March 5, 2025 Council Policy and Procedures Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:48] Member Lucas Ramirez: Welcome to the March 5th, 2025, meeting of the, um, let's see, uh, council, uh, policies and procedures committee, um, This meeting is being conducted with a virtual component, so anyone wishing to address the committee virtually may join the meeting online. Um, Or by dialing 669-9009128. I believe the Zoom link is in the agenda, which is posted online. Uh, and uh, the webinar ID is 847 by 4933805. Uh, when the chair announces the item, On which you wish to speak, click the Ray's hand button feature in Zoom or dial star 9 on your phone, when the chair calls your name, um, to provide public comment, if you're participating in VFO, please press star 6. Meet yourself, any emails received by 8 AM today, we're forwarded to the CPDC. Email is received after 8 AM will not be read during the meeting, but will be entered into record for the meeting. Recently, regional, local elected, and appointed bodies have been subject to subjected to disruptive racist verbal attacks by anonymous callers during virtual public comments. City Mount Musical, we committed to racial, religious, and cultural equity and justice as we strive to create a welcoming, safe, and inclusive community for all. This advisory body commission welcomes respectful and non-threatening public comments regarding matters on which, over which the advisory body commission has jurisdiction, comments deemed otherwise, pursuant to council code of conduct in the government code. Maybe grounds for immediately terminating the speaker's comment period. Um, and we'll start Ms. Thomas with our...

[00:02:24] Ms. Thomas: Great, Council member Ramirez.

[00:02:26] Member Lucas Ramirez: Here. Here.

[00:02:26] Ms. Thomas: Clark.

[00:02:27] Member Chris Clark: I'm here.

[00:02:28] Ms. Thomas: And Council McGregor McAllister is absent. Um,

[00:02:32] Member Lucas Ramirez: so item 3 is minutes approval, the CPPC minutes, um, from November 20th, 2024 or in the packet. Um, does anyone have, um, Any comments requesting regarding the minutes? No None But, um, is there any public comment on the minutes? Any? Um, Uh, so emotion would be in order to maybe minutes, doesn't. And I'll 2nd that. Um, So we'll do a...

[00:03:06] Ms. Thomas: Okay, that's, um, uh, chair, uh, chair, uh, she and counts my beverness. Yes. Callister has it.

[00:03:17] Member Lucas Ramirez: Two yes, one absent? Um, item 4 is oral communications. from the public. This portion of the main is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes, right? In this section, state law, probates, the CDC, from actually, non-agenda items, for any member of the public way to provide comment on any item that is not on the agenda. If so, please submit a blue card or if I'm being a great hand button, or dial star 9 on your... So we'll close item 4 and move on to our discussion, action items. Item 5.one. Um, is the uh, new council policy gatekeeper authorization process and we will have a investigation by AR Director of Community Development, Christian Murdoch. New

[00:04:09] Christian Murdoch: council members, staff, Christian Murdoch Community Development Director. I'm joined by my 2 assistant community development directors, uh, Lindsay Hagen, member of Lindske, here today to talk about, um, they do city council policy to describe the city's gatekeeper authorization procedure. Just for some brief background, the council put in place a gatekeeper process in 2001 is a mechanism to manage staff resources in like the Dominican number of applications requesting legislative amendments to zoning or general plan standards, and amended that policy in 2012 to require all these applications to be reviewed by the environmental planning commission. And then again, in 2017 and 18 to clarify various requirements, procedures, criteria, and introducing gatekeeper exemptions. And, um, to define what a gatekeeper application is, essentially, it's a project that requires a legislative amendment, such as a rezoning or general fund amendment, or zoning text change. That's a legislative action as compared to an adjudicative action, such as a permit action to approve or conditionally approve a project. More recently, uh, in June of 2023, the city council put on its fiscal years 2023 through 2025 council work plan, a category A priority project to update the city's gatekeeper procedures and policy. Um, carrying forward from that uh, city council prioritization in September 2023 and December of 2023, council held study sessions on uh, the gatekeeper policy update. And among a number of other items that are detailed in the staff report, some key examples of majority council support included adding objective criteria to the application process, maintaining a streamlined approach for 100% affordable projects, and adopting community design principles that would guide applicants in preparing their gatekeeper applications. In January of 2024, council directed staff to use the existing gatekeeper criteria for the 2024 gatekeeper application process, which the city was required to hold a percentage of housing element obligations. And then in September 2024, council held the gatekeeper authorization hearing and authorized 2 applications to proceed to the formal application process. It's important to keep in mind as council considers an update to the gatekeeper policy that the city has obligations under the housing element, specifically in program one. related to the gatekeeper policy. Um, the housing element obligations are intended to uh, ensure that the gatekeeper process is not a hindrance to housing development, housing approval and development. And so ensuring that, uh, in program one. that the city identifies gatekeeper exemptions for residential projects, based on location, size, affordability, and other policy goals. And then at one.3 point G, um, ensuring that the city holds at least one gatekeeper authorization hearing per year, which it may limit 2 residential or residential mixed use projects, uh, but ensuring that greater opportunities are there for project specific rezonings. Do you keep a process? It is noted, the city had an obligation under milestones and time frame to hold at least one gatekeeper authorization in 2024, which council did, and then to hold at least one on residential projects each year. So as we think about what an update to the gatekeeper policy would include. There are a few key pieces here. carrying forward council's direction to formalize the process and to adopt written procedures, to provide clarity to applicants in this process. Recognizing zoning text amendments are needed, which would involve environmental planning commission consideration before burden ordinance to city council as part of this update process. Those zoning text amendments are related to the gatekeeper exemptions, which are currently in city code sections related to general plan amendments and zoning amendments. And then, putting together a council policy, a draft of which is attached to the CPP staff report for this item, to bring it all together and formalize the procedures, criteria, certain processing components, to set those expectations clearly for council, staff, and the public. So, uh, before jumping into some of, uh, the specifics of the proposed gatekeeper policy for the CPP's consideration today, I just want to clarify a couple key terms, um, as we talk about the process and some of the substantive, uh, components. The 1st is a standard gatekeeper or gatekeeper application, as noted earlier, it's a project that requires a legislative amendment such as a rezoning or general plan amendment. And it must go to a council authorization hearing before submitting a formal application to the community development department to be processed and to commit significant staff resources. And the other type of gatekeeper, we've defined as a streamlined gatekeeper application. And that's a project type that does not require a council authorization hearing because it meets certain criteria that have been defined. Uh, essentially, it's an incentive to uh, have those kinds of applications be submitted. To forego the council authorization hearing process, which can result in delays. And so it's a streamlined approach. Sometimes those have been called gatekeeper exempt or exempt gatekeeper applications, which we don't think is the best terminology, given they're still subject to city council approval or denial through the legislative process, but they are on a streamlined process by bypassing the authorization hearing. The figure on the screen shows the 4 main steps in the gatekeeper process, application process, the evaluation phase, the council authorization hearing, process, and then those that advance and are authorized moving on to the review process through the formal application review process. The gatekeeper policy update is really focusing on the 2 components that are outlined in red in the figure, um, streamlined gatekeeper, um, definitions or criteria, and then the application criteria and design principles, which are used in the initial evaluation process that are brought forward to the council authorization process. You can see below each of the steps as well, some green text. This is just highlighting some of the key provisions in the proposed updated policy that pertain to each of these phases. So notably, um, there would be an ongoing application period in the policy, uh, the staff's put forward for consideration. So folks could have applied at any time during the year, but would need to apply at least 90 days prior to a scheduled authorization hearing, to ensure sufficient time for staff to evaluate, prepare the materials for the authorization hearing. And then, um, you'll see in the 3rd block there, um, holding at least one authorization hearing per year for residential projects, as I noted earlier, and then in the uh, final stage there, um, ensuring applicants submit their formal application with one year of council authorization, and then ensuring that they go through study sessions at APC council to more fully develop those uh, gatekeeper authorizations into the formal application stage. Interesting Um, so, uh, shifting now to the proposed uh, streamline gatekeeper exemptions. Those are subject of council discussion at the prior study sessions. Currently there are 3 exemption categories for certain split zone sites, industrial to residential conversion or ITR, as they're sometimes called. And then 100% affordable housing projects. In the prior study sessions, the council majority did recommend removing the split zone and industrial to conversion, residential conversion exemptions. And then recommended keeping the 100% affordable housing exemption, subject to some changes to allow any 100% affordable project. Uh, minus, uh, managers units, uh, to move forward, uh, as a streamlined gatekeeper, uh, without requiring it to be part of the city's notice of funding availability or NOFA committee process. After analyzing the council's prior direction and reconciling against our housing element obligations. We didn't feel like we could put forward a recommendation to eliminate the split zone and ITR exemptions. But we did add language which you see on the slide here in bold text to add additional qualifying criteria that would allow them to apply to certain projects, including residential development, that would have the greatest likelihood of advancing affordable housing. Specifically, it's the 30 dwelling unit per acre minimum density that would need to be proposed, that under state law is the minimum density where the city can presume affordability is being feasible for those development types. So, uh, the criteria that have been added would narrow those somewhat in terms of the split zone and ITR categories to achieve those housing element objectives related to encouraging it and allowing um, more streamlined processors below housing approvals. Regarding the application criteria. There were sort of 3 key categories that counsel discussed, and we'll turn to them each in more detail in a moment. The 1st is use. And so there were concerns during the council discussion of the study sessions about slot zoning. Um, that's not exactly the right term. I think, used to address or describe the council's concerns, but I think we interpret his staff. The concern was introducing a unique land use in an area that didn't have that land use before or similar land uses and providing some sort of inconsistency, if you will, with the general framework of the city's planning documents. And so what we've tried to do is define a criteria that would be used to determine if the allow, the use that's proposed in the gatekeeper application is generally a use that would be allowable in area within a half mile radius. So we're not introducing pockets of commercial use in significantly residential areas or vice versa, residential uses in significant commercial areas, um, through the gatekeeper process. The next included a range of public benefits that the council thought high quality gatekeeper applications would contain, as well as community design principles that would be included and incorporated in those proposed projects. Important to note that, um, our interpretation of the council's direction was not to make these requirements for a gatekeeper application, but factors that applicants should be aware of, that they should strive to maximize, uh, incorporating the greatest number and to the greatest extent, to make these attractive applications for the council to want to consider, or gatekeeper authorization. In terms of public benefits, the council identified a number of categories that it felt would be reflective of projects that would be valuable and of interest to the community, across the range of topics, such as affordable housing, business retention, including public open space, including community facilities, providing key transportation, infrastructure or programs that exceed the city's transportation demand management or TDM requirements. And then the last line there, you'll see, providing a different outlet for smaller projects to pay essentially a per square foot fee, um, because they may not have as many options to include those design. components in the projects given their small scale. And then related to community design principles, um, council wanting these projects to be considered uh, high quality, well designed to include trees and biodiversity, uh, objectives, minimum 75%, native trees, and landscaping, dark sky measures as an example, um, historic preservation, finding uh, ways either on-site directly with the project or off-site, perhaps through financial support, to facilitate the preservation of historic resources, um, more public enjoyment. Active transportation, um, incorporating a variety of complete streets, and, um, uh, multimodal transportation components, wider sidewalks, and uh, focusing on key linkages to public, uh, tools. And then sustainability principles, so advanced 0 carbon emissions that should build on site design. And then to round out a variety of other subjects. Both policy includes definitions, definitions to provide clarity to applicants, provisions related to application timing, the frequency of authorization hearings, which includes the discretion of the city manager to recommend perhaps more than one authorization hearing if it was needed to efficiently consider gatekeeper applications either by residential and non-residential categories, or large and small projects separately. However, would be most efficient. Uh, public notification criteria, uh, the content of staff analysis and staff report so that there's some uniformity across evaluating gatekeeper applications. Again, requiring study sessions at UPC and Council. Re-application timing components, um, to come back, uh, within a 2 year period, if an application is not authorized, uh, to move forward. so that we're not just seeing these same applications on a recurrent basis. If the council did not authorize them. And then lastly, if something substantive changes either in the project components or project ownership, for an authorized gatekeeper application, they would need to come back and seek reauthorization to ensure that those changes continue to meet the council's intent. And so, uh, Steph has put forward an attachment one, uh, a draft policy that we would ask the CPPC to consider and uh, to recommend to the city council that would be brought forward at a future council date. Our goal is to try to bring this forward before the summer recess so that we can then put out the public notification and begin to solicit gatekeeper applications. I do want to acknowledge, just given this is a unique year where we're trying to put in place a new policy. It's possible that the authorization hearing occur after this calendar year, but as early as possible in calendar year 2026. Just given the timing of when we would announce the new policy and the application opportunity. And the last thing we would ask for from the CPPC is, uh, an indication, if you have a thought about how we would bring this forward to council, either on consent calendar, or as a new business item, um, your judgment is how we would most effectively accomplish consideration of this. Thank

[00:18:35] Member Lucas Ramirez: So before we public comment at all. Interesting questions. Thank

[00:18:40] Member Chris Clark: you, Jerry. I have a couple. First, um, to clarify the use criterion. This wouldn't apply or wouldn't apply. to hypothetical projects that included a mixed use component. So, for instance, maybe there isn't, um, I can't imagine there are large areas of the city where this would apply unless we're talking about. Um, uh, Waverly Park and including some industrial use or something, which is not likely. But if there were to be a mixed use component, like ground floor retail or a copy shop or something. Could this use criterion end up, including the possibility, including that commercial help.

[00:19:24] Christian Murdoch: I think, um, as we've envisioned this, at least, you know, one of the project components that's proposed with the gatekeeper application would need to be already allowed within that half mile radius. This particular component probably could benefit from this additional clarification, to be sure as to what is and is not allowed, or at least what's favored or disfavored, since these are not required, components of an application. So, um, CPPC recommended close alignment with existing line use or any one of the proposed could be anywhere within the half mile or a mile. Those would be good gratifications in the policy to take forward to council.

[00:20:03] Member Chris Clark: Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. And then, um, we talked to, so thank you 1st of all for giving me some time to, uh, to understand what the stat proposal was in advance of the meeting. In that phone call, you had confirmed that, um, gatekeepers will continue to require, um, a development permit in addition to the discretionary legislative change that's sub, right? Um, is that in the Muni code? Like, I actually don't know where that requirement is. It's not in the policy. Yeah,

[00:20:38] Lindsey Hagen: so I think it's, you know, looking at the project and what that would entail, that's where you have those requirements in the muni code. So you'd be looking at these legislative changes and what that entails, but then also the, I think you're talking about the project's actual development permits. So

[00:20:55] Member Chris Clark: does the, is there anything that prohibits me from just submitting a change to a color on them? Oh,

[00:21:02] Lindsey Hagen: no, I don't think so. No? Okay.

[00:21:05] Member Chris Clark: But is that something that we would want to confirm or to to affirm? Or would staff recommend to continue to allow the possibility for just changes to colors of the map without a corresponding project? Because the policy

[00:21:22] Christian Murdoch: set up right now for CPP's consideration. It does not require, you know, full details. I think those are implied and indicated to be important because that's how you would demonstrate your proposed project fulfills the various criteria that are desired. We could be more explicit if that would be helpful. I'm not, I don't have a sense of whether you're suggesting policy should or should not allow, you know, just a change to the map without any project details. Um, I think that would limit the information the council receives, but on the other hand, um, to be fair, we recognize throughout, you know, post-authorization and post-approval gatekeeper situations that sometimes those projects change and really council should be thinking about the legislative changes and whether those are desirable, because they may or may not ultimately be associated with a particular project the way that this process is structured currently. Historically,

[00:22:17] Member Chris Clark: heat keeper applications tend to include a project. There may have been examples of just changes to colors in the map. Lindsay probably knows better than I do, but those are infrequent. And it's not something, even though we strongly imply that we want to see a corresponding project. The process itself doesn't prohibit or preclude the possibility of an applicant from just seeking a GPA or a rezoning. Yeah,

[00:22:46] Lindsey Hagen: and I think that you'd want to continue to allow that just in case there's some scenario we aren't thinking of where they have, you know, there's, I'm just thinking outside the box where really all they needed was like a text change or really all they needed was, um, you know, component changed, that didn't necessarily have to be relayed with the project. So I just would think it, you probably do want to continue that because this is that platform for those legislative changes. And I think that then you, you know, it's a true decision on whether or not that's a appropriate change for that site, right?

[00:23:22] Unknown Speaker: I would just add to it that, um, where we have seen scenarios play out like that. It's actually been more packaged as part of staff, more big staff based amendments. that we encompass beats here and there that may benefit other private properties because we've had those conversations. So, um, we haven't necessarily had a lot of standalone gatekeepers where they're just coming forward to do a color change, but, um, but yeah, I think to everyone's point, it's an option. I think we'd have to be clear. That is the path that, see, uh, recommends is just being clear how the criteria might work.

[00:24:01] Member Chris Clark: This would also apply to, um, text modification. So the zoning may stay the same, but maybe a development standard changes. And that's the only thing I'm submitting to the gatekeeper process. The process would not preclude that. That's

[00:24:15] Christian Murdoch: right. And that would be a good example of where the city manager may recommend. Hey, let's batch text changes, right? These are maybe more minor, they can be more efficiently considered and move forward as a package as opposed to major development projects, right, that are the more traditional gatekeeper, that you want to authorize or not authorize based on significant staff resource impact. Okay, thank

[00:24:34] Member Chris Clark: you. And then, um, also just being very clear. Uh, even with the submission of a formal application that's deemed complete. The permit streamlining act would not apply. Don't have the chess clock. Wow, okay. Um, So in that, when you have, uh, applications that are that are complete. Um, what what is, is there? Um, a, like for customer service, right? Is there an amount of time that we try to get back to the applicant? I mean, what would, what's that time frame typically? Yeah,

[00:25:14] Christian Murdoch: I think we strive as much as possible to respond in a 30 day tempo, right? Still use the same... It's a guideline, not a environment in these instances. I think the challenges, and it's sort of underlying fundamental purpose of the gatekeeper process, which is that we don't want to have more applications than we can efficiently and timely process. And so, it's sort of a self-reinforcing mechanism that if we want to be timely and provide that good service and strive for a 30 or 45 day review tempo, that we should have a appropriate number of projects, including gatekeeper authorizations that are being reviewed at a given time. Okay.

[00:25:52] Lindsey Hagen: I think I should add, though. I don't want to say that we're hitting the 30 day mark, though, on this. I would guess 45 is probably more practical. Um, but, you know, my staff members are to are looking to get these projects moved along as well.

[00:26:07] Member Chris Clark: 30 to 45 days, but not 6 months, right? So you're aiming for sort of ballpark, same order of magnitude as with a PSA, protected project.

[00:26:19] Unknown Speaker: And what I would just add to that is we do follow the same review process. So it's reviewed by the same different city departments. It goes through our same routing process. So, in many ways it has the same experience as any other project. Um, and I would just remind, um, uh, see, and see members that, um, we are one of the only cities that really are performing in this way with these type of requests and projects. A lot of cities just sort of let these projects stall out. sort of sit side. There's very few cities that really process these in a timely way, so I think, um, as mentioned here, um, we do a lot of volume of them compared to other cities. So I think, um, still our best in terms.

[00:27:07] Member Chris Clark: We still, in the Municode, there is an expiration date, right? If you, if the applicant doesn't, um, get back within some time frame, the gatekeeper application request expires entirely, and then you have to go, you start from scratch. Is that right? So

[00:27:24] Unknown Speaker: there's 2 different timelines. Um, one is, uh, if you don't submit your formal application within a year, or, um, within a year from the date you were told, um, then it's considered expired. Um, and then we have a separate timeline that we added, um, actually, uh, only a couple years ago to our code about stalled applications in general. So, If somebody doesn't resubmit in a timely fashion, no matter if they're a gatekeeper or not, then we can close out their permit.

[00:27:53] Member Chris Clark: What is timely fashion? 90 days. 90 days.

[00:27:56] Member Chris Clark: Wow, that's very quick. Okay. Those are my questions for now. Thank you, sir. Um,

[00:28:05] Member Lucas Ramirez: For this streamlining gatekeeper, just looking at the blow chart. Um. The store basically is exempt in that initial hearing. So the, there's a final, it's like at the end, there's, basically, there's no council authorization. until the end. So is there, um, But then there were study sessions mentioned, where. So I'm just curious how, um, how they get feedback along the way if they don't want to end up in a world where they finally make it to go and, I'll throw it up. Oh. Um, Do they just have informal meetings or there? Maybe there's an EPC checkpoint. I dont know, but for the streamlined ones. Right.

[00:28:52] Christian Murdoch: I think the study session one is still a valuable mechanism for input, uh, along the way, um, as early as possible to help shape the project concept and not get the adverse feedback uh, much later in the process. But that is a risk, uh, that Those applications may not sort of get the very early read from the council through the authorization process, and that's the trade-off where you're setting conditions and criteria where that project would bypass the authorization hearing, to then move forward to the processing. So, you would just be replacing one process for another if there was a desire to have something, you know, much earlier, let's say, time of application.

[00:29:35] Member Lucas Ramirez: For the proposed streamlined gatekeeper. Exemptions. I know the council are previously, you mentioned. Um, you know, eliminating... What's known in the through the presidential conversation, I think? Um, and then you, you refine the criteria. response to that, not eliminated, but yeah. I mean, would you, in a perfect world, since the council changed a little bit? Would you? Do you prefer keeping these additional criteria or? We're just eliminated and we just allowed all categories to go off.

[00:30:23] Christian Murdoch: I think the interesting question, right, is what kind of projects does the council want to incentivize? And I think there's seems to be strong support, the council to incentivize, you know, quality housing projects and typically higher density. We've heard council interest in middle ownership opportunities. And so there could be a way to craft these differently to incentivize narrow set of projects. The council wants to be able to move forward expediently to the application process without an authorization. I think one of the interesting components here is the initial categories that a project must 1st qualify in to then also have the additional criteria of density, let's say here, or 2 acre site size. Um, if the idea is to incentivize those project types, maybe that 1st filter isn't necessary, um, and we're really just defining a project type that is exempt. We have not done, you know, the analysis to go beyond that, it could potentially significantly increase the number of gatekeeper exempt projects, which is one. Um, downside to that method, but if it's in furtherance of high console priority projects, you know, that may be something we need to figure out, a resource, and then the other trade-offs might be. Ultimately, right? They're not subject to permit streamlining processing, and so it would be a local calculation if there are other competing priorities as well.

[00:31:49] Lindsey Hagen: I think too, just, you know, under the existing gatekeeper exemptions, what we're seeing right now, we have 3 that are all row house developments. Um, and they wouldn't meet the, you know, as we've written these newer updated versions. So you would then hope you would get a higher density product. Um, not that it's wrong or bad. It's just, it's not quite at that density level where you're going to get, you know, the good, you know, the better, the better affordable mix and housing. Um, And, you know, those projects we're working working on them being complete so that they, you know, don't fall under, if we need modifications, they're not impacted by that. because they were submitted in time, right? But, um, that's the 3 that we've seen now without these additional tweaks to the language. It's

[00:32:41] Christian Murdoch: not clear if those are the project types councils trying to. Right, right. Yeah.

[00:32:46] Member Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, I think we'll just have to learn along the way, because they... Yeah, the, uh, the types of gatekeepers we received earlier, so just, yeah, they, you can't do a marketing. And then, So the community design principles and all of those things are, if you follow out the presentation, they're not required. They're just kind of, There's what might help your application sort of thing. Right. And

[00:33:19] Member Lucas Ramirez: these are things that we kept hearing from council. Frequently. than the projects that were coming forward. Um, for council consideration, not gatekeeper projects and just projects and using the same things that kept coming up that weren't flirting to possible.

[00:33:40] Member Lucas Ramirez: I get this. So the only other question I had was on the the reauthorization requirement. So, I think you mentioned a 2 year period, you know, if there's a denial, it was way too, which makes sense. Um, But I'm thinking about a scenario where maybe you have a, um, a 4 to 3 vote, or it's pretty clear if there were, you know, if, you know, a single substantial change were made, that's, might be willing to reconsider it. I guess they can say, I guess the council could stage the hearing that you were authorizing you to come back sooner than 2 years in that scenario, change this one thing and come back. Yeah, it would be a significant thing, I would guess, but, um, I just wouldn't want to, you force them to wait. They're really truly responding to it. I guess the council can. We

[00:34:36] Christian Murdoch: could add language, you know, unless a different time frame is specified, shorter time frame is specific. Yeah.

[00:34:42] Member Lucas Ramirez: I think that's all my questions. Um. So I don't see any members of the public here, which in a common person, I don't think we have anyone on Zoom. Okay. So, we'll, um, So, public comments and move on to, um, When you feedback, session,

[00:35:12] Ms. Thomas: the backing that we want. I have like to say. Um,

[00:35:22] Member Chris Clark: so first, uh, I, uh, appreciate staff's work in the uni, uh, 3 different meetings where we talked about this in 2023 and early 2024. Those were challenging meetings. I think there were, uh, a lot of, uh, different, um, perspectives, not easily synthesized and, I think I would, I would say, um, a part. It's it's challenging because few of us on the council are technical experts. in land use. I think we are. Sorry? I think we are. I'll I'll give Allison some credit as to someone who actually has worked in this profession. Um, I have pretty strong opinions about this. I think in an ideal world, um, we would convert a process where to allow projects to be submitted. with some general guidelines for, for staff to evaluate, and if those Guidelines were not met, then staff could come to the council. uh, in a process where, you would say, based on some of the characteristics or goals that the council has established, you know, these projects don't have merit, and you would be directed, essentially, to cease evaluating those, those applications. Um, I think that's, that's, it gives the applicant an opportunity to make a case to the council. You know, I know I don't achieve any of your goals, but here's why my project has merit. The problem I have with the gatekeeper process is that it has become arbitrary and capricious and political. doesn't actually achieve the stated goal, which is to appropriately meter at staff capacity. That's, if that weren't the case, it probably wouldn't have proved the 2 gatekeepers that went to us last year. We, we, I don't think staff capacity is actually a metric that the council understands or really uses or evaluates appropriately when evaluating these projects. If we actually wanted that, then I think what we should do is direct staff to come up with some evaluation tool, where you can say, this project, you know, has very little impact on capacity, so we can absorb it, you know, and process it based on get some stated criteria, right? It achieves these goals, it's within the capacity, for us, for the staff to work on. So it moves through. Um, pure projects that have considerable impacts, right? So even though it may achieve some council goals, uh, it, has significant impact and would impede staff's ability to achieve higher priority projects in the workplace. That's what I think would be a better way of achieving the goal that I think the gatekeeper process is intended to achieve. But this is the worst of all worlds, I think, aware it doesn't really matter what the staff capacity impact is, it's how much we like. Um, So, um, I would love to explore a different approach. Ideally, the 1st approach I was describing where you would give you some openly clear objective criteria, where staff wouldn't be able to say, this application, you know, meets the criteria, you're not subject to the urban streamlining act, so you're not gonna get, you know, that the preferential treatment that folks who have a legal protection would get. But we're going to process it because it helps achieve the goals that were stated in policy by the council. doesn't achieve those things, uh, or maybe there's an override, like this is, this is such a, such an impactful project. We really can't include it in the work plan. You go to council, you say, you have to make some trade-offs, council. If you wanted to do this, you got to cut something else from your work. Um, if I, if that's not possible, for whatever reason, part the votes, um, then the next best thing is what I think the community development director was describing in response to your question chair. You know, we amend the streamlined gatekeeper, um, uh, categories or or introduce different criteria to, to, and ensure that the projects that bypass the authorization stage actually achieve councils goals. I I, some of these may have made sense a long time ago. But we have precious little blue on our zoning map, right? I don't think the council actually is interested in facilitating the erosion of our industrial base for row houses. Don't believe that that's the council's goal. So that 2nd category doesn't make sense to it, which is why I voted to eliminate that, that category. Uh, there are very few split zone properties, right? That was created because the council wanted to help one applicant many years ago, who now has a builder's remedy application before us, right? That category. It's, these are the, the, the wrong categories to achieve councils goals. Better categories would have some, I forgot, you had an elegant term in our phone call, but some performance metric or there's some outcome associated. What is it that you want to achieve? Is it the creation of new parks or affordable housing or mixed use development or, you know, um, whatever the case may be, right? That would, that's what would be spelled out in this policy. Because these projects achieve those goals. They meet all of the objective criteria. Staff goes through the checklist, they would be exempt from the authorization hearing, which de-risks the project. It makes it more likely that a developer or an applicant would actually want to submit a project that helps achieve our goals. The authorization process is risky. It's expensive. You have to go through 7 challenging personalities, right? Um, and then even if you do, you know, get permission to submit an application, there's no guarantee that the council at the end of the line, right? Four years later, is going to approve that project. It's an extremely risky process. It's designed to discourage creativity. I think it pushes developers to note client projects that also don't achieve our goals, right? Because we have limited discretion. Code combined projects. We tend not to get nice things from them, and now the state has made it almost impossible to get nice things, but those kinds of projects. So, the gatekeepers, right? The projects that have a discretionary legislative action associated with them, give us an opportunity to get a little bit more. But I think we have to meet these applicants halfway by saying, in exchange for, be risky and depoliticizing the process. Um, exempting or streamlining, right? By not having to go through that inaugural permission to submit an application process, you have to meet some objective performance criteria, performance based criteria. Um, so those are, that's uh, very poorly articulated, but that's sort of the way I'm, I would like to approach this. What is it that we want? How do we facilitate? How do we create a process that helps the council get what we're looking for? Greeting clarity for both staff and the applicant and also for the community. Um, and, you know, not end up the process that either, you know, discourages creativity, voices folks to, you know, just complying with what we have here in our regulatory framework, um, or, you know, worse, right? You end up with, um, strange projects that staff may feel has no merit, but because that applicant has taken the time to count to 4, right? And now you have to work on a project that, um, is very difficult because the project parameters really weren't aligned with what the council has been telling you that they want. Um, so I can't support what staff has proposed. I do believe it is, it is a good faith effort to align with the council direction from a couple of years ago. But I don't think actually helps achieve our goals. I think it creates barriers to entry where I don't believe. That, that, that's what the council's really trying to achieve. Um, and I think there's an opportunity for some revisions that help, help us eat our housing help, but obligations and also get projects that actually do something for the kids. Uh, specifically.

[00:44:00] Member Lucas Ramirez: And so I was gonna say, so that would be the 1st thing. And the 2nd is just to speak to the capacity issue. So I think for 3 years, I think it was, we didn't even have, yeah, 3 or 4 years because of staff capacity during the pandemic. And the outcry about not doing them was far greater than, you know, the city or stuff, saying, we just can't get to them. I mean, look at our work plan. We can't even finish things on our work plan. We're not even to finish half of the things on our work plan. And we have, oh, these 145 projects that have been submitted that are outside of the gatekeeper process. So, I think it would be objectively very difficult to put some sort of standard or wrong or on, just at least the staff capacity issue because fundamentally, the answer is probably we don't have capacity to do gatekeepers, but we need to because it's in a housing element and because a lot of the projects, as you mentioned, might be very desirable to to counsel. But in the last gatekeeper herring last year, Staff did present trade-offs and counsel wasn't interested in it. So, I think we just would want to be very specific and careful about how we would even introduce this concept of staff capacity into the process. But if what you're really, you know, getting at is the sum objective criteria and the outset of these are the type of projects we want to see. That's what I'm hearing is almost like providing examples of these are the sort of desirable projects that the city of Mountain View is looking for. Does it do this? And that's what I'm hearing as far as the metrics. Does it provide additional park space? Does it provide X, you know, number of housing units? Is it missing mental housing or certain things that the council is very clearly interested in seeing? I think that we could maybe it's a living policy to where it is updated based on council's desires and interests at that time or what we're seeing in the community. And we bake those in. But I think if we are to come back and correct me if I'm wrong, and totally rebake the whole thing, it's going to set this process back a little bit further, but maybe just starting out with some of the objective criteria could be a way to at least provide some guidance. Right,

[00:46:29] Christian Murdoch: I think. If we were to come back to CPPC again, um, sometime in March, uh, I think we could keep our desired process on track. This month in March? Yes. I think that's the only opportunity we would have to this coming. This current gatekeeper process on track with a new set of policies. Steph actually hearing app interest

[00:46:50] Member Chris Clark: from applicants.

[00:46:54] Member Lucas Ramirez: Other than the 3 you said you have. Well, they're already through it. Yeah, right

[00:46:58] Lindsey Hagen: through. Yeah, I mean, I haven't, but I didn't ask that, you know, I didn't ask him. Has, has, has counsel? I haven't heard. But

[00:47:07] Member Chris Clark: I haven't heard any. The market is not good right now.

[00:47:12] Member Lucas Ramirez: Like that's the reality.

[00:47:14] Christian Murdoch: The other piece I wanted to offer in response, um, to your remarks, customer Ramirez, is maybe this set of application criteria and design principles is a menu you may want to start from to say, maybe if it has 3 out of these at minimum, it could be a streamlining gatekeeper application. Because these are, as the city manager noted, the recurring themes of highly desirable projects.

[00:47:38] Member Chris Clark: So, I, the chair. don't wanna dominate the time. Um, but I suck up a lot of bots. Um, so that's that's exactly what I would suggest, right? In the study sessions, I think I was, I, memory serves, at least in the... I was pretty clear. I care more about the process than I do the specific criteria, right? Um, it's whatever a majority of the council wants. If they, These sound fine. All of these things are good, you know? I guess what I, what I, I'm objecting very strongly to how I've seen the process play out in my observation of the council since 2013. Um, I don't think the gatekeeper process works and I don't think it achieves outcomes that we, we actually are trying to articulate. Um, this, this menu. So in other words, I mean, if I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, um, what basically, right? We have some objective criteria associated with these categories, and the council, you know, affirms this, then what staff would do is say, you know, they would look at a project and say, okay, you do take criteria, associate with these category, with each category. So you are streamlined. don't have to go through that step of seeking permission from the council to submit an application. Doesn't mean your project is approved by any means. There's still extensive review. There's still sequel, right? It's a very lengthy project, but you don't have to go through that. highly politicized, arbitrary, capricious authorization hearing where crazy things happen and none of us. I think, come in with a coherent sense of what we actually want to achieve.

[00:49:19] Christian Murdoch: Yeah, I think I'm offering that as a response to the concerns you identified about a lack of clarity and the politicization and the maybe lack of focus on what was initially the core basis for this, which was staff capacity. You know, if the desire is to incentivize certain project outcomes, then I think that's a sensible way to do it, trying to make them as objective as possible, like, transportation, you know, going, exceeding the requirements in the TV mortgance, that's very difficult for staff to assess as part of a streamlined. This would have to be, yeah. Affordable housing, has some objective criteria, public open space does as 2 examples. And so, um, pick from this, we'll build on this list or break new criteria, you know, depending on what the CPPC wants to do.

[00:50:09] Member Chris Clark: So I think there are many different paths to victory. In other words, um, I, when I, when I could not support, though, is anything that takes the existing process, it makes it worse, in my opinion. I might your degree, your thoughts chair.

[00:50:22] Unknown Speaker: All right, can I just clarify? So, um, using this menu approach, and and refining the bacteria, it would then, what staff has presented here as suggested criteria into required. have to be some combination or whatever it ends up being, they become required. Yeah. Right.

[00:50:42] Member Chris Clark: So because staff would need something to compare an application to guest, right? If it's subjective, then how do you know? Right. Like whether the council would actually would like to see this problem. So that's why we have to be very thoughtful up in articulating clear objective criteria so staff has what you need to evaluate. And and they could be pretty stringent. You know, like, like, I think the intent is a gatekeeper has to go above and beyond, is what I've heard members of the council say over the years. So, so we should be asking for a lot, but what they're getting in return is the ability to have a discretionary legislative action process. That's a big deal. That's a non-trivial thing for that. Um, all I'm saying is let's de-risk that process to make it more attractive to the development community. But and also have some very clear terms and articulating what it is that we're trying to achieve in that evaluation process. I talk too much. I'm sorry. So I think.

[00:51:48] Member Lucas Ramirez: I mean, the one area where I disagree with you is, I, you know, I understand the criticism of the the challenge. But I think, I think what staff is proposing is, kind of addresses that where we're, or aim something to be a minimum, do I use per acre? Um, you know, it has to be a significant project. On the board. So I think the, the most screenline, um, in the language, just makes sense. Um, address some of the concerns. I guess, you know, and kind of going down. I was thinking before this along the lines of what the city manager said, where I think the gatekeeper process needs to be a little bit of a living document, because economic, I mean, we're already dealing with, you know, the vision of the gatekeeper process 2 years ago is already aboutdated. So, in my mind, one of the real benefits for me is, you get a sense for what the demand is, what the what sort of creative is this, and so at the moment. And I think that's really valuable, which is why, I'm sure you'll hate me suggesting this, but I, I, there was a point at which we were doing almost quarterly. And, you know, having being able to do, you know, a meeting every 6 months or so, if there, if there are applications out there, that meets some of the more stringent criteria, and I'd be open to that. That doesn't mean we approve every single one. But once a year seems a little, um, I don't know, that, that

[00:53:33] Christian Murdoch: just feels like a little odd to me, but, um, but

[00:53:36] Member Lucas Ramirez: maybe there, there wouldn't be demand. I think the, um, but that would allow us, you know, if we were just hearing, um, application a couple times a year, if there are some, then we can sort of refine these principles over time, and you make them more stringent, as, um, as we see what comes in. I think the other, the other point that you were making, some of the design principles, you probably need to refine over time because you looked at active transportation, for example, you know, if I were, uh, an applicant trying to get through the process, you know, I could, I could point to your wider sidewalks and, and some of the, less valuable things to try and get through, but I think what in my mind would be, Above and beyond would be, examples like, you know, you're breaking up Superblock that we wanted to break up for a while. You're providing a new connection to the Stevens Creek Trail as part of a process. Like, we... Yep, but um, someday. But those sorts of things where there's uh, there's something that maybe the city has on its plans to do. Um, it would just get done, is a significant. But I think those are all significant,

[00:55:01] Christian Murdoch: all the benefits are all in the eye.

[00:55:04] Unknown Speaker: Or do you think historic preservation, like, you know, just preserving a storefront is, um, you know, as attractive as something, a little bit, um, more substantial. So I think we'll just have to refine the criteria, fine. But I think this is actually a pretty good start. I think if we were open to, I mean, My colleagues might disagree with me, but, um, you'd be open to have a couple of periods a year as opposed to just one and then sort of using that as an opportunity to refine this over time. I think would address some other concerns. I think the issue I'm having is you made a lot of really good points. But I was also thinking through my head. I don't have specific proposals that I can cough up. So, presses this. Um, so I think we've, I had to learn by doing adjusted over time.

[00:56:02] Member Chris Clark: I think we're talking past each other a little bit. So I want to, I want to, I don't disagree with you, but I think it's important to, to be very explicit, right? The only way you avoid the gatekeeper authorization hearing and proceed to review, except you fall under any of these 3 categories, right? Most projects are not going to be 100% of four. Most of them are not going to be sweat zoned. There are very few split zoned properties owned by a single owner. Right. And then the remaining category. is industrial to residential birth, which is 100% of the exempted or streamlined gatekeepers now, but that's the, that's not really the performance indicator that the council's interested. I don't think we're saying, we want to help facilitate the loss of industrial, of our industrial base. I mean, there are diminishing properties every day as it is, right? So I think I, I don't disagree with the code amendments proposed. I disagree with the high level category. I, and I, I, when I'm, when I'm, I don't think I'm hearing you say that you would only support exempted or streamlined gatekeepers if they fall in these categories, right? Because I think there was, so think about, um, California near, um, uh, Ortega, the Todd speaker property that was, there was a gatekeeper proposal at, you know, at some point, many, many or .15 or thereabouts, that also included, um, uh, 570s South Ranksdorf, I think that's where the road homes were being built. That couldn't meet any of these, right? But, you know, if we had known then what we knew later, right? That, those, the rainstorf property was going to be redeveloped, regardless, maybe we would have said, allow for. let's at least have something dense, right? Because that area can sustain it. We want to park or something. That project couldn't fit in any of these criteria, because it wasn't split zone. It's not industrial and it's not 100% affordable housing. I think what I'm hearing you say is, Oh, there might, there may be other scenarios where, not going to, the authorization hearing is appropriate.

[00:58:28] Unknown Speaker: Well, I, I'm working for a different baseline. There is no streamlined process today. Yep, there is. Well, well, sorry, I guess. Has anyone applied through it? Yes. Okay.

[00:58:39] Member Chris Clark: Right, so Barbara did with split zones, right? And we've had a few industrial and we've had, I mean, every no for project historically. every no for project, I think, has required a general plan amendment or rezoning. That's why that exemption has existed, right? I want to expand the number of exemptions. basically. But I want to do so with the, with the, wow, the care put into what is it that we're trying to achieve. This becomes the basis for the exemption, not this. But right now, way it's set up is, you have to be considered for, to, to have, to even be considered for submission to the application process, you have to do these things. These are very hard to do. Most developers, not they're not going to say, yeah, you know, I'll provide 20% affordable housing for the privilege of going through the gatekeeper authorization. hearing process where I can do all of these things and still get denied because the council members don't like me, right? That's what I'm objecting to. If you do these things, I think you should be processed. Can you help me? I'm struggling.

[00:59:54] Christian Murdoch: You go, but then I have... I think it would help maybe to start, you know, are there projects other than residential projects that the committee wants to incentivize through the streamlined gatekeeper process. We really want to limit that to certain residential projects, either achieving dead city or affordability, or along the lines, I mean, proposed here, carving off the split zone, ITR. Mutual qualifiers.

[01:00:21] Unknown Speaker: I'm probably, in a minority, but I, you know, the major budget. I'm interested in more than just residential. I agree. I'm interested in, um, maybe there's a residential component to it, like a few projects have, but it doesn't necessarily, I mean, it could, it could do some of the things that I talked about, you know, a new trail connection, breaking up Super Rock, all these things, and maybe it's offensive with groundcore retail. I don't know. But, um, I think I'm interested in gatekeepers beyond just residential, but I could be there. I think, I wasn't approaching it as how many people can we get through the streamline process? I was approaching it as Yeah. There's a subset that can go through streamline, but I really want to help reline the criteria that anyone would use for a gatekeeper, whether they're coming to us for authorization. I'm not, oh, I'm not really that interested in opening the floodgates with the same like process. Um, because in the example that you provided. They could just come to us for an authorization. Yeah, we have one or 2 meetings a year. You can do that. Um So. I don't know, I just think any, proceeding through any, the gatekeeper process, whether it's the streamlined or the coming to council, there should be a high-ish bar to meet there.

[01:01:55] Christian Murdoch: So, maybe one path to compromise recognizing just some timing implications and do we want another gatekeeper with current criteria or do we want to try something different? Recognizing our housing all the obligations, Is there an approach to maybe just rework the streamlining provisions just for a category of higher density and affordable housing projects for now, for this year's cycle, and through, you know, the one or 2 or whatever number of authorization hearings over the next year. Council will gain insight into the current market. And loop that feedback loop of the living document, you may see 6 projects and say, you know, these 3, for these reasons, shouldn't have come to us. They should have been streamlined, right? And then we come back and we tech those on as new streamlined categories because that's responding to what the market's proposing and the council at the time is saying. Those should be encouraged.

[01:02:52] Unknown Speaker: When do we think the next gatekeeper will be like end of year, mid year? I think... Yeah, early 26th. Yeah.

[01:03:02] Lindsey Hagen: Yeah, if we get to council and there's a decision. before the break, I think early 2026.

[01:03:09] Christian Murdoch: We need to announce that the application periods now open on a rolling basis. So we need to get them at least 90 days prior to the authorization hearing to provide a good ramp up for folks that weren't, knowing what to expect it, probably want to give them 3 or 4 months, which means we're in January, February, probably, 2026.

[01:03:27] Unknown Speaker: I think we need to flesh it out. If this is like a one time, let's update the gatekeeper process and then see how it goes for 3 years, then I think that's different from, in these tweaks now, dressing the housing element, having a hearing, and, you know, as part of, you know, that goes to council, it's sort of understood that they're authorizing the CPC to basically, look at how that hearing went. doing this again. you know, within a year or so. Because then it starts to come into, turn into something more of a document where we're pressing it over time as opposed to just updating it every 5 years or so.

[01:04:13] Member Lucas Ramirez: Well, and I was gonna say too, it's almost as if we need to hear from council, like, your vision is for the type of projects you want to see. So, like, the examples you gained and projects that may create a new trail connection. Um, office with ground floor retail, missing middle housing, condos, maybe family entertainment, things that, like brain pickle wall or youth sports here that they want to locate in an area that it's not zoned for that now. So you all might need to have, give approval for that. So maybe there are specific things. I mean, certainly housing, which affordable housing piece would be important to keep, but maybe there are other types of projects that are non-residential that you all do want to see, and it's almost the signal to the developer community of. These are the type of projects that we would love to see or consider as developer as gatekeeper projects and that can be iterative over time too, as the market shows whether that's possible or not. If we don't get any applications in, then, It's an indicator. Well, what the market's gonna look like and we can change.

[01:05:27] Member Chris Clark: I think what I'm struggling to articulate is where the filter is applied really makes a difference though. If we're saying we're only going to consider at the authorization hearing projects that meet these criteria. We're going to have no projects, right? Because even if I comply with all of these, I can still get denied, I can still be prohibited from even submitting an application. But there's a higher probability a developer will take the risk, if they know that they can go straight to processing, if they meet these objective criteria. So the, you know, where, where are we applying the filter, right? If the filter is applied only to the standard gatekeeper process, then all we're doing is further restricting the universe of projects that will come to us for permission to submit an application, which is already a very small universe because it's an extremely difficult and risky and political process. So what I, what I'm hoping to articulate is where we have still apply a robust filter, but the, the reward is if you go through, if you jump through all these hoops, you go, you get processed. It doesn't mean you get approved. You get to you get to be processed. Most developers will say, that's that's worth it. That's worth the opportunity. I know I got to do some things. I got to provide a park. I got to break up a super block. But I can do those things, right? And when I go work with staff for a couple of years, by the end of that, you know, that tunnel, still have to get council approval, but I've got a project that stand on 2 ways. I think if we, if we apply the filter or the standard gatekeeper process, we're gonna end up year after year with no projects or, or people just saying, you know what, I don't care about this. I'm just gonna lobby, right? Like the, um, the public storage guide. Yeah, U-Haul, right? They complied with nothing, right? But they did a really good job lobbying 4 of us. And so we, we, brought into processing. I hear you. I think,

[01:07:30] Unknown Speaker: You have to remember it's a menu. It's not, you have to do all of these things, and I wish I'd thought more about this ahead of time of, I made up with examples of things. it doesn't have to be a trail. It could be, you know, I can't meet all of your existing criteria for this site for open space or whatever, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna go buy this bar so in mild love. Yeah, I'd love to. So, I, there are things like that, but I think, I, Sometimes I agree with your predictions, and sometimes I think, You just need to see where things stand, and maybe you're right. Maybe we'll get nothing and maybe it will be a failure, in which case we can adjust things for next year. But, you know, I think there will. Uh, There's also our conditions and other things at play. So, I don't know, I, I'm not, not as pessimistic on, Some people might buy it. And if not, depends on how long you're willing to look to wait, right? I think you did this again in January, February.

[01:08:42] Member Chris Clark: I mean, you've been on, I've counted before, right? But like we knew about U-Haul and Charleston Plaza. much, much earlier than, you know, the, the, application to the middle process, right? I'm hearing, I'm hearing crickets, you know. Um, but

[01:09:00] Unknown Speaker: maybe that's not a function of this. Maybe if, I don't know. I can't assign. I'm not I don't think this makes it better,

[01:09:08] Member Chris Clark: though. don't think this makes it better.

[01:09:10] Unknown Speaker: Well, it's, at least there is. It's better than what exists today, I would say. No, I think it's worse.

[01:09:19] Member Chris Clark: Because we're we're we're applying another filter, right? We're seeing for the streamline. Well, this, this is, this is for, this is for the standard geek. This is how staff will evaluate standard geek. Yeah, but it's still come to us. Which means it's a waste of time. because you could you could do all of these things and get denied, and you could do none of them and still get approved. It's it's not, it's not useful. It's not a useful exercise. I feel a little bit like Cassandra. Like, I'm, I'm really struggling to, I am not the great communicator, you know, like, I feel so, so strongly, like, we're, we're, like, just, we're on parallel paths an inch apart, you know? Um, we can do it. I'm going to vote if we approve this. We send it to council because I am absolutely confident, we will not achieve our goals. I think one more pass through with staff's assistance and identifying some, I wish we could use the term, some performance indicators or criteria that we can use to get results that are closer to what our goals actually are, and not just facilitating industrial and residential conversions or, you know, but like, like this, this was, these are just not the criteria, or categories, right, for streamlined gatekeepers, except for affordable houses. That one I get, right? Like, you know, literally split zone was because Mario Ambra tried a bunch of times and couldn't get through the gatekeeper process. So the council said, okay, fine, we're going to a lot of streets. But some properties, which applies almost uniquely to his property. This is really not...

[01:10:55] Member Lucas Ramirez: To be clear, he has a village remedy.

[01:10:58] Member Chris Clark: Right, because he, so, so the council did that to help him. And he still didn't get a project through, right? So, like, all I'm saying is I would love this to be thoughtful. I would love it. I would love each, whatever categories we come up with. And I'm just to be very clear, right? I'm generally agnostic about this. I'll support whatever the council wants. I'm trying to fix the process. I'm not necessarily gearing towards any particular outcome. All of these things are good, right? What I'm saying is if we care about these things, let's de-risk the process and create a process where you have a higher probability of actually getting these out. This should form the basis for the streamlined gatekeeper of categories.

[01:11:44] Member Lucas Ramirez: So just deleting them. Basically,

[01:11:47] Member Chris Clark: like, so... Yeah, so instead of green, the spot background would be blue.

[01:11:51] Member Lucas Ramirez: The late split zone, delete industrial residential. Keep affordable housing, if that at least furthers your affordable housing goals as council. Change these ultimate benefits toggles into the streamlined criteria. And then that turns into required criteria, and outside, if we're thinking about the main of the process, This comes at the beginning for streamlining. That's essentially what you're saying. And we delete these 2 categories, that they're not actually achieving the gold story. B wants to say something.

[01:12:26] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so just to clarify, another sort of reality about the current, um, categories that we have, is the 2 acre sides, and a lot, that history comes from this idea of not, um, sort of the scale of a project, and having that be of a size, that council at the time felt comfortable with it proceeding, um, to staff and for processing. So, one question I would have is just, if I guess if acreage or size matters in this context. So, you can have performance criteria in terms of, you know, objective, um, elements of your project that that we're asking of you, but does Average and other factors matter?

[01:13:11] Member Chris Clark: My perspective, this is where staff's insight would be valued. Right. We're balancing a couple of things. We're we're de-risking the process. We're providing clarity on what we want, but we still have to meter out the staff capacity impact, right? So I don't know what that number is or if there should be a number, but I think there are, I appreciate what the city manager was saying earlier. It's not going to be really easy. If there are, if there are sort of overrides or parameters that we need to include, because if we simply streamline them, we're going to have a significant staff capacity impact, then we should know that up front before we push things that way.

[01:13:53] Christian Murdoch: I think the important piece for me, um, to make sure is recognized is that we still have the ability at the staff level to meter staff capacity. It just becomes a question of, you know, will council accept that city manager or I are saying, we don't have the capacity to work on these streamlined gatekeeper applications. There's no state law requiring us to process them in a given timeline. And so, We incentivize the projects we want. We got 30 applications. We can't work on all 30. You know, we're making the judgment calls we have to make every day to run our organization to manage those projects most effectively. As

[01:14:32] Member Chris Clark: much as I would love for there to be 30 applications. I'm anticipating that these are going to be quite robust, you know, and it's it's really going to be folks who have the capital and the patience and the political savvy to meet the hurdles. I don't think we're going to come in with the bar so low that you're going to have an enormous number of applications. It's, it's, this is going to be, knowing my colleagues, a very strict and difficult filter to get.

[01:14:57] Member Lucas Ramirez: Let's be quiet. It doesn't have to be...

[01:15:00] Member Chris Clark: Right, no. It's LMO of, right? I would say, yeah, the staff, you know, come back to us. I don't, right? These are all good. I don't know if these are the right categories or numbers. I trust staff and I trust my colleagues. I'm going to die on a very specific hill, and that's making sure that the, we're creating a, uh, we're bypassing that political risky process that does nothing for the, for the city, right? But instead, gives a pathway for projects that I think achieve council and community. I mean,

[01:15:41] Member Lucas Ramirez: as we say earlier, most cities don't even have that. So I think anything is better than nothing, but That's where I'm at. So putting on my, I have 2 members of the CPVC. One of them votes no, then we have no recommendation to council, and we basically turn what could have been a consent item into a whole study session or whatever. So, um, I'm trying to figure out if there is a path forward or this is going to end with our condition.

[01:16:08] Member Lucas Ramirez: Is there, it wouldn't even go as a study session? would just continue with the process, the way it is. Right.

[01:16:16] Member Lucas Ramirez: But you're gonna, if they don't get feedback from us, then you're gonna have to. And we have a housing outlet deadline. So I'm trying to figure out if there's some way to how they know I'm a deadline. without doing anything you don't want to do, or we just need to keep this up to household. I'm

[01:16:37] Christian Murdoch: a chair. Before answering that question, because I don't know what the answer is going to be. Um, can we turn to page 3 um, of the draft policy and see if there's any full wrestling around certain of these, um, strategy on a basis for, you know, one or more or 2 or more of the following, I have to learn to be, uh, 3 men who do the opposition? Fired. It needs to depend on fire, components to be streamlined, and otherwise, these could remain informative for non-streamlined applications, but one could propose whatever they want, whether without any of these is part of the regular gatekeeper.

[01:17:16] Member Chris Clark: So my compromise would be, I get what I want, then Chris gets to write all of this by himself, and I will vote, yes. I spot in this music. I'm okay with this, right? because I agree, it should be a living document, you know, I'm, I don't think we need to be super prescriptive. I think these generally aligned with what I think the council has been seeking for as long as I've been on the council, right? Affordable housing, uh, keeping small businesses, creating more open space and recreational facilities, or, you know, I love the branch library idea. These all sound good. I'm not trying to be prescriptive here. I trust your judgment, right? I could, some of these numbers are hard, right? 20% affordable housing may mean that we don't get any gatekeepers at all because that's a very difficult effort to make financially feasible. Um, but, but, like as high-level categories. I'm comfortable with them, and I trust the judgment of staff and my colleagues to figure out what the rate numbers are.

[01:18:23] Christian Murdoch: So starting with one, is there a concern about this spot zoning issue, do we need number one, you know, as a gatekeeper, streamline gatekeeper?

[01:18:32] Christian Murdoch: Well, I'm Gretchen. I

[01:18:35] Member Lucas Ramirez: don't think I don't. Um, that was a specific concern. I remember that concern, but I don't think it's...

[01:18:46] Member Lucas Ramirez: The other thing I would offer as you're thinking is, you could just turn these into the requirements with the fact that you all given us about some of the themes of the desired projects, and we can say to council, we're gonna try this. For just this next cycle through January. Let's see what happens. Let's see between now and then what type of projects we get. And we come back to CPPC. after we see what has happened. And then if this works, great. Or if it doesn't, we'll see what we do need to change and tweak. And maybe we say, all right, we were too prescriptive. There were, you know, too many things. We need to take out some of these requirements, even though they're options. Um, or maybe the sort of projects that you do see, they meet one of the desire projects, but the project itself just isn't great. So, I feel like we need to just kind of see what happens over the next 6 months. We can make these tweaks, but I'd rather not, Cut off our nose despite our face to where, We're trying to make progress, but we can't perfect be the enemy of the good. So if we if we turn these into requirements, we, like I said, take the themes that we're hearing from you all, um, staff can tighten some of these up. And then we say to counsel, this is just gonna be phasing. Let's see if this phase of changes works. I mean, that that's also an option, so that it's...

[01:20:19] Member Chris Clark: Or streamlined.

[01:20:21] Member Lucas Ramirez: Correct. Correct. Yeah. And the thing that I would look for is, I think the, I wish I had a old this, but, you know, for example, I realized this isn't, you don't have to always use the 5 months, but, you know, if you were just trying to meet the active transportation requirement, There's low hanging fruit and there's something substantial and hopefully it would lean towards substantial. Yes.

[01:20:51] Member Lucas Ramirez: And that's a little bit where the non-objective piece comes in because kind of determining then what, what is substantial and what isn't, is a little bit of nuance for staff.

[01:21:03] Member Lucas Ramirez: Because AB and C are substantial, just on their own. They are. Um, but if you're, if you're just, Supporting one grandpa or tenant through rent stabilization for a five-year period, that's really not as attractive as...

[01:21:21] Christian Murdoch: A couple pieces here from the the, uh, practitioner perspective. opening this to any size of project. The outset is a little concerning. Um, difficult to not have major staff resource impacts if a 5 or 10 acre project site came in, I think, keeping something in the 2 to 3 acre range to put a little bit of a ceiling on it. Um, as we're exploring, the reaction to this mechanism would be really desirable from the staff perspective. And then working through, Some of these aren't, aren't objective enough, I think, to allow staff to not bear the political burden of assessing whether they're streamlined, qualified or not. So, recognizing we're going to iterate in the future, but maybe focusing on a half acre or 3 quarter acre park size, that's objective. Uh, maybe certain affordable housing, uh, affordability levels is objective. 30,000 square foot TDR or making these a thing, you know, is objective.

[01:22:21] Member Lucas Ramirez: We can also tie it to criteria that aligns with the council work plan that's adopted. So if it's a project that furthers the council work plan projects. So, for example, Stevens Creek Trail, if it's something that, uh, builds onto what we're trying to do at Stevens Creek Trail or any of the number of things, however many there ends up being, if it's something that helps further, one of your high priority work plan projects, maybe that's, that's something we can add too.

[01:22:51] Member Lucas Ramirez: That might address one of the concerns that I had is. Some of the most interesting gatekeepers to me over time have been the These 2 property owners are partnered up. It's actually a massive thing. It's not one or 2 acres. It's real, like, once in a generation type change. And so maybe there's some other mechanism besides gatekeeper for those for someone to approach the city because it meets a whole bunch of different goals.

[01:23:17] Member Chris Clark: But I still want to...

[01:23:19] Member Lucas Ramirez: We're not in that. We're not in a market where that's gonna happen. No, but, um, it was worth some of the most interesting. It's all in the past.

[01:23:28] Christian Murdoch: I think the good news is that this would allow the city manager to schedule a gatekeeper,

[01:23:34] Member Lucas Ramirez: right?

[01:23:34] Christian Murdoch: Currently, it's this epic process, right? Like, oh, it's once in a, you know, year or every several year or, you know, once a decade opportunity. The city manager recognizes this is one of those unique opportunities. get an application, people hearing in 90 days or 120 days or whatever, depending on. And you'll know about it.

[01:23:53] Member Lucas Ramirez: Council members will know about it because you'll have been approached at one. It'll be something that I will know, and you all will know that should be brought forward. One that I can think of is, um, the, uh, public storage item, you know, to Dorito theirs and to affordable housing. That was a super unique gatekeeper project that we'll really see. So, I think it's like when you, when you see, when you know, you know, when you see it. Um, so maybe that's kind of a way to get through this situation we're in where we can tighten these up. We will reflect what we're hearing about the interest or the type of projects. We can even address the fact that it would be great if they align with the work plan or the goals that you all have articulated or you'll eventually adopt. I, I almost like the, the phrasing, the ones, once in a generation, or, you know, once every few decades, just the certain transformative sort of projects for the community, for the vision of tomorrow. So I think we could put something together, if you all are comfortable. And maybe, if you all think that we could come back at the end of March and you're still not totally sidelined. Um, or what about the, I think the beginning of April might be hard just because we have the retreat and council meeting that there's a lot going on, but... It's spring break. Yes, I'm on. Yeah. Unless you all feel comfortable with us tightening it up.

[01:25:30] Lindsey Hagen: I do think, though, we need to add a lot of objectivity to some of this, you know, and so I worry that we are then overstep, like, I, like, my stuff really has to have very clear. Yeah. We want that too. So,

[01:25:51] Christian Murdoch: I think I'd proposed earlier, maybe just indicating some of these that are maybe of greatest interest that would form the required menu for the streamlined gatekeeper. Um, focusing on those that already have some current objectivity to them as part of this, you know, period one. that we're trying to create. Um, number 2 on page three, we have to have that. Um, that.

[01:26:20] Member Lucas Ramirez: Business retention.

[01:26:22] Lindsey Hagen: Business retention's not a lousy effort. Yeah. Is this retention is not objective at all. Oh, 2 A. Yeah, sorry.

[01:26:31] Member Lucas Ramirez: You don't do the wrong age, but yeah, the ones with the most objective, affordable housing, in public, always based communions, these, those are always. I think where it gets to WOS. Yeah. story confirmation.

[01:26:44] Christian Murdoch: I think that wouldn't make the cut in this 1st version of this. It's just hard to define objectively without significant.

[01:26:50] Unknown Speaker: Not that we can include those as, like, ideas, but, um, I think these Romania's guidelines

[01:26:55] Christian Murdoch: that shape on streamlined projects, right? Where we can decide.

[01:27:00] Unknown Speaker: Well,

[01:27:00] Lindsey Hagen: community facilities, though, we need to add things like sizes and because otherwise someone's going to propose something ridiculous. I've actually seen them. Yeah, I mean, the size of the facility and types because sometimes, you, you know, like, see, like, see, like, the use, right? So we have to make sure our other departments want the facility as well because then they become the programmer. I've seen kind of that fail a little bit in this process.

[01:27:29] Member Chris Clark: You know, it's funny. 2D is the one where I, I would actually be fairly comfortable with being deferential to staff, right? So, subject to, um, the uh, the city manager, right? The city manager says, we need that facility, I'm cool with that, being a street button keeper request, you know? Um, like that, if it's a city facility, right? The city staff are in the best position to tell the council what you want. That one I don't think needs to be. That's robustly, well, I mean, I trust your judgment on this. you know, or, you know, an Olympic size, you know, public swimming pool or something, right? Like that would be something that I think would be hard to turn down. The other ones, and again, you know, I'm not, I'm not terribly prescriptive here, right? I can quibble with numbers and categories, but I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm putting all of my political capital up to one very specific change. I think, um,

[01:28:30] Christian Murdoch: we can work with the public open space component, I think, you know, maybe a 3 quarters per minimum, and then percentage of Siberia, about that, just to make sure, um, something is portion to the project. And then, um, on a community design principles, you know, there's 75% negative trees, and I'm staying being, that's a deep, no cars, and something, but there's a staging file. Um, not involving, you know, demolition of a historic resource might be the version of B that's objective.

[01:29:20] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, probably a good thing. Yeah.

[01:29:27] Member Lucas Ramirez: It's essentially taking these and just turning them out, but...

[01:29:30] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I'm trying to make them. Everyone wants to make these go away. I don't think...

[01:29:36] Member Chris Clark: Right. So that's like a categorical, yeah, like we should accept that, but I don't think these actually achieve any goals that the council actually has, right? So it would be, this exists, but the categories are different. The categories would be.

[01:29:51] Christian Murdoch: All of these things we're talking about, right? For the streamlined criteria, is there a, you know, and does not component, you know, if it does not convert resident to our industrial land area or for the streamlined criteria? Still be a regular gatekeeper.

[01:30:06] Unknown Speaker: I feel strongly about that.

[01:30:08] Member Chris Clark: You do or don't?

[01:30:10] Member Lucas Ramirez: But we have had the interest. birdie and industrial sites. potential recreation. So we should be careful about that.

[01:30:20] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, that's why I'm saying it. I don't. I, yeah, I

[01:30:25] Member Chris Clark: don't want to be prescribed. It's more what we're trying to. If the council decides.

[01:30:30] Member Chris Clark: Yeah. Yeah, we could. at the end, that's we always, at the end of the day, we've got seep with, right? And then we always have the ability to deny a general planning amendment. But, yeah, I think it's more like our, these may not be all of our goals, right? Um, I'm, I'm, I think as a starting point, as the fair had reference, it's, it's, it's pretty, pretty strong, right? There might be other things that the council's interested in. But I think this is more, like, what are we trying to achieve with a gatekeeper? That's what I'm hoping the council will articulate. So if we align on that, does it still need to come back to see? I

[01:31:11] Member Lucas Ramirez: don't think so. Yeah, I think we're, I think we're clear now.

[01:31:14] Unknown Speaker: You probably can't get away with a cassette item, I'll say. Probably not. I can also have too. You never know. We may be able to work some magic. Someone can always pull it.

[01:31:25] Christian Murdoch: One other piece, just if we're to think about 2A, right, as a requirement, you know, for a project proposing residential use, you have these affordable vanity levels. Is there anything from the reworked exemptions that we presented that's relevant, like, you know, if it's a residential project that has these affordability levels and it's at least 30 units per acre or adjacent to a site from already? Designated for hire residential, hire residential density. So we're encouraging the expansion of higher density residential, next to higher density residential, through the streamlined gatekeeper.

[01:32:01] Member Chris Clark: Well, I think the, um, proposed project density of at least 30 units per acre is actually important. It's not merely that you're providing, you know, a lot of affordable housing. Those are all single family homes. It's not really achieving Arena obligations. So I do I do like that as a parameter for residential projects. But then again, there may be, so the cheers point, I don't want to be too prescriptive because there may be a scenario where someone submits a project that has great merit and requires a lower density because it's in Waverly Park or something, you know, where I don't know.

[01:32:41] Unknown Speaker: You highlighted such an example. Um, let me discuss.

[01:32:45] Lindsey Hagen: So, I think, though, just to make sure, but then you, a streamline project could look like somebody submitting 30 dwelling units an acre on a site that's immediately surrounded by our one, all our one. If we, if you don't also include the 12 dwelling unit, an acre component. So I just want to make sure that's clear and then that would be streamlined. And not that you can't prove it in the end. I'm not sure if that's the type of project we're fine to get to. That's good point.

[01:33:17] Member Chris Clark: I, I don't have a philosophical objection to developing pretty intensely next to R one. R one isn't special to me, but I, I know, again, this is just the privilege of having an application review.

[01:33:33] Unknown Speaker: I think the, the mind is being made is, you have an application like that where it's gonna get, oh, arms has the right seat all the way to the end. There's a year of kicking, screaming, only to get to more kicking and screaming and underwear.

[01:33:50] Member Chris Clark: Yeah, study sessions, though. Right. And at any time the council can say we actually don't want to continue processing. That's my understanding. We always retain the right to say, you know what? You're wasting a bunch of time leading

[01:34:02] Unknown Speaker: up to that because something that's ultimately going to.

[01:34:05] Lindsey Hagen: Yeah, and also expense because to get someone to a completed application into the realm where we would even take them to the study session, that's quite a distance to go. I think it's just important to think about those factors.

[01:34:20] Christian Murdoch: So, recognizing this is, you know, expected to be iterative? Is there a, you know, more limited approach to this 1st version that is tied to adjacent higher density residential and this 1st iteration? And if the sky didn't fall, or we figured out like we like a checkpoint with the study sessions, it's working for us, you know, the council could decide to lift that, right? Perhaps open up more opportunities in the future.

[01:34:49] Unknown Speaker: I feel like an annual review of the policy is probably. I mean, I, my, my hypothesis is given the market, and given that we're likely to impose very strict criteria. There won't be any streamlined gatekeepers. My time on council, you know, but every year, the council can take a look and say, you know, this is, this is not working. Maybe we need to bring 20% affordable down to 15%. Oh, just have the committee do. They can kick things up to counsel. That's fine too. I'm okay with that. The periodic review is the important thing and not necessarily getting right 1st time because we're not. Yeah, that's what I said, we don't want the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is the 1st time we've ever been brought this to CBC to create such a policy. So we can try and see what works, see what doesn't, come back. I think it's a great idea to just have the committee review it annually. Then maybe once we're kind of used to this and we get to a cadus. And he's like, we're fine with this. We don't need to review it annually, but in COVID, I think it's a nice, you know, little ones there. And they think it's a way to get through. But... We

[01:35:57] Unknown Speaker: want to summarize something we can both look with. Do we trust Seth to do it? Let's just let's summarize it. Just make sure we're

[01:36:06] Member Lucas Ramirez: all on the same page.

[01:36:07] Christian Murdoch: Well, what we have, building off of the draft policy prepared by staff and attachment one is keeping the content that's in the draft policy. Um, shifting the suggested application criteria to be required application criteria for streamlined gatekeepers. And um, limiting them to a 2 acre parcel size. If they're residential projects, proposing at least 30 dwelling units per acre, including the affordability criteria in two point A, um, requiring public open space, a half acre to a 3 quarters of an acre, or percentage of the site, whichever is greater. We need to work on that a little bit, thinking about what makes sense, but, um, providing a community facility, um, community use that's, um, identified as a city need, subject to the city manager's concurrence, or participating in a city approved GDR at 30,000 square feet, or, Um, and then, I think also, including from Lukini, design sensible, the reason, uh, diversity, objective criteria, no demolition of a historic resource, and achieving net 0 carbon emission, building, and site design.

[01:37:28] Member Chris Clark: I mean, that, that, there will be new projects that will achieve all of those, but starting, the council has the opportunity to say, whether they want to be more strict or more.

[01:37:41] Unknown Speaker: Actually, it's also kind of a down, council work plan projects and divorce manager, no.

[01:37:46] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I still think that I would have that...

[01:37:53] Unknown Speaker: Oh. I think when we, we have our 1st hearing, we review it, we can decide if we want to. I'm okay with that, you know, I think I,

[01:38:07] Member Chris Clark: I, if I'm understanding it correctly, then, so, compromise, I can live with

[01:38:11] Christian Murdoch: it. That list becomes the modified exemptions that are in the municipal code, the city code currently for rezonings and general plan amendments, and then we delete the versions of the gatekeeper exemptions that are here. And then for regular gatekeepers, we essentially keep the full venue. Um, Suggested criteria that are not required. At the end of the day, so that's still a political.

[01:38:38] Member Chris Clark: I move that we approved that recommendation. Second. Look at this. Democracy's still alive.

[01:38:44] Unknown Speaker: Okay. I, uh, send a check, Clark. All right. I'm gonna need to add some member of our names. Yes. A term, McAllister is, I've sent him my carrots Tuesday. Of course they do. The wife senior...

[01:39:08] Unknown Speaker: I give that. All my senior. Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thanks a lot. is virtual public participation in meetings about save bodies and members. That is, I am getting already.

[01:39:31] Unknown Speaker: Actually, don't have a presentation. This is something that you refer to counsel. My fault.

[01:39:37] Unknown Speaker: Yes, I'm glad you did, because I have opinions on this.

[01:39:41] Unknown Speaker: However, you'd like to leave. It was shortened.

[01:39:47] Member Chris Clark: It's up to you, chair. I'm happy to share some of the rationale. I missed some of the debate left. And what happened, too?

[01:39:54] Member Lucas Ramirez: What prompted it?

[01:39:55] Member Chris Clark: So I'm pretty sure this came up after the Zoom bombing. Yes. And there were a couple of the staff report, I think, articulates all of the things that have come up, but just to reiterate them, having, you know, clear and consistent procedures that apply universally written down is always a nice thing, why we're on CPPC, but also giving the chair or the city manager or the IT director some discretion to act swiftly in the event there is, you know, some an attack like that or some other uh, deviate from the, um, uh, from a conventional public participation or virtual medium element, right? Just having having a procedure written down so we can respond in real time. Um, and then we also talked about other ways of mitigating those impacts, I think, given what happened last November, I think we could probably anticipate future attacks. Um, so, Do we decouple public comments? So you have in-person public comment early and then virtual public comment at the end of the meeting? Some jurisdictions have done that. Um, so it's, it's, it's more an opportunity to codify some rules and regulations so everyone's on the same page. And in the, now that we have a, an environment where we're finding some people are misusing the technology. Yeah.

[01:41:21] Unknown Speaker: Although I think it's, um, I think the majority of the issues would likely be through Zoom, but I think they're also, which is that I've seen at other. So I guess I, The question was um, oh, the, So I think we're allowed, and we do it, some of these meetings already, like the ceremonial meeting, where if it's a special meeting, we don't have to allow oral communications, and probably on agenda items. I think that should just be a policy. Like, there's a special meeting, there's no world, public in person, on Zoom. Full stop. Um, just regular meeting, obviously, both. The question I had, and maybe it's for the city attorney's office, but, um, is, do we, do we have to allow virtual, um, on, on agenda items, or can we limit that to just in person? Speakers, that that specific.

[01:42:31] Unknown Speaker: On item five. Um. I think it's, it's a little checky to say, but one specific item was not gonna allow virtual speakers, but you're gonna allow items on the agenda. I think that, I don't know that there's really a, a law against it. With the exception of if you have council members attending, virtually, then you have to let people comment personally, right? So it's the only legal parameter that requires per comment at any level. You don't actually have to allow virtual public moment at all. Right. That's

[01:43:15] Unknown Speaker: where I was. So I'm probably in the minority here. If it were me, I would just say, We'll, we'll still podcast our meetings, all those things, but if you want to comment on an item, you either need to be at the council in person, or you always have the ability to submit something, the email, or, you could submit a voice note in advance and we could play the me. I don't know, but I, There's a part of me that would just eliminate the roof component of, because there are other avenues, either in person or just submitting the comments in advance, unless there's a council my representative. But I'm, I, I realize. But I do think at a minimum, we don't already, we should just eliminate becoming a non-agenda items for any meeting that isn't for your meeting. And then if we, we have the ability. To only have, in person, but we comment on that agenda items. Right, thank you. But what we haven't addressed is the, the policies and procedures were, you know, what we do with, um, on those off the rails in person, but. Using this in San Jose and all sorts, just have that.

[01:44:41] Unknown Speaker: weather. And so we have a weapon during, I thought it was also on

[01:44:48] Member Lucas Ramirez: an item. It was on item. It was on a couple items. And so what you read at the beginning of this meeting came from what happened there where it was like, no, we, we, and we warned them during the meeting. We were zoom bombed, people said some pretty vile things and we said, and we could tell in the queue that there were people with like fake names in there. And so, uh, we said, if you are going to speak on items that aren't pertinent to the agenda, or they're disruptive to the meeting, we will be, we will cut you off, and that's exactly what we did. Um, but it was during the items and it was virtual. To your point though. You know, there have been many cities that have seen folks show up in person. Especially now that are agitating like we've seen, virtually. So, we would probably do the same thing, but it would be harder because it's easier just to meet someone. Yeah, can you imagine

[01:45:48] Unknown Speaker: turn off their mic pretty easily, but there's still...

[01:45:50] Unknown Speaker: Yes, they're still in the chamber.

[01:45:51] Unknown Speaker: Yes, yes. And there's really not that much.

[01:45:55] Member Lucas Ramirez: Other than, you know, we have folks present in the median that would help with situation like that, but you're right.

[01:46:02] Unknown Speaker: And we've already got language in our policies about how we small intuition, if it was same person.

[01:46:10] Unknown Speaker: I'm just, I don't know. I've been in this weird simplify everything mode for the last 6 months. And, you know, you read that paragraph. Yeah. Like, to me is... Can we just not do virtual coffee? Like, just submit in writing what you want to do, submit a voice note. There isn't, plays with profanity in advance. Um, and, Your people can still watch the media live, but we, we just, we, we risk a lot of that. And I realize there's a there's a huge cost to that because most people are, um, new names, but most people, you know, act in good faith and provide really valuable comments remote. But most of those, a lot of those people who are provide really insightful comments also significant council, where they speak, right, and they just reiterate their. So, my mind, it isn't a huge trade, but. It really is to others. That's a really big. Um, that would be a really big change, but. And

[01:47:20] Member Lucas Ramirez: then I did ask the clerk, we brought this up to see if you see last year about eliminating. First public on my fellow staff. Recommendation are an option. How come I don't remember? It was at CBC.

[01:47:36] Unknown Speaker: It was something that we had conversations, but... council about and then talked about Adam. And kind of everyone

[01:47:43] Unknown Speaker: said the majority was not in favor.

[01:47:49] Unknown Speaker: I don't know what majority would do now, but I do remember that. I think, yeah, we could allow virtual, you know, if someone has a presentation or someone is, you know, invited. an applicant needs to do a remote presentation. That's one thing, but I think. Unless there's, unless the attorney's office said we don't actually have to read this anymore before every meeting, but not that that's the only thing. I just, I don't know. You mentioned I'll be in a world where... I think virtually... But I want to address whatever, specifically, this is meant, what we were.

[01:48:40] Member Chris Clark: I mean, your conclusion was one I had come to as well. Um, I, so, I think just sort of saying it out loud. Part of the challenge is, um, you know, it's, it's unpleasant to sit in a meeting where people are saying those things. Um, But it's much, much worse if it's directed at you, you know? And that's, I think that's something that some folks don't have a full appreciation for. And I was pretty close to it in San Jose, my boss. Prior boss was the one who actually ended up moving to eliminate virtual public comment entirely because he was just tired of it, like when you're sitting there being subject to it for like 15 minutes or 20 minutes. Um,

[01:49:22] Member Lucas Ramirez: What and what did the council do there?

[01:49:24] Member Chris Clark: The council eliminated virtual participation from every meeting. Okay. So just hard stop. And, uh, we still get tons and tons of emails saying bring back virtual participation. Um, but but San Jose was targeted just in such a sustained way, right? where, like, you just can't function, right, after having that kind of vitriol directed at you. You know, and I think if you're like, again, it's unpleasant, if it's not directed at you, but you can kind of like, move past it and get back to business. So I think that's, that's, that's a subtlety that, you know, everyone may appreciate. Um, but it's why I, I, I tend to agree with you, right? Like, I, I would rather, create an environment where everyone feels welcome and free to participate than have an environment where, I mean, it's a good thing that a lot of people have participated virtually. And generally, you know, We haven't had a problem, right? I think it does open up opportunities to participate, but your point is well taken, right? You can you can come to a meeting, you can reach out where pretty accessible is the council. Most of us check our emails regularly. Yeah. Um, So it's not like you are denied an avenue to participate. Um, just, it, you know, it helps, it helps create more wealth mean and inclusive environment where you don't have to, been thinking, oh, man, do I have to, you know, endure

[01:50:50] Unknown Speaker: some really challenging people. And, you know, there were debates where people showed up in person and screamed at me directly, and that's okay. I mean, it wasn't fun, but we're gonna make the effort and let's wrong way about my position on something, and that's okay.

[01:51:04] Member Chris Clark: And not even just like, I mean, I know you're not saying this, but like, you know, it's not, in most cases, it's not because of the position of you're taking, it's because of who you are, right? And that's that's where, like, I'm, I, it's, it's, that's why we're having this discussion at the end of the day. I think it's like, how do you, how do you make sure that you don't have, you're not inviting vitriol and hatred into a space where,

[01:51:28] Unknown Speaker: just easier to say things you would normally say. than it is. Yeah, you can make up a name, yeah. And most of them are on video, right? Deliberately. Which is fine, but I don't know. I'm just of the... Especially since we're in this what every single committee means.

[01:51:52] Member Chris Clark: Well, part of this is the good government, good governance cap, it's like whatever we do, there should be a policy that applies to university, right? If we allow virtual participation, then we should allow it everywhere. It shouldn't just be like this ad hoc. That's

[01:52:05] Unknown Speaker: why it feels a little weird to. We're not gonna do virtual comment for oral communications, but we'll do it for everything else, I feel like it's just...

[01:52:13] Member Chris Clark: Well, the thing, since disproportionately, it tends to be non-agenda public comment, where people say, well, things, and that's where it's harder to turn them off, you

[01:52:21] Member Chris Clark: know, one idea was put that at the end of a meeting. So make them wait until 2 o'clock in the morning, just about their age rate, right? Most folks aren't. And it's rare for non-agenda public comment to have dramatic impact on the council meeting that people are speaking at, right? Right.

[01:52:37] Member Chris Clark: So that was one sort of... I'd be fine with moving it, but I just... But for the, we could, so I'm, I'm, I'm interested in exploring that. I don't think it's going to get majority support from the council, but I think You never know. I

[01:52:56] Member Lucas Ramirez: mean, so if that's what I'm hearing that the majority of the committee is interested in exploring. Not allowing it. I mean, we can float it. to council or maybe talk about it at your retreat. Yeah. I mean,

[01:53:09] Unknown Speaker: it could be a menu of things. Yeah. We could do it at the retreat before we get the public also form up about it. public. Um, but, um, Because I'm not sure there's majority sport, but maybe, maybe if we, um, Maybe we exported the retreat. There can be a menu of options too. Like, I don't mind moving oral communications at the end. Like, maybe...

[01:53:31] Unknown Speaker: Oh, less holistically or just virtual?

[01:53:34] Unknown Speaker: All of it. Oh, and they can just do that. Yeah,

[01:53:38] Member Lucas Ramirez: an order of agenda. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. We can tell the mayor. And we've already swapped the closed session report out. So the after closed session. It used to be at the end of the agenda. So we moved that up. So we could talk to the mayor about moving that at the end. Seems we might, Think

[01:53:57] Unknown Speaker: about things there might be 4 votes for, like that might be one. You don't eliminate virtual public comedy council meetings. Maybe we don't need it for committee meetings. you know, maybe you can just submit. I think. Um, I don't know. There's a whole different permutations of it. Well,

[01:54:15] Member Lucas Ramirez: you all will be talking about different communication norms and things like that at the retreat. So, we could, love this, retreat. Oh,

[01:54:25] Unknown Speaker: again, pick up to. Yeah. Is there anything specific we want to do today here or do we want to just agree to bring it up? Breed? Yeah,

[01:54:35] Unknown Speaker: I would see that, let's see what, if I may, let's see what comes out of the retreat. And then we can kind of tailor whatever makes change based on that. Whether it's holistic to all of the parties or just counselors, it's a pilot for a while and then kind of modify as a policy, but then we can see what's involved. Yeah, and based on how

[01:54:59] Unknown Speaker: they feel about certain things we bring up, they could always just refer it back to us. And then we take another stab at it. Yeah,

[01:55:07] Unknown Speaker: this was really just to kind of give you the forum to have a discussion about it. Uncomfortable.

[01:55:19] Unknown Speaker: Is there any public humming on this item?

[01:55:21] Unknown Speaker: Yes, yes. Oh, there is. Um,

[01:55:24] Unknown Speaker: we have Bruce England. Um,

[01:55:29] Bruce England: yeah, Bruce England Wisbon Station Drive. So I'm probably one person who takes a great advantage of the virtual commenting at a variety of meetings, not just city council meetings, but a lot of people have body meetings too. So I'm very familiar with that process. I also know that the number of people who have made negative comments and have been disruptive, it's been really rare. There aren't there haven't been that many cases of it, and as was pointed out, when it happened, they were just cut off, and that's the appropriate way to handle it. But the optics of compromising, the public commenting in this way, is just really poor. And I just, you might not realize how many people out in the community are actually participating in discussions that lead up to the public commenting. And sometimes they're simply not available until the a jet item comes up because everybody has lives, right? We're all, um, doing the things we need to do that are important and pressing right at the moment, and we're not necessarily prepared to write a letter, have it reviewed by multiple people in that whole process, and given that the staff reports and the packets don't come out until a few days before the meeting makes it even more challenging to pull together a comment letter that can represent a group of people. So having as many options as possible is essential. And I also want to point out that the virtual public commenting is also important for people who just can't get to the uh, city hall, you know, for they have disabilities or young kids or anything like that. I think going down a route of restricting any public participation in any way is going down the wrong path, and I urge you to not entertain the idea. If you want to discuss it at the retreat, Sounds like you're discussing doing that. That might be appropriate. But I do urge you to not go down any path that leads to any sort of restrictions on what we have right now. Thank you.

[01:57:15] Unknown Speaker: Good points. Thank you, bro.

[01:57:18] Unknown Speaker: Next, we have Soldier Paymer.

[01:57:23] Celia Pammer: Hi, um, I'm Celia Pammer. Um, and I agree with Bruce. Um, For instance, this meeting, I was like, oh, I don't know if it's too many things that are coming up and I was able to get a text from someone who's like, there's something important going on and I could jump right in and hear about it and hear it live, whereas I wouldn't be able to get to City Hall. Because I'm driving my kid to swim team practice right now and are about to jump in the car. And I've definitely, I've had times in the evenings where it's, you know, the transportation committee, and I'm listening to it while reading books to my kids and I'm able to go over and give input on roots that my kids are going to take to bike to school in high school. Um, So it's, it's part of including equitable voices. Um, I don't think you will get as much input from parents, from people who are working, from people who might have disabilities, from people who might have transportation issues. There's a whole host of reasons why it's super important to allow virtual commenting in order to include our citizens' voices in our democratic process and representation. Um, so I think we would be really, Moving away from a lot of our, I would think city principles of inclusion, if we remove public comment times through the virtual meetings. Thank you. And that's even for committee meetings. Thanks. you.

[01:58:54] Unknown Speaker: Next, we have Emily Abraham.

[01:58:59] Emily Abraham: Yep, hi, can you hear me? Yes. Uh, perfect. Um, yeah, I agree with what, um, Celia and um, Bruce mentioned that I think virtual commenting has opened up, um, just a ton of possibilities for me. Like, I used to, it used to be so difficult to attend meetings and even, like, listening in, because if I can't make public comment, there's very little reason to just listen in, right? I'm not allowed to give input, but virtual comments has opened up, yeah, where I can multitask, I can be at home, and if I don't have time to attend the meeting, I can attend the meeting and make my voice hurt. Um, But I do try to attend the in-person meetings as much as I can, but I have a job. I have activities after work and I'd love to continue to be able to attend, virtually, whenever I can. Um, but yeah, if if you, if there are hateful comments coming on, then I think the appropriate action is, yeah, to mute them, kick them out of the call. Um, we should really only be allowing for relevant um, public comment. Um but yeah, thank you.

[02:00:08] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Of course, comment, it sounds like we're not thinking action on this item now. Could be something that we bring up the, um, of the, um, retreat. So 5.3 council policy procedures, agenda, topics, update, um, do you have any? Uh,

[02:00:31] Unknown Speaker: just briefly share, uh, uh, the CPC holds approximately 2 meetings per year, and for this fiscal year, you are through this meeting completing your, uh, items that were on your action plan, uh, with today's action, uh, the gatekeeper, I also heard would be potentially an ongoing annual update item, and then there may be some additional follow-up associated with the virtual. But we'll see what transpires for the retreat. But as of this time, you are completed on your work plan for this fiscal year, and then we'll see what the development occurs for the new fiscal year. And that concludes a staff separate report. And

[02:01:08] Unknown Speaker: if there are items that come up throughout the year, someone could bring it up as an item A to...

[02:01:13] Unknown Speaker: And then we incorporate it into the workplane. But

[02:01:17] Unknown Speaker: they probably want to do that before the word of my answer off, that's still weird.

[02:01:20] Unknown Speaker: Um, the CPPC doesn't do a advisory buddy work plan, it's iterative, uh, so we can continue to add items as needed. Um, Is

[02:01:32] Unknown Speaker: there any public comment on item? Item 6 uh committee staff comments, questions. Give me your books. Sure, very much. Um, I think I'm okay, thank you. I don't have anything, um, So that completes all the items on our agenda, so we'll adjourn it points to non-beam. Thank you. You. Can't follow me. That was a good deal.

• ← Previous
• Next →