. So I stand here that not only ask questions, but see what kind
[21:58] of problems I can solve for Los Alters. So I'll shut up. Thank you, Gary. Thanks for this presentation.
[22:05] Very helpful and informative. As you know, for special items, we can't take any action, but I will
[22:11] open it up to my colleagues to see if they have any questions for you. I will do virtual hands. I'm
[22:21] of scores on my screen right now.
[22:24] So council members, do you have any questions for Mr.
[22:28] Creman?
[22:29] Council member Meadows.
[22:32] Thank you, Mr. Creman, for your presentation.
[22:36] Are there any plans I'm going to keep talking about?
[22:38] Anderson Reservoir has been closed for 10 years.
[22:40] Is there any plans to accelerate to get that back online?
[22:43] I mean, that's certainly, of course,
[22:45] then you still got to fill it.
[22:46] So that's not easy either.
[22:48] But what's the story there?
[22:49] What's the story is, we built Hoover Dam in three years, but I hate it myself, the amount of state and federal permits, my read of the situation is that we're really in a, okay, I'll tell you really what's going on.
[23:06] The conflict is kind of between the people who hate the damn in one, the creed coyote
[23:12] creed to be there all the time.
[23:14] In fact, they were the ones kind of jamming up us fixing this project a long time ago.
[23:19] Versus those that want to repair it and those that want to use a certain kind of workforce
[23:24] and those that want to have federal level permits from fish and wildlife and furq.
[23:31] I don't even think I could lift the EIR that's coming out, it's so heavy.
[23:39] But I guess if we sent it to the National Guard, we could probably do it in four years.
[23:44] But people don't listen to my suggestion on that.
[23:46] And they'll think I'm a cook when I say that publicly.
[23:51] It's hard to build projects in California.
[23:53] You know that. Try to get out communal fix.
[23:56] You know, it's tap.
[24:00] Thank you, Gary. Thanks, Councilmember Meadows. Councilmember Weinberg.
[24:05] Thank you, Mary. Mayor. Gary. Sorry, I can buy Mayor and I'm Gary. Gary, thank you for the work that you do for the water district and thank you very much for this presentation.
[24:19] What are two or three things that you think the city has an entity can do to help alleviate the
[24:27] crisis or to do our part, self-conserve? Conservation, conservation, conservation. It's outreach
[24:36] to the folks, I come across a lot of people who don't know where and are out. Of course we know
[24:42] how people's COVID information is, but the drought has just not penetrated a lot of the homeowners
[24:49] here. You know, we see it in the numbers. You know, you know, you're aware of it, but there's
[24:56] people who aren't. How do we know that? The water is hasn't gone down.
[25:00] While we're getting a lot more applications for rebates, it's not like we're overwhelmed by
[25:04] them. So I would think communications through your list, through next door, through other
[25:09] social media you have, I mean, who's against the fact that you get free money to do this
[25:16] stuff? Because don't forget, if you use less water, you pay less. But we haven't gotten consumer
[25:24] customer awareness and, you know, Cal Water, you know, I'm not criticizing them, but their
[25:30] model is not like the electricity model where decoupled profits from revenue. You know, utilities
[25:37] won't tell you, but I will tell you that the less they sell, I'm talking about water utilities,
[25:42] the less they sell, the less money they make. And it's not like the power industry where the better
[25:48] conservation is the more money they make. We don't have that decoupling here. So, they won't say
[25:54] but there's kind of an incentive not to bring on the conservation message. I know it's crazy.
[25:59] We should be showing up at the park, the lobby. But that, you know how long things take
[26:05] at the park. So we gotta our focus is now today conservation. And especially in the Cal Waterers,
[26:11] I'm not criticizing more. Thank you. Thanks, Councilmember Weinberg. And thanks for that, Gary.
[26:18] I don't see any more hands raised. I will tell you that I will be following up with you, Gary,
[26:23] to ensure all that money you mentioned that our city should be getting that we're actually
[26:28] getting it. So I will be in touch. But thank you again for being here. And I know you're missing
[26:37] a meeting. So thank you. No, thank you. I almost lived to give money to Los Altecos. So let's figure
[26:42] that out. Okay. Okay. Thank
[26:47] you. I thought that was very timely and helpful. We'll keep going
[26:55] and the next agenda item is changes to the order of the agenda. And before I look to my colleagues
[27:02] to see if they have any changes, I do want to point out that, you know, we no longer have the COVID-19
[27:10] emergency standing item on our agenda. Obviously, it's still a top priority for the city under council,
[27:18] but it will now be incorporated into the staff report. And of course, if there's specific
[27:24] items related to COVID-19 and or respond those in the address in specific items.
[27:32] Okay, so with that, let me see if they're any hands.
[27:40] I don't see any hands raised. And so before we go to public comment on items not on the agenda, I also wanted to read just based on a question that was raised at our last council meeting before the summer.
[27:53] about the process for continuing items, you know, at the end of our agenda and this line which has been there, you know, from like, since I've been on council and I'm sure before where it says council norms.
[28:07] It will be the custom to have a recess at approximately 9 p.m. prior to the recess, the mayor shall announce whether any items will be carried over to the next meeting.
[28:21] The established hour after which no new items will be started is 11 PM.
[28:28] Remaining items, however, may be considered by consensus of the council.
[28:34] So, essentially, you can override my decision at 9 PM,
[28:39] and I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that language and the process were followed.
[28:43] And so with that, we'll continue on to public comments on items not on the agenda.
[28:51] City Clerk, if you could help me, do we have any hands raised from members of the public?
[28:56] And again, this item is for items not on the agenda, so if you're here to speak about a specific item,
[29:04] then you'd have to wait until we get to that item.
[29:07] So, City Clerk, do we have any hands raised?
[29:09] Yes, Madam Mayor, at this time we have three hands raised.
[29:15] The first speaker is Roda Fry.
[29:18] Okay, with three hands raised, let's do three minutes each.
[29:22] Okay, I now have four hands.
[29:24] Okay, let's start with Roda.
[29:30] Roda.
[29:36] Roda, can you hear us?
[29:47] Roda.
[29:51] Roda, if you can hear us, we can't hear you.
[29:54] And so maybe you want to call back in or a city court, does it appear as if she's youth?
[30:00] I'm using an outdated version and you have to help. He appears to be unmuted.
[30:05] Roda. Okay, we can, the next speaker is a number and it is 9767.
[30:20] I think I hear.
[30:20] I fixed myself. Can you hear me? This is Roda. Yes. Yes. Oh, hooray. Okay. I did a test before getting on and everything worked.
[30:30] And then it, anyway, good evening council members.
[30:34] It should not surprise you that I'm going to talk about the two queries.
[30:37] I'm not speaking to agenda item 13.
[30:40] Steven's query has just received an omnibus notice
[30:43] of violation from the county.
[30:46] For 24 building violations, five environmental health
[30:49] violations, nine fire violations, and five zoning violations.
[30:53] Now this Thursday on August 26, the planning commission will be
[30:59] making a consequential decision to determine whether Stephens Creek
[31:03] Quarry is zoned for importing, processing, and reselling rock from Lehigh.
[31:09] County staff recommends a no vote, which is supported by the City of
[31:14] Cupertino, the open-space district Santa Clara Valley Audubon,
[31:18] Green Foot Hills, among others.
[31:20] A yes vote would indefinitely delay reclamation of the Quarry site,
[31:25] continue up to 1,300 truck trips, daily, and pollute the Stephen's Creek Reservoir.
[31:32] It could also cause a deficit of rock needed at Lehigh to build a buttress to protect our
[31:38] ridge line. I'm hoping that the City of Los Alters can write a letter of support for County
[31:43] Staff's recommendation for not accepting Stephen's Creek quarries zoning determination application.
[31:49] As to Lehigh, you have a long break, so I allow this, Lehigh is now running two new businesses on site, which in my opinion should not be allowed.
[32:02] First, instead of using on-site materials to manufacture cement, Lehigh is now importing all materials. This is a significant change of use.
[32:12] Lehigh has built a new rock plant that is significantly different from the rock plant that
[32:16] terminated operations in 2011.
[32:19] Specifically, it uses a dry process rather than a wet process so you've got unwashed
[32:24] aggregate leaving the site and that's an issue.
[32:27] Not only that, back Med has approved an additional 20,000 trucks per year, over and above
[32:33] the 70,000 trucks permitted for the cement plant along with other uncounted trucks.
[32:38] And again, let's not forget the 1,300 trucks allowed daily from Stephen's Creek quarry.
[32:44] Lee Heiz application initially failed cancer risk calculations at backmed.
[32:49] But then backmed lawyers called for recalculating.
[32:53] I really get worried when lawyers tell engineers what to do.
[32:57] I sent a very long email on these issues for today's public comment for further reading.
[33:01] Hope you get a chance to look at it.
[33:03] Again, my most urgent ask tonight is to please participate in the zoning,
[33:08] determination for Steven's Creek Quarry. Thank you very much. Thanks, Rota.
[33:18] Our next, our next speaker is it's a number to call in with the last four numbers nine seven six seven.
[33:31] A caller nine six or I'm sorry nine seven six seven.
[33:39] Okay. Um, our next speaker then is Janine ballad as.
[33:45] Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Thank you for the time. Um, all I'm going to say today.
[33:52] Today is to reiterate something that happened at the end of the norms and procedures meeting.
[33:59] I am very pleased and encouraged to see that the council will hopefully agendize discussion
[34:04] of section 6.8 and make it more substantive portion of the norms and procedures.
[34:11] So I'm all for that.
[34:14] And then secondly, with regard to the same document, I was a little bit befuddled by the various
[34:20] conversations that try to focus on the norms aspects of the document at the expense of the
[34:28] procedures aspects of the document. So perhaps at some point somebody can clarify for me,
[34:35] I always believe that the procedures aspect was just as important. So there were some discussion
[34:43] on various topics that tended to say, well, let's, let's not focus on procedures or drill
[34:48] down on procedures and there's a little troubling to me, but I won't bog down the moon with specifics.
[34:54] I just want to bring that issue up, because I want to understand what the whole-
[35:00] Local document that it was always for me, been a very balanced document in terms of the ideals of the norms, but then also drilling down on procedures. Thank you. That's it. Thanks.
[35:15] Our next speaker is Rob Sealy.
[35:24] Mr. Sealy.
[35:32] Mr. Sealy. Rob Sealy.
[35:42] Mayor, I have the two, the two speakers, one with 9767 and Rob Sealy. Both of them are unmuted.
[35:54] No, I see that. Thank you, City Clerk. If they can hear us and they would like to share their comments, please feel free to send an email to
[36:03] to public comments one word at Los Alto C.A.
[36:08] Got God.
[36:09] Are you able to hear me now?
[36:11] Yes, we can hear you.
[36:12] Okay, thank you. This is Rob Celia Apologies. I was having
[36:14] a little technical difficulty. So thank you so much to the council for
[36:19] for this topic and for having Gary Creman on to talk about this issue. I am with
[36:26] Cal Water. I am the Community Affairs Specialist for the area and I just wanted to
[36:32] add a little something basically just let everyone know that that we are in fact dedicated to
[36:36] conservation and working not only with value water as we have been in the past and then really
[36:41] appreciate their partnership as well as with the city I know we're on the consent calendar this evening
[36:46] as well and and I really appreciate the support from the city and look forward to continuing to work
[36:51] with you as we all get through this route. So thank you. Thank you Rob and thanks for being here.
[36:58] And
[37:02] then the final speaker would be eight, nine, seven, six, seven.
[37:10] And again, it's that person from us.
[37:13] Yes, we can hear you.
[37:19] I thought I heard them.
[37:21] Okay, I'm going to say that again, so we can move on.
[37:23] But again, please feel free to send an email to public comments.
[37:28] At Los AldosCA.gov, or we apologize that the technology is working right now.
[37:34] Thank you.
[37:39] So going down our agenda council next we have our consent calendar and as usual, if no council member would like to remove an item from consent, then I will entertain emotion to approve the entire consent calendar.
[37:58] I'm looking for hands from the panelists list.
[38:02] Again, I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar.
[38:06] If no council member would like to pull an item.
[38:08] So, number one to me, heard me in so moved.
[38:12] So, because I'm doing the virtual hands, council member will be sorry.
[38:16] So, I can't remember a wine bird.
[38:20] I was going to make the motion, but I'll second council member, Leahy's motion.
[38:24] Okay, so we have the motion by council member, really,
[38:28] seconded by council member Weinberg. And so with that city clerk, let's go to the attendees list to see if we have any comments from the public on the consent calendar.
[38:42] I still have the person with the number 9767 with their hand raised again.
[38:52] Okay, thanks, City Clerk. So we'll bring it back to Council. And so we have the motion, and it's second day to City Clerk. Can you please call the roll?
[39:00] Sure. Vice-marie Nander?
[39:02] Yes. Council member Meadows?
[39:07] Council member Lee Ying?
[39:09] Yes.
[39:10] Mayor Flyger?
[39:11] Yes.
[39:12] And Council member Weinberg?
[39:14] Yes.
[39:15] Thank you. The motion passes five to zero.
[39:18] Thank you, City Clerk.
[39:20] Okay, we'll keep going. Next, we will have item number nine, which is a public hearing.
[39:27] And it's ordinance number 2021, dash 4, 7, 8, ZTA, 20, dash 0, 0, 3, the zoning text
[39:35] amendments. And so with that, I see we have our city manager and Mr. Biggs. And so I will
[39:43] Do you hear that? I did my gavel. Open the public hearing and turn it over to Mr. England and Mr.
[39:50] Biggs.
[39:51] Thank you, Mayor. So what council has before you tonight is the objective standards, the city council and planning commission have dedicated.
[40:00] A great deal of time to this topic, and it's been well spent. We're at the point tonight where council has had the opportunity after the last meeting to hear this item several times, as well as provide individual comments, which hopefully were successfully incorporated into the latest draft.
[40:16] We'd like council to conclude at least the initial discussion of the objectives standards this evening by approving one of the alternative listed in the staff report.
[40:25] Council is comfortable and wants to make no additional changes are only minor changes. Option one would be adoption of the objective standards. Option two is if Council would like to make further changes at our substantive.
[40:39] We'd ask the city council to adopt the ordinance as presented tonight and refer the areas of changes are concerned back to the planning commission for further study and recommendation.
[40:51] option three would be to adopt the recommendation initially made by the planning commission and the final option would be to further amend the ordinance this evening and then send the entire document back not just the changes to the planning commission and of course Council is able to make
[41:08] other approvals as it sees necessary. So with that we're available for questions.
[41:17] Thank you Mr. England. Mr. Biggs do you have anything to add?
[41:22] Hello, this new city manager covered the topic quite well and we're available along with the consultant team to answer any questions that the council members might have.
[41:30] Thank you.
[41:31] And I really appreciate how Mr. England laid it out the options before us and so when we get to the discussion point of the item I'll go over those as well to guide the discussion.
[41:40] But right now, I'm going to turn to council members to see if they have any questions,
[41:48] looking for virtual hands.
[41:53] Okay, see no virtual hands raised and so with that city clerk, do we have any members of the public that would like to comment on item number nine, the objective standards.
[42:06] I just met a mayor. I have one hand that would be John Bear. Okay. Two hands.
[42:18] I have two people indicating a desire to speak three minutes.
[42:22] Yep. Thank you. Thank you.
[42:24] So I would encourage this council to make the obvious changes that need to be made.
[42:34] I've sent my comments, I think there probably will be some comments from council, and that
[42:40] you approve it, but then you send it back to the Planning Commission with direction.
[42:48] There are still significant omissions and commissions and things that need to be changed
[42:56] in the document.
[42:58] So it's not a time to, as they say, break out the broosties, it's time to go and get this document corrected and get it right because it's going to be with us for very long time.
[43:13] And there are a number of areas that need correction.
[43:16] There are some policy issues at the council.
[43:20] Mayor may not be able to weigh in tonight.
[43:23] They are play height issues that need to be addressed for the betterment of the community.
[43:34] And lastly,
[43:37] none of us know if what's been produced here is correct.
[43:42] And for any of us to think that its correct is sheer ignorance,
[43:52] this document needs to be tested to see if the projects we like, make it through the screen and the projects we don't like, or don't want to see in town, don't make it through the screen.
[44:05] And while I do appreciate the planning commission recommended not doing that, I think the council in its better judgment needs to override the planning commission and have that done either by the planning commission or by staff.
[44:22] But until you test these objective standards against projects,
[44:29] real projects, you're not going to know if they are the correct objective standards,
[44:35] whether there are any obvious or non-obvious holes in the document
[44:41] that will need to be corrected. And we really don't want to be in a position
[44:45] of correcting these things after the fact. After the building has been approved,
[44:51] and we say, oh no, we blew it.
[44:55] Thank you very much.
[44:58] Thank you, John.
[45:01] So, did Clark do we still have that other hand raised?
[45:06] It was, I promoted that person to a panelist and they appeared to be unmuted as a panelist.
[45:14] So, that person would need to speak up.
[45:17] Can you hear me?
[45:18] Yes, we can hear you. There you are.
[45:21] I'll just be brief. I was for some reason I raised my hand, but I wasn't given permission to speak on items on the agenda.
[45:27] So, I don't know how you want to deal with this.
[45:30] So go ahead, go ahead sir.
[45:32] Okay, so real quickly, I found out yesterday in a meeting with the new city manager, which went very well, that you're going to open up the community center and the senior centers,
[45:45] but you're not going to require a proof of vaccination.
[45:48] And I checked with fellow seniors and we really think that's a very bad policy.
[45:54] and the cinematic told us that it could be done,
[45:57] but it apparently has some complications.
[45:59] So I trust that he can talk to you about what the issues really are.
[46:04] But I did a quick check today and found out a number of things.
[46:09] One is Avenue's Rose Cleaner Center.
[46:12] Requires proof of vaccination.
[46:13] Sunnydale Center does not.
[46:15] San Francisco requires all indoor activities of any consequence,
[46:19] including this one, to have proof of vaccination.
[46:22] And I do know from my grandson that MIDI has had an outbreak of 12 COVID cases already because they don't require a proof of vaccination and they don't do social distancing.
[46:35] I don't know if we're doing that in the current rules.
[46:39] But if you don't do proof of vaccination, I personally will never go to the senior center here. I will go elsewhere.
[46:45] So, I think if you really care about seniors, you need to protect us and the current policy does not.
[46:52] Thank you very much.
[46:54] Thanks, Frank.
[46:59] Okay, so no other hands raised for item number nine.
[47:04] Is that correct, city clerk?
[47:05] That's correct.
[47:07] Okay, so then let's bring it back to council for discussion.
[47:11] And the city manager at the beginning laid out the four options.
[47:13] And they're in the staff report.
[47:15] And I think this is the ninth meeting that we're having on the objectives standards.
[47:22] I remember the first couple of meetings I had a lot of flags on my documents and markings and suggestions and edits.
[47:29] And we had a lot of robust discussions.
[47:32] And so, you know, I would really like us to really move towards option one tonight if possible, which is we adopt, you know, the best version of the objectives standards that we can.
[47:44] And then if we need to give direction to the planning commission or have any subsequent meeting, then we can do that as well.
[47:52] So with that, the format we want to follow tonight is basically to go through the red lights.
[47:57] Like all council members were asked to submit their comments or red lights or the current draft of the objective standards and our consultants and staff have responded to it.
[48:08] So I hope there's nothing outside of that, but obviously if there is now is the time to raise it.
[48:14] And so the format we would like to follow is go through the different comments that were raised and the responses to see if the council members who raised those comments have any follow-up questions for the consultant or staff.
[48:29] And so we should all have in our packets and I really appreciated the way staff laid out their responses to our comments.
[48:36] I thought it was well done, so thank you.
[48:39] And I will start with council member Lien
[48:42] and vice mayor inander with your comments.
[48:46] And I'll turn it over to you
[48:47] if you want to go through each comment
[48:51] or if you have any follow up questions
[48:53] because as far as we're concerned,
[48:55] this is a follow up that we need to really close.
[49:00] So vice mayor, I think council member Meadows had her hand up first.
[49:05] Oh, I didn't see that. I'm sorry. Councilmember Meadows. That's okay. And this is the reason I just want to make this comment before we go through the exercise you're talking about is because it has to do with the language of the ordinance itself.
[49:18] And I apologize to staff that I got my comments on that in late, but there's actually two duplications in section one amendment of the code, which is page 204 facade is identifying twice and line was identified twice.
[49:40] When responding to my comments, they caught one of those, and they didn't catch the other duplications, so they're actually two duplications, and facade and lines should be only in there one. So, I just, that's kind of a one off from the exercise you introduced, Mayor, but I wanted to have that, that cleared up.
[50:00] Okay, thanks for that, Council Member Meadows, and I noted that. It's a little come back to just to make sure that's been addressed. And I also want to I don't see Marus.
[50:11] Either on the panelist or attendees, but as you know, he also submitted some comments and there were responses to those.
[50:17] But let's start with the vice mayor and councilmember Lee Eng and going through their comments.
[50:26] And again, vice mayor and councilmember Lee Eng, you know, as well. If you're satisfied with the response, they great. Let's move on.
[50:33] So with that, vice mayor, in anger, councilmember Lee Eng go ahead.
[50:37] I think it would be very helpful. Mayor, if the city clerk or some of the staff member could put up the attachment.
[50:47] because it was, as you said, so nicely laid out
[50:56] and maybe make it a little bigger.
[51:03] Is that big enough, Vice Mayor?
[51:05] Yeah, I think I can manage that one if we can go to the beginning, please.
[51:11] So this is where your comments start before this is Marus.
[51:15] Well, I think we should go back and have give our planning commissioner the respect of looking at his,
[51:25] his,
[51:26] Marus is going to join us?
[51:28] Well, okay, that was great.
[51:30] If he's going to be joining us later, that's fine.
[51:33] So let's start with number five.
[51:51] So my question here really is for the city attorney,
[51:56] because my concern is whether
[52:01] we, where we stand on legal law and conforming.
[52:07] If is there a way to, I mean, do we accept and are we okay with now likely, because no one has actually tested these, but likely, nearly all the buildings that are, for example, on El Camino and First Street that have been built in the last 10 years, will be non-conforming under these standards.
[52:32] So that's a question really for the city attorney.
[52:39] Dolly?
[52:41] And I'm trying to, yes.
[52:43] So these buildings will be non-conforming to the current design,
[52:50] zone, you know, the zoning and the design.
[52:55] So they will be able to exist.
[52:58] And is your question then, is if they do substantial changes to those,
[53:02] they then have to be brought to the new the new current code. Is that your question? Because
[53:09] land is not going to be able to go back and impose these objectives. Yeah. Well,
[53:15] now my understanding is that if they were to want to change more than 50% or if there were to be for
[53:22] example some sort of catastrophic, you know, fire or otherwise that destroyed more than 50% of the building
[53:28] then they would have to make them conforming to the current code.
[53:35] And I don't know if there's a way rather than rebuilding what was there before, and that was approved.
[53:40] So my question is, in the past when the downtown buildings committee wanted to make some recommendations,
[53:47] and it would have caused several buildings to become non-conforming,
[53:51] we were given as an argument why we couldn't do what we wanted to do,
[53:54] that it was a really bad idea to make a bunch of buildings non-conforming.
[53:58] So are we now just going, are we accepting now that we are going to make a bunch of buildings non-conforming and just not worry about it and let whatever happen happens?
[54:08] I think that's what we would need to do because if I don't know how we could legitimately carve out exceptions if we're going to make some buildings legal non-conforming and not all,
[54:22] But I mean, I've deferred John Viggs about that, but I don't, I don't, there's nothing wrong with being a legal non-conforming building.
[54:34] I don't know until you want to rebuild it or you have a catastrophic problem like a fire and then you can't build the building back that you had before.
[54:42] So, and that's the safety valve is if it's destroyed more than 50% or you decide to modify it more than 50% so people are aware that if you're going to go demo building downtown, you know, let's say you
[55:00] Clear the site, you're going to have to come back and build to the new design of objective standards.
[55:06] So I just think it's really important that somehow we've, that we're cleared all of these building owners that we have done these buildings for in the last, you know, any years, which there's been a number.
[55:18] That we are about to declare their buildings non-conforming with all that that entails, which is admittedly not much unless they want to substantially change the building or they have a fire kind of decision.
[55:29] situation.
[55:33] Yeah, I don't know if we have to get them noticed, but, well, that's the kind
[55:38] of thing I'm asking. I want to be sure we are legally doing all the right things. And if
[55:42] there is a carve out and as a policy we want to do a carve out, then how would we go about
[55:47] doing that? So, Vice Mayor, we could, I'd have to confirm with the code, but typically cities
[55:55] have a catastrophic, or what's called a burn letter,
[56:00] whereas buildings that are legally non-conforming at the time,
[56:04] where their destroyed can be rebuilt
[56:06] as they were approved previously.
[56:10] We can look in the code for that if it doesn't exist,
[56:14] if that would be one of the legal carve-outs that you're discussing.
[56:19] That I think that should go, because I'm going to try to do
[56:21] the mayor suggested and go with auction one, but I think that needs to go on the list of things
[56:29] to look at after tonight because it's not, it's not an insignificant issue with the number of buildings
[56:35] we've had with us. Right now our code doesn't say that. I don't think so either I've never heard
[56:40] such a thing in our code. I mean this we were trying to work within the existing code section,
[56:49] especially if you're not conforming section.
[56:52] And that's where the 50% threshold does come about or come
[56:57] from, you know, vice mayor and Andrew is correct by adopting
[57:01] these objective standards.
[57:02] It will make a lot of existing buildings and our multi-family
[57:06] residential zone districts legal none conforming.
[57:09] And if they're going to be doing some alterations in their exceeding
[57:13] a demolition at 50% of the floor area or the facades of the
[57:16] things, then they're going to trigger the need to comply with these new objective standards.
[57:22] What we could do is what Vice Mayor and Anderson suggested, we could go back and take a look at
[57:27] our non-conforming section, and as the City Manager, England said that we could come up with
[57:35] a carve out that would recognize that certain buildings, if they were built before a certain time,
[57:41] or had other aspects to them, they could be exempt from compliance with these standards should you adopt it.
[57:47] And that is what I had asked that we do the last time and it didn't kind of get looked at.
[57:53] So I would like to keep it on the list. It was my number two. I mean, I had two questions here and
[57:59] number two and it didn't kind of get handled. So I think it's important that we handled this for
[58:04] of the sake of our business community.
[58:08] Okay, so that's noted by snare.
[58:10] Thank you, so keep going.
[58:12] Unless councilmember Engel wants to add anything.
[58:15] And I just want to say that it looks like we do have a section
[58:19] in our code non-conforming structures damage for restoration.
[58:23] That as long as work begins within six months,
[58:26] they're able to rebuild legally.
[58:28] But we could expand on that
[58:30] and make sure that the carve out is exactly what council
[58:33] is looking for. Right. And I'm just speaking for me, but I think the mayor I want to kind of get a
[58:39] head count of concurrence before staff spends time on this. No, I'm we're going to do the list and then
[58:46] come back at the end. Okay. Just to get through this, then councilmember Lee and any additional comments
[58:51] on on this item.
[58:57] American, I see something about this. This is Lisa wise. Yeah, I believe I believe
[59:03] though the non-conforming issue would have to go
[59:07] the non-conforming ordinance.
[59:08] So I think everybody's clear on that.
[59:09] And we are trying to meet state requirements
[59:11] with the objective design standards
[59:12] when it comes to compliance with existing regulations.
[59:17] But I think, and John, or the attorney can chime in,
[59:23] if they wanted to go to a discretionary process,
[59:27] an applicant can do that if they want to do,
[59:30] put in exactly what they had before.
[59:32] So objective design standards are for the buy rate. If you want to go buy rate and not get caught up in that long longer process, but that other way is still out there.
[59:44] So I agree with you, Councilman and the, I'm not conforming regulations, probably need to be revisited, but that would be another escape has to.
[59:55] So my comment on that, I'm here. Sorry.
[59:57] Don't go ahead.
[59:59] Is.
[1:00:00] I think I agree with the vice mayor because I don't think that with the, how it's written currently, with insurance purposes, you know, insurance approval takes a lot longer and just six months is not sufficient. So that's another reason why I would concur with her.
[1:00:20] I'll take in. Thank you. Okay. Can you please see him? Nice Mayor and council member. Go ahead.
[1:00:27] Next item.
[1:00:30] We're just running.
[1:00:33] Okay.
[1:00:34] So I think that my concern here is the overall question of weather and this again is for the city attorney.
[1:00:45] Whether we adequately have defined a sloping roof form in as much as the goal here is to meet the state requirement on objective standards.
[1:00:57] So if someone comes in and says, I have, in fact, embedded my top floor or my setback floor, my fourth floor, depending on what zone you're in and the building in a sloping roof form, do we have a definition of a sloping roof form that is legally sufficient.
[1:01:19] Who's going to take this one Mr. Biggs, Mr. England, Lisa?
[1:01:29] 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, what constitutes a slope here?
[1:01:34] Address the question.
[1:01:40] If sloping roof form is sufficiently defined for objective standards, do we need a percentage?
[1:01:51] because this comment says what is, you know, what is, what is a sloping roof form and what is acceptable.
[1:02:00] So, I don't know if the consultant can comment on that,
[1:02:10] but.
[1:02:10] Lisa, do you want to address that comment in question?
[1:02:18] Sure, I can chime in. I believe Drew and Monica are on the line two.
[1:02:22] I think the way the code is right now or the draft objective design standard there's no definition for sloping roof.
[1:02:30] So this is a this is a potentially a good comment again by the council member.
[1:02:35] I think if it's to just eliminate answered roof so which are.
[1:02:40] Maybe not something of city wants to see as we would just could just go with that also.
[1:02:45] I'm not, I'm not, I'm not meaning to question the man's sort of roof. My original question had to do with whether what we were going to end up with was all man's art roofs, which I, which goes to the question of trying to apply these and seeing kind of where we are going to end up.
[1:03:01] but which is still, I think, an issue,
[1:03:04] but not the one I'm raising here,
[1:03:06] which is the legal sufficiency of what constitutes a sloping roof form
[1:03:11] because I know that we went back in
[1:03:13] and in order to be clearer about our code
[1:03:18] on how we measure the height of roofs,
[1:03:21] we had to make some modifications based on a bad experience
[1:03:25] that we had with a real project.
[1:03:27] And I would hate to see us have to fix something
[1:03:29] after another bad experience having to do with what constitutes a sloping roof form if we can get out ahead of it.
[1:03:37] Mayor, can I come in?
[1:03:39] Yes.
[1:03:41] So my Mayor, thank you.
[1:03:43] My question would be then as well.
[1:03:46] Then to the attorney and the reason why I think it needs to be defined because if we were to deny projects,
[1:03:54] because we felt that the slope in the roof was not sufficient and, you know, would it stand up in court or, you know, might that would be to our city attorney.
[1:04:10] And that's the reason why I feel clear definition is important.
[1:04:18] So this raised a good point and we need a definition of sloping roof form and that's going to be some sort of percentage which I think the planning staff for the consultants are going to have I will need to define sloping roof form.
[1:04:43] I mean, I mean, so I'll just, so I mean, I don't understand the point, I think I understand it from the beginning.
[1:04:49] Lisa is there a definition for sloping roof form because if you look at the intent.
[1:05:00] Of this language, right? It's a conflict. There's a real reason why we want this dialogue group.
[1:05:07] And so is there a definition to say it must be spoken to a certain angle in order to give us that?
[1:05:14] How would you define it if there's a way to do a definition for a sloping room form to accomplish our goal here?
[1:05:25] Rules are typically defined as, like, so much drop, you know, across the certain plane.
[1:05:32] So that's, I think, what we would try to do is, what's the pitch you want to roof?
[1:05:36] Can you define it over the drop over certain range?
[1:05:41] But I think that's what we would need to do if you want to avoid flat roofs or flat roof.
[1:05:46] So I think that's, that's what we can say that this is, you know, the men max or the range of the city is looking for.
[1:05:53] Yeah, we want to be sure that the definition, whatever it is, allows for, you know, hip
[1:05:59] roofs and so on and not just mancer roofs in the process.
[1:06:04] But again, Mayor, I think this belongs on a separate list of things to be done expeditiously
[1:06:10] after we've approved these.
[1:06:13] Okay.
[1:06:17] The next one has to do with the commercial neighborhood zone and currently, although there is a height limit in the zone, there is no requirement for the first floor to be 12 feet as we find in most of our other commercial zones.
[1:06:37] And yet if you scroll down a little bit more, would please, we have now added a new requirement that says if it's non-residential, the first floor has to be at least two feet taller than the floor or floors above and if it's residential it needs to be 12 inches, one foot more.
[1:06:57] I am very, very uncomfortable with adding this new requirement because I think this has the effect of pushing toward taller buildings, which is contrary to what we have always wanted in the CN zone.
[1:07:14] The CN zone we've always gone for the lowest possible profile to get the job done.
[1:07:19] And by imposing a two foot differential in non-residential, which would be where you have commercial stuff on the first floor, which is what we generally have in this zone.
[1:07:31] We're forcing a taller building than what we might otherwise have.
[1:07:36] So I would like to strike this section all together.
[1:07:41] And because it is a brand new imposition, it is not reflection of anything that's in the current zone or current code.
[1:07:47] And then again, add this to a list for someone to look at and say, hey, what are we really trying to do with this and what what makes sense in this zone if anything.
[1:08:06] Could we ask Drew think about because design to comment to it because he's, he's our design consultant on these standards, and I'm sure he has a design perspective in mind on what this particular sector was trying to achieve. So Drew, if you could address that.
[1:08:29] Yeah, I'm happy to John. We had considered these standards as a way to address concerns.
[1:08:37] We've heard early on in the project in terms of applications that had been brought forth that ultimately were not consistently put the community wanted to see and that one of the issues was sort of a squat building appearance.
[1:08:53] So when you have a ground floor that is either equivalent or less and height than floors above it, it tends to make the building look a little bit more squat.
[1:09:03] So by requiring a taller ground floor that was really meant to overcome that issue, we looked at these numbers as sort of the way to do that that would have the least impact on over all height,
[1:09:20] So to the Vice Mayor's comment, if this requirement weren't there, your building could potentially be 24 inches shorter in the case that mixed use building. But again, that intent was really to create a street level that felt good as a pedestrian and to help provide a more appealing proportion overall for the building itself.
[1:09:50] This recommendation was based on feedback that the consultant team got early in the process from stakeholders and conversations they were having with.
[1:10:00] A variety of people, and it was really intended to, as Drew mentioned, provided a pedestrian friendly streetscape.
[1:10:07] It's not intended at all to increase the overall height of buildings, but really an attempt to aesthetically and architecturally develop a relationship between the first floor level and upper floor levels, depending on the mix of uses that are in the building.
[1:10:22] But yes, and I understand that, it is hard for me to imagine that there was comment about that regarding this particular zone given the positive development that we've had.
[1:10:35] In this zone, I can understand it in a number of other zones, but imposing it here to me without further consideration of the exact kind of parcels we're looking at, just doesn't make any sense.
[1:10:49] And my thought for their consideration, right, and my follow-up, so I understand the concern
[1:10:55] the vice mayor has, but I'm going to, you know, look at it from the other perspective
[1:11:00] of if we were to completely strike the section as she's proposing, what's the downside?
[1:11:06] I mean, if we're silent on this topic, what's the risk we run into if a project came
[1:11:14] forward now?
[1:11:20] Well, it would result in buildings that this particular design element is trying to address that it would result in buildings that could appear squadier than what we're hoping to achieve.
[1:11:36] It doesn't buildings that don't have that nice aesthetic relationship between the first four level and the upper floor levels.
[1:11:43] But I can't comment, ma'am, why doesn't it really end?
[1:11:50] The reason why we feel that it was important to strike this item is because this is like an opportunity for them to ask for a variance or changes.
[1:12:00] If we keep giving these give me and then we deny projects because, you know, we've already, this is already in here, that's like a clear give me.
[1:12:11] and then if we were to deny a project we wouldn't have a legal standing. We have to look at the
[1:12:17] project of the whole gives us opportunity or assess projects and gives the developer an opportunity
[1:12:26] to ask for something. And sometimes we get trade-offs and we need that opportunity to have that
[1:12:34] discussion? Yeah, I'm just thinking about, you know, oil
[1:12:39] of corners, we just have any development in there that would
[1:12:44] lead to a concern about squat buildings. And it's just, so
[1:12:50] requiring it, and that's my concern, requiring it is very
[1:12:54] different than allowing it. And you can always allow it when the
[1:12:56] project comes in. You can always discuss it when the project
[1:13:00] comes in. But to require it to require the two foot
[1:13:03] forential to me is potentially problematic.
[1:13:06] And then I'm willing to move on because the mayor will come back to.
[1:13:10] I will, but I see councilmember Meadows has her hungry.
[1:13:13] And councilmember Meadows, councilmember Weinberg,
[1:13:16] as we go through each comment, we're not doing a vote
[1:13:18] on whether or not we support it.
[1:13:20] But if you have questions as our colleagues are going through these comments,
[1:13:24] please let us know.
[1:13:25] So councilmember Meadows.
[1:13:26] My comment here is going to be this is commercial neighborhood
[1:13:31] and potentially to address some of the concern, this particular CN could have the residential
[1:13:40] component where the ground floor is height plus one foot, but you could strike the height plus
[1:13:48] two foot for the non-residential. But I think, you know, commonly everywhere we require the first floor
[1:13:56] to be higher, so I'm just proposing that as potentially something to address the concern but to be a reasonable compromise on the aesthetic for the lower floor.
[1:14:08] I think that's a great idea.
[1:14:12] Okay, thanks councilmember Meadows.
[1:14:15] Okay, vice mayor councilmember Lee Eng, we can keep going.
[1:14:23] Was it removed the verbiage for non residential?
[1:14:27] Yes, I think it was to use the right hand diagram.
[1:14:33] for any use. So it wouldn't matter if the first floor was residential or non-residential,
[1:14:39] correct. Let's start with my suggestion anyway.
[1:14:47] Okay, I think we didn't want to strike that it had to be a minimum of, I think,
[1:14:58] We don't remember that.
[1:15:00] The first suggestion was to make the 12 inch, the one foot differential, one foot more on the first floor compared to what's on upper floors as a minimum requirement apply irrespective of the use,
[1:15:16] no use diagram on the right on the right.
[1:15:20] with the ones of the natural.
[1:15:30] Okay. And so Vice Mayor, Enander,
[1:15:34] Council Member Lee, Eng, I'm looking at number eight. Right.
[1:15:42] So they've added that or they say
[1:15:44] they're going to add that, but it's not added in. So it needs to have essentially the diagram we
[1:15:51] were just discussing needs to be added into the CD section. It was missing. And the references and
[1:15:57] descriptions accordingly. And they agree. So check. They agree. This a document edited accordingly. So I just want to make sure that that actually happened.
[1:16:13] Okay. Ask a clarification about that comment. So ground floor residential is not permitted in the CD. So what we'll do is put the use the diagram.
[1:16:28] that chose ground floor non-residential and then is the comment to require a 12 inch difference?
[1:16:38] I want to make sure I'm understanding here.
[1:16:43] Um,
[1:16:46] the,
[1:16:50] in, in CD, you're right, there is no currently, does it mean it couldn't happen?
[1:16:57] Depending on what the state does.
[1:17:00] Currently, there is no first floor residential permitted right permitted.
[1:17:09] So my suggestion, again, because there's a sensitivity about the height in that area to limit it to a required minimum one foot differential, they're likely to come in with more.
[1:17:30] But again, I'm trying to reflect what I know is the general sensitivity about height.
[1:17:41] Okay, and on a date, it looks like the consultant or staff already responded that they agreed and
[1:17:47] but okay
[1:17:50] this is a number nine
[1:17:52] so number nine is really an overall
[1:17:59] concern and this is one for Jolie.
[1:18:04] If we and if you can scroll down to a diagram, I really appreciate that just go down a little bit more. Thank you, great.
[1:18:12] Julie, there is a passing reference not here to density bonus and we've been around the block on density bonus.
[1:18:21] My concern is that if we require that the first floor, the two feet taller than the floors above.
[1:18:36] And someone brings a project which has density bonus.
[1:18:42] Have we set ourselves up to half to grant waivers for greater heights
[1:18:51] than we would want to have in order for the developer.
[1:18:56] They're going to claim that they have to have the extra height they have
[1:19:00] because G is they want 10 feet in their plate heights on their second, third, and fourth floors.
[1:19:07] And therefore, they've got to have 12 or maybe they want 11 feet plate heights on their upper floors.
[1:19:13] And that means they have to have 13 feet on their first floors.
[1:19:16] Are we basically backing ourselves into an unwindable situation where we can't deny
[1:19:23] extra height that a developer just wants just because they just want higher plate heights?
[1:19:28] Well, but they would still have to prove up that the waiver is never to actually corrupt the affordable units,
[1:19:38] or the concession is necessary financially necessary with documentation, some sort of documentation,
[1:19:47] that it would be financially infeasable if we did not grant the concession.
[1:19:53] So we have never successfully gotten anything from people to require them to show us that it.
[1:20:00] This is financially infeasable. It's always been that's the height I want. That's the plate height I want. Therefore, you have to give me the height. And we've never been successful challenging that. And that is why I'm very nervous about this.
[1:20:13] Well, we have required, I believe we did. We have had a project that when they wanted to redo the underground garage and they established that if they didn't have to go as deep that that was going to be.
[1:20:30] I think that was a concession that it would actually be a big stage since then.
[1:20:37] Stay long, finance on demonstrating need.
[1:20:40] I know it has changed and we can ask for reasonable documentation and that's what
[1:20:46] we have asked.
[1:20:47] I mean, we're not like some of the cities that actually ask for a performer, but we have been
[1:20:53] asking developers to show the financial benefit or the concession, and I'm sure that John and
[1:21:03] Guido can support that.
[1:21:05] I know we have had to show when they wanted to change some of the parking requirements that
[1:21:13] as a waiver to show that they couldn't construct the building without those waivers.
[1:21:19] But I do know we have been asking for reasonable documentation.
[1:21:26] But we are not a agency that has asked for performance, and under the law,
[1:21:32] we can only ask for reasonable documentation.
[1:21:35] Then I would like to ask that if we're going to have these diagrams here,
[1:21:39] and I understand they're intent, and I appreciate the member of Lisa Wise
[1:21:46] who explained this, that if we're going to leave these in, I would like to have the planning
[1:21:53] commission or at least a subgroup of architects who do this kind of thing. And we have some
[1:21:58] wonderfully competent people on our planning commission and former planning commissioners
[1:22:03] to look at if we have unintended potential problems by including these kind of diagrams in
[1:22:11] of our commercial zones with the potential density bonus applications and say, you know, again,
[1:22:22] what have we got in the way of projects that we've approved and going forward, are we buying
[1:22:32] ourselves a headache or how do we make sure we don't buy ourselves a headache? So that's my request
[1:22:41] So that would, so go ahead, doesn't really end.
[1:22:46] And we had a speaker that said that these projects need to be tested.
[1:22:53] This is a two example on we have some technology.
[1:22:58] We paid a lot of money for some of the technology we have.
[1:23:01] And we need to test to see if,
[1:23:06] What we're describing here is going to result in much larger buildings.
[1:23:12] So we should either work with staff to do so and help me and I'm a visual person.
[1:23:19] And when we were doing this I kept saying I needed to see some models.
[1:23:25] And you know, everybody kept saying yes, I understand what you're asking for.
[1:23:28] But I'd yet to see anything. And I still don't get a clear picture if this building was
[1:23:36] that we have and approved was applied and now they're asking for this, what would it look like and would it be approved?
[1:23:45] So, and so
[1:23:48] This is this
[1:23:50] Clearly is why we need to better understand this part. Yeah, are we are we unduly backing ourselves into having to approve
[1:23:58] taller buildings than we would otherwise approve now.
[1:24:02] Yeah, I think it's clear from your comments and this discussion, your concerns and the concerns
[1:24:08] about unintended consequences by having this language. I've put it down the list.
[1:24:13] Right. And also, because of member Lee Eng's request against a summer, I'll have this
[1:24:17] model to see what we'd actually end up with. So I didn't remember, I have nothing on 10. I don't think
[1:24:26] I don't think I have any issues with number 10.
[1:24:30] I think 10 counts of member Lee.
[1:24:32] Was it number 10 or number 11?
[1:24:35] That I think it's number 11.
[1:24:38] That.
[1:24:41] Again, and I'm not sure that I'm communicating this.
[1:24:45] And so I'm going to try it again back.
[1:24:47] Yeah.
[1:24:48] Number number by smair.
[1:24:49] I think it's number 11.
[1:24:50] This idea that we're requiring a
[1:24:54] A break, we're requiring at least a recess at least three feet.
[1:25:00] But we don't specify how wide. So I mean, just to take it to the absurd, if they did a three foot deep cut and it was a foot wide, that would technically meet the standard. Now, I can't imagine a contractor who would actually design something that silly, but it is silly, not to require some sort of minimum with whether it's a change of plane or a recess. And I understand that the comments back from our consultants,
[1:25:30] that sometimes it's a change of plane.
[1:25:32] Well, that's fine, but if it's a change of plane
[1:25:35] or if it's a recess, either way,
[1:25:38] we need to specify some sort of minimum width
[1:25:41] or else, you know, something silly could happen.
[1:25:47] And maybe the recess has to be a minimum of three feet deep
[1:25:55] and a certain percentage or something of the...
[1:25:58] That is what I previously suggested when we were talking
[1:26:01] Orally was either a percentage or a minimum width,
[1:26:06] but there has to be something here.
[1:26:08] And this one, I'm sorry, this one we have to do tonight.
[1:26:11] I don't want to let this thing go.
[1:26:13] I want to ask my buddy, our vice mayor,
[1:26:14] what I pictured when you said something
[1:26:15] funky could happen because you're right.
[1:26:18] But I do want to go to our consultants
[1:26:20] or staff to address this question.
[1:26:24] Is there a reason why we don't have also a minimum
[1:26:27] way? Dru, do you want to take this one as well? I think this falls within the realm of the design.
[1:26:36] I know. Yeah, I'm actually going to pass that to Monica potentially as well to make sure that
[1:26:46] I'm not misremembering additional direction we received in the past because I think when we did
[1:26:53] originally consider this we had considered a minimum with as well and I'm I'm trying to remember and go through my notes to see if you receive direction that change that at some point.
[1:27:05] Right, the intent is so the standards talk about like a built based modules that are well depending on the zone 25 feet or 50 feet.
[1:27:17] And the standards are written such that at those increments that there has to be a change in plane.
[1:27:24] So the idea isn't that you need something there, a marker, with a certain width or depth.
[1:27:30] That's where the building steps in or out.
[1:27:37] And it has to step in or out in a way that
[1:27:43] Monica.
[1:27:45] I think she is that module.
[1:27:47] Yeah, and thank you for reminding me of that there.
[1:27:51] We had written the standards as they are now, where we only include a minimum of depth
[1:27:58] for that offset to provide greater flexibility in how the facade is ultimately designed.
[1:28:04] So if you have that three foot recess, again, to Monica's point, the primary bay in this
[1:28:15] zone is 50 feet. So that offset the other facade bay that is being offset by three feet
[1:28:24] would need to comply with that primary facade bay standard. I don't know what that would be.
[1:28:28] So how wide would it have to be to comply?
[1:28:34] I think what we're saying is so long as the immediately adjacent bay is offset by three feet,
[1:28:41] and it's complying with the bay rhythm of a 50-foot increment, we don't establish a minimum
[1:28:49] width for that beyond that 50-foot increment.
[1:28:54] But it's not part of the 50-foot increment. It's independent of the 50-foot increment.
[1:29:00] So I'm not sure how the 50-foot increment is relevant.
[1:29:03] I mean, after you've gone 50 feet, you have to do the recess, I understand that.
[1:29:08] But what was the explanation for not requiring a certain minimum width?
[1:29:17] Because the secondary bay that recessed area doesn't have to be another 50 feet, for example,
[1:29:22] because we have properties that aren't that big.
[1:29:25] You know, we might have a 75-foot width.
[1:29:27] And so I'm I'm I'm at a loss here. I'm not understanding.
[1:29:38] I would recommend if there's a desire for a specification of that width
[1:29:42] and that that be added.
[1:29:45] I believe that was not included again in order to provide greater flexibility
[1:29:49] on the resolution of the facade.
[1:29:54] Okay, you're speaking architect and I don't speak architect. I'm so sorry.
[1:29:58] maybe Councilmember Meadows as a...
[1:30:00] If you get back to the council member and the strike defect, where you do 50, 10, 50, 10, for instance, you want to have like that variation, so you don't get that and a longer facade.
[1:30:12] I think that's why the recess doesn't have a specific width, so that it looks a little bit more natural, older, thoughtful than, you know, because then they're just going to do whatever whatever the numbers say.
[1:30:28] So it gets that striped effect, I think, is what we were trying to avoid.
[1:30:33] I couldn't go with the relation to the depth, so that you're, to avoid what you're saying.
[1:30:41] So it's not random, but at least, you know, if it's ex depth, then the width is, you know, what percent or something that it's actually related to the depth.
[1:30:51] I'm going to go to Councilmember Meadows, but I understand what the Vice Mayor is saying about having some with because if there's nothing around what the minimum wish should be then it's up in the air and we could end up with a building looking very funky as she said earlier.
[1:31:08] I do understand what she's saying and this may just go on the list, but Councilmember Meadows.
[1:31:14] Yeah, let me just, I haven't heard this, the way I think to clearly articulate what the
[1:31:21] vice mayor is saying, if you look at each of those orange areas, if each of those orange areas
[1:31:26] was by chance, only one foot wide, that would look really silly, but that's what this allows
[1:31:35] right now. So can those orange areas have a minimum with a side to them, a sign to them,
[1:31:44] to address the concern, there's just this three foot deep chasm that serves no architectural
[1:31:50] function. At least that's how I'm hearing the question, and that is the concern. And so we don't
[1:31:56] want a one foot wide orange chasm along the buildings, every 50 feet. We want to define a reasonable
[1:32:05] with.
[1:32:09] Well, I'll send Councilmember Meadows as always and a response to that from the team.
[1:32:15] Does this and this may be something that, you know, we want closure on tonight or, you know,
[1:32:22] and I don't know if the consultants have a recommendation of something we could add tonight.
[1:32:27] Maybe something we could, I'm fine with adding something tonight and then adding this to the
[1:32:32] list of study further. I'm just uncomfortable. I'm really uncomfortable leaving this the way it is.
[1:32:39] And I mean, the assumption is nobody would design a building that way, right, but it's also, don't put it past them.
[1:32:49] I'm sorry, Meredith. I mean, no, no problem. We said go ahead.
[1:32:52] It's also just not cost effective at some point to do something like something kind of ridiculous like that, although you're right people do ridiculous things, but
[1:33:00] the way building materials and everything is structured, it just wouldn't make sense to have a one foot carve out and what do you two expensive.
[1:33:06] But we can't think about what the minimum width would be of that rest recess so that we don't get something unintended.
[1:33:15] Okay.
[1:33:15] And we'll come back to that Lisa at the end if you can figure something out for tonight.
[1:33:20] Okay.
[1:33:21] Number 12.
[1:33:26] 12 and 13.
[1:33:27] I think we're both fixed.
[1:33:34] 14.
[1:33:36] Keep going.
[1:33:37] There we go.
[1:33:38] Whoa.
[1:33:40] No.
[1:33:40] We've got to go back to that blank wall one.
[1:33:42] I'm sorry. Did I go past something? My apologies.
[1:33:46] Right there.
[1:33:47] Number 13.
[1:33:48] Sorry.
[1:33:49] Yes.
[1:33:50] Thank you.
[1:33:52] So I brought up the blank one.
[1:33:54] And I don't think it's adequately addressed.
[1:33:57] It addresses it on the ground level.
[1:34:00] And it should be addressed as well for the upper walls.
[1:34:06] Currently, we don't allow anyone to have a blank wall.
[1:34:10] And we have, we enforce requirements on upper walls as well.
[1:34:17] So I'm not satisfied in moving forward tonight until we address and clean this up.
[1:34:28] And I'll just say that I agree with that.
[1:34:30] And I know that council member Meadows when she and I were on planning commission together.
[1:34:34] Every project that we saw if there was a blank wall.
[1:34:38] We made them put something in the conditions about what they were going to do with the blank wall.
[1:34:42] And it wasn't just on the first floor.
[1:34:44] And it had the faux windows, like the one I think it was on first treat that had been.
[1:34:49] Yeah, we had different solutions on the full links, but there was always something.
[1:34:57] Consult and staff, do you want to respond to that?
[1:35:02] I think that as Guito's noting on the screen here, that's something that we will need to apply to the entire building, not just the flag wall.
[1:35:15] Yeah, it doesn't mean that you can run a trellis up there necessarily, and that you have to landscape it, but you got to do something, and there are any number of things that we've required in the past that could be used as examples or something.
[1:35:30] And I see staff responsibility this will be changed so again if they have addressed the issues raised that they're going to, you know, fix the problem or do the edit and that's great.
[1:35:42] So number 14.
[1:35:48] And ask a clarifying question about that last, and sort of if we were to take out the words at the ground level and apply that to the whole building with that suffice with that satisfied the council's concerns.
[1:36:05] Or is the council requesting something more specific?
[1:36:11] I'm not sure what you're suggesting because the way this reads is non-glazed wall areas must be enhanced with architectural details landscaping and or landscape trellises or lattices.
[1:36:21] I don't, I mean maybe we get away with that for tonight, but I don't think that's adequate in the longer term.
[1:36:28] I think we need to be more specific about the kinds of things we've required in the past that have worked so that we're giving people some suggestions.
[1:36:37] Okay,
[1:36:47] so it sounds at least from Vice Mayor in Anderson's proposing maybe for purposes of tonight.
[1:36:54] We delete the words at the ground level so that it would apply to all levels, but this would go on the list for a potential deeper dive.
[1:37:07] Okay, number 14.
[1:37:12] I think 14 has a distinction without a difference, but I understand the root sponsor and the consultant and I'm not going to argue it.
[1:37:21] 15 16 and 17. I think are all okay.
[1:37:31] I guess maybe my question, let me stop there just for a second. I have a question for Julie and this is as good an example as any if you just back it up just a little teeny tiny bit.
[1:37:42] This is for the city attorney, where we have these height, they've taken the height limit that's in the other parts of the code, put them on the diagram correctly and then explain and the explanations by the way the changes you made are much better for explaining what's going on, but here's my question to the city attorney.
[1:38:06] What the clear intent is here is, if the height limit, transects a floor, and it doesn't matter if it
[1:38:14] transects it midway or one foot up or nine feet up or an inch from the top of the height,
[1:38:21] plate height, then that floor needs to be recessed. That is clearly the intent, and that's what the
[1:38:35] that's transsected by the height limit that has to be set back.
[1:38:41] Do we need to be more specific?
[1:38:49] Yeah, I think we should clarify that
[1:38:51] because from what, I mean, when you look at this
[1:38:56] and you read this and then you look at the diagrams,
[1:38:59] I mean, we should, I think err on the side
[1:39:02] of making it clear.
[1:39:07] I mean, I don't know if the consultants
[1:39:11] can add some language,
[1:39:16] but...
[1:39:16] Madam Mayor, I might have to ask a question.
[1:39:19] Yes, because I'm looking at...
[1:39:21] The language is clear to me, actually, Vice Mayor.
[1:39:23] I hear what you're saying, but I'm looking at it.
[1:39:25] And but go ahead on the surveys.
[1:39:27] I was going to see.
[1:39:28] Are you asking for a clarification to the upper story?
[1:39:33] Set back some?
[1:39:34] I think so.
[1:39:36] Yes, yes.
[1:39:36] To make it clear that it's not just the area above the...
[1:39:43] the one that's second from the left, where let's say that's about a foot and a half
[1:39:50] of plate height on the third floor that is above the 30 foot height.
[1:39:58] The requirement is to set
[1:40:00] That entire floor back, not just the 18 inches that are above the 30-foot height. That's what the diagram shows. It is not necessarily clear to me in the text that that's the requirement.
[1:40:19] I can see what you're saying, the text and the pictures don't line up, don't necessarily, I believe there is ambiguity there and ambiguity is our enemy.
[1:40:32] But it clearly shows after the third story that you either have to have it in a slope roof or step back.
[1:40:38] I mean, it's clearly short of the word the entire not just that but the entire uppermost story above that 30 feet would require to be set back.
[1:40:51] Well, that's the the third example, see is for when it's over three stories.
[1:40:57] But if anything else, if you take the two middle examples, which are the ones that are covered in A and B.
[1:41:06] That's where I think there's ambiguity because one's only moving it back a little bit, not the whole way.
[1:41:16] One's in a sloped roof and that's okay and one is set back and that's okay.
[1:41:21] You have those options.
[1:41:26] But where it has to be set back, what I think is potentially open to challenge or interpretation
[1:41:34] is whether the entire floor has to be set back.
[1:41:40] in the second one from the left.
[1:41:42] The diagram says it does, but I think someone could argue that,
[1:41:47] well, I'm going to set back, and it would be a stupid way
[1:41:50] to build a building, but I'm sorry, I
[1:41:52] said I'm planning Commission long enough to know that
[1:41:55] and Monica's smiling.
[1:41:57] You've seen stuff come in that you want to scratch your head
[1:41:59] and say, well, I ain't God's name, would they do this?
[1:42:02] But somebody will.
[1:42:04] So I think that can be fixed with just some word changes.
[1:42:07] And so, you know, Lisa or Monica, is this something we can come back to you at the end and maybe you can make some words suggestions, just to clarify what exactly the applies to and what needs to be said back.
[1:42:18] Yeah, and that would have to happen wherever these diagrams occur, not just there's not just one one instance of it.
[1:42:24] Right, Madam Mayor, can you can you clarify what was here request for the verbage just so I can.
[1:42:30] I'm going to defer to the consultants, but basically to revise this section, so it's very clear what portions of the building need to be set back and where that set back occurs.
[1:42:43] So there are four different diagrams here.
[1:42:46] And so we need to make sure that the diagrams and the language are consistent in saying what needs to be set back, like describing entirely what needs to set back and where that set back would start.
[1:42:58] Got it. Thank you. So that if it's a whole floor that needs to be set back even though most of the floor is below 30 feet
[1:43:05] That it's clear that it's the whole floor that has to be set back. Yep. Yeah, I mean, I think that was just a cloud language
[1:43:13] Just to clarify as well making clear where it needs to start. Yeah, we're it's triggered. Yep. I agree
[1:43:22] Okay, it's continuing
[1:43:24] I think we're okay on 18, just to if you could add the words, the building needs to step back, but also put the words where it needs to begin.
[1:43:38] Because if we don't put it, I notice that it comes back and it's missing. Thank you.
[1:43:45] We're hoping to thank this fixed tonight.
[1:43:48] 18.
[1:43:51] I think we're okay.
[1:43:56] And.
[1:44:02] Hang on.
[1:44:03] Whoa.
[1:44:04] Sorry.
[1:44:05] I have horses.
[1:44:06] I say whoa.
[1:44:12] I understand that in looking at the actual.
[1:44:19] buildings in the zones that you always found something consistent with respect to stories.
[1:44:27] I would like to put this on the list of things for the planning commission to look at
[1:44:33] for possible misinterpretation because of the prior problems we've had at other times
[1:44:40] on stories versus height and the reasons why we stuck with height limits in our
[1:44:50] zoning code as opposed to describing things on stories with particular attention to how it might
[1:44:57] impact the application of.
[1:45:00] The density bonus law.
[1:45:04] Okay, so 19 would go on the list to refer it back to the planning commission. Yep. Okay.
[1:45:16] And then number 20, council member Lee, and these were your additional edits to the edits you submitted with the vice mayor.
[1:45:26] And put reference density bonus there, if you would, please, Guido.
[1:45:33] I guess Madam Vice Mayor, what is the specific request so that when we come back?
[1:45:40] So I, you know, drew and there have been some of the commercial zones in these standards are discussed in terms of the height limits.
[1:45:53] Some of them are discussed in terms of stories.
[1:45:58] It's not clear to me that referring to stories is a good idea.
[1:46:04] Given that you don't know where the stories break based on the highest height limits
[1:46:09] and that we've consistently stuck with height limits as our requirements elsewhere in the code.
[1:46:16] We always have, and Julie's been through the wars with us on this,
[1:46:20] as to why we went, we went, we went, we went and did an entire exercise. We got word of the word
[1:46:26] story everywhere in total 14. Well, yes, and that was Loyola Corners as well. Thank you. So we've
[1:46:34] had some nightmares because we referred sometimes to things by stories instead of just sticking
[1:46:39] to numerical height limits. I'm concerned that we are not being consistent here and how we're treating
[1:46:45] all of the commercial zones in that regard and that can come back and be a problem for us when
[1:46:50] that comes to applying potentially density bonus.
[1:46:55] It just needs to be looked at more closely.
[1:46:58] And so I think Drew and Monica kind of did identify that
[1:47:02] there was some initial direction given to treat
[1:47:06] some of these zones differently.
[1:47:09] So just perhaps by people who didn't know
[1:47:12] what the past history was and what some of the issues were.
[1:47:16] And Greedow and so thanks for that.
[1:47:18] Because we're putting this on the list that will go to the planning commission, we're really, you know, to the extent we can focus on what we need to approve tonight. Okay, going. Yeah. Yeah, I'm going to make sure we covered all the things that needs to go back to the planning commission and what we're doing tonight. If we could clarify which ones because I want to make sure we didn't miss anything. So we're going to do that.
[1:47:44] I can do that, Council Member Lee,
[1:47:46] and after we go through your comments,
[1:47:48] my comments, Marusus comments,
[1:47:50] we're gonna go through and just make sure
[1:47:52] we all have the same note.
[1:47:53] So we wanna go through your comments now
[1:47:55] and figure out, is it something we're gonna address tonight?
[1:47:58] Or is it something we're gonna report
[1:47:59] to the planning commission?
[1:48:01] So that's what we're doing with these comments.
[1:48:03] So let's, okay, we're signing.
[1:48:05] Okay, and then did we do the, okay, okay.
[1:48:09] Yeah, and then just stick a note in there
[1:48:10] about DBC, Guido,
[1:48:12] because it's down town that us gives me about density bonus, just put a note about reference density bonus, because that's where potentially a issue.
[1:48:34] Did I address something on the CT?
[1:48:37] Did we address the CT?
[1:48:41] I'm just getting confused.
[1:48:43] Okay.
[1:48:43] Making sure.
[1:48:45] And the pathway issue.
[1:48:47] I don't think do we skip over that somehow?
[1:48:50] Yeah, I think we skip down that.
[1:48:51] We miss you know that or it's it maybe it's in may versus I think it's in may versus stuff and that's why we haven't looked at it yet okay just making sure we we address that too going.
[1:49:02] Number 20
[1:49:06] here we go and stop right there we don't thank you.
[1:49:14] Anything here comes number the anger where you satisfied with staff's response no we addressed it at the top and then we're sending it back where we need clear definition of what slope it's for us and even the.
[1:49:28] Um, it was all agreed upon. Okay. So is that ABCD looking at the through G? Are you satisfied?
[1:49:39] They're staff response. If you're satisfied with staff response, no, I mean, we addressed it above. Okay. So
[1:49:46] I mean, and then even the attorney said, we will need clear slope definition. Okay.
[1:49:54] All right, so that's number 20.
[1:50:00] So then, I will go to my comments then, because I think we're up to 21, and I'll go down to 22 a, greet,
[1:50:13] and I would like to add language. This is not a material change, but just language making clear that there are no buildings set back standards for El Camino, and it may be the lawyer in me, but when I read language in B1, A and B, that says, except El Camino, it makes me think of okay, what's the standard for El Camino?
[1:50:33] if it's accepted here. And so for those two, I would add the language that the consultants have here that explicitly states that there are no building set back standards for El Camino Rhea.
[1:50:45] So it would just tie up that whole sentence in a bow that people aren't like, wait a minute, are there standards for El Camino?
[1:50:52] No, and I and Mayor, I think that would be interpreted because El Camino ran out with other cities have their specific plans that have different they have that corridor look or something and they're doing less setbacks so we should be consistent with the rest of El Camino.
[1:51:13] Well, and we also have the specific plan for sure would triangle.
[1:51:25] Well,
[1:51:27] just going to be a whole separate question.
[1:51:29] I'll ask later.
[1:51:32] Well, that will go on a list.
[1:51:33] Vice Mayor.
[1:51:35] And then we already discussed and I know some of this is also covered in Marus.
[1:51:38] So let me jump down to the next thing I wanted to cover.
[1:51:44] which is 22 I on E1, if you're following,
[1:51:56] there we go. So I do think again, this is just
[1:51:58] language cleanup because it's confusing if we're saying all sighting must be wood, composite wood
[1:52:05] and cement fiberboard, but then only exclude vinyl and aluminum. So I think it really needs to
[1:52:12] that it must be those materials and everything else is excluded included aluminum and vinyl because I think the response was the planning commission really wanted to call out those two materials.
[1:52:29] But if we're calling them out we need to make it clear that it's not just those two materials. Everything else is excluded including those two things.
[1:52:37] So that's just a language cleanup that I think is going to be very helpful to make the section a little bit more clear. Does that make sense, Greeto, you omitted. Yeah, okay, so everything else is excluded, including including, including, but not limited to only
[1:52:59] because the planning commission wanted us to specify those two. So the only material is allowed or XYZ.
[1:53:07] Okay, anything, okay. No, I can't I had something? Yes, go ahead, Guns member Lianne,
[1:53:15] because we said all sightings should be wood composite wood or cement fiber board.
[1:53:20] But we also use a lot of stone on some instances in granite, so we are eliminated. We have
[1:53:28] eliminated some of the other sighting materials. It should be added back in.
[1:53:34] Those are there in C&D.
[1:53:40] Oh, sorry, sorry, stone, but then you're not doing granite.
[1:53:44] So it'll be clear that granite is stone.
[1:53:47] Stone, yes.
[1:53:49] Okay, just making sure.
[1:53:52] I think you know why it's confusing.
[1:53:56] All citing materials should be C&D should just be part of that eye.
[1:54:02] Don't and break that's why they're not okay well okay okay and then I was I did not
[1:54:15] understand staff response to my 22J comment so if someone could explain you know
[1:54:23] the standard states were any required for rear or side yards so I could stand
[1:54:26] theater greater, and then it's saying this is because in the CD district, the only set
[1:54:34] back that is 10 theater graders, the rear yard set back. Thus, it's seen appropriate given
[1:54:39] the direction that this line, which should only apply to the rear set back. And it seems
[1:54:43] to serve to us, so if someone could explain the response to my comment, it would be very helpful.
[1:54:59] So I can-
[1:55:01] Okay, so this standard is about, well, if there is a required setback, then it has to be usable, it has to be usable accessible on site open space.
[1:55:14] So I recall the question being, well, why isn't this included elsewhere? And response was,
[1:55:22] because there isn't a required setback of a depth that would support that requirement of open space.
[1:55:32] And in a CD, that exists in the rear.
[1:55:37] And we could add that requirement to that rear setback.
[1:55:44] I don't know that that and sort of achieves what the objective design standards with a goal is,
[1:55:53] which is the invisibility from the right of way. We can certainly add that in so that that
[1:56:03] standard, if making that required, set back usable.
[1:56:09] Because the thing that's not something
[1:56:10] And what we're saying, it's the same rear yard set back.
[1:56:15] So I'm trying to make the distinction.
[1:56:16] If you had said, for example, in the CD district,
[1:56:21] it didn't have the same things, the rear or side yard set
[1:56:24] back, so it wouldn't apply there.
[1:56:26] But if I'm reading your comment correctly,
[1:56:27] it says, in the CD district, they do have a 10-footer
[1:56:32] and greater rear yard set back, correct?
[1:56:41] Is that what your comment meant?
[1:56:47] I'm going to go to my original comment here,
[1:56:53] so there is not exist, there does not exist
[1:56:56] or requirement that for a setback of a sufficient job that would support this usable accessible
[1:57:03] of the space that we have in mind, and it's the only area, the only setback where there's
[1:57:10] that's requirement is the rear.
[1:57:12] So we could add that requirement for that rear set back.
[1:57:16] And, but that's why we omitted, we omitted.
[1:57:22] Maybe I should, I'll re-read my original response.
[1:57:27] I'm trying to understand if in the CD district,
[1:57:30] and I know it may not have the front or the side yard,
[1:57:33] but you're saying in the CD district
[1:57:35] it has a 10-footer greater rear yard set back.
[1:57:38] So that exists in the CD district.
[1:57:40] And why is it that we don't have this open space there similar to what you have above?
[1:57:48] So I'm just, there's a reason why, you know, the configuration or there's some other reason
[1:57:53] why we don't have it here. And that's what I would need to understand. But I didn't see my specific
[1:57:58] question answered about why don't we, why was the open space requirement deleted for this
[1:58:05] this.
[1:58:06] If it was anything that it wasn't usable and accessible, if it's only in the rear setback,
[1:58:14] I mean, I think it boils down to that, so it could be potentially usable by the building,
[1:58:18] but it's not really accessible if it's in the rear because you have to go across private property.
[1:58:24] And I think that's a lot to add.
[1:58:28] If that was included in the previous draft, and it shouldn't have been.
[1:58:36] It was not intended for that, for that district, for the very reason that we're talking about right now.
[1:58:46] Okay.
[1:58:50] I mean, this explanation helps because your comment, I was still confused about why you don't
[1:58:54] we have it, but based on what Lisa said, it sounds like it's accessibility or usability,
[1:58:59] why we wouldn't have this requirement in the district.
[1:59:04] As opposed to it, it couldn't exist there.
[1:59:06] But it can, because you've got a front setback that's like two feet or zero, so it can't be there.
[1:59:14] Okay, right, they couldn't be in the front or the side only the rear and it doesn't make sense in the rear and back to that.
[1:59:19] Right, we're only focused on the rear right now Monica.
[1:59:25] Okay.
[1:59:26] Thank you.
[1:59:28] And that's it.
[1:59:29] I think for me on my comments, I think you accepted my other edits and everything else made sense.
[1:59:35] And I think Marus should be here.
[1:59:42] Yes, hi everyone.
[1:59:44] Hi Marus, thanks for joining us.
[1:59:46] Sure.
[1:59:46] You want to go back to your comments and what we've been doing is going through the responses
[1:59:52] we receive from staff and the consultants and see if they address the concerns we raise
[1:59:57] or if we have any follow-up questions.
[1:59:59] Okay.
[2:00:00] Start with your first comment. And of course, if you're satisfied with the response, you just said great and we move on.
[2:00:09] So, um, one.
[2:00:11] Oh, do you want me to go through it?
[2:00:14] Yeah, if you're okay with the response with one, we can continue.
[2:00:19] Um, yeah, for the first one I had, it was, it was just about that the angled window and the privacy.
[2:00:25] I just wasn't sure if angling it was the best solution for privacy between two buildings.
[2:00:33] So I was hoping that maybe we could not have that because I think it creates a very specific type
[2:00:39] of style for the architectural facade, and not every building will look nice with a kind of
[2:00:46] an angled window. So I just thought there's probably maybe a better way to go about the privacy issue.
[2:00:52] Um, that was kind of my main concern with with that first one.
[2:00:56] We're, we're, we're, we're, we're trying to refer to the planning commission.
[2:01:01] Okay.
[2:01:02] Stopped what we have right now.
[2:01:05] So one of the things we've been doing because we want to pass something tonight.
[2:01:07] Or was I going to know when you joined?
[2:01:09] Oh, yeah.
[2:01:10] Join late. Sorry.
[2:01:11] Is there a meeting?
[2:01:13] Mayor, they do have revised proposed text here.
[2:01:17] I don't know if Mayor Ruth saw or had an opportunity to look at the
[2:01:22] consultants responses because if the text that they're proposing is sufficient that we can just
[2:01:30] include it. Okay, yeah, let me quickly go through that then because I wasn't sure about the revised part.
[2:01:38] But yeah, I heard you guys talking about the other things and so specifically with the upper story
[2:01:44] that backs and I'm trying to look right now. So I think those were the main things that I know you
[2:01:52] said you'll refer it back to the planning commission. Forgive me if this has already been
[2:01:57] discussed, but the last thing was just the downtown gateway section. That part that was in a couple
[2:02:04] of the sections on the document. I just thought it was going to probably lead to a lot of confusion
[2:02:12] with having, you know, special landscape features and special uses. I just thought that that could get into a sticky situation with interpretation.
[2:02:22] And it's more so about the area and not so much about the building. And so I just thought we should really focus on on the building.
[2:02:31] But again, that's comment number four and to the vice mayor's point for some of these the staff and consultant actually made recommended changes.
[2:02:40] Okay. I'm so they definitely tried to address your concern about not being too specific about that downtown gateway.
[2:02:49] So unless you have follow-up questions or comments or anybody else on council has questions,
[2:02:55] you know, if this is something we can incorporate an adopt tonight, then we would.
[2:02:59] Sure. Yeah. No, I think you guys are going through all of the things that I mentioned.
[2:03:04] So yeah. Thank you.
[2:03:06] Okay, any comments? I'm going to go backwards then. It's a comment number four, any comments from council on the downtown gateway.
[2:03:17] I thought they did a good job. Okay, so we will, on unless Mr Biggs or the city attorney is telling us this needs to go back to the peace, the planning commission, is this something that we can just incorporate an adopt tonight. These amendments to the downtown gateway section.
[2:03:35] Yes, we can go back through Mr.
[2:03:38] Pearson County's list and identify the items that you can incorporate into the ordinance tonight.
[2:03:43] And then the remainder will go back to the, you can refer back to the planning commission for review.
[2:03:48] Okay.
[2:03:48] Thank you.
[2:03:50] Comment number three maruses comment number three.
[2:03:54] Any comments questions from council members.
[2:03:59] These are the upper story setbacks.
[2:04:01] I think these are.
[2:04:02] We already addressed those, didn't we?
[2:04:06] Yeah.
[2:04:08] Um, then going up to comment number two, the site circulation, access comment,
[2:04:17] and
[2:04:17] they're recommended edits from the consultant and staff.
[2:04:22] Okay.
[2:04:23] I see it.
[2:04:23] Let me see who's hand is raised.
[2:04:34] Vice Mayor, in ander go ahead.
[2:04:36] Do I understand, um, Mr.
[2:04:38] Ah, he's comment because it sounds like is it
[2:04:42] continuous from one lot to the next, and also, I think there was a comment not necessarily
[2:04:50] here, but elsewhere or in a previous version about maybe limiting this to lots that were deep and not
[2:05:04] And so I'm a little concerned if we don't deal with with those two issues.
[2:05:14] So I understand the goal, which is if it adjoins an R1 of the rear or an alleyway of the rear, you know, so there's either a street or an alleyway, provide a rear access, but I'm not sure that if we've got a really had what's the opposite of a street,
[2:05:29] deep, Mr. Aki, that narrow is wrong, skitties wrong, but, you know,
[2:05:35] hello, we're shallow, shallow. Thank you, Mayor. A shallow,
[2:05:40] um, lot, it may not really be practical, and do we want to do a carve out for that?
[2:05:46] And do we want to not use the word continuous for, you know, what does that, what does that really mean?
[2:05:51] Is it mean from one lot to the next that doesn't make any sense?
[2:05:55] So, they changed some of the work, I don't know if you saw the recommended edits, to get away from that continuous direction.
[2:06:06] Yeah, they fixed that, but we haven't dealt with the shallow lot issue.
[2:06:17] Any comments from Mr. Biggs or the consultants on that?
[2:06:27] for me, Monica, or Drew, and Lisa, do you have some?
[2:06:31] I like the clarification, so we, and this and Commissioner A, he's other comments or the
[2:06:40] recommended that is shown in the draft in your packet tonight, and so I'm looking at this
[2:06:48] this edit, rare pedestrian, bicycle access should be provided for many of putting right
[2:06:54] way or alley for projects on the deep-lots and the lots of development of us in R1 in this in this
[2:07:01] CT.
[2:07:04] So, and if a concern that shallower lots are not adequately dressed, or is that I'm not sure
[2:07:14] what the concern is. What's a deep-lot? What constitutes a deep-lot? How deep is deep?
[2:07:20] No one in 50 feet or greater, lots with the jobs of 250 feet or greater, and lots were
[2:07:24] development of us and our one district to the rear.
[2:07:27] So the intent here is that if you have these very deep lots along the alchemy
[2:07:32] rail corridor that accessing these, what you shouldn't, if you're coming from, let's say
[2:07:40] the Southwest, you don't have to go all the way to alchemy and then go down from the front
[2:07:46] to access the property, but rather, there's some sort of access, whether it's from an
[2:07:52] about anxiety or an alley or something that enables you to access the deep lots without
[2:07:58] having to go all the way. That's the intent. And if there's another goal that we want to try to
[2:08:16] concerned and we eliminated language that made it seem like we're requiring some sort of
[2:08:22] easement, but rather simplified it to require some kind of access for those deep lots
[2:08:33] and the ones about our one. Yeah, I mean, sorry, just to point out, I like the idea and the
[2:08:40] concepts because I think that it's smart. I just, if you look at it practically, I'm not sure
[2:08:46] How many parcels it's going to apply to, and I wonder if staff is going to have to start to get a little bit subjective in terms of where to put the access way.
[2:08:56] So I think it's fine, but I think it's something to just make a note of that that it is something we might have to refer to, you know, for certain projects.
[2:09:06] But, you know, for a project like 51-50, you know, that one I think really, it would have been nice to have something like that where residents could kind of access it instead of going all the way.
[2:09:18] So I think it's a great idea. I just think maybe we have to be vigilant about it.
[2:09:26] So I had my hand raised. Can I make a comment or go?
[2:09:30] Yes, go ahead.
[2:09:31] I mean, no, thank you commissioner.
[2:09:33] I want to add on to what you said.
[2:09:37] So I think this is a good point.
[2:09:39] And it does show that this originated with a desire for continuous pedestrian and bicycle access
[2:09:47] developed over time along the rear of the district.
[2:09:50] So that does speak to where we got the the easement concern. I know I know we're not talking about an easement mechanism, but
[2:10:00] But by saying that we're actually being very contradictory of the approach, then that we took to the open space, which you just told the mayor, that because you couldn't access the open space in these private developments, then you didn't need to specify in the language or whatever.
[2:10:19] there was talk about the rear setback being private and internal and yet here you're trying to
[2:10:27] provide public access. But we just said that those rear setbacks are private to the residents
[2:10:34] of the development. So we're applying two very different standards to this and I do think
[2:10:41] it's very confusing as written. I do think in 5150 which is an exceptionally wide
[2:10:47] Again, how do we define why, but an exceptionally wide project and it makes some sense.
[2:10:55] But I too am concerned that this, it just doesn't seem well thought out in terms of how it might be applied.
[2:11:11] So what's the suggestion? So we're looking at, you know, comment too.
[2:11:16] Any suggestion there comes a number of meadows to move this forward for purposes of tonight and then maybe do a follow-up referral?
[2:11:28] You know, I'm just not sure that this is really the right thing to say.
[2:11:36] I mean, again, again, all these projects come forward with very defined plans for how the bicycles or the pedestrians get from the front of the property
[2:11:47] and their bikes get down to the storage areas and, you know, so, um,
[2:11:54] building a requirement that it'd be in the rear of properties, some of which are going to be
[2:11:59] non-accessible. Again, I guess we've defined it by it may be a budding and alleyway and our
[2:12:06] one or saying, I don't know. To me, I can't really make sense of this. It doesn't hang together
[2:12:12] in my mind, but I think Commissioner Ahi sort of had the best description.
[2:12:23] I mean, just to be clear, right, this is where the back of a lot is on a right away or an alley.
[2:12:28] So there is access, potentially, you know, public access there, right?
[2:12:34] I mean, this is not, this is an actual, right?
[2:12:42] It's just, it's just, it's just, it's just an R1 district to the rear, just because it's an R1 district. It's not necessarily a budding an alley and do we really want to and if it were or some sort of parking lane or something are we really going to open it up so the two developments can start going back and forth, you know,
[2:13:05] between each. I don't think that's really what we intend. That would be a very odd way to do things.
[2:13:13] I don't see that we've done that in other developing existing developments. They tend to be very within themselves. Sorry, that's not the right word, but I'm fine.
[2:13:25] I'm going to go to you. I see the time. This is the last comment we're discussing and then we'll take a break and then hopefully come back and have staff go through the direction on each of these and then we do a vote.
[2:13:38] But we're in under any suggestion on how we close this.
[2:13:42] I agree with Councilmember Meadows, I think there's security issues with trying to do this.
[2:13:48] I would recommend we remove it for tonight and put it on the list for other consideration.
[2:13:58] And I'll do my follow up question only because that's the concern.
[2:14:00] If we remove it completely, what's the risk to the city by not having something addressing this?
[2:14:08] Anything Mr. Biggs?
[2:14:09] I'm not aware that there's any risks to the city with removing this completely, it was just, I think, more of a recognition that there are other modes of transportation other than vehicles and trying to accommodate as much access to these sites as possible.
[2:14:27] But as someone noted, the projects that have been approved already up and down the
[2:14:33] whole community realm don't have this access.
[2:14:36] So even if we were to get some publics to have it, it wouldn't be a continuous strip
[2:14:40] of access, it would be more on a case-by-case basis.
[2:14:45] And in some instances, it would be, especially if you're between two projects that have been approved,
[2:14:50] paths to nowhere.
[2:14:53] Okay, so we will put it on the list of referring it to the planning commission for further
[2:14:58] consideration and
[2:15:00] So with that, we have gone through all the comments. It's 914. Mr. Biggs and Guido, Mr. Persecone. What I would like to do is take our normal seven-minute break, maybe do 10 minutes if you need more time.
[2:15:16] And when we come back, have you walk us through each comment and the direction that I took notes on them, sure others did as well.
[2:15:23] And then we can vote on, you know, adopt in the objectives standards with whatever we incorporate,
[2:15:29] and then make the motion to direct the other items to the planning commission.
[2:15:34] Sounds good. Sounds good. Okay. So, let's.
[2:15:37] But, but Mayor, just as a council member of Meadows did point out, I made a couple small
[2:15:43] errors in the actual ordinance about the facade, so if we could also include that in the
[2:15:52] comments.
[2:15:53] Well, Greedor, add that to the list when we come back as we go through.
[2:15:56] Don't get perfect.
[2:15:57] Thanks for the reminder.
[2:15:59] So with that, let's take do you need seven minutes, ten minutes, how much time do you need
[2:16:03] to pull it together?
[2:16:04] Do you need ten or seven minutes, isn't that?
[2:16:08] I mean, I have all the stuff edited and yellow that we have to, so I'm ready to go now.
[2:16:13] Okay.
[2:16:14] So we'll do our normal seven-minute break.
[2:16:17] I'm looking at the agenda.
[2:16:18] I'm going to do what I said.
[2:16:19] I was going to do at the beginning.
[2:16:21] I don't think we'll have time to do and I don't know if the legislative subcommittee has anything that must be discussed tonight.
[2:16:28] Vice Mayor, I can't see you. I'm looking for councilmember Weinberg. You can override me at 11, but that would be the item.
[2:16:36] I would say we won't be able to get to tonight in the event.
[2:16:39] And the event anybody is waiting to hear that item. I don't think we'll get to that item tonight.
[2:16:43] Okay, so seven minutes will resume at 9.22pm. Thank you.
[2:25:11] Okay, I see council member Meadows, all council members are back. We will resume our council meeting at 924 PM. And I will turn it over to staff to walk us through the comments. And again, we're looking to the city attorney and staff to guide us on what we can actually adopt and incorporate an adopt tonight in the objective standards and what we need to refer to the planning commission for further consideration.
[2:25:41] I wanted some clarification like so are we going to go through and then we're going to adopt the
[2:25:54] or introduce the ordinance and then there are going to be sections that aren't going to be
[2:26:01] that aren't going to be introduced but they're going to be set back to planning commission
[2:26:06] or they're all introduced tonight and they're all going to be adopted and then with a
[2:26:18] refer back to the Planning Commission, but the ordinance is going forward as amended.
[2:26:25] But there are,
[2:26:29] so there have been changes tonight and if you have significant changes
[2:26:36] then you need to reintroduce and that was one of the one of my clarifications. So what we are planning to do tonight is adopt ordinance right now as modified and these are going to be changes that aren't going back to the planning commission.
[2:26:59] So that's our intent city attorney.
[2:27:08] So unless you have concerns with that approach.
[2:27:13] Mr. Persecone, I see your staff starting with council member
[2:27:16] Meadows edits, thank you.
[2:27:22] We're going to adopt the ordinance as modified tonight.
[2:27:27] And then, but I do have a concern that some of these changes may need to go back to the planning commission.
[2:27:43] However, the council has decided which ones need to go back.
[2:27:50] So I'm trying to figure out what we're doing here.
[2:27:52] So the ordinance as amended and it's going to be introduced and then it's adopted after it's adopted then it's going back to planning commission for further review.
[2:28:05] So let me clarify.
[2:28:07] Can you hear me?
[2:28:09] So there are two different things. There are things that we have decided on our own regardless of its legally required that we want it to go back to the planning commission for further consideration.
[2:28:22] There are things that we've also identified that we want to incorporate and make it part
[2:28:29] of the adopted ordinance tonight. Now, if on that list of items, we want to incorporate
[2:28:36] tonight for the adoption, you have concerns that those should actually first go to the planning
[2:28:43] commission, then please let us know because then that would go on the planning commission list.
[2:28:55] I'd like to talk to Guido or John Biggs about these changes if they feel as planning staff.
[2:29:04] Do you feel that these changes are that substantial or I think that what we've done tonight
[2:29:11] can be introduced and then adopted,
[2:29:17] but there were some significant changes.
[2:29:20] So let's all through each one and have that discussion.
[2:29:23] So, Guido, let's start with Cousin member Meadows edits.
[2:29:28] And this we didn't discuss, and I know Cousin member Meadows have raised it at the beginning.
[2:29:34] Again, you know, any objection or concerns with these edits.
[2:29:39] Cousin member Meadows do you want to add anything to what you said at the beginning?
[2:29:43] It was just an error, and it's been corrected now.
[2:29:46] So, Guido, Mr. Viggs City Attorney, is this something we can incorporate in a dot tonight?
[2:29:54] I would see you.
[2:29:55] Okay.
[2:29:56] So then the next comment.
[2:30:01] I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. Yes, Council Member Lainberg. Those corrections were made to the staff report not to the proposed resolution.
[2:30:11] What was just up on the screen was not the resolution that was a pattern one. It was a memo.
[2:30:17] If I couldn't Madam Mayor, I would suggest that when it comes for emotion to introduce the ordinance that we would introduce and incorporate by reference all of the changes identified by the city council's evening into the ordinance.
[2:30:29] I agree. The ordinance. Yeah. That will work. Yeah. Um, okay. So that's it for this amendment. We're looking at.
[2:30:39] Then we'll keep going. We do. So Mr. Mayor, Mr. County, if you'd go through your list and
[2:30:47] talk a little bit about each of the discussion points of the city council members this evening and
[2:30:53] whether that is something that has been suggested to incorporate into the ordinance this evening or
[2:30:58] It should be referred to the planning commission.
[2:31:00] So take it away.
[2:31:02] So only the ones that I highlighted in yellow, I thought,
[2:31:05] it seemed like, I mean, I deferred to the mayor
[2:31:08] and vice mayor, but it sounded like these recommended
[2:31:11] edits.
[2:31:13] Mayor, we're generally in consensus.
[2:31:15] Only the ones in yellow, I thought you were asking us
[2:31:19] to do further kind of study and deliberation.
[2:31:23] Was that a fair summary, mayor?
[2:31:25] Well, there are two things we're looking at.
[2:31:26] It's not only the things that we've already decided
[2:31:29] we're going to refer back to the planning commission,
[2:31:32] we want to make sure we go through each one and confirm
[2:31:35] that it's okay to incorporate and adopted
[2:31:39] as part of tonight's ordinance.
[2:31:41] So number one, the privacy and line of site,
[2:31:44] and this is similar to something else.
[2:31:46] We can't remember the number.
[2:31:48] But if we were to incorporate these changes,
[2:31:51] Mr. Baderna, Mr. Persecone.
[2:31:53] Okay.
[2:31:56] Go ahead.
[2:31:57] Why don't we do this?
[2:32:00] I will go down my list of things that I captured this evening on things we either need to take a look at or incorporate into the ordinance tonight.
[2:32:08] So starting with the comments provided by Councilmember Meadows, the double introduction of definitions for line in facade that can be done this evening.
[2:32:18] The City Council asks that the Planning Commission take a look at our non-conforming standards.
[2:32:25] They're at found at chapter 14.66.070 and they refer to non-conforming structures that are altered by demolition or natural events.
[2:32:40] and look to see if those standards need to be modified and bring back modifications to the
[2:32:47] standards. You also recommended that the planning commission look at and identify a
[2:32:53] definition for a sloping roof or explore elimination man's or groups. So Mr.
[2:33:00] Banks, I am sorry to interrupt. Could you if possible refer to the comment? Because that's
[2:33:05] I took my notes and I want to make sure that's possible for the first one, two, three, four.
[2:33:13] I don't have a specific number.
[2:33:14] I was just kind of following along.
[2:33:16] I thought Mr. Periscone had him.
[2:33:19] And I thought we were that you probably have them in order.
[2:33:23] If we skip down and start with number five on what Guido's got will probably be in the same order as what John is doing.
[2:33:34] correct. It's a number five on the legal and non-conforming. Right. And this is go ahead.
[2:33:43] And that is being referred to complaining commission. So we're not. Have the same thing. Okay.
[2:33:48] So in no modifications to the ordinance this evening on that,
[2:33:52] also being referred to the planning commission is the sloping roof definition,
[2:33:56] our possible elimination of men's groups that's coming at number six.
[2:34:02] I'm being adopted tonight without that definition and we would be coming back with a better definition.
[2:34:10] Correct?
[2:34:11] I have a question.
[2:34:15] Guido and John.
[2:34:16] I think kind of the minimum roof we ever look at is 4 on 12, which is I think about 20%.
[2:34:24] percent if I did that right. I think we could put a minimum 20% slope in here and then refer
[2:34:37] the rest to staff to look to the staff and planning commission to look at does that make some sense
[2:34:44] anybody? Not to me.
[2:34:49] I'd like to, I think it's important for us to have some sort of percentage or
[2:35:00] To help clarify, so that way we have a starting point.
[2:35:06] So the notes I have, but I'm going to go to Lisa on this, is that maybe we can frame it as a pitch,
[2:35:13] or a drop over a certain range?
[2:35:16] No, then what for in 12 is kind of a minimum that we do.
[2:35:20] I'm not familiar with the numbers you're quoting by Spirit Eander, but to the extent we can do that tonight,
[2:35:29] and we have such numbers that the experts think work then if we can incorporate them tonight,
[2:35:37] I support that we do it. So Lisa, do you have any direction for us here?
[2:35:44] So I think we could put that definition in the 4 and 12. So it's falling 4 inches over
[2:35:50] work 12 inch width, so that's a pretty standard definition. Perfect.
[2:35:57] That's a little bit more important to do.
[2:35:59] Thanks Lisa.
[2:36:00] The next question, Mr. Biggs.
[2:36:03] It's just one clarification.
[2:36:05] I want to make sure the council understands this.
[2:36:07] Even though you have a minimum roof pitch of 412,
[2:36:10] it doesn't want to eliminate a man's or a roof because it has a steeper pitch.
[2:36:17] Yeah.
[2:36:17] We'll get steeper pitchman's or groups.
[2:36:20] Not trying to eliminate that, sir.
[2:36:22] Okay, okay.
[2:36:23] You just don't want to only be massive.
[2:36:26] So with that Mr. Biggs, is this a change this four,
[2:36:31] 12 insertion, something we can do tonight on a dot
[2:36:36] the ordinance?
[2:36:37] To me, no, it's simply because you're defining the
[2:36:40] what a sloping roof is, a minimum of four or four.
[2:36:44] I would say it's not a new,
[2:36:45] It's not a new addition to the ordinance.
[2:36:48] It's a clarification.
[2:36:50] Oh, can I ask a question and express a concern?
[2:36:56] Was there, and I'm sorry, maybe Ms. Wise is, but we're John.
[2:37:02] I mean, I always get nervous when we start pulling numbers here
[2:37:06] on the virtual diets.
[2:37:07] So is there actually an architect who will say that this
[2:37:12] is a reasonable thing to be doing?
[2:37:14] I just get really, none of, you know,
[2:37:18] Council should be putting these numbers.
[2:37:21] So, John, are you, that's why he asked Lisa and she said,
[2:37:27] yes, but it's Lisa, that doesn't matter.
[2:37:29] Lisa, go ahead and have because I went to you as well,
[2:37:32] just to make sure.
[2:37:35] Well, I mean, I'm actually not an architect on the planner.
[2:37:38] Monica is an architect on our staff and so is Drew,
[2:37:41] and they can chime in also,
[2:37:43] But I think these are, you don't really need to be an architect to understand sort of rope,
[2:37:49] pitches and ropes, who slopes, and I think this is a pretty reasonable sort of minimum to go
[2:37:57] in the forward, forward, and 12. But I don't know if Monica, do you want to chime in also?
[2:38:02] But I think council members and Andrew's recommendation was a good start.
[2:38:06] Lisa, I would second that. I can confirm that council members and Andrew's recommendation
[2:38:11] and it's consistent with what we see
[2:38:17] list of, you know, further review. So this is what we're
[2:38:20] doing just to fill this gap right now as we release these objective standards. So nothing else
[2:38:27] on comment six Mr. Biggs, do you want to continue going down the list? Yes, I believe the next
[2:38:33] comment we had was item number seven and these were the two diagrams that showed the relationship
[2:38:39] between the first floor, use, and the upper floor height.
[2:38:45] Notice I have indicated that the council would like to apply the diagram on the right,
[2:38:50] the minimum of the 12 inches in height to demonstrate the objective standard here,
[2:38:59] eliminating the 24-inch and height diagram, but then to refer for further discussion,
[2:39:06] the 24-inch diagram to the planning commission for review.
[2:39:12] So just so it would apply to both residential and non-residential.
[2:39:16] It would be the diagram on the left.
[2:39:19] So again, when I do my follow up Mr. Viggs, as I've been doing
[2:39:22] and to the city attorney, is this a change we can make tonight
[2:39:26] and incorporate an indoor adopted ordinance?
[2:39:31] I believe you can because you're simply taking away a diagram.
[2:39:37] you're not inserting a completely new diagram. Sorry, I was, I was, I was muted. I was going to say
[2:39:44] we're, we're not adding anything new. We're just removing one of the diagrams, which will be further studied.
[2:39:51] So,
[2:39:54] I don't have anything on eight nine. We add some clarification and verb it on this.
[2:40:00] Item as well. I'm sorry to interject.
[2:40:03] You have a note that says you's talking because I remember a council member
[2:40:08] Meadows helped terrified and then it I had some concerns with leaving A there when we're
[2:40:15] leaving eliminating one of the pictures. So I think the vice mayor, if you can remember
[2:40:23] as well.
[2:40:24] It's the verb-age in A and B needs to be consolidated to match the diagram decision.
[2:40:34] So the verb-age above that in 3 A and B, and then I think it was a maximum height.
[2:40:43] I think we had a maximum height of that.
[2:40:45] So then we need to remove A.
[2:40:48] Yeah.
[2:40:49] We need to remove A.
[2:40:50] And then it's not just where ground floor is residential.
[2:40:56] It just terminates after floor to ceiling.
[2:40:59] Yeah, it's just ground floor, not residential or residential.
[2:41:03] Yeah.
[2:41:06] Okay.
[2:41:07] That's something we're doing this evening.
[2:41:09] This part of the introduced ordinance.
[2:41:11] So can we make those changes possible while I'm looking at it?
[2:41:15] Because that helps me to know that we've captured it.
[2:41:19] like the attorney said to eliminate A to take the word across out the verbage on ground floor and
[2:41:28] just put ground floor period, you know, things like that. I need to see it as we do it.
[2:41:36] It's sorry. You call up the ordinance and the document itself to make those adjustments and
[2:41:40] remember tonight you're just introducing this ordinance. It will come back to one of the
[2:41:45] So you can't put the red line and stuff like that because I don't want to meet it's a cross it out on here now and stuff like that so I can see it.
[2:41:55] We're capturing the notes and where are tracking the direction of the city council and we are going to incorporate these things into that into the ordinance it comes back.
[2:42:05] Okay, okay. I just want you know, I think you might want that to read to to change the
[2:42:16] verbage to match the single diagram. I understand what the direction is. Okay. That's the
[2:42:23] danger we don't show you our us your notes. What it's good because we can correct any errors,
[2:42:28] but on the other hand we're going to pick everything. That's what I thought we captured the verb
[2:42:33] And for me, it's like we capture the verbiage and then when we come back, then it's like we missed some stuff.
[2:42:40] No, I hate it.
[2:42:41] That's right.
[2:42:42] Okay, number nine.
[2:42:44] Number nine.
[2:42:44] This is an item that you're referring back to the planning commission because you wanted to make sure that it's not going to result in any, any unintended consequences or problems, especially with the density bonus regulations.
[2:42:58] Yes, those are my notes as well. But it's being adopted as is tonight or introduced as is tonight. We're not changing anything, but it's going in the column of further review.
[2:43:14] Okay.
[2:43:14] Access to number 11, and this was the building facade diagram, and then the should there we are we are going to adopt the edits in number 10 I don't have any comments about number 10 like we didn't we didn't have any challenges to what the suggested edits from the consultant were right so we but we need to indicate that we are adopting.
[2:43:43] the recommended changes from the consultant. Right. Right. That's understood. That's understood.
[2:43:53] Okay. Yeah. I just wanted on the on the verbal and recordings.
[2:43:58] I think they'll just to be clear and maybe Monica can these edits are already in the draft, right?
[2:44:06] For primary and secondary. These are incorporated into the ordinance.
[2:44:12] And it's that we're accepted or tonight's a super thing.
[2:44:17] All right, comment number 11, Mr. Viggs.
[2:44:20] This is the one you wanted to refer to the,
[2:44:23] or actually wanted to discuss a little bit more this evening.
[2:44:26] We're talking about should there be a minimum with for those
[2:44:30] resmenced areas or the sort of reddish colored areas here on the diagram.
[2:44:34] And one suggestion I would toss out is to take a look at what would be the minimum with
[2:44:41] the maybe Drew can help us here for a double door.
[2:44:45] I think if you're looking at double doors with three foot wide doors of peace, plus an
[2:44:50] area of structure on either side that's six feet, eight feet, maybe a ten foot distance would
[2:44:55] appropriate in this instance.
[2:45:00] Because it goes to the function of that space rather than just being solely in aesthetic. It could be both aesthetic, but I think let's let's start with a functional use for that that would.
[2:45:12] So I would suggest 10 feet as being the minimum width for those areas that are recessed.
[2:45:21] Well, and has a that has a rational basis to it. So it's not going to be an arbitrary number so.
[2:45:29] And then also this gets put on the list for further study.
[2:45:33] So we would adopt the 10 foot tonight and then it goes on the list also for further study.
[2:45:38] It was simply defining the width of that minimum recess.
[2:45:43] I think this would be okay to include as a modification to the ordinance you're looking at this evening.
[2:45:49] I was going to say since we thought this is low probability of somebody doing something weird here.
[2:45:57] I think it would also be okay if we left it as is without the defined depth, though, I'm fine with the 10 foot, but if we left it as is and send it to planning commission, I don't think that would be high risk as long as, you know, it comes back to us, but if everyone's okay with 10, I'm fine with 10.
[2:46:14] I support putting something in council member medows, we know how this process sometimes can take a long time to come back to us and I would want it out there without some minimum and I know, you know, highly unlikely someone will design it this way, but just in case.
[2:46:30] And I defer to Mr. Begs on the 10 feet. I don't, you know, I've nothing else to propose. So I support it. And if nobody else has any concerns, I'm fine. And it's something we can adopt to that.
[2:46:44] Okay.
[2:46:46] Mr. Vince?
[2:46:48] No, that's 10 feet to what I'm suggesting.
[2:46:51] Okay. So we'll keep going 13.
[2:46:53] The next was 13 be it page 13.
[2:46:58] The blank wall provisions.
[2:46:59] What do you have playing?
[2:47:01] This is something you wanted to refer to the planning commission, but tonight you thought
[2:47:04] that you could delete or take out the language that said this applies at the ground
[2:47:11] level and how it applied the entire building.
[2:47:16] What might know it's reflect?
[2:47:17] And is there all levels?
[2:47:19] Yeah.
[2:47:20] All levels.
[2:47:20] And is this something we can adopt tonight in corporate and adopt?
[2:47:24] Yeah, I would say it's a clarification.
[2:47:28] All right.
[2:47:29] Keep going, Mr. Big.
[2:47:30] Next was number 16, A1, A1, A1, AB, let me see, oh, this was something you wanted to talk about this evening.
[2:47:46] And you wanted to work on a starting point in where these effects, you wanted to define what the setback would apply to, whether it be a third story,
[2:48:00] the upper story of the building and make it clear from what point the setbacks would start.
[2:48:07] So I think we have it's demonstrating that the setback has to be from the side of the building for
[2:48:14] the upper floor. And I think there was a desire to see some clarification, especially if you look
[2:48:21] A1A, where it says, front minimum 10 feet from ground floor facade, maybe that could be changed to
[2:48:31] minimum or excuse me. Upper most floor level shall be set back 10 feet from ground floor facade.
[2:48:41] No. No, because you may not have just a, it may not apply only to the top floor,
[2:48:50] Because you could have two floors above 30 feet and you'd have to set back both of them.
[2:48:59] So how about any floor above 30 feet shall have a 10 foot set back?
[2:49:06] But then we've got the slope roof provision, John, here with this.
[2:49:11] Is that the roof or a floor?
[2:49:20] It's not that ledge yet where we're talking about is that the roof or a storm?
[2:49:27] Okay, that's one thing that we think we can revise tonight in corporate as part of the adopted ordinance.
[2:49:38] It is late.
[2:49:38] It is almost 10.
[2:49:40] We still have another big item on our agenda.
[2:49:43] Madam Mayor, can I, so this is a major topic of discussion.
[2:49:47] We've had a lot of input about stories for society.
[2:49:51] I mean, I don't know if John agrees, but this might be something
[2:49:55] the council wants to punt back to PC because there's a lot of language in the doctor.
[2:50:00] We're talking about stories versus heights, but I'm not sure if you agree, John, or, well, what I'm worried about is are we going to adopt it as is and then and then defer it back to planning commission or do we delete it from the code and then have a big hole in our code.
[2:50:17] Yeah, and I'm not because I don't want to delete it from the code, but my concern is if we put it in as it is.
[2:50:23] Is there ambiguity where people are going to say that they don't have to move the whole floor back?
[2:50:33] They only have to move the section that's above the 30 feet.
[2:50:37] That's my worry.
[2:50:39] So, what language would you suggest by smear?
[2:50:42] Because I think we need to clean that up and just if we could add the verbiage, that would be helpful.
[2:50:49] Making sure that it is.
[2:50:51] Okay, let me try this.
[2:50:52] Let me try this. We don't minimum 10 feet from ground floor facade for an entire floor or floors.
[2:51:04] Transacted by the 30 foot elevation site.
[2:51:15] I don't know, maybe the maybe you have a better suggestion, Guido or John, do you understand the ambiguity we're trying to get rid of?
[2:51:23] And I had to help, go ahead, pause the memorandum.
[2:51:27] I don't want to get some order.
[2:51:28] The audience has just been talking out of turn.
[2:51:30] I have my hand raised.
[2:51:31] I'm going to go ahead, pause the memorandums.
[2:51:34] Yeah, I was going to say upper stories, step backs, then just say as illustrated in the diagrams
[2:51:43] because that addresses.
[2:51:45] And then, you know, just add that either upper story, step backs as illustrated in the diagrams
[2:51:50] and then A from street C. So you're actually by just saying that you're using the wording that the
[2:51:57] because what we're trying to say is the illustrations are correct, right? The illustrations are
[2:52:04] correct. So just add the wording whether you have to add it in A, B, and C, or you can just
[2:52:11] add it at one of our story stepbacks, just say as illustrated in each of the diagrams and then there you go.
[2:52:20] Thank you council member meadows. I do want to go to Marousie has his had the race to see if he had a suggestion go ahead Marousie the only, you know, I guess I'll just defend the design aspect of this. I think that when you go to a specific height.
[2:52:39] You just run the risks sometimes that the building may end up looking a little bit strange because you're kind of putting it at a certain height level and pushing it back.
[2:52:49] And also there's the whole idea of I think I sent this in my email there's many projects that actually fell under whatever the height was.
[2:52:58] when before it stepped back.
[2:53:01] And so a developer is going to obviously go all the way
[2:53:04] to whenever he has to push that building back.
[2:53:07] And so by doing it by stories,
[2:53:10] you may be creating kind of an easier system
[2:53:13] in terms of something that's very kind of universal
[2:53:17] in terms of everyone understanding that once it's the floor
[2:53:20] of the fourth level or once it's the floor
[2:53:22] of the third level, that's the point
[2:53:24] where it steps back.
[2:53:26] And so it's fine if we want to do high limit, but it's just something to be aware of for some
[2:53:33] of these projects. And I think that's why we want to send this back to be looked at. But for now,
[2:53:40] I love Council Member Meadows suggestion.
[2:53:45] Okay, any other comments and I'm comfortable with them
[2:53:50] because we're a medicine as well, to point to the illustrations. And again, Mr. Biggs, is this
[2:53:59] something that we can incorporate and end up tonight with the additional language,
[2:54:04] because we're a medical suggested. I think because this is referring to existing diagrams that
[2:54:12] you're reviewing this evening, this would be okay as a clarification. Yeah, I do. We're using the same
[2:54:18] diagrams if we tweak the diagrams I'd have a problem.
[2:54:25] And what's this ordinance?
[2:54:26] Once this ordinance gets, it's going to be introduced.
[2:54:29] It's going to be adopted.
[2:54:30] It's going to be an effect in 30 days.
[2:54:34] And so we will be having projects coming through that these are going
[2:54:39] to apply to.
[2:54:43] Even though the planning commission is reviewing all of those.
[2:54:47] I mean, that's just, that's what we're doing tonight is, and so I want everyone to understand.
[2:54:55] If we introduce, we adopt, it comes in effect in 30 days.
[2:55:00] These are our quote-unquote objective standards that will be applying. And then we'll be able to then come back and modify them. So these are the ones we'll be living with for the next few months.
[2:55:20] Okay, I'm on to 19 and I think this was definitely a planning commissioner for number 19 and I and I flagged that we want to highlight the density bonus consideration here. Is that what you have as well.
[2:55:33] Yes, that's what my notes reflect as well.
[2:55:35] Okay, so moving us along.
[2:55:39] I am down to 22A and it's just explicitly stating that they're no building set back standards.
[2:55:49] Step back standards for health and the real, adding that sentence to make it happen.
[2:55:53] That's my notes report that as well. That's a change we can move tonight.
[2:55:57] Wonderful.
[2:55:59] And then the other thing is 22A, which is changing the language that makes clear that it's something
[2:56:06] It hasn't stated everything else is excluded, including, but not limited to those two materials.
[2:56:11] I have that note as well.
[2:56:13] And then we can adopt tonight.
[2:56:15] Yeah, that's a clarification.
[2:56:17] Replication.
[2:56:19] Okay, and so we're really back to, I have comment four.
[2:56:26] So I actually went back up to comment four, because we did it backwards.
[2:56:34] And so I have, yes, we will incorporate and that's already incorporated so we're fine there and is that something we can incorporate and adopt tonight the edits is number four.
[2:56:44] We hit it.
[2:56:46] Okay, notifications.
[2:56:49] And then on the upper story step back.
[2:56:56] I actually have, so with this change, is it something that we can incorporate and adopt tonight?
[2:57:02] because I have a big question mark here, which item met up there, which item, which item,
[2:57:09] can you go out to comment-free, Guido?
[2:57:18] What is your yellow highlight, say?
[2:57:22] Well, this is the same thing about the step back for stories.
[2:57:28] That's that whole.
[2:57:30] That's why I have the question.
[2:57:31] It's gonna match the diagram.
[2:57:34] And my notes reflect the council said okay to the response by staff and the consultant.
[2:57:41] Okay, and is that something comment three we can incorporate an adopt tonight?
[2:57:46] I have a question mark and I think it's because we covered it in another section.
[2:57:50] Yeah, because it's repetitive of other questions and I wouldn't say that I would concur that I concurred with this with the consultants response.
[2:58:03] This is what needs to be part of what needs to be discussed.
[2:58:06] Yeah. Right. Right.
[2:58:08] That's going back. The part that's going back.
[2:58:10] Not the part that we're adopting tonight. Right.
[2:58:12] That's that. That's that whole discussion. Yeah.
[2:58:15] And then for number two, this is the section that we talked about completely removing it.
[2:58:22] It's the continuous alleyway.
[2:58:26] I'm trying to get the right word here.
[2:58:29] But we said completely remove it and refer it to the planning commission.
[2:58:33] Right.
[2:58:35] Okay.
[2:58:37] Is that it?
[2:58:39] Vice Mayor, go ahead.
[2:58:41] Thank you.
[2:58:42] Mayor, I have concerns about just a couple of other things not to change tonight, but to be out of the list
[2:58:49] of things to refer to the planning commission.
[2:58:52] Okay, go ahead, because it has to be incorporated in view a little.
[2:58:55] We would have to be agreed to buy our group and then incorporated in the.
[2:59:01] I wish by snare you already included in the list that you submitted to staff.
[2:59:07] No, these are not.
[2:59:10] Okay.
[2:59:10] These are based on public input.
[2:59:13] And I think we haven't.
[2:59:16] Given ourselves a chance to talk about any other things that arose from public input.
[2:59:22] One is that architectural integrity as it is in this document is pretty much limited to materials,
[2:59:29] pallet and change of materials and what I learned about architectural integrity, which is about
[2:59:36] this much compared to what all the architects know, is that at a minimum fenestration is a part
[2:59:43] of an architectural integrity and I know there's been a lot of discussions at times and I'm thinking
[2:59:49] back to when Phoebe Bressick was on planning commission in the times when Phoebe made big points
[2:59:55] about how a fenestration could improve the architectural integrity.
[3:00:00] And how certain administration being presented did not reflect architectural integrity. And I'm wondering if, and this is really punted toward Mr. Aki, whether the planning commission would perhaps take a look at that issue of architectural integrity and see whether it can be flushed out a little more to our benefit.
[3:00:22] What is this specific?
[3:00:23] Because we're creating a list to refer to the Planning Commission to look into further what I will do with this list that I need.
[3:00:32] Vice Mayor is going through.
[3:00:34] It's just looked at council to see if you have any objections to this going to the Planning Commission.
[3:00:40] So if I don't see any hands raised, city attorney.
[3:00:45] Well, that sounds very discretionary.
[3:00:48] So I, it can go back to the planning commission and I don't know how they're going to make that and, uh, objective,
[3:00:59] it's, it might say that all the windows need to be have the same kind of cladding, for example, or
[3:01:07] Hmm. I don't know. I'm not an architect. That's one one thing I heard from come out of Phoebe's mouth once one time.
[3:01:14] Yeah, no, I'm just saying that yeah, they can look at it, but we can it's architectural integrity is almost like mass and bulk and so we need to put some parameters on it.
[3:01:26] And that's that's why it's currently defined in this document by a materials palette and by where you can and can't change materials from Florida floor.
[3:01:38] So whether there is something more that we can make as an objective standard that helps assure good architectural integrity is something that I think are we have for members of planning commission, it would be really good.
[3:01:53] Okay, it's nice to hander anything else on your list.
[3:01:58] Yes, I would like to have us look at whether we want to, in looking at those, those floors in the minimum, you know, the two foot difference in the one foot difference.
[3:02:09] Also perhaps look at whether we want for the purposes of a project that would fall under objective standards.
[3:02:15] whether we would want to specify a maximum floor height that would be allowed under an objective standards review.
[3:02:27] So we might say, if you want to come in there under objective standards and get, you know, basically a ministerial review of this thing,
[3:02:35] then don't bring us a first floor height of more than x and an upper floor height of more than y.
[3:02:43] That has major implications for the whole document, so I understand that, but the whole
[3:02:53] height issue in our town has major implications.
[3:02:57] And density bonus has major implications with this as well.
[3:03:03] I had the same reaction.
[3:03:05] I think you saw my facial expression that you did because I think that's a huge change.
[3:03:11] But I don't want us to get into these suggestions right now. I want to put them on the list.
[3:03:19] Okay, unless that counts the member has an objection to including because it's going to go to the planning commission.
[3:03:25] And so unless that counts the member objects of this even going to the planning commission, I just want to get this list done.
[3:03:31] Understood.
[3:03:32] And the final last one's mayor would be, are we really comfortable that we don't have problems with
[3:03:41] Sure would and Loyola specific plans has somebody really carefully looked at those against
[3:03:51] these to see whether we've set ourselves up for a conflict.
[3:03:54] And this is part of kind of the fact that we haven't really tested these.
[3:03:59] We haven't tried to go back and look at how well can these work and how is it planning
[3:04:05] commission going to work and the staff going to work with these straight out of the box.
[3:04:08] as Julie said, once these are approved after 30 days, you've got to be running with them.
[3:04:16] And so it's like, and I don't know if you guys have looked specifically at stuff in that's
[3:04:21] in sure what in Loyola, let us see whether we've got any issues.
[3:04:25] Well, I do know for Loyola, it has the Loyola, it's like that L-C-Z-N, it has its own zoning,
[3:04:35] But, um, but it's still C.N.
[3:04:38] It's an underlying zoning is still C.N.
[3:04:41] There.
[3:04:41] Yeah.
[3:04:42] You sure what it's got a couple different zones.
[3:04:44] I know.
[3:04:45] And I know they cleaned up Loyola Corner specific plan for two stories.
[3:04:50] Because it had two stories in some places.
[3:04:53] And then it had 30 feet in other places.
[3:04:56] Because it had that shot.
[3:04:58] And then we got.
[3:04:59] I don't know.
[3:05:00] We did have that litigation, but, you know, we prevailed on, you know, the two stories, but it got cleaned up, but we, what we may need to do is come back and look at the Sherwood and the Loyola specific plans.
[3:05:22] that's why it's on the list. Okay, so Vice Mayor, you said that was your last one. Perfect.
[3:05:31] So, I want to close this item. We need a motion.
[3:05:36] I can't raise my hand. I'm having a trouble raising my hand.
[3:05:41] Oh, go ahead, Councilmember Leang.
[3:05:43] on the second item she just brought up. It was discussed for the implications of specific
[3:05:50] kind of floors. It was also the specific kind of the total building, not just the floors.
[3:05:58] So I just want to make sure we capture that.
[3:06:02] Okay. Thank you.
[3:06:05] All right. Who wants to pull this together and make the motion for us to introduce
[3:06:10] this ordinance with the amendments,
[3:06:17] the vice mayor. Are you ready? Okay, let's see. I have to do a, my right paper in front of me. I move that we introduce and way first reading of ordinance number two zero two one dash four seven eight and the zoning text amendments.
[3:06:41] ZTA 2 0 dash 0 0 0 0 3 with the amendments discussed and agreed by Council this evening and I'm going to make a separate motion on the stuff that's getting referred.
[3:07:02] Exactly.
[3:07:06] Okay, unless the city attorney or Mr. Biggs has concerns with the way we frame that motion, I will take a second. I see council member Lee and with her hand raised.
[3:07:15] I'll be glad to second that motion.
[3:07:17] Thank you, Councilmember Lee.
[3:07:19] And before we go to the vote, Councilmember Meadows.
[3:07:22] I saw you had, oh, it's gone.
[3:07:24] Were you just raising your hand to second the motion?
[3:07:30] Councilmember Meadows?
[3:07:31] Yes.
[3:07:32] Okay.
[3:07:33] So we have the motion by the vice mayor, seconded by Councilmember Lee.
[3:07:39] Egg City Clerk.
[3:07:40] Can you please call the vote?
[3:07:41] Yes.
[3:07:42] Councilmember Meadows?
[3:07:44] Yes.
[3:07:45] Councilmember Weinberg?
[3:07:46] Yes. Councilmember Lee Eng. Yes.
[3:07:52] Nice Mayer and Andrew. Yes.
[3:07:54] And Mayor Fliker. Yes.
[3:07:57] Thank you. The motion passes five to zero.
[3:07:59] And Mayor, I'll make another motion.
[3:08:04] To refer to staff.
[3:08:08] The items discussed.
[3:08:10] During the conversation regarding agenda item 9, and for staff to frame and as appropriate,
[3:08:27] we refer and gather recommendations from the Planning Commission for any additions,
[3:08:35] changes or deletions to codes, then the newly approved code section, or the zoning text
[3:08:51] amendments that are being codified, that there is ETA 2 0 dash 0 0 0 3. I think that will
[3:09:00] stand. I think for recommendations to come back to council for those changes.
[3:09:12] Okay, does anybody have any questions or concerns with the way that's framed. I mean, it makes sense to me. I know exactly what we should what should happen here, but staff is it clear what the direction is.
[3:09:23] I understand that.
[3:09:25] Mr. Biggs.
[3:09:26] Okay.
[3:09:26] Smart Berlin.
[3:09:28] I'll talk to you.
[3:09:29] Second that.
[3:09:31] Thank you.
[3:09:31] So we have the motion by the vice mayor.
[3:09:34] Seconded by council member Lee and city court.
[3:09:37] Please call the vote.
[3:09:40] Sure.
[3:09:40] Mayor Flagger.
[3:09:42] Yes.
[3:09:44] Vice mayor in the under.
[3:09:48] Council member Weinberg.
[3:09:50] Yes.
[3:09:50] Council Member Meadows,
[3:09:57] your muted Council Member Meadows.
[3:10:00] I, oh, I said yes, I wasn't muted when I said it, I did thank my apologies.
[3:10:07] And councilmember Leading. Yes, thank you. The motion passes five to zero. Thank you.
[3:10:14] Okay, thank you everybody. I know that took a lot, but it was important and I'm very happy.
[3:10:19] At least we did the first step to have objective standards for the community. It's a great. Thank you.
[3:10:26] And so I'm looking at the agenda, and I know we have a lot of, well, I know we have some residents here on item number 11, and I don't know how long if Mr. England has a time estimate on number 10, but unless council members have an objection to moving up 11, I'm inclined to do that.
[3:10:52] But of course, it's 10 is a quick item.
[3:10:54] We could quickly do it and then move to 11.
[3:10:58] So I see heads nodding.
[3:11:00] So Mr. England, you may not have to direct us here.
[3:11:03] Is the consensus, let's do 10?
[3:11:06] Or, okay, so then we will move to our first discussion item.
[3:11:11] Item number 10, and I will turn it over to Mr. Golden.
[3:11:16] Thank you, Madam Mayor.
[3:11:19] Good evening, Madam Mayor and Vice Mayor
[3:11:21] and the rest of the council members.
[3:11:24] I have a quick presentation, but I don't really need to provide it to you.
[3:11:31] The only thing that I would suggest is there were just three minor corrections to the draft ordinance.
[3:11:40] They were super minor.
[3:11:41] I will share my screen. I'm going to turn off my video and then share my screen and get one sec.
[3:11:49] You get the gold star for backgrounds.
[3:11:53] Thanks. So if you can see my screen, these were the three sections, 1260.020. There was a missing
[3:12:04] word in their regulations. Section 12.60. One, three, zero. The designation of the flood
[3:12:14] play administrator. There's some other language, I think, in definitions that already
[3:12:19] have this but it should be the community development director and then finally section 12.60.290.
[3:12:31] The word or was either missing or misspelled or something. So those are three just minor
[3:12:39] corrections that you should include or we're recommending to include in your emotions.
[3:12:46] And there are two recommendations before you.
[3:12:54] And the first one is to adopt an urgency ordinance.
[3:12:59] And the second one is to introduce an adopt up the regular ordinance.
[3:13:03] They're actually the same ordinance and the same ordinances.
[3:13:08] And if you have questions about that, I would refer those to the city attorney at this time.
[3:13:15] And if you have any questions, I can take them.
[3:13:18] Otherwise,
[3:13:21] thank you very much.
[3:13:23] Thank you, Mr. Golden, and I'm hoping because so many council members said this should be a quick item.
[3:13:28] It is a quick item.
[3:13:30] So if there are no questions from Mr. Golden, I don't see any hands.
[3:13:34] Let's go to the public to see if members of the public have any comments on this item.
[3:13:42] to the court. I don't see any hands raised. I want to always check with you. No, I do not either.
[3:13:49] Point of clarification, this ordinance will need a for fist vote for the urgency and then just a regular majority for the regular ordinance.
[3:13:58] thanks for that reminder for the attorney. So with no comments from members of the public I'll bring it back to council and I see someone has their hand raised and vice mayor in under go ahead.
[3:14:12] Madam Mayor, I'd like to move that we adopt urgency ordinance number 2021-479.
[3:14:19] remaining the city of Los Altoes Municipal Code to repeal chapter 12.60, flood hazard area
[3:14:26] regulations and replace it with new chapter 12.0 entitled floodplain management to adopt
[3:14:35] flood hazard masks, maps, and make findings that this ordinance is exempt under
[3:14:40] equal guidelines section 1, 5, 3, 0, 7, and 1, 5, 3, 0, 8.
[3:14:47] So we have the motion by, by, smear, enander, cosmemory, enu, have your hand raised.
[3:14:54] Pretty good.
[3:14:54] Second that motion.
[3:14:56] So we have the motion by the, by, smear.
[3:14:59] Second in, by.
[3:15:00] Council member Lee Eng, city clerk, can you call the vote? And again, it needs to be forfeit.
[3:15:05] Sure. Finally, amendment, though. Sorry, I have my hand raised. Oh, go ahead, council member.
[3:15:11] I just think it's important, because the chapter name, vice mayor, misspoke and called it, I think chapter 12.0 or something. So in both instances, we're repealing chapter 12.6.
[3:15:27] And zero and replacing it with a new chapter 12.6 zero.
[3:15:31] Thank you.
[3:15:31] It was missing.
[3:15:33] Okay.
[3:15:34] Friendly amendment to you accept that.
[3:15:36] Okay.
[3:15:38] Yes.
[3:15:39] So we have the motion.
[3:15:41] As amended by the vice mayor seconded by council member.
[3:15:46] And city clerk.
[3:15:48] Council member Weinberg.
[3:15:50] Yes.
[3:15:52] Council member Lee Aang.
[3:15:54] Yes.
[3:15:56] by smearing the ender? Yes. Mayer Flagger? Yes. And Councilmember Meadows. Yes. Thank you,
[3:16:07] pass us your nannus me. You unanimously. Thank you. And if no discussion on the second item,
[3:16:13] I will entertain a motion.
[3:16:17] And this is for the regular ordinance, not an urgency ordinance.
[3:16:22] I see that Councilmember Meadows with her hand raised. Yes, Mayor, I move that we
[3:16:28] introduced and read by title only and way further reading of ordinance number 2021-480,
[3:16:38] amending the city of Los Alpto's Municipal Code to repeal chapter 12.60, and to replace it with a new chapter 12.60,
[3:16:48] entitled floodplain management to adopt flood hazard mass and making findings that this ordinance is exempt
[3:16:54] under SQL guidelines section 15307 and 15308 and I will second it. I don't see any hands raised so motion by council member meadows seconded by the mayor city card. Can you go ahead and call the roll there council member Leeing. Yes. Council member Weinberg.
[3:17:19] Yes. Mayor Flagger. Yes.
[3:17:21] Vice Mary Nandor. Yes. And Councilmember Meadows. Yes. Thank you. The motion passes five to zero.
[3:17:31] Great. Thank you all so much. And so next up is item number 11, which is the license agreement with the friends of the library.
[3:17:41] And I will turn it over to Mr. England and I think Mr. Hernandez.
[3:17:45] Thank you, Mayor. In January of 2020 the city council provided direction to the city manager to execute a lease with the friends of the library.
[3:17:55] The motion which passed called for the friends to remain on the current site as they're located.
[3:18:01] And for the friends to pay any capital expenses with that building, including utility improvements or site preparation.
[3:18:09] and any cost to make the bill a more permanent.
[3:18:12] The direction of that time was if the lease was to go outside of these parameters
[3:18:16] it should return to the City Council for consideration.
[3:18:19] The City Council directed the City Manager execute an agreement with no expiration date
[3:18:24] and focus on revocation of that agreement when or if a new library was built or an alternative
[3:18:31] site was determined to be feasible.
[3:18:33] Further, the City Council author has a city manager to approve a lease where operations are the friends of the library were set substantially similar to their current operation.
[3:18:42] The friends requested a ten-year term and a larger building, though it's important to note not a larger pat, so their impact wouldn't be greater.
[3:18:52] and also consideration of the bus barn,
[3:18:55] should of the theater move.
[3:18:57] Staff felt these changes were significant,
[3:19:00] enough that we should return the item to city council
[3:19:02] for approval.
[3:19:04] And also we wanted to make it clear from a staff perspective
[3:19:08] when we wrote the staff report,
[3:19:11] we were looking at the alternatives based on what exists today.
[3:19:15] So we didn't go back in time before that temporary approval
[3:19:19] was granted. We just looked at the benefits, the drawbacks from what existed today.
[3:19:26] So for tonight, assuming council has a discussion and agrees, this is a type of use they want.
[3:19:34] On the government center property, we have a presentation from the friends of the library
[3:19:39] and staff will be able to answer any questions.
[3:19:44] Thanks, Mr. England. So I'll go ahead and have the friends of the library and I see Catherine
[3:19:48] is with us, so I'll have her present, and then we can go to questions.
[3:19:55] Okay, good to hear you.
[3:19:56] Are we limiting the time or are we going to do a 10 minute or...
[3:20:00] For whatever, are you just doing a presentation?
[3:20:04] I think I can get the presentation done in 10 minutes. I'll be reading it later.
[3:20:11] So, okay. So, before I get to the request, I just thought I'd refer to everyone's memories
[3:20:19] and give you a quick review of how we got here. Today, it early 2019, and after several months of discussion
[3:20:27] with city representatives. It became clear that friends would not be able to occupy space in the new community center.
[3:20:35] The city and the friends jointly began a careful review to find an alternate location.
[3:20:41] In addition to the civic center, we tour the city, looking at various parks and public buildings.
[3:20:47] Some sites were quickly marked off the list while others such as Rosita Park and Woodland Library
[3:20:53] were given careful consideration. Additionally, friends spoke with a few developers on unoccupied space,
[3:21:01] and we contacted other nonprofits that might have some space available. Unfortunately, these did not
[3:21:07] pan out as the developers had long-term plans for their building sites, and other nonprofits
[3:21:12] either were space constrained themselves or did not have an appropriate space to offer.
[3:21:18] As part of this review, we studied our processes and found that the key driver
[3:21:23] for any location was the transportation of books.
[3:21:29] Donations are made at the library,
[3:21:31] volunteers transport these to our workroom,
[3:21:34] and after processing their transport
[3:21:35] into the community center or lazy for our use book sales.
[3:21:40] It's a labor intensive task, which is
[3:21:42] led by a dedicated group of seniors.
[3:21:46] And even if we could have absorbed the cost of hiring a truck
[3:21:49] or other able-bodied assistance,
[3:21:51] proximity to the book donations site in our selling sites is key to efficiency.
[3:21:58] After this evaluation, we found that the Civic Center still came out on top as the best site for friends and to anticipate a question.
[3:22:07] Woodland Library didn't seem like a viable alternative at one time, and we looked at this closely.
[3:22:14] However, the small piece of land with very limited parking
[3:22:18] present a challenge is not only with extra traffic generated by the movement of books,
[3:22:25] but also with the amount of parking that friends would, excuse me, would need for our volunteers.
[3:22:33] And last any space that the friends occupied at Woodland would limit expansion of the wood and library,
[3:22:38] which is something we believe the community desires.
[3:22:43] Bottom line, we are confident that all the viable alternatives have been thoroughly reviewed by friends with the staff and council members and the Civic Center remains the best option.
[3:22:57] Next slide please.
[3:22:58] There we go.
[3:22:59] With this in mind, the city prepared the site near the soccer field and permitted friends to install a portable along with the storage sheds.
[3:23:06] between the History Museum and the Police Department,
[3:23:10] a temporary lease beside and this was to be replaced with a longer term agreement,
[3:23:15] which the friends and staff drafted over the last 18 months. Next slide.
[3:23:21] Tonight, friends are here to request that the City Council approve a temporary license agreement
[3:23:25] before them to replace the existing lease, which expires when the new community center
[3:23:30] opens in October. Next slide.
[3:23:35] The major terms of the agreement include the friends use of land in the Civic Center for its
[3:23:40] book processing operations and storage of books for sale, the initial term of the license is 10 years
[3:23:46] after which is renewable annually. Friends accept the land and it as is state, but has the
[3:23:53] ability to have electricity brought in. And all building structures and utility improvements must
[3:23:59] employee with city requirements, necessitating designer review through the planning department,
[3:24:05] all of which is to pay for by the friends. And just to be clear, the friends is not requesting
[3:24:11] any funding from the city.
[3:24:15] So I'm sure you'll aware where the current buildings are so
[3:24:18] going to detail the portables by the soccer field, the storage sheds are in the back of the
[3:24:29] All structures were proved by the city and place carefully to ensure there's a little or no impact on the heritage trees near each site.
[3:24:38] Next slide.
[3:24:40] You may also notice that the friends have been given space within the library near the back.
[3:24:45] Back entrance.
[3:24:47] This area was generously allocated by the library district to help friends transition out of Hillview.
[3:24:53] In this extra space, it's been essential for our high value sales operations and processing.
[3:25:00] Children's books. Over the last two years, our dedicated volunteers fully re-engineered our processes to
[3:25:09] efficiently use these four different locations, which replaced our one room and held you. Next slide.
[3:25:18] So you may be asking why friends are asking for the initial term of 10 years.
[3:25:23] First reason is to provide friends with a guaranteed period of time that will allow us to enhance
[3:25:28] operations. The transition from Hillview and the pandemic especially is thrown as for a loop
[3:25:35] and we've made significant changes to adjust and ensure the safety of our volunteers.
[3:25:41] We are currently assessing which of these changes we should keep and what other
[3:25:46] optimizations we can make to streamline our book processing and sales operations further.
[3:25:52] Having the confidence that these will not be upended because of the loss of these facilities is
[3:25:57] essential for any businesses productivity.
[3:26:01] As you can imagine, working out of four locations presents some challenges, with a longer term for this agreement,
[3:26:08] gives us the opportunity to consolidate our operations by replacing the portable with the different classroom type structure.
[3:26:16] And if we're going to spend nearly $200,000 in capital expense to upgrade our facilities,
[3:26:21] we need the assurance that we will not lose the investment.
[3:26:25] Purchasing a structure, rather than leasing as we are now, is more cost-effective option by far.
[3:26:33] After performing at detail analysis, the break-even point between leasing and approaches is eight years,
[3:26:40] hence the request for a ten-year initial license term.
[3:26:44] If, for example, in your five, friends were told they must remove the building
[3:26:48] or even be required to move out of the Civic Center,
[3:26:51] then we would experience the significant loss,
[3:26:54] which ultimately, and negatively impacts support we can get to the library next slide.
[3:27:02] Friends would like to move forward with replacement structure that still fits on the existing pad.
[3:27:07] Onina's structure will allow us to alter and improve its appearance,
[3:27:11] say, with paint or possibly landscaping, making it more aesthetically pleasing.
[3:27:17] The biggest benefit of a larger building is that friends would be able to consolidate our operations in one space.
[3:27:24] Move out of the library and return the library space to the community.
[3:27:28] Remember, friends are patrons too, and we prefer that all the public library space be dedicated to patron use.
[3:27:37] Logistically, the benefits of consolidation are enormous, and we believe that we'll be appreciated by the community as well.
[3:27:45] Without two separate book processing areas, we'll be moving far fewer boxes across the parking lot and just as important as is the volunteers can work together again.
[3:27:57] The social aspect of our work can be just as essential as the community benefit.
[3:28:03] Our desire is to replace the existing portable as soon as possible at latest before the lease on this building expires next August.
[3:28:11] As soon as this life since agreement is signed, friends will begin putting together plans for submission to the planning department for design review and work to identify a final plan that aligns with the city's requirements.
[3:28:26] Next slide.
[3:28:30] Friends in the city of Los Autos have a very long history of mutual support
[3:28:34] and being neighbors on the Civic Center. For 40 years, friends is used city land to operate
[3:28:41] and offer use books for sale. We intern donate the phones that we generate back to the community.
[3:28:48] Most of this money goes to support the best-seller book collection and library programs,
[3:28:52] But we've also purchased tables, chairs, and other items for the cities and the libraries use when the need becomes clear.
[3:29:00] We feel that we are a part of the fabric of the community engagement throughout our town, not only due to our financial support, but also due to the opportunity for hundreds of residents to volunteer every year.
[3:29:13] Next slide.
[3:29:17] Next slide. There we go. Thank you.
[3:29:22] So that is my presentation, thank you for your attention, transition out of Hillview has been a long process and we appreciate your support and the assistance of city staff, especially Maddie and his team.
[3:29:36] It's taken 18 months to get this draft license agreement to you and we've all had to deal with many other challenges over this time, including the temporary shutdown of the library and as well as our operations.
[3:29:51] We're pleased over so close to completing this project and would appreciate approval of the license agreement this evening.
[3:29:58] So that both the city.
[3:30:00] And the friends can move forward with other more pressing needs. So I'm ready for any questions you may have. Thank you.
[3:30:09] Thank you, Catherine. And yes, we will move to questions. So I'm looking for any virtual hands questions either for staff, Mr. England and Mr. Hernandez or questions for Catherine.
[3:30:21] with the friends.
[3:30:23] Any council member Metos?
[3:30:25] First, Catherine, I'll ask you a question since you were just speaking and you and I spoke
[3:30:32] about this topic the other day and you explain some information about friends monetary position
[3:30:41] and I thought it was useful, so could you please explain how the cash reserves of the organization
[3:30:51] actually is allocated. Okay, I'll be glad to. So as you may we would maybe aware after reading our
[3:31:00] annual report, the friends was fortunate to have a healthy balance of our assets of $950,000.
[3:31:10] So we feel good about that. That's doing part for the nice growth in the stock market over the last
[3:31:21] years. But I do want to point out that about 50% of those that fund those assets are in donor
[3:31:33] designated funds that support our books for schools program for example and also in a capital
[3:31:48] fund that is being saved to be used for the redevelopment of our new library. So that leaves
[3:31:56] you know, half of our funds, 200k, which we planned to use to upgrade our facilities. And that
[3:32:04] would basically leave about $250,000 in unrealized capital gains, which we could look
[3:32:12] day, of course, any time to support the library. If we did that, we returned to pre-COVID funding
[3:32:25] support that we gave the library, and that would last about two years. So that's why it's,
[3:32:31] we feel it's imperative to keep our operations going so we continue to support the library for the
[3:32:42] And then Mayor, if I can I have another question, this is for staff, and if we could get a clarification about this agreement, does it cover all three structures on the Civic Center property, or is this regarding specifically the larger building with the pad near the soccer field?
[3:33:08] This license agreement is set up and actually has an outline of all three facilities structures.
[3:33:16] Those two storage and the one portable.
[3:33:19] All
[3:33:21] right.
[3:33:22] Thank you.
[3:33:22] That's all my questions.
[3:33:25] Thank you.
[3:33:25] Councilmember Meadows.
[3:33:27] Councilmember Weinberg.
[3:33:30] Thank you, Madam Mayor.
[3:33:31] I just want to make a couple of quick disclosures.
[3:33:35] First, I live within about 500 feet of the Woodman Branch Library.
[3:33:39] I discussed this with the City Attorney, a week or two ago, and was advised that since I'm not getting any personal benefit out of this, that I do not have a conflict of interest.
[3:33:50] The second disclosure I wanted to make is that I did meet with Catherine from Friends of the Library, one on one, about a week ago.
[3:34:01] Thank you, Council Member Lainberg for that disclosure. Much appreciated.
[3:34:08] I don't see any other council member hands raised and I don't have any questions so with that I'm going to look to the clerk to help me look at the attend me list to see how many members of the public that would like to comment on this item.
[3:34:28] Do we have any hands raised? I don't see any city court.
[3:34:32] that I made. There was a hand raise and I went to allow the person to speak and it's given me the
[3:34:41] the message that their system is not compatible. I tried to promote them as a panelist so if they
[3:34:47] get that message and can join as a panelist they should be able to speak. I now have two other hands
[3:34:53] is that Roberta because no it was it was a I'm sorry I didn't even recognize the name
[3:35:00] Okay. Could I ask a question? I'm sorry. I tried to raise my hand, but my button was stuck for the year. Oh, okay. Sure. So we'll just go back to Council Member Lee, and so we can close the question portion of the item to Council Member Lee and go ahead.
[3:35:18] And my question is to staff, so I think the way this report is written, it was to understand how we were going to move forward.
[3:35:30] So at that time, if it wasn't clear for me how we were going to move forward, how was it clear to you that a negotiation had to be contract had to be negotiated.
[3:35:44] So I think like we're skipping a step, could you help me understand that please?
[3:35:49] That's certainly a council member reading. The council direction from the January 2020 meeting was clear to allow the city manager to execute a lease agreement with the friends of the library if a mutually acceptable agreement could be reached.
[3:36:07] If it was outside of those parameters, it was to return to the city council.
[3:36:12] I think the other question that you raised is also a legitimate policy question is if this is no longer intended to be a temporary use, then should council first be discussing,
[3:36:24] is this type of user-appropriate for the government center?
[3:36:28] And if so, then moving on to the licensing agreement.
[3:36:38] Okay, I reset my rest for comments.
[3:36:40] Thank you.
[3:36:41] Thank you. Okay, so now we will go to public comment city clerk.
[3:36:46] On the other hand, so I can set the amount of time.
[3:36:49] We have four hands up. We have four hands and again members of the public if you would like to comment on this item.
[3:36:56] Please raise your hand now. It's late.
[3:36:59] And so we really want to have a good gauge of how many people will be commenting.
[3:37:03] So with only four hands raised.
[3:37:06] There are now five.
[3:37:10] We will pursue it to the current norms if three minutes each.
[3:37:16] Okay. Our first speaker is Roberta.
[3:37:23] Hi. This is Roberta. Can you hear me?
[3:37:26] Yes.
[3:37:26] I'm going to give you evening and.
[3:37:29] Good evening friends of the library as well.
[3:37:31] And I just want to make sure that the comments that I make are not in any way.
[3:37:36] to the friends of the library because I am a senior and I think we all love our libraries here in town.
[3:37:44] But I do have a very big concern initially about that I really do think that we need a policy in place
[3:37:52] before we move forward with any kind of long-term lease.
[3:37:56] I read the current land lease agreement, which is supposed to expire when the community
[3:38:05] center opens,
[3:38:08] and the faculty matter is that our land is worth about $8 to $10 million
[3:38:14] per acre, and to use that to store books just seems very, very excessive,
[3:38:22] and if they were
[3:38:25] to lease space in a downtown.
[3:38:30] It would be about $4,50 per square foot.
[3:38:33] And I checked that with the real estate broker.
[3:38:36] And so they'd be paying, you know,
[3:38:38] $8,000 a month to the amount of space
[3:38:41] that they're asking the city to give in this lease.
[3:38:45] I think a 10 year lease is way too long.
[3:38:49] This was always intended to be temporary.
[3:38:52] There is no guarantee that July very vulnerable pass.
[3:38:56] There is no guarantee that the library will provide space for the friends of the library in the future.
[3:39:05] I think the friends do have $9 and $50,000.
[3:39:10] I was glad that that was revealed tonight.
[3:39:14] available, and I think that alternative sites should be looked at number one when you
[3:39:21] need to have a policy, because we've had many people over the last few years that have
[3:39:26] come and said, I want to build a nine hundred student school on the help of your property.
[3:39:33] I want you to do all sorts of things.
[3:39:36] And the bus bomb theater, if that solution says, okay, let's give some additional land and a dollar a year to another organization in town.
[3:39:51] And I really think that you need to look at what your policy is before you make a decision on a 10 year long term.
[3:40:00] And that was supposed to be long-term. This was supposed to be a temporary solution. Other people
[3:40:05] would have to leave the community center to help you because it was not an up room with the
[3:40:13] new building and bailed out of the space, told us, go on and found other space.
[3:40:22] And believe me,
[3:40:23] I know it's not fun,
[3:40:27] but I think we need to be fair to all of the taxpayers here in town.
[3:40:31] Oh, basically, we would be subsidizing the Friends of the Library.
[3:40:36] Thank you, Roberta.
[3:40:37] Thank you very much.
[3:40:40] Our next speaker is Pierre the Dard.
[3:40:44] Hi.
[3:40:45] Can you hear me okay?
[3:40:46] Yes, we can.
[3:40:47] Great City Council Mayor, staff. I'm here speaking as a Los Santos resident today.
[3:40:59] But I will disclose that I am a member of the Friends of the Library and I'm also the chair of the Los
[3:41:04] Santos Library Commission. But my viewpoint is really that of a resident. I urge a council
[3:41:12] about yes on this item to execute the proposed license agreement that's before you. The societal
[3:41:19] impact of our library ecosystem is very much understated. A library is just not a repository for
[3:41:26] books. We serve all segments of society.
[3:41:31] The friends are a key part of this ecosystem and they
[3:41:35] of the city support. We have two libraries within and Los Altos in the city and we serve almost
[3:41:43] 10,000 users per month. 10,000 citizens, 10,000 folks from the immediate area of the county.
[3:41:52] The friends like many of us found a way to adapt and survive throughout COVID. They fund key activities,
[3:42:00] books sales and they add value to Los Althas and its libraries. Beyond raising money,
[3:42:07] they feel other community needs. As being around for 40 years as a volunteer organization,
[3:42:13] they bring young and old together, working towards a common purpose, which is to better the library.
[3:42:20] The book donation program is probably the greenest thing in Los Althas,
[3:42:24] turning the books that might be going into a landfill, into somebody else's treasure.
[3:42:32] Again, all for society and the community at large.
[3:42:36] This agreement like all good agreements cuts both ways.
[3:42:40] While you are being asked to grant a license that yeses to an organization allowing them space to the government center,
[3:42:47] the friends commit to go through all the relevant city processes and pay for all agreed to improvements.
[3:42:54] which will need to be made.
[3:42:57] It goes both ways.
[3:42:58] I believe it's a very strong, rational, quid pro quo
[3:43:02] that serves a public good.
[3:43:04] And as a less autos resident,
[3:43:06] I strongly urge a council to vote yes.
[3:43:09] Thank you.
[3:43:11] Thank you, Pierre.
[3:43:16] Madam Mayor, I have a Suzanne Epstein wishing to speak
[3:43:21] but her system is incompatible with ours.
[3:43:24] I'm trying to promote her, so she gets an invitation
[3:43:27] to join us at panelists that will allow her to speak. In the meantime, our next speaker is Scott Spielman.
[3:43:38] Thank you, Andrea. I first want to say Katherine, that was a wonderful presentation that you gave.
[3:43:45] The friends of the library is undoubtedly a significant contributor to our library and our community.
[3:43:53] You portray that very well. With that in mind, I'd like to encourage City Council to find ways
[3:44:00] to support the friends of the library in their work.
[3:44:03] There are however some challenges to do that.
[3:44:07] First of all, has been mentioned by one other person
[3:44:10] in the city as no policy for use or lease of public lands
[3:44:16] to outside parties.
[3:44:18] That needs to be done, and that should come
[3:44:21] before the course, the car, before the horse.
[3:44:24] Secondly, there are a number of different parties
[3:44:26] that would like to use city land.
[3:44:28] The History Museum, perhaps the Bacciball Court Players and Museum Group.
[3:44:34] So what are our priorities in order to decide which group should use city land?
[3:44:41] A policy is necessary to help sort those things out and it should come first.
[3:44:47] Thirdly, public land is one of our most precious city resources.
[3:44:52] It needs to be carefully managed and preserved.
[3:44:55] Committing our lands for 10 years is to me far too
[3:45:00] Long, without a policy and agreed upon priorities in place. For example, one of our city priorities was to reason
[3:45:09] reason he'll view park and that still has not happened after a promise made by council over three years ago.
[3:45:17] Fourthly, it does seem reasonable even though I heard Catherine's presentation. To ask the friends
[3:45:26] if there is another approach for doing this.
[3:45:30] With these things in mind, I suggest the council develop a policy for land use
[3:45:36] for key groups in our city that should come before long-term these.
[3:45:41] Secondly, council should determine its priorities for land use and address its top priorities
[3:45:48] first. Thirdly, perhaps friends could come back with an alternative
[3:45:54] that they haven't discovered quite yet to transition off of city land, perhaps as an option,
[3:46:04] or a short term solution of perhaps the city could give the friends a shorter term lease of
[3:46:12] six months to a year until an option for friends to move off the city lands can be developed.
[3:46:19] But the long-term benefit of friends should not be underestimated.
[3:46:25] They bring tremendous value, and it's just ought to be, as someone mentioned, a quick
[3:46:32] pro quo that both benefit, and I believe Council needs to do diligence before committing
[3:46:38] to a long-term plan.
[3:46:40] Thank you so much.
[3:46:42] Thank you, Scott.
[3:46:46] Our next speaker is Janine Valladaz.
[3:46:49] Good evening. Thank you. I'm sure you'll tell me if you can't hear me. I understand
[3:46:55] value of friends at the friends of the library present to both the library and the city.
[3:47:01] I myself am a bibliophile and I have thousands of books here in my home and I have many
[3:47:06] friends that I recommend go to the library and take advantage of its resources. I believe that
[3:47:13] libraries increase the social equity in their communities as services are offered for free
[3:47:19] and they are welcome open spaces for people of all types to comment and joy and learn
[3:47:25] and even just seek respite. I have no issue with the friends of the library but I do have
[3:47:31] issue with its sighting and its operational dependence on physical location. I think the city should
[3:47:36] support the FRL to have a collection and storefront downtown and establish an online sales mechanism
[3:47:42] to disconnect location from income production.
[3:47:46] Moving downtown with significantly increased market
[3:47:49] and walk-in share and deposit of books
[3:47:53] and also online sales would also dramatically increase
[3:47:57] market share and exposure
[3:47:59] and then allow that disconnection I mentioned
[3:48:03] between income and location.
[3:48:05] I'm confident the overall supporters
[3:48:07] which I hope to become will find
[3:48:10] You know, we'll be able to fund any transport of books from points A to B.
[3:48:14] The current location needs to be part of our open space or at the very least,
[3:48:18] our historical heritage through the use of the museum and or use to revert to native or
[3:48:25] orchard space. I'm in favor of the FOL, I just think they need to disconnect their operations
[3:48:31] from that location. And I would be happy to help them do that fund-wise. Thank you.
[3:48:38] Thank you, Jeanine, City Clerk, where we're able to come back to with Suzanne Epstein.
[3:48:48] No, I still have her listed, I still have her listed as an attendee, and I've tried to promote her several times to a panelist, but that's all I can do for my end.
[3:48:59] Okay, and I know Suzanne knows how to reach us.
[3:49:03] So she's not able to call in if she would like to send her comments via email.
[3:49:08] It's public comments at LaSaltosCA.gov.
[3:49:14] Thank you.
[3:49:15] I don't see any other hands raised.
[3:49:16] Is that correct, City Clerk?
[3:49:18] That's correct.
[3:49:19] Thank you.
[3:49:20] So let's bring it back to council for discussion.
[3:49:25] And Mr. England and Mr. Hernandez laid it out really well at the beginning where, you know,
[3:49:32] They mentioned what brought us here.
[3:49:34] And three of the five of us were actually
[3:49:36] on council in January, 28, 2020.
[3:49:40] When we all supported it was a five-zero vote,
[3:49:43] I actually rewatch that council meeting today,
[3:49:47] and watch that discussion.
[3:49:49] And so for me, it's a lot of the things that are being raised.
[3:49:54] We discussed, deliberate, and actually
[3:49:56] made some decisions back in January.
[3:49:59] Thanks for watching, and don't forget to like, share, and subscribe to our channel.
[3:50:00] 2020. But we have a license agreement with some different terms and it's a new council.
[3:50:07] And so, you know, we could, we could just make a motion right now to again have the city manager and staff work with the friends to negotiate a agreement similar to what we did in January 2020 with these new terms.
[3:50:21] And I'm ready to make that motion, but I will allow for discussion because I'm sure my colleagues want to discuss this.
[3:50:30] But I will look for raise hands so that we can start the discussion.
[3:50:34] And again, as Mr. England said, you know, the first policy question and that's what we're tasked with doing as a city council is to make policy decisions.
[3:50:42] is whether or not, you know, we support the use of this public space.
[3:50:49] We support the friends of the library using this public space for their operations.
[3:50:56] And so with that, let me see if there are any hands raised to start us off in addressing that policy question.
[3:51:05] So we're not looking at the terms of the agreement.
[3:51:07] Let's first figure out if there's enough support
[3:51:09] to continue having the friends on our civic site.
[3:51:14] And so, council number minutes.
[3:51:18] Thank you, Mayor.
[3:51:19] So, I should say I am the council liaison
[3:51:24] to the Library Commission,
[3:51:26] and I also sit on the North County Library Authority
[3:51:31] along with you, Madam Mayor and others.
[3:51:35] And as I mentioned earlier,
[3:51:37] I did speak with Catherine. I spoken to quite a few people about this. Back to the policy question,
[3:51:48] in my mind there was another policy question. I wanted to throw into the mix and gave
[3:51:54] this probably going, oh no, but, but in my mind,
[3:52:01] there's the policy question I'm asking myself,
[3:52:05] And I think there's a real community benefit to this is does the council wish to provide space to the friends of the library at one of our two libraries in town.
[3:52:25] So this policy question has outlined in the staff report is very specific to this location.
[3:52:30] And we've heard a number of different options brought up by different speakers.
[3:52:36] We do have two libraries in town.
[3:52:39] So, to me, I had some concerns about the specific government location.
[3:52:45] We know that some of our priorities around the Emergency Operations Center and a new police center.
[3:52:52] And my question clarifying about whether all three structures are considered in this license agreement
[3:52:59] and staff confirmed that they are, so I really think that perhaps we could discuss do we,
[3:53:08] the city want to continue our 40 year partnership with friends and potentially do that on
[3:53:17] one of our two library sites in town. So I'm just going to throw that out there. To me,
[3:53:25] I think that would be something potentially worth exploring
[3:53:31] and gave Ken jump in and tell me that wasn't the question
[3:53:35] that he wanted to ask.
[3:53:38] Councillor Meadows, I think that's a totally appropriate
[3:53:42] policy question for council.
[3:53:45] So it's all under the per view of council.
[3:53:47] This side of our government side is fine.
[3:53:56] Your muted mayor.
[3:53:57] I realized, thank you.
[3:54:00] So thank you for that council member meadows let's let's continue going through and and you know now you know we're considering these different policy questions before us by sneer in ander
[3:54:13] all the firm of Mr. Weinberg please.
[3:54:16] Okay, council member Weinberg.
[3:54:19] I think that's the first time the vice mayor is the first.
[3:54:25] For the most part, I think I agree with what council member meadows said.
[3:54:31] I think that it is, personally, I think that it is absolutely appropriate for the city to allocate space to friends of the library.
[3:54:42] But it is fair to ask is, this is the space that is most appropriate for friends of the library.
[3:54:49] I think there are some things that we should probably put out on the table.
[3:54:53] This may be a 10 year lease, but I think the reality is is that if we enter into that lease but like if we enter into this
[3:55:01] I believe this was permanent. There's no guarantee that there's going to be a new library or a renovated library within 10 years. And even if there is, it's going to be expensive to build. And there's going to be a lot of competition for that space.
[3:55:16] Traditional library services, community rooms, something is going to have to give us some point because we're not going to have a blank check here.
[3:55:25] And someone's going to say, friends of the library already has a facility so they don't need to be in the library.
[3:55:31] I think that's that's pretty easy to foresee coming up.
[3:55:37] One of the public commenters who need Validas brought up the idea of having a storefront downtown and selling online.
[3:55:46] And it's my understanding that the friends of the library is already starting to do that.
[3:55:50] I mean, maybe the stake, but I think that they are doing that.
[3:55:53] Yeah, and I am hopeful that that's going to start generating a lot of money for that.
[3:55:59] It was kind of a long-winded way of me saying I'm concerned about having a portable
[3:56:03] at that location for not 10 years, but 30 to 50 years.
[3:56:11] I believe that the wooden library would be a better solution. I think that there actually is a
[3:56:16] lot of space there. I think that there's a lot of opportunity there. The one thing that the
[3:56:23] and Catherine and I discussed this is a large covered facility for them to have a bookstale
[3:56:29] in case there is increment weather, and then I have a bookstale that's going to be outside.
[3:56:34] But I talked about this with a former council member and she wound up the idea of
[3:56:38] looking to close off grant frontage road or when laying of it, you get a food trucks out there,
[3:56:43] people could come to the friends of library, sales and events, and they wouldn't be competing with
[3:56:47] restaurant downtown. I mean, it really could, it could revitalize with a library to an extent.
[3:56:55] And, and because friends of the library, I think is going to start making a lot more money
[3:56:59] to online sales and their retail sales. My suspicion is that it could work. I, I do believe I
[3:57:06] am committed to finding a space for friends of the library on city land. What I would like to see is
[3:57:14] giving within the tribe for a year or two.
[3:57:17] And if it doesn't work, let's see why it's not working.
[3:57:20] But what's we enter into a 10 year license
[3:57:22] for this particular spot?
[3:57:24] I think that's it there.
[3:57:26] They're there unless the future council wants to kick them out.
[3:57:35] Thank you, council member Weinberg.
[3:57:37] You're up Vice Mayor Eander.
[3:57:41] I wish you a green, different fact.
[3:57:43] That's the first time I've deferred
[3:57:45] to council member Weinberg.
[3:57:47] I actually don't think that's true,
[3:57:48] But if it is, I'm really sorry, Jonathan, that because, but I, but I'm thrilled that I did
[3:57:55] because I find myself substantially agreeing with what you said and with, with Council member
[3:58:01] Meadows said, first of all, I do want to disclose I did talk with Catherine and I want to
[3:58:07] thank Catherine and everyone involved with friends in the library that's brought us here
[3:58:13] night, because you've been very transparent in your information, in your processes, in your
[3:58:20] thought processes, in your financial situation, in how you want to do business and how you plan
[3:58:28] to do business. And I think that's also partly reflected in the recognition that if you're
[3:58:43] effectiveness comes in versus leasing that the intelligence of making a 10-year commitment,
[3:58:49] if you're going to buy or the need to make a 10-year commitment, if you're going to buy a
[3:58:54] portable. So I think you know, a lot of the business aspects of this, I understand,
[3:59:00] but the question that comes to us from that is, what's the right way for the city to support the
[3:59:07] friends? There's a long tradition, as you pointed out, in a relationship between the city and friends.
[3:59:13] But I also think that much of what Ms. Valid has said,
[3:59:18] what Mr. Spielman said, what some of the people who wrote to us
[3:59:21] said is, and what the city manager laid out for us is a policy
[3:59:25] question.
[3:59:27] Should we commit space in that location for that long
[3:59:33] without having a policy for how we determine what well-intentioned
[3:59:42] successful and helpful parts of our community that are non-profits want when they want a piece
[3:59:50] of our land and if they do, you know, how do we decide that and then how do we decide where they should
[3:59:56] be? I don't want to hold up a decision.
[4:00:00] While we pursue that better solution, that bigger question, that bigger policy question is going to take a lot of thought, I think, because there are a number of non-profits that would very much love to occupy some of our city land without cost, without paying for the space.
[4:00:19] But I do want to support what I think is maybe a developing consensus as articulated by my two colleagues who spoke previously that we ought to look at the two libraries and say, what makes sense.
[4:00:35] We got to look at the operations say, you know,
[4:00:38] is warehousing books on our most sparse
[4:00:43] and important city civic center land
[4:00:48] really the right thing to do.
[4:00:50] And I do have to agree that there's a very good possibility
[4:00:54] that wherever for this land,
[4:00:56] it's gonna be there for more than 10 years.
[4:00:58] And I'm very worried that I'm not prepared to night
[4:01:04] to say that we should execute a 10 year license for that space with the document presented
[4:01:13] in front of us, given the uncertainties and that the future needs that I know are developing
[4:01:19] for how we use our civic center space.
[4:01:23] So I would like to see a tackle the policy question that my colleague, Sally Meadows,
[4:01:30] positive, which is, do we want to provide space and if, if we do, is it space that woodland?
[4:01:39] Is it space that, um, the main library, city, city, the Civic Center somewhere, and perhaps do as, as Mr.
[4:01:48] Windberg brought up, you know, do we want to see this, or, or is it really necessary that the entire
[4:01:55] operation off, take that space. How are some other ways maybe to separate kind of the sorting and warehousing maybe happens one place and on the sales and all that and it might be a better space.
[4:02:08] So, I'll stop my comments there.
[4:02:14] Thanks, Vice Mayor.
[4:02:15] Councilmember Lee Ang.
[4:02:18] Thank you for the comments from my fellow from Vice Mayor and my fellow council members.
[4:02:25] I totally agree that it's a policy question.
[4:02:31] We all agree, you're support to the library
[4:02:34] and the community is cannot be measured.
[4:02:39] And we really value that.
[4:02:42] And by deciding even if we continue to support you
[4:02:47] with city land, we want to support you.
[4:02:51] And the investment you would make,
[4:02:53] you could have a double-wide at Woodland.
[4:02:56] You could have, we could assist in providing more parking there because you have the space to provide more parking.
[4:03:05] So identifying the concern about the lack of parking there, there is space for that as well.
[4:03:11] There is, I love the idea where Councilmember Weinberg said that they could close off the streets,
[4:03:17] And you know, we could have events there from on the library and I think that is a great idea.
[4:03:25] I think it's important to understand and for the public to understand.
[4:03:31] The council is not in a position to do quid pro quotes.
[4:03:36] So when someone made that comment earlier, I think it was a library commission member that was speaking as a resident,
[4:03:44] we do not do quit pro course. So we want to make that clear. But what we want to do is support
[4:03:53] that friends of the library in some way. What is important for me is as you raise that policy question.
[4:04:05] I did have some concerns with the location that it was currently. And also we had
[4:04:12] this valid is, who's a park commissioner that also
[4:04:15] organized that park space is important.
[4:04:18] And so that it is important for us to help you understand.
[4:04:24] We're not kicking you off.
[4:04:27] We're not in a rush to do so.
[4:04:30] We would take the time to help and support you if we
[4:04:36] decide that there is a more transition needed.
[4:04:40] But my concern in keeping it at this location was all the things that we would need to
[4:04:47] space for as identified from my fellow council members regarding EOC, if there was an
[4:04:54] emergency, I think that such as in November, this.
[4:05:00] We had their community center burned down. They needed their space. And I didn't want our space to be tied up for 10 years. But it would have allowed us if any emergency would occur. Of course, we don't want it to occur. But if we wanted locate the services at its, you know, civic center site that we deemed valuable, we would like to keep it there. And we would not like to be limited.
[4:05:26] And I think right now, it's very limiting by having a 10-year contract.
[4:05:33] So I really think that it's important for us to take the time to create policy, to take
[4:05:40] the time to do what we need to do in having that overlay reviewed by the council.
[4:05:47] We don't even know if that is parkland or public and institutional land.
[4:05:52] If it's park land, we need to determine a policy on park land.
[4:05:57] If it's public institution, we'll need to determine if it's public institution on how we treat them.
[4:06:03] So I think it's important for us to really talk about, you know,
[4:06:09] consideration of wouldn't as my fellow council member stated.
[4:06:15] So I think we can have that discussion now, or if it's pretty clear to everybody.
[4:06:21] Thank you. Thank you, Kazuma really. So I'll go next. And I'll, you know, see what others have said, you know, thank the friends, thank Catherine. I agree with what the vice mayor said about the transparency of the friends have always been very candid and transparent and it's much appreciated. And thanks to staff. I know they've been working with the friends for many months to bring this to us. I really appreciate all the work that went into this.
[4:06:50] I will start out by saying, you know, I appreciate how Council Member Meadows has reframed the policy
[4:06:59] question or has added a second policy question and, you know, have listened into what my colleagues
[4:07:06] have said and response to it. And before I actually go there, I want to start out by saying coming
[4:07:11] into the meeting, having served on council a couple years, being part of the January 2020 council
[4:07:17] that made the decision and gave direction to staff at the time. We had already considered or heard
[4:07:25] from the friends, how much work and consideration went into woodland and all the other sites.
[4:07:32] And at the time, five zero vote, we still supported them remaining on the civic site. And so I do
[4:07:39] not know if anything has changed since January 2020, where woodland is more feasible this time around,
[4:07:46] there are other considerations that we're not considered the last time. But coming into this meeting,
[4:07:52] I was not aware of any changes to the circumstances that would make the Woodland Library
[4:07:57] location feasible this time around, but I'm not opposed to it. So my inclination is actually to
[4:08:06] support the friends staying on the civic center site. That's where they have their operations currently
[4:08:13] established, that's what this licensed agreement considers, and I do want to touch on the
[4:08:18] unique relationship that we do have with the friends of the library. That distinguishes it
[4:08:24] from any other nonprofit that anyone can envision coming forward. Friends, the group has been
[4:08:31] on our civic site for decades, right? What they're really doing now is changing location from
[4:08:38] that one room in our old community center
[4:08:40] to these portables.
[4:08:43] And so because of that unique relationship,
[4:08:46] I think that is an easy way to distinguish friends
[4:08:49] from the other potential non-profits.
[4:08:52] Another thing in councilmember Medis touched on this
[4:08:55] is the community benefit.
[4:08:57] It is undeniable that the friends of the library
[4:09:00] provide a community benefit to our residents
[4:09:03] and that's something we can consider in this decision.
[4:09:06] And I think I heard from everybody
[4:09:07] that we're all in agreement on that point, with regards to adopting a policy, I'm not a post
[4:09:16] of that, but similar to what I think the Vice Mayor said, I do not plan to delay the
[4:09:23] smooths. I know I'd get how long it would take to develop such a policy and we all know
[4:09:27] how that process works here. And so the friends obviously need direction and a decision made
[4:09:33] so that they can expend their funds and make some operational decisions.
[4:09:38] And so I am fine supporting the friends staying on the civic site even without an adopted
[4:09:45] policy. Because I think if we were even to adopt a policy with any such policy, they're always
[4:09:51] exceptions to those policies. And I can already see friends checking a lot of those exceptions. Community
[4:09:57] become a bit long-term relationship.
[4:10:00] All the things that are normally considered when you do exceptions to policies. So in my mind, I'm definitely ready to support the friends remaining on the civic site. Now having said that and hearing from my colleagues who appear to be leaning toward woodland or would like the friends to explore the woodland option, what I would like to put on the table, then we did this in January 2020, is really to delegate the soft authority.
[4:10:30] to our city manager and staff to work with the friends to look at both locations
[4:10:36] and determine which of the two location really works better for the city and the friends of the
[4:10:42] library. So if the determination is made by staff and the friends that woodland works and it sounds like
[4:10:49] the preference is woodland. So if woodland works then that's where we would co-locate the friends.
[4:10:57] But if it doesn't work for the reasons we heard two years ago, then, you know, it sounds as if there would be support to co-locate the friends at the Civic Center.
[4:11:07] So I am ready, I don't see it, you know, we can do another round of discussion.
[4:11:12] But I think I could make a motion where we do a very similar to what we did in January 2020, where we give these criteria.
[4:11:21] And then have staff really, because I think a lot of the things we're raised, we can't decide tonight if it's wood, because I remember there were reasons why it was prohibitive or at the time they thought it was prohibitive and to place it at woodland, it may require expanding additional funds to really make it work.
[4:11:39] And I'm sure the Library Commission would also like to weigh in on such a decision because I used to be the liaison to the Library Commission and they had plans for a Woodland Library.
[4:11:50] So I think there are so many things that need to be fleshed out right now that we don't have that information.
[4:11:55] But I think we trust our city manager and staff to work with friends to say,
[4:12:01] majority are more of us support a co-location with one of our libraries.
[4:12:07] The ideal location or the proper location is woodland.
[4:12:11] But if, whatever reason, it doesn't pan out,
[4:12:16] then we also support going back to the civic site within certain parameters.
[4:12:21] I'm going to stop there. I see the vice mayor. The city manager has his handrails and vice
[4:12:28] mayor's. I want to go to him. Go ahead. I'm saying. Thank you, Mayor. I think staff has direction. I don't
[4:12:35] know that we actually need a motion tonight. The January 2020 direction would still hold and we
[4:12:41] could do exploration with the refined direction for only the civic center site as well as woodland.
[4:12:48] and then determine if we need to come back to council at that point.
[4:12:53] But I think we have direction and I'm comfortable moving forward with the friends.
[4:12:59] Thank you, Mr. England. Now I see the city of authority has our
[4:13:03] race. Go ahead, Jolly.
[4:13:07] I'm just so what are we going to do with the existing race? Are we going to enter into a new
[4:13:15] are we going to enter into a short term license?
[4:13:18] What is the agreement?
[4:13:19] What is the mechanism for this direction?
[4:13:23] Great question.
[4:13:24] Go ahead.
[4:13:25] The January 2020 direction allowed the city manager to execute
[4:13:30] an agreement with a revocable end date by either party
[4:13:36] as long as operations state substantially similar.
[4:13:39] So I would essentially be saying the operations today
[4:13:42] would be in place until we've made a determination if Woodland is feasible, and if not, then we would come back to council for this decision with it sounds like a policy for when we would accept nonprofit use on the Civic Center site.
[4:13:58] And if I could just add to that, Mr. England, you know, and I'd defer again, we're saying we delegate this authority to staff to work with the city attorney, to address the existing October 2019 lease agreement, because that happened, and I know it comes to remember, Meadows knows this timeline well, that happened before a discussion in 2020 and the whole, the goal was to have an agreement based on the January 2020 direction that supersedes
[4:14:29] the October, but it hasn't happened yet, and so we need to make sure you work with the
[4:14:35] city attorneys, and there's no gap in legal contractual coverage.
[4:14:40] Yeah, absolutely not. We'll work with the city attorney and defer to her.
[4:14:45] Okay, Vice Mayor Enaider. I'm going to let my call other colleagues go at least Johnson. He was
[4:14:52] He was quick on the draw.
[4:14:54] She's got her role tonight.
[4:14:56] I've got some of her wide bird go ahead.
[4:14:59] No, I was going to-
[4:15:00] I'm going to bring up the issue that we have an expiring list, but that's been addressed. Thank you, Vice Mayor.
[4:15:08] I'm going to say, I'm not convinced the lease is expiring, because if you read the whole sentence, it says,
[4:15:18] I'll continue until completion of the community center and to set such completion of tenant is still an occupancy.
[4:15:27] So, but I'll leave that to you guys. That's just a detail, but there is a least inspiring.
[4:15:33] But it's on the current portable, but that's a little bit further down the road.
[4:15:38] So anyway, but what I wanted to point out is something else
[4:15:43] that has potentially changed since 2020
[4:15:46] is our considerations for the Civic Center,
[4:15:51] in other words, the pressing need
[4:15:54] for USC police station, and what, you know,
[4:16:00] how much space we need for even small construction there,
[4:16:03] we need to move things around and, you know,
[4:16:05] So our need for where the two sheds in particular are is potentially different than it was when you discussed it in 2020.
[4:16:16] No, I agree.
[4:16:17] It comes from ouramedos.
[4:16:17] And those are considerations that Mr. England would need to factor in when he's having these discussions and doing the analysis.
[4:16:27] Okay, Vice Mayor Enander.
[4:16:32] Mayor, I'm not sure that I'm quite comfortable with your general framework as you outline.
[4:16:39] My concerns are too fold.
[4:16:40] One is that we would be placing a burden on staff to do something that actually is a policy issue that we need to own.
[4:16:50] And that I think we should continue to be a part of in the discussion partly because of things like
[4:16:56] what has changed since a year and a half ago.
[4:17:03] And the other is that I'm not sure that I'm comfortable saying,
[4:17:09] we want to support the friends,
[4:17:11] according to whatever criteria they want to impose.
[4:17:15] And that's what basically you would be saying is
[4:17:17] if they don't find woodland acceptable,
[4:17:20] then we'll guarantee them to come back to the current site.
[4:17:24] And I'm not prepared to give that authority to the staff and to, and that, that leverage quite frankly to the friends, I'm just not quite comfortable with that.
[4:17:36] And so I don't know whether we ought to ask one or more council members to participate with staff in really developing, you know, kind of criteria and concerns and issues and policy, you know, kind of work on some policy issues.
[4:17:55] before we take, essentially to me what we ought to do is develop something and take an offer to the friends and say this is what we can offer you and then give them the opportunity to take advantage of the offer whatever that might be or not.
[4:18:13] The Vice Mayor, let me respond since you're responding to the proposed framework I put forward.
[4:18:18] You know, I think there is, if I heard correctly, at least majority of us who support
[4:18:23] the friends co-locating with one of our library locations, and the preference appears to be
[4:18:32] for woodland. And so the direction to staff would be to work with the friends to
[4:18:41] So co-locate them on our Woodland library location.
[4:18:44] And I do want to clarify, in no way was I suggesting that somehow the staff should just
[4:18:50] accept whatever criteria or reason the friends put forward.
[4:18:55] In any negotiation, it's a back and forth.
[4:18:57] And so if the friends, for example, said, oh, we can't do Woodland because of XYZ, I don't
[4:19:03] expect or staff to take that on face value and just say, okay, you're right.
[4:19:07] I mean, it is definitely an independent analysis and determination that our staff would need
[4:19:13] to make to really conclude that the woodland location, which appears to be the preferable location
[4:19:19] of the two, really doesn't work for us to come back to the Civic Center. And I do think that's part
[4:19:27] of the analysis that they would do. So it would be directing and it's not giving them or authority.
[4:19:35] I mean, we did something very similar in January 2020.
[4:19:39] It's within the parameters of what we've already talked about
[4:19:43] is in the license agreement, it's either woodland
[4:19:47] or the civic center and having them work with the friends
[4:19:50] to co-locate them with a library.
[4:19:52] And that's what it would be.
[4:19:55] So I think that is the direction, this doesn't need to come.
[4:20:00] From back to us, I think this is something that staff can work with the friends on directly.
[4:20:05] Separately, your suggestion about how we move forward with developing a policy on leasing or licensing
[4:20:13] or use of our public space by non-city entities.
[4:20:19] You know, I would look to anything that's a separate question that you send my mind for the city attorney
[4:20:24] and or city manager, because there are policies out there, you know, so we may not immediately need a
[4:20:31] subcommittee, maybe they can work with on something and bring it back to us as a proposal for us to
[4:20:36] consider. And I think, you know, those can be done in parallel. We don't have to wait for one to be
[4:20:42] completed before we move on to the other. So I could support separately some direction to explore
[4:20:48] a lease policy by non-city entities.
[4:20:52] And what I'd find it clarified by the framework I had proposed.
[4:20:55] Yeah, I think the thing that's different compared to 2020
[4:21:00] is what Council Member Weinberg said.
[4:21:02] And that is the greater probability
[4:21:05] that whatever decision we make becomes
[4:21:07] de facto a new permanent location.
[4:21:09] And that is profoundly different, profoundly different
[4:21:13] than the decision and the direction we gave in January 2020.
[4:21:17] I mean, in January 2020, I watched it today, we all agreed that we wouldn't put a term on it, but on the other hand, we all acknowledge it would not be long term.
[4:21:27] We expected it not to be. It was supposed to be like a medium transition trial.
[4:21:31] But we didn't put a term on it. I remember we say five years ago, but let's not.
[4:21:35] Yeah, the issue that came up, and I also went back and watched the whole thing again, because that we originally were going to say, okay, until a library is built,
[4:21:45] until bus bar might became available and the comment from staff was that in either of those events
[4:21:51] it would have to come back to council for a decision. So it wasn't necessary to put that kind
[4:21:57] of forecasting as a part of the motion because it would all come back anyway. But certainly the
[4:22:03] sense of council was not that this would be a long term quasi permanent kind of location and
[4:22:10] I'm just, I'm just not ready to, to make a commitment to a long-time long term quasi-permanent
[4:22:18] location at the Civic Center at this time.
[4:22:25] And I'm comfortable if the woodland location is not feasible to support them co-locating for ten
[4:22:32] years at the Civic site.
[4:22:34] But I want to make sure I see the city attorney go ahead city attorney.
[4:22:40] What I, and I'll let the city manager try and in here as well, I suggest that you make two, you don't have to do motions, you can just do direction.
[4:22:51] Direction on what the city manager and the city attorney and staff are going to look into about the Woodland side, the Civic Center site and explore that.
[4:23:01] And then the second direction would be to direct staff in the city manager, city attorney,
[4:23:10] also then to look into exploring the policy and it would be a bigger broad range policy.
[4:23:20] And I think I've summarized that I asked for Mr. England to try and in, but I think we should
[4:23:27] to it in two steps. One is the first direction, and that follows upon the 2020 direction,
[4:23:34] but it's clarifying that direction, and then to the second one about giving us direction
[4:23:40] about a policy, and I'll let Mr. Dean.
[4:23:46] Thank you, City Attorney. I think for the record, the clarification would be helpful. Those are
[4:23:52] the two items I have as well. So I think just verbalizing that would be helpful.
[4:23:59] As in case we have to come back and look at this later, but I do think we have direction based on the conversation that we've had.
[4:24:11] Thank you. I'm council member Leanne.
[4:24:14] I mean, council member members members go first, but she wanted to chime into what the vice mayor said, so I'll let it go first and then I'll respond after.
[4:24:26] I love how we're all being so courteous tonight.
[4:24:29] I'm always.
[4:24:31] I've got some more more matters.
[4:24:31] I didn't go ahead.
[4:24:33] Okay.
[4:24:34] Thank you.
[4:24:35] Councilman.
[4:24:35] We're laying.
[4:24:37] So I just want to say that the one, the one clarification I want to make
[4:24:44] the, to the framework that you outlined from my own thinking is
[4:24:51] I still think if for whatever reason Woodland wasn't
[4:24:55] feasible. I'm not sure.
[4:25:00] We would still have to look at whether the civic center site is feasible, because I really have a hard time envisioning, even if it were a 10 year, how we're going to be able to do the construction with those sheds there.
[4:25:21] So I did frame the policy question on around, you know, we have two libraries and we'd like to co-locate, but my preference for woodland if that is to work out with all the considerations and the plans potentially for woodland etc.
[4:25:40] I still cannot say right now that I say and then therefore they should stay at the Civic Center because I think with those three structures and our plans I'm not sure that they're compatible and I would need more information
[4:25:58] and telling us why we can do construction for an EOC and a police station with the two
[4:26:06] sheds where they are.
[4:26:08] And we already have to move the IT thing and whatever else, you know, things are already
[4:26:13] going to move around.
[4:26:14] So I'm not convinced that maybe Woodland is infusable, but I'm certainly not convinced that
[4:26:19] the Civic Center is feasible as is either.
[4:26:23] I also remember that I actually want to go to Mr. Hernandez and Mr. England on that question
[4:26:27] because we all know that we are moving forward with an EOC building, right? That is not a
[4:26:34] news. And that was current information when they still brought to us a 10-year license agreement.
[4:26:43] So I assume they factored in the EOC operations and construction and whatever is associated with that,
[4:26:51] taking place with these three structures there
[4:26:55] because that's what they're bringing to us.
[4:26:58] So I wanted go to them to see if they have any concerns,
[4:27:02] because you know, with having the three structures there
[4:27:05] for 10 years, which would overlap with the EOC construction,
[4:27:10] taking place right next door.
[4:27:14] So I guess I will let many correct me if I get this wrong.
[4:27:19] So let's see how I do.
[4:27:20] The current location in the portable as far as operations for public safety, the plan to build a
[4:27:28] NeoC or a potential plan to rehab or rebuild the police building. Current location is not an
[4:27:35] operational work for us. We would have more concern over the storage sheds that are located directly
[4:27:42] adjacent to the public safety building now. Having said that the EOC construction could take place as
[4:27:50] is one thing we haven't done the analysis on is if we get the facility study back and it shows
[4:27:58] what we expect it will show, which is the police building needs a lot of work, then we may
[4:28:04] be thinking differently about that area specifically in the larger campus generally.
[4:28:16] So the consideration is already there, and there are obviously that on knowing about the facilities
[4:28:23] update. But I just wanted to put it out there. This is something that they were proposing when
[4:28:29] we already knew that there would be EOC construction taking place. So I want to go back to
[4:28:37] council member Weinberg. I heard council member Meadows. I'm going to try to sum up what I'm hearing.
[4:28:42] So council member, it sounds like there is many, or any member who's next up, was it,
[4:28:47] didn't she defer to council member Meadows? Yes. Oh, you did. I'm sorry because your hand wasn't
[4:28:52] if I didn't remember, go ahead, comes from a relay.
[4:28:55] So I really am uncomfortable with just giving direction.
[4:29:02] I would be more comfortable with having a motion.
[4:29:05] I would be more comfortable with having some clearer timelines.
[4:29:10] I am, and if so, I'd like to make a motion,
[4:29:15] because I'm not comfortable with the framework
[4:29:18] or the direction you're giving.
[4:29:19] And from what I'm hearing from my fellow council members, I think it needs to have better exploration.
[4:29:29] I like the idea about earlier the Vice Mayor provided some suggestion on perhaps having council members, guide the analysis of it.
[4:29:41] And I think working with staff and having two council members look at this and providing some proposal going forward will be clearer.
[4:29:56] So I'd be glad to make a motion.
[4:30:00] And if my fellow council members want to help frame the motion, they can, but my motion would be to have two members of the council work with staff in looking at the two light would in library and giving clear analysis of how we would make this happen.
[4:30:28] If to be locate, friends of the library there.
[4:30:37] Okay, so we have council member Lee Eng,
[4:30:40] putting a motion to form a council subcommittee
[4:30:44] to work with staff and friends to explore.
[4:30:50] So I'm looking for a second.
[4:30:52] I'm not going to second it and if there's no second,
[4:30:55] I want to basically try to sum up what I'm hearing.
[4:30:59] And before, and see if we can really get some consensus here.
[4:31:05] So thanks for that, Cosmember Liang.
[4:31:07] I don't see a second.
[4:31:09] I had a question, did I, I didn't hear the council member say to include friends, but when
[4:31:18] you, we stated it may or you included friends.
[4:31:21] So I wanted to clarify from the council member whether she was suggesting that this working
[4:31:28] group include friends or not. I motion did not include friends, so I'm not clear on the motion
[4:31:37] and so who would what's the purpose of this group? The subcommittee would work with staff to
[4:31:43] really see to analyze the location of Woodley Library to see how if you could locate a double
[4:31:54] because they're, they're proposal tonight was to have a double wide portable and to see how we could look at possibly adding more parking space and to try to give a good proposal to friends of the library and work, you know, to do that.
[4:32:14] So I'd like to propose that and that's my motion.
[4:32:19] So we have a motion by Councilmember Lee Eng, and I won't try to reframe it in case I
[4:32:26] are.
[4:32:26] So we have the motion.
[4:32:28] I think we all heard it.
[4:32:29] Do we have a second for the motion?
[4:32:34] I'll second it for purposes of discussion for their discussion and comments from my colleagues.
[4:32:40] Thank you, Vice Mayor Ena and so we have a motion by Councilmember Lee Eng seconded by the
[4:32:47] may or there's no additional discussion on this motion. I'm going to go to the, oh, I see
[4:32:53] Council member, Council member Weinberg, I see you have your hand raised.
[4:32:58] Thank you, Mayor, just for clarification.
[4:33:01] If a member votes against the motion, is that supporting the original idea of having
[4:33:07] staff explore the wooden library?
[4:33:09] Yeah. We would still have to revisit what the direction is and what a new motion could look like.
[4:33:16] Okay.
[4:33:19] Oh, I see. So Miss Houston, go ahead.
[4:33:25] I think you can give direction tonight, but I don't believe that I think a subcommittee will be something that you will have to make another.
[4:33:35] At the end of the two directions that I recommended, then you direct this to come back to form a subcommittee, because clearly forming a subcommittee was not on the agenda.
[4:33:44] So, I think we need to restrict that.
[4:33:50] So, thanks for that, Mr. Houston.
[4:33:52] So, Mr. England, go ahead.
[4:33:53] I was going to try to sum up where we are, but go ahead, Mr. England.
[4:33:57] Mayor, that's what I was going to train.
[4:34:00] That's what I was going to train.
[4:34:00] The council has three options before it tonight.
[4:34:03] It can vote to enter into or reject it in your lease.
[4:34:07] It can give staff direction, narrowing the direction we had earlier,
[4:34:12] a long looking at two sites, or it can give staff direction to bring this item back, including
[4:34:19] the formation of subcommittee in two weeks. But we would actually be able to take a vote
[4:34:24] on that first one, which is the item before it. So the discussion is fine. The direction is
[4:34:29] fine and we're happy to come back in two weeks with anything council wants. Thank you, Mr. England.
[4:34:34] It's three weeks because of that odd week. But yes. So let me try to tackle that second one based
[4:34:41] what I've heard from majority or more of us.
[4:34:45] So it sounds like we have majority of us in agreement
[4:34:48] to direct staff, to work with the friends,
[4:34:52] to explore the feasibility of co-locating them
[4:34:55] at the Woodland Library location.
[4:34:59] We're also direct.
[4:35:00] The city attorney, in particular, to look at the current lease agreement and see if if the
[4:35:07] city manager needs to amend that to ensure we don't have a gap in contractual coverage.
[4:35:14] The third piece, which it's where I am in the minority, but I want to make it clear for the record.
[4:35:20] It doesn't appear as if we have majority support to have the fallback be the civic center in the
[4:35:28] that woodland is not feasible. It sounds like council, if the determination is woodland is not feasible,
[4:35:36] they want it to scale come back to us for us to hear more about locating it on the civic site.
[4:35:45] How do I sum that up correctly? I see council member Meadows, I see council member Weinberg.
[4:35:51] Because we're really angry. What part of what I said doesn't reflect what majority or more of us have talked about?
[4:35:58] Well, I'm concerned about is when you say staff working with friends of the library.
[4:36:05] That was my concern and that's why I wanted the subcommittee. Otherwise, if we're going to have staff working with friends of the library, then we should have staff working with members of the subcommittee of council as well.
[4:36:17] We should include a sound council subcommittee.
[4:36:23] So you'll recall, I'm not, I don't think there's a need for a subcommittee.
[4:36:26] And you will recall, you are one of two subcommittee members who worked on this from months.
[4:36:32] I am, and that's why I'm concerned.
[4:36:35] And it's not for, and it's for the reasons Vice Mayor had alluded to earlier.
[4:36:42] So my concern is either we have a staff analysis, come back, and it's not to work with friends, but to really analyze if it's possible.
[4:36:55] I want to make sure it's a neutral analysis.
[4:37:00] So I expect our city manager and staff would be able to provide a neutral analysis.
[4:37:04] So I want to move this forward and the city attorney said we don't need a formal motion if we go with that number two option, which is to give direction.
[4:37:14] So the first thing is, you know, voting on not approving the license agreement, so we can entertain a motion there, because it's clear from the discussion, there's no consensus for that.
[4:37:25] Then the next thing is to have the direction that I just summed up, which I know at least two
[4:37:30] council members agreed, and I'm happy to make that give that direction and repeat what I just said.
[4:37:39] Sorry, can we have a motion on the table that we haven't voted on Councilmember Lee ang's motion was seconded by the vice mayor.
[4:37:47] We haven't voted on that.
[4:37:49] My interpretation of what the city attorney said is it basically the motion's not in order.
[4:37:54] So that's okay. Because after Kazimim Burley and I want to make the record. So after
[4:37:59] Kazimim Burley and made the motion and it was seconded by Vice Mayor Elander. I
[4:38:04] opened it up for discussion and when I looked at the panelists list, I saw or city attorney
[4:38:09] had our hand raised and that's when she outlined what we really need to be focused on tonight.
[4:38:16] So with that, I will entertain a motion with regards to the license agreement.
[4:38:22] But then really quickly, I had that discussion item, but that discussion item can come back.
[4:38:33] So, we should have had that discussion, and then we can determine whether it should be coming back to a form of subcommittee.
[4:38:42] So that could be another motion.
[4:38:44] And that's the third piece if you remember what Mr. England said. You're correct. That would be the first is the motion on the license agreement.
[4:38:53] The second is direction to staff and the third is whether or not there is support for them to come for us to form a subcommittee for that to come back.
[4:39:06] So, let's start with the motion with regards to the life worth keeping, because I think number three should come before number two.
[4:39:18] Okay, so, council member Leanne, why don't we go ahead and make the request for the future agenda item?
[4:39:24] What's your motion on the subcommittee for it to come back?
[4:39:27] Again, as the city attorney says, that has to come back to us.
[4:39:31] Correct.
[4:39:31] I would like to put a motion that we form accounts of subcommittee.
[4:39:36] They work with staff as well as with if you're going to include friends with friends.
[4:39:42] And that would, you know, come back or the motion is to form a subcommittee.
[4:39:48] And that should come back in three weeks.
[4:39:53] Wait, the attorney's trying to tell us say something.
[4:39:56] What you should just give direction, just direction.
[4:40:11] We'll bring it back and then you can, it will be on the agenda and we'll be able to have a full discussion on it with public input.
[4:40:23] So thank you.
[4:40:25] So let's be clear, though, city attorney, if this is a request for a future agenda item that does not require staff report, then yes, I think we have support from two council members.
[4:40:37] If this is something that will require staff work, it requires three council members. So I want to go back to where we're going.
[4:40:44] And I'm not getting, so starting out with the license agreement, is there a motion, council member Weinberg, I see your hand.
[4:40:54] Mayor, I believe that we should table the question of the license agreement.
[4:40:58] If we take a vote on it and it does not pass, but it turns out the council believes Woodland would not work.
[4:41:04] We may need to have a motion to reconsider to reconsider the license agreement.
[4:41:09] So we just table it for now. Then we don't have to go through that extra step layer. Assuming the license was not supported by image or we.
[4:41:18] We can do it one of two ways, but go ahead. So I am comfortable table in it. We could vote on it now and you could always bring it back as a new item.
[4:41:25] It doesn't stop it by voting on it saying no tonight just so you know.
[4:41:30] But if we don't want to vote on it, we can just table it.
[4:41:36] So what's the consensus by severe e-nander?
[4:41:41] So I think what I would do is move to table the agreement and direct staff to execute whatever extension of the current agreement or a replacement document of similar terms.
[4:42:06] So that there is no gap in a contractual agreement between the city and the friends to bridge the time between the October expiration of the existing enforce agreement and whatever action this council may choose to take in the future on a replacement longer term agreement.
[4:42:32] So, you just collapse the motion with what we're going to make part of the direction, but I think it's fine.
[4:42:38] I think with regards to extending the term of the existing lease, that was going to be part of the direction.
[4:42:42] But it's fine. So, we have a motion by Vice Mayor Enander.
[4:42:46] It's to move to table the current license agreement and then also give authority to the city manager to execute if necessary.
[4:42:58] an extension to the current lease agreement or a bridge or a replacement if
[4:43:05] if the city attorney wants a different agreement then that's fine too. Okay, so
[4:43:10] that's the motion by the vice mayor. Council member Weinberg. I think we can do
[4:43:16] all this just by direction but to the extent we can't ask the motion. Okay, so we
[4:43:22] have the motion by the vice mayor, seconded by council member Weinberg, if there's no other discussion on this tabling, the license agreement,
[4:43:34] and because I'm really and go ahead.
[4:43:36] I'm concerned about this extension thing.
[4:43:43] I just feel that when you do extensions,
[4:43:46] and you're not clear about it,
[4:43:48] it's going to come back and haunt us like it's doing right now.
[4:43:52] And then you're going to and staff has an unfair interpretation.
[4:43:58] Otherwise, we need to make it clearer on timelines or something
[4:44:04] because we need, we need to have some clear guidance and guidelines. So otherwise, when you have
[4:44:12] on least that expires, it goes month to month. The current agreement that we have, I think is substantial
[4:44:21] and it's good enough and we can just let it continue on. But you know, it's not like you
[4:44:33] amount. So I just am uncomfortable with this extension or bridge thing you're you're you're
[4:44:41] you're proposing right now. I'd like to have this table like like like was suggested by council member
[4:44:49] Weinberg and we can have we're going to continue to have the discussion when it comes back
[4:44:55] at the next council meeting because we are providing direction.
[4:45:02] So, because I'm really, I just want to clarify that the motion says if necessary, so if we're a city attorney looks at the lease and doesn't think that we need to do anything, then that's the direction.
[4:45:15] So it's not mandating that she must store a city manager must do a separate bridge agreement or send the term.
[4:45:21] It's looking at the current terms to see what if anything needs to happen so that we don't have a gap in contractual coverage which is something we don't want.
[4:45:30] what the point is that if they do determine its necessary, we should provide clarity as to the term.
[4:45:39] Okay, so I am comfortable with them. We have the motion. We have the motion seconded.
[4:45:46] I'm going to go to the city clerk to court.
[4:45:49] I'd like to put a friendly amendment to a very good and a bunch of additional ones.
[4:46:01] You froze up, Lynette.
[4:46:06] Can you hear me now?
[4:46:08] Yes.
[4:46:09] Can you hear me?
[4:46:11] So the amendment would be it is necessary and you need to provide and it's needed.
[4:46:18] then I extended one year.
[4:46:23] So I'm not so I'm going to go back to the maker of the motion to see if
[4:46:27] the maker of the motion wants to put a term on it. I know, or previous discussions, you don't want
[4:46:33] to tie hands, but maker of the motion, do you want to amend your motion? There's a friendly proposal.
[4:46:39] The city attorney keeps ultimately raising her hand and putting it down. I want to be sure if she
[4:46:43] has anything to say that she says it before I react. Okay, I didn't go ahead. I didn't want to jump in,
[4:46:50] But I just wanted to comment that, I mean, this was a lease, it should be a license,
[4:47:00] there's no real holdover provisions. It's not like a landlord tenant. It's not like a residential lease. So we have a little bit more flexibility, but I think the direction to execute an extension of the current agreement or an agreement that we believe is necessary.
[4:47:20] to cover this extension time, that should be sufficient direction, but so I just wanted to clarify,
[4:47:31] you know, we'll look at it and if we need, we need some sort of extension and if what type
[4:47:37] of agreement it will be, you know, I'll work with the city manager to do that.
[4:47:42] And, okay, given that mayor, I'm comfortable taking a friendly amendment to make it not to exceed
[4:47:49] August 31, 2022?
[4:47:55] Whatever extension of the least term or bridge agreement that gets
[4:47:59] budget.
[4:48:00] Yep.
[4:48:01] Okay.
[4:48:02] So that's now the revised motion.
[4:48:04] Seconder of the motion.
[4:48:06] Do you accept that friendly amendment?
[4:48:12] Sure.
[4:48:15] So we have a motion by the vice mayor seconded by
[4:48:21] How's the member Weinberg City Clerk? Can you please call the roll?
[4:48:27] Sure. Councilmember Meadows? Yes. Councilmember Weinberg? Yes.
[4:48:37] Councilmember Leying? Yes.
[4:48:40] Vice-marrying, Andrew? Yes. And Mayor Flagger. Yes. Thank you. The motion pass is five to zero.
[4:48:48] Thank you, Andrea. So that's regards to the license agreement and also ensuring there's no gap in contractual coverage.
[4:48:58] So the next part of this discussion to close this item before midnight is to give direction, not a motion to the city attorney, the city manager and staff to work with the friends of the library.
[4:49:13] to explore, co-locating the friends of the library at the Woodland Library location.
[4:49:23] If the determination is made that that site is not feasible,
[4:49:30] then the city will city staff will bring back this item to Council for further consideration
[4:49:36] of co-locating the friends at the Civic Center site based on concerns that were raised during
[4:49:44] tonight's meeting. We don't need a second. It's just direction. So unless someone wants to tweak
[4:49:51] that direction and unless Mr. England tells me that direction isn't clear, that's all we need to
[4:50:01] Mr. England?
[4:50:03] We have direction, Mayor.
[4:50:05] Thank you. Okay. So that's it on this item. I am going to close the item. It is.
[4:50:12] All of those are handled.
[4:50:14] Thank you, thank you.
[4:50:15] Oh, go ahead, councilmember Lee Eng.
[4:50:17] I still have that direction that it comes back at the next meeting for us to form a subcommittee as well for council subcommittee on this item.
[4:50:26] So that we're going to have you cover under future agenda items tonight.
[4:50:30] We can do it here or we can do it as part of our normal formal
[4:50:34] I think it should be done here because it's for this agenda item
[4:50:39] So what is your request?
[4:50:42] That this come back so we can form a sub committee to further work with the direction that was given earlier
[4:50:51] Okay, and does this require a staff work?
[4:50:54] No, it doesn't. Okay, so with that
[4:50:57] So with that, you only need one other council member to support you and I know council member met by
[4:51:03] smair e-nander was willing to do so. Is that correct by smair?
[4:51:10] Okay. So we have as a future agenda item
[4:51:13] bringing back the formation of whether or not council wants to form a subcommittee regarding this
[4:51:24] and I want to make sure that councilmember Lee and clearly articulate this subcommittee's role.
[4:51:31] So could you go ahead?
[4:51:34] The sub, I think the vice mayor articulated it earlier and I was, and she can help
[4:51:43] when she stated it earlier if you could help.
[4:51:47] We can provide that to the city clerk for purposes of the agenda.
[4:51:51] But we need to do it on the public record.
[4:51:53] It actually, you got to talk about it.
[4:51:55] I think we did, and I'm not going to, I think it makes sense not to try and call it back out of my memory at this hour to be honest.
[4:52:04] Okay, because a lot of different descriptions were made about this subcommittee.
[4:52:09] And putting the staff report together, I know staff is going to need to know.
[4:52:12] Is it a subbed effort?
[4:52:15] Right.
[4:52:15] Oh, there's no staff work.
[4:52:17] There's no staff report. There's nothing all we have to do is make sure we've got the agenda item stated correctly and I'll then and we'll make sure that that happens.
[4:52:26] Okay, there is anything. We'll put it there. But no, there's no staff report. No staff work on this future agenda item. Okay.
[4:52:36] All right. So it is 1151. We're going to close this item before I do Mr. England and the other questions, clarifications on this item.
[4:52:46] We're clear, Mayor. Thank you.
[4:52:49] Thank you. Okay. So next we will have item number 12, which is our future city council meeting location.
[4:52:58] And so I think Mr. Mayor, no deputy city manager.
[4:53:00] I know we'll be presenting on this.
[4:53:05] Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the council. I actually don't have a presentation and don't have any additional information to provide beyond what is in the staff report.
[4:53:14] So I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
[4:53:18] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and just to highlight what I took from the staff report, it's really focusing on location. It's not getting into the other potential topics here, but it's really, you know, if you were to resume meetings in person, where is that council would we want to have those meetings and I think the two locations proposed are the new community center and the Lacey building. Is that correct?
[4:53:47] Correct. Okay. So any questions for Mr. Magino? Just questions.
[4:53:55] Okay. I see no panelist hands.
[4:53:58] Try to be quick here because people will raise hands after I look over.
[4:54:03] So seeing no hands, let's go to public comment. Do we have any members of the public who would like to comment on this item?
[4:54:12] Yes, Madam Mayor, we have one Roberta.
[4:54:15] Okay. So let's give and report a three minutes. Okay.
[4:54:22] Hi. So obviously, we've used Lacey before. We don't none of us have seen the community center.
[4:54:31] But I did want to make a comment that was made earlier.
[4:54:35] And it's just a positive vaccine was approved as a permanent thing.
[4:54:39] I heard all the news that it would make it a lot easier for cities or governments
[4:54:45] or private companies to require proof of vaccine and I know I carry my proof of vaccine in my wallet and I would like to see to protect.
[4:55:00] People who have, you know, lower communities, seniors, members of the city council,
[4:55:09] that they, that we require a proof of vaccination. I think it's really simple. Once somebody comes to the door, that they should be able to present their vaccination card. And I just think it's, you know, we've got a really good job many of them vaccinated, so it shouldn't be a hassle for anybody.
[4:55:28] But I would like to see that happen.
[4:55:31] I don't care which location it happens at,
[4:55:34] but I would be more likely to come to a meeting
[4:55:38] if I knew that vaccinations were checked
[4:55:44] and that people were socially distance
[4:55:46] and that people were wearing the masks indoors.
[4:55:50] I think that's just good health policy.
[4:55:53] Thank you.
[4:55:55] Thanks, Roberta.
[4:55:57] Okay, don't see any other hands raised, so let me bring it back to the panelists, I'm checking the virtual hands bear with me.
[4:56:06] Calls number LEA.
[4:56:08] I forgot to ask earlier.
[4:56:12] Mr. Mayor, you know, we do have a new HEPA filter system in the new Community Center.
[4:56:20] Is that correct?
[4:56:23] I would have to defer to somebody who's more familiar with the construction of the building.
[4:56:30] I don't know if Mr. Hernandez knows the answer to that question or if he's still on.
[4:56:36] Yeah, I'm sorry, but I don't have that answer.
[4:56:40] I don't have the final paperwork on the systems right now.
[4:56:46] I would say that it's more likely we have one there than we have at one at Lacy.
[4:56:55] Thank you. I still would like a I still like a follow-up to council to ensure that we have
[4:57:02] have a filters. I don't have to get that answer to you. Thank you.
[4:57:07] Okay, council member Weinberg. Thank you Mayor. I move that the council conducted future
[4:57:14] in-person council meetings in the new community center.
[4:57:18] I'm so excited. Motion here is city attorney. We may just need to give direction. Let me make
[4:57:22] Sure, Councilmember Weinberg City Attorney, is there motion or is this just direction.
[4:57:29] Are you there, Miss Houston or Mr. England?
[4:57:33] Mayor, we would prefer a motion on this one.
[4:57:36] Got it. Thank you. Go ahead, Councilmember Weinberg.
[4:57:40] I moved that the Council conducted future in-person meetings in the new community center until such time that the Council chambers are constructed and ready to host meetings.
[4:57:53] Thank you, so we have a motion.
[4:57:54] Vice-meritina, do I see your virtual hand?
[4:57:56] Is that to second the motion?
[4:57:58] I will second the motion and ask that the staff collect information on the Eric
[4:58:08] Change Rate and Hepafilter consistent with best practices as recommended by our County
[4:58:16] health people and report that to the community as a way to help reassure people about the safety of holding the meetings there and that we require proof of vaccination for entrance to the meeting.
[4:58:35] So, vice-meritiner, you collapse the second of a motion and then you, so I'm asking for the maker to accept the additional matters that I've added.
[4:58:49] Okay, so thumbs up. So, friend, you're men and then accepted motion maker by smear your accepted as well as the seconder of the motion.
[4:58:59] Can you have your virtual hand raised?
[4:59:03] Is it from before?
[4:59:04] Or do you have another comment?
[4:59:06] No.
[4:59:07] That my question is now to the city of attorney.
[4:59:11] About how we can mandate this and making sure that we can do so.
[4:59:18] So if I could get clarification on that,
[4:59:21] Greatly appreciate it.
[4:59:23] Because I know for a fact that.
[4:59:25] In another state today, they're getting sued on their mandate to require vaccination.
[4:59:35] So I just want to make sure we're covered.
[4:59:38] So we have to separate, I know.
[4:59:40] So, Council member Liang, that's a separate topic.
[4:59:43] We're not talking about mandating vaccines.
[4:59:45] If you want to raise this later in the meeting when we're doing staff reports, future guidance.
[4:59:50] And I put it in the heart of the motion, you know, yep, the filter, the part of the motion that I heard didn't.
[5:00:00] We have to do with a policy, a city policy related to mandating vaccinations.
[5:00:06] That's what I heard.
[5:00:07] I said for admission to the meeting.
[5:00:10] I did.
[5:00:11] So that is a city policy that separately, this is a location motion.
[5:00:18] So I don't want to collapse the two, and I know Mr. England or Mr. Mayor will chime in here too.
[5:00:25] The direction about the vaccine mandate that has to be handled separately unless what the makers of the motion are saying it's contingent.
[5:00:36] So I'm going to put it back to them because that's not what I only only for the meeting not about the let's not about the location it's for the meet the meetings in that location pending and it's only and limited to that location for our meetings.
[5:00:53] And then, new set of rules whenever we're going to move, wherever we're going to move to.
[5:00:58] So it sounds like the motion for location as Mr.
[5:01:02] Imagineer is asking us is for the community center.
[5:01:06] That's what Mr. Weinberg said.
[5:01:08] Okay.
[5:01:09] Can we take a vote because I know Mr. Imagineer wanted us to focus on, and these are the contingencies I understand.
[5:01:16] But we want to basically give direction tonight on between the
[5:01:21] Lacy building and the new community center, which of those two
[5:01:26] locations does majority are more council member support having future
[5:01:31] in person meetings. That is the immediate question. Now we can talk
[5:01:35] about the other contingencies about mandating vaccines, mass
[5:01:38] requirements and things like that, but I really need us to focus on
[5:01:42] as I can see where this is going.
[5:01:45] So with that motion, can we get a vote on the location
[5:01:49] being the community center over lacing?
[5:01:53] So, Citi Quark, can you please call the roll on that question?
[5:01:59] Sure, just a point of clarification.
[5:02:01] So that the motion was to conduct the in-person meetings
[5:02:06] at the community center until the time
[5:02:08] that the council chambers are ready to hold a meeting.
[5:02:14] Is that the end of the motion?
[5:02:16] Yes.
[5:02:17] Yes.
[5:02:18] And that was seconded by Vice Mayor Enaender.
[5:02:21] Yes.
[5:02:22] Okay.
[5:02:22] And then I will call the roll.
[5:02:25] Councilmember Lee Eang.
[5:02:27] Yes.
[5:02:31] Vice Mayor Enaender.
[5:02:36] Councilmember Meadows.
[5:02:38] Yes.
[5:02:41] Councilmember Weinberg.
[5:02:43] Yes.
[5:02:44] Mayor Flagger.
[5:02:46] Yes.
[5:02:47] Thank you.
[5:02:47] The motion passes five to zero.
[5:02:49] Thank you.
[5:02:50] So then I'm going to turn to Mr. England then to have this discussion about things we want in place in this location we have all selected. So Mr. England.
[5:03:01] Thank you, Mayor. We're happy to bring back information about COVID safe protocols, including any legal implications for requiring proof of vaccination.
[5:03:12] at the next meeting, if that's okay with council. We'd really like time to look at that as opposed
[5:03:18] to responding this evening.
[5:03:22] Thank you for that, Mr. Inwind. Okay, so that's it, Mr.
[5:03:27] Margino, did you need anything else from us?
[5:03:32] Thank you. All right, next we have item 13, which is the
[5:03:39] of the City Council, Lee High-Corey, subcommittee.
[5:03:45] I don't think we have the staff report.
[5:03:48] I think we all know the history here
[5:03:51] and what has occurred to date and because of the time,
[5:03:55] I'm going to look to council members to see
[5:03:57] if they have any questions based on what was in the staff report,
[5:04:01] go to the public and then come back for discussion.
[5:04:04] So any questions about what was in the staff report
[5:04:07] about what we're forming and how this came about.
[5:04:13] Okay, I don't see any hands, Mr. England,
[5:04:17] your hand is still raised,
[5:04:18] but I think that's from item 12.
[5:04:22] And city clerk, do we have any members of the public
[5:04:25] who would like to comment on item 13?
[5:04:32] Yes, Madam Mayor, there is a one person, Roberta.
[5:04:36] Thank you three minutes.
[5:04:41] Okay, just on me to myself.
[5:04:42] Okay, I would just like to say that at least six to eight months ago, I did have a conference
[5:04:49] called with Rotor Fry and Lynette, who made me aware of what's going on on the quarry,
[5:04:58] And I would really
[5:05:00] We'd recommend that we'll not be participating in this because it really is a passenger purse. And the people in South Los Altos will be much more effective than the people in North Altos.
[5:05:11] So I would hope that, you know, since she resides there and has, you know, had a long-term interest in this as she'd be one of the members. That's my suggestion. Thank you.
[5:05:25] Thanks, Roberta.
[5:05:28] Do we have any other members of the public?
[5:05:31] City Clerk?
[5:05:32] No, no matter Mary, you do not.
[5:05:35] Thank you.
[5:05:36] And as we bring it back to Council,
[5:05:38] you know, I do want to make sure the record is clear.
[5:05:41] You know, Los Alters doesn't have district representation.
[5:05:45] So it doesn't where you live in Los Alters.
[5:05:47] You represent the entire community and you represent the entire community's interests.
[5:05:52] So I just want to make sure that's clear that where someone resides doesn't mean that they somehow have more of an interest or would better represent the residents in that area of the community.
[5:06:05] So having said that, I do want to see if we have any discussion on this.
[5:06:11] You know, and I can start us off and, you know, we know the history, I'm not going to rehash everything because of the time.
[5:06:19] You know, when this originally came up, I had proposed being the mayor and a lot of these things require or they invite the mayor to present or speak.
[5:06:29] But I along with Council Member Meadows made sense to be on the subcommittee because she's the council liaison to the Environmental Commission and we had envisioned back then that the Environmental Commission may also
[5:06:41] have a role to play here. And don't go out of Brown Act violation. I had suggested at the time
[5:06:47] that myself as mayor and councilmember Meadows should serve on this subcommittee.
[5:06:54] Councilmember Lee Eng has expressed an interest in serving on this subcommittee. We just
[5:07:00] heard from a member of the public who supports that as well. And I can just, you know, I will speak
[5:07:05] for myself. I'm I'm I'm fine supporting stepping back and having council member meadows and council member Leang serve on this subcommittee my only request is that it's it be structured very similar to our legislative subcommittee where for letters and things that require the mayor of course I'm not going to brown act if that's what the council decides tonight.
[5:07:32] But there's things, for example, that letters that need to come from the mayor, or for example, if a county supervisor calls me or whoever the mayor is and says that would like you to appear at a press conference.
[5:07:44] Obviously, I would do that separate in a park from the subcommittee.
[5:07:48] We also learned that there's a planning commission meeting this week at the county related to, you know, it's not a direct issue, but it is related to our interests.
[5:07:59] And that's something we are, for example, I could send a letter on behalf of the city without being brown acted with the council members because I do that in my mayor capacity.
[5:08:09] So I am happy to step down from throwing my name in this hat and deferring to council member Leang and council member Meadows to serve on this subcommittee.
[5:08:20] Very similar to what we do at the legislative subcommittee, and I don't know.
[5:08:24] I know council member Lee Eng has expressed an interest.
[5:08:27] Council member Medios, I don't know if you've changed your mind since the last time.
[5:08:31] You're not on the housing element of committee, so I'm hoping.
[5:08:34] And you do have, I really, you know, when I'm thinking about it, I really think for two
[5:08:38] reasons, it makes sense for you to be on the subcommittee, one, the Environmental Commission.
[5:08:41] But you also have the expertise.
[5:08:43] You did work in this area.
[5:08:46] And so that's what I would propose that we have those two council members formed the subcommittee.
[5:08:54] And then if they're support for that, then let's define what the role looks like because I know from talking to many people over the last several months, there's a lot of unknowns right now about what direction any and all of this will take and so we need to make sure that the subcommittee clearly understands their role and what they're delegated to do within the subcommittee.
[5:09:20] So I'm going to scot there. That's my two cents by smear e-nander.
[5:09:25] There I'd like to make two comments. One is to thank you for graciously offering to step back
[5:09:33] because before I was even on the planning, I think what I was on the planning commission.
[5:09:38] I'm thinking about running for council.
[5:09:41] Council member Lee Eng said to me, you need to go find out about Steven's Creek Quarry.
[5:09:45] and she gave me a brief on it. And she dragged my rear end out to one of Supervisor
[5:09:52] Samdians meetings. And I was the only council member, prospective council member, or council member, who was at that meeting.
[5:09:59] And the next two.
[5:10:01] But she was there. And she was aware of what was going on and has been for years. So she really has an in-depth long-term knowledge of the issues with the quarry, and I think she will do well. And I'm confident that council member Meadows will similarly come up to speed, and that they will work well together on this. In terms of a specific task, I'd like to offer that we do something broadly tonight.
[5:10:29] And then we ask them to come back and report
[5:10:32] at our next meeting with any refinements or changes
[5:10:36] that they would propose to that tasking.
[5:10:40] And I'd like to suggest that the tasking is too full.
[5:10:44] One is to be outward looking and to be participating in
[5:10:49] and aware of briefings, meetings, communications and so on,
[5:10:56] that emanate from the county and from the city of Cupertino because and other entities that have
[5:11:03] a hand in regulating what occurs at the quarry and then it also be inward looking so that any
[5:11:12] impacts on the city or our residents can be reported either as as channels may be appropriate
[5:11:21] it may be to staff for action or for dissemination of information to our community and you've already
[5:11:29] covered any communications that would be urgent, but otherwise if there are communications that
[5:11:36] they recommend that those would flow through the normal channels as we do with legislative committee.
[5:11:45] You know, thanks, Vice Mayor Enaender. Any other comments on this?
[5:11:48] I have some member matters. You want to weigh it here?
[5:11:53] Yes, I would be happy. I have some very, very dusty expertise.
[5:11:59] My chemistry degree comes out of the drawer very, very late, but I'll take it out for this.
[5:12:06] And I would say, though, I think it's no good question. Maybe we don't deal with it tonight, but
[5:12:12] We were going to have some discussion around what role the environmental commission might play to. So maybe that's something council member laying and I can talk about and then I could take to the commission and we can come back to council with that because they should I think be playing a role in this and you can help figure out what that should be.
[5:12:34] And I will mention that one second, Vice Mayor.
[5:12:38] Vice Mayor.
[5:12:40] Councilmember Weinberg, I don't see your hand raised.
[5:12:46] I'm going to court with the general consensus of the council.
[5:12:50] Councilmember Lee, and you have your hand raised.
[5:12:54] So I think it was also the subcommittee was going to work with midpin,
[5:13:00] because they are taking the lead on the subcommittee as well.
[5:13:03] So we would be working with their direction as well.
[5:13:10] Yes.
[5:13:13] And I will leave it to the subcommittee.
[5:13:14] I know you know you Rico.
[5:13:16] And so reach out to them.
[5:13:18] Let them know we finally formed our subcommittee and we're ready to go.
[5:13:24] So vice mayor in under back to you.
[5:13:26] Only to add that.
[5:13:28] At those meetings that I attended that.
[5:13:31] Mr. Weedon who serves as a long-saving number of the.
[5:13:35] environmental commission was all at all of those also and he is already, you know, very well,
[5:13:39] briefed on what's going on with the court. Thank you. And I really say I've been to Lee
[5:13:44] High meetings as well. Maybe not all the ones you've been to, but I know I've been to many as well
[5:13:49] and I'm very familiar going years back with my previous employer working and learning about this.
[5:13:56] So with that, it looks like we have consensus. I think we need a motion to form this some committee.
[5:14:01] I am comfortable with the role that the vice mayor described and I like the idea of the subcommittee coming back to us,
[5:14:10] flushing out more what this role is and potentially how the environmental commission could play a role here.
[5:14:17] So with that, I will entertain a motion to do just that.
[5:14:21] I'll move that we a point that we establish the City Council, Lehigh, Cori, some committee with the initial appointees to be Council members Leang and Meadows and the broad scope as outlined in our previous discussion to be further refined based on their conversation, especially with respect to the involvement with Midpen and
[5:14:50] And the environmental commission and staff in me go and staff thank you
[5:14:56] Okay, so we have a motion do we have a second
[5:15:03] Okay, seconded by council member Meadows. So we have the motion by Vice Mayor Enander, seconded by council member Meadows, city clerk, can you please call the roll.
[5:15:13] Here, council member Weinberg?
[5:15:19] Council member Leying?
[5:15:23] Mayor Flagger?
[5:15:26] Vice Mayor Enander?
[5:15:28] Yes.
[5:15:29] And council member Meadows.
[5:15:34] Can't hear you sour.
[5:15:38] Yes, I'm sorry. It was shown me as being a muted again. Yes, yes. Thank you. The motion passes five to zero. Thank you. There is a delay. Thank you. Okay. It's after midnight. Let's keep going. How's our meeting more. Yeah, one more thing on that item, please. I don't know if we need a motion, but like we stated, there's a planning commission for the county coming up on Thursday. And I'd like to make sure that we.
[5:16:05] send a letter supporting that position and so is that a direction and do you want
[5:16:13] that's handling just like you the scope is broad and I do think this falls within the
[5:16:17] scope so if you and and councilmember meadows what to put a letter together for my signature
[5:16:23] you know we just need to get it to angel and he knows how to get it over to this county
[5:16:27] okay wonderful thank you
[5:16:31] Okay, I'll bring you the drafts.
[5:16:34] It's ready to go.
[5:16:37] Okay.
[5:16:39] Next, we have number 14, which is the designation of the voting delegate, an alternate
[5:16:44] and as you know, it's myself and council member Weinberg for going so this shouldn't be an easy item.
[5:16:50] But we still have to go through the process.
[5:16:53] So any questions on this item?
[5:16:56] Because when we're reading, you have your hand raised.
[5:17:00] Sorry, that was from a previous.
[5:17:03] Oh, okay.
[5:17:04] Get the freebies.
[5:17:05] Bring me back the doggy toy to again.
[5:17:08] That was fun.
[5:17:10] So moving to attendees and a comments from the public on this item city clerk.
[5:17:18] No, no members of public wishing to speak.
[5:17:21] Okay.
[5:17:22] So let's bring it back to council for discussion or emotion.
[5:17:26] Any discussion?
[5:17:27] Any motion?
[5:17:29] Council Member Weinberg.
[5:17:32] Madam Mayor, surprisingly, I moved that you be the delegate to the League of California
[5:17:39] cities, and that, humbly, I will put my own hat in the ring to be the alternate.
[5:17:46] So we have a motion by Council Member Weinberg.
[5:17:50] Council Member, can you have your, is that the second it?
[5:17:53] Yes.
[5:17:54] Okay.
[5:17:54] So we have the second by council member Lee Eng, city clerk, can you please go ahead and call the world.
[5:18:01] Sure, council member Meadows. Yes.
[5:18:05] Council, uh, like Mayor Flagger. Yes.
[5:18:10] Thank you.
[5:18:10] Thank you.
[5:18:11] Yes. Council member Lee Eng. Yes.
[5:18:16] And council member Weinberg. Yes.
[5:18:19] Thank you. The motion passes by to zero.
[5:18:21] Thank you, City Clerk, and then the next item, I had said at 9 p.m. that we were going to
[5:18:29] continue it, but skip it, and I don't see any hands being raised over ride that.
[5:18:36] So let's go to informational items, which are there as you know, they're just in the packet for informational purposes.
[5:18:43] And so next we have council staff reports and directions on future agenda items.
[5:18:49] Mr. England, this is your first time doing this with us.
[5:18:52] Sometimes we have a staff report first.
[5:18:54] Sometimes we go first if you're ready to go.
[5:18:56] Let's start with you.
[5:18:58] I have nothing more other than we have the items for future council meetings on the agenda.
[5:19:06] Thank you.
[5:19:07] So council members and it reports or requests for future agenda items.
[5:19:14] I'm going to look at virtual hands council member Lee A.
[5:19:21] Tonight Director Kremlin shared some information on water saving rebate programs.
[5:19:28] I'd like to make sure that that is on our website.
[5:19:31] so the public can have access on how to access, rebate programs, and free items from the Santa
[5:19:39] Clara Valley Water District. The second thing is for future agenda items, I would like to
[5:19:48] or I am interested in having a discussion for how we keep our city open to serve our constituents
[5:19:56] 5 days a week as we look to the future.
[5:20:00] And when we reopen again, I think it's important that as we reopen, we can safely do so, but I would like to better understand the impacts on the schedule and the possible labor impacts that may occur. So I hope we can have a discussion about that.
[5:20:25] So that would be a future agenda item which would require staff work and I think you're talking about revisiting the 1980 schedule is that the request.
[5:20:37] No, no, no, I can understand this understood. So what is the request so we can see if there's support to put it on a future agenda.
[5:20:44] How we would to, I guess the question that we'd like to try to see if we can, how we're going to serve our constituents and how to get our city open back again five days a week.
[5:21:01] Coming out of a COVID going back to the pre-COVID schedule.
[5:21:05] going coming out of COVID yes, is it the pre-COVID schedule? No, that's why we got to talk about it.
[5:21:15] And, you know, try to modify it because as our schedules have changed, we could either try to talk about having
[5:21:27] to have the staff work Monday to Thursday and then the other half working Tuesday to Friday.
[5:21:35] And so every visiting, it is revisiting the staff's current 9080s.
[5:21:40] It is. You're trying to get, I know. Yes.
[5:21:43] So the question.
[5:21:45] And before we see if there's council support for that, I want to see if Mr. England has any staff,
[5:21:51] labor concerns related to bringing that to a public agenda.
[5:21:57] Mayer, at this time, we're still going through meeting with labor groups and determining
[5:22:04] meeting confer for return to in-person work. So, well, I'm totally open to having this conversation
[5:22:11] with Council. I will say at this stage on the job, I'm not prepared to address it until we get our
[5:22:18] return to in-person work correct. And then I think we should talk about how we best serve the residents.
[5:22:25] Thank you. Thanks Mr. England. Anything else can you remember the end?
[5:22:37] I wanted to ask if we feel it would be good for us to have a real retreat on relationship building.
[5:22:46] I think that it might be helpful.
[5:22:51] I think right now I'd like to pose the idea so you can think about it.
[5:22:57] But we can have that discussion, but it'll be hard virtually right now, but just I'd like to at least have the thought and then have it for future discussion.
[5:23:10] You planted the seed.
[5:23:12] And we'll see with the upcoming annual retreat priorities that whatever we call it, if that may be where we put it, but you're planning to see.
[5:23:20] Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Lee, Eng. Councilmember Weinberg.
[5:23:27] Thank you, Mayor. I have a brief report and then I would like to propose to future agenda items.
[5:23:32] In my report, I am proud to review out of the council that I have been selected to join the Champions Institute, which is a program for elected officials put on by smart growth America, and this is in conjunction with the Center for these controls and a lot of other organizations.
[5:23:54] The goal of the Champions Institute is to help create local look at the officials to equitably define, design, build and evaluate complete streets in their communities.
[5:24:06] And the goal is to empower us to promote and help build this complete streets, which in turn are designed to promote a healthy and active lifestyle.
[5:24:14] Apparently it was a very competitive process, so I'm happy that I was selected.
[5:24:18] I think the timing is perfect because we're putting together our complete history's master plan and it just so happens that I'm a liaison to the commission so
[5:24:27] a very special thank you to the mayor and to the city manager for both of these letters of recommendation.
[5:24:33] To where I will thank the chair of that commission so I'm very excited about that.
[5:24:37] I think that this is going to give me some tools to really help promote better equitable healthy active streets.
[5:24:46] In terms of future agenda items, I would like us to agendaize the question of whether the city should be
[5:24:54] choir that all city employees be vaccinated for the virus.
[5:24:58] I think it's going on.
[5:25:00] We're going to go around, but nationally and locally. It's something that I think I support, but whether we support it or not, I think it's appropriate for us to have the conversation and for us to have it soon since we're opening up.
[5:25:12] So let's stop there. And because we're a wide and we're going to of course, congratulations well deserved.
[5:25:18] For the champions Institute. Let's go to the city manager about what is the process to really consider that type of policy.
[5:25:28] Mayor, the city manager has the authority to mandate that certainly council, I would also have the authority to provide direction and vote on it in mandate it as well.
[5:25:42] I would suggest that if council would like to discuss that we determine if there's a brown act exemption, there will certainly be impacts to labor unions and certainly be likely litigation.
[5:25:55] So, if Council would like to discuss it, staff can prepare that.
[5:26:00] If Council would like to request the City Attorney looking at Brown Act exemption for a closed session, we could explore that as well.
[5:26:08] So, let's see if there's support from Council for the City Manager and City Attorney to explore that.
[5:26:14] So, we have, I support the City Attorney, the Vice Mayor, is it unanimous? Well, Councilwoman Liang, I don't see your hand.
[5:26:22] I have a question, I have a question.
[5:26:24] Go ahead, councilmember.
[5:26:26] I guess we're exploring it, right?
[5:26:30] Because I'd like to better understand.
[5:26:32] He raised a good point that I am concerned about is the litigation aspect.
[5:26:39] So, I just want to make sure we get more information before we proceed.
[5:26:44] So the direction is for the city attorney to work with a city manager to determine
[5:26:49] And if there is a brown act exemption for us to have this discussion and co-session, and then we go from there and I go up to my, my, my, my, my, I froze. And so you said the city attorney and then everything froze. So more memos and what am I looking into now, it froze.
[5:27:09] So, council member Weinberg proposes a future agenda item, council discussing having a mandatory vaccination policy.
[5:27:21] Oh, Mr. England explained that once he has the authority or city manager to enact such a policy without council weighing in, even though council could do it as well.
[5:27:33] But separately, because they're labor implications and potential lawsuits that this could fall within a brown act exemption, and so he would work with you if there's interest in council and having this discussion, work with you and seeing if there is in fact a brown act exemption and so we can agenda is it for closed session.
[5:27:53] Okay, thank you.
[5:27:54] You're welcome.
[5:27:55] Okay.
[5:27:55] So council member Weinberg, I think you said you had a second item.
[5:28:01] I did. Thank you, Mayor. I move that the council consider whether or not to adopt the policy of censure slash
[5:28:10] admonition.
[5:28:12] So it's not a motion, but you're proposing it as a future agenda item.
[5:28:16] And I supported, I would want it to be broader not just admonition or censure, but it's actions we can take to respond to violations of our norms.
[5:28:25] So, I support it. We need to three because this requires staff work. Do we have a third? Okay,
[5:28:31] customer remettos. So we have at least three council members supporting staff working on a proposed policy.
[5:28:39] That would allow us to take action if there's violation of our enormous.
[5:28:44] Okay, is that it council member Weinberg?
[5:28:49] Who's next?
[5:28:51] Vice Mayor Enaider. I can see everybody now.
[5:28:53] Oh, that's good. Enough people have dropped on.
[5:28:57] It's late. So for future general items, I know that the C manager has an update on ARPA and tentatively a report on kind of a preliminary FY 2021, 2021 end of year.
[5:29:14] I hope that we can get an end of year, you know, first shot at how things are looking.
[5:29:20] I think that's important because I understand there may be some adjustments we need to make for the 21-22 year.
[5:29:30] Excuse me, excuse me, 22-23 year and also we have postponed making some decisions about the CIP and so it would help to know how things excuse me just a minute.
[5:29:43] I'm going to go out on your bed.
[5:29:48] Excuse me.
[5:29:49] Bless you.
[5:29:51] Thank you.
[5:29:52] It would be good to know in September.
[5:29:55] How things looked for end of year.
[5:29:58] And then I've also.
[5:30:00] Suggested and hope that in the December 14 meeting that if possible, we can look at, and we said we were going to look into December at the CIP projects that we deferred.
[5:30:13] So I'd like to see the city manager try to get us on track where we can look at those CIP projects that were deferred and see whether we want to enter in a position and move forward with any of them.
[5:30:25] And also that we approve a meeting calendar at our December meeting for next year so that we've
[5:30:35] forecasted holidays and all those kinds of things and need for some possibly some extra meetings.
[5:30:41] The other thing is I don't know whether or when engineering is planning to come back with some information
[5:30:49] on the quest to speed tables that was certainly a discussion and part of a motion when we
[5:30:56] approved the, we finaled that project, but that should get added to the list somewhere along the line.
[5:31:04] Mayor, just down that for clarity, Arpa is coming in September.
[5:31:09] The end of year will likely be in October. It gives us time to close the books.
[5:31:14] We also have a new finance director and finance manager coming on, so it'll give them a good opportunity to learn
[5:31:19] the budget. CIP, we have in December that maybe January, but council may have a larger look at the budget.
[5:31:30] So it may expand beyond just CIP. The calendar is fine. The quest to speed bumps. I want to
[5:31:39] look at the motion. I think I'm not sure if that needs to come back to council or not. I'll
[5:31:46] at the motion, I do know that we need to make changes to the speed bumps, but we have pretty good
[5:31:52] guidelines with public safety and fire for what the speed bumps should be, how they should be
[5:31:57] engineered, how they should be installed in the field, and what we've installed is outside of those
[5:32:02] standards.
[5:32:05] So that's good feedback to have already. Thank you very much, and that's all I have
[5:32:15] and go ahead with the state, we're having a new finance director and when is she start, or she, or that person?
[5:32:25] The finance director, I haven't got the final, the final look in the background.
[5:32:31] So I can't announce it yet, but it will be in September. We don't have any concerns.
[5:32:37] They're just moving a little bit slow on the background check.
[5:32:40] And the finance manager accepted today and I think she is also serving September.
[5:32:46] So my request because this hasn't always happened and I hope I think you would do this anyway, Mr. England.
[5:32:54] But with key staff, especially like department heads, it'd be nice to get when you get those finalized if you drop us an email and tell us who and their names and we're going to.
[5:33:04] Absolutely, we will.
[5:33:05] Thank you.
[5:33:06] Thank you. And we've done it a couple of times as well just to add to that, where if they're really at that director level, you bring them to a council meeting and do a formal intro.
[5:33:16] Okay, so is that it vice mayor in ander, okay, and nothing your race was new, you were just bringing up existing items and figuring out what they were there were a couple of things that weren't on on the calendar yet, right, but I had I set a prelim off to Mr. England said, and want to catch him on a wares tonight.
[5:33:34] Great.
[5:33:35] Thank you.
[5:33:36] Who is next? City Attorney go ahead.
[5:33:40] I've been given direction to, you know,
[5:33:44] look into the Brown Act on agendas.
[5:33:46] I have a memo on that.
[5:33:47] I've been directed to look into the NIMBY lawsuit
[5:33:54] and the pros and cons of that.
[5:33:58] And there was a, I think I was.
[5:34:01] And then there was a third one.
[5:34:06] And now I can't remember because it's so late, but I do, I do have those memos and I'll be sending them out to you.
[5:34:15] It was, it was, it was the Brown Act, it was Yimby and it was something else and I can't, I can't remember at this point.
[5:34:25] So, but they will be coming out.
[5:34:28] Great. Thank you.
[5:34:30] Okay, because that is any reports or requests for future agenda items, nothing that I can think of at the moment.
[5:34:41] It's late, so I'll be quick.
[5:34:44] I would like to congratulate the Los Angeles Hills softball team for winning or annual friendly game.
[5:34:53] You know, thanks to our Los Alces team for doing a good job. It just wasn't our year.
[5:35:00] Mayor Tonka and I had talked about doing some kind of wager. And we really couldn't come up with anything, but what we decided on was, you know, I would wear a Los Alzos Hills hat. And she has already left it at their town hall. I actually was supposed to pick it up today and wear it tonight, but I wasn't able to go up there. And so because we lost, I, you know, I promised Mayor Tonka, I would wear a Los Alzos Hills hat around town and then I come up with a
[5:35:29] for meeting, so you'll see me dawning. I will solve those pills cap. And then Mayor
[5:35:36] Tonka and I also said, you know, we would love for the two cities to work on something
[5:35:40] before the end of the year. So stay tuned for that. So that's it for me. I have no
[5:35:46] requests for any future agenda items at this time. If nothing else from Council, we don't
[5:35:51] take public comments on this item as everybody knows. And so with that, we will adjourn
[5:35:57] meeting at 1235 AM. Thank you and welcome back again.