19:02:28 >> Mayor Mei: I'D LIKE CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER FOR EA APRIL 20TH, 2021. I GUESS WE'LL START WITH COUNCILMEMBER 19:02:35 SALWAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE? >> Councilmember Salwan: PLEASE RISE. 19:02:48 I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE 19:02:52 NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. 19:03:00 MS. GAUTHIER, ROLL CALL, PLEASE? >> Ms. Gauthier: YES, MADAME MAYOR. I WILL ASK THAT ANYONE WHO IS NOT THE 19:03:06 MAYOR OR COUNCILMEMBERS OR THE CITY MANAGER OR CITY ATTORNEY, IF YOU'LL PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR MICROPHONES AND 19:03:12 PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR VIDEO FEATURE UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED UPON. OR UNTIL YOUR ITEM IS BEING HEARD. 19:03:21 THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER COX, PRESENT. COUNCILMEMBER SALWAN, PRESENT. 19:03:29 COUNCILMEMBER KASSAN, HERE. COUNCILMEMBER JONES, HERE. COUNCILMEMBER KENG, PRESENT. 19:03:36 VICE MAYOR SHAO, PRESENT. MAYOR MEI, HERE. >> Mayor Mei: AND SO AT THIS TIME, I 19:03:41 WANTED TO WELCOME THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATING THIS EVENING. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE DO 19:03:49 SO BY RAISING -- PRESSING THE RAISE HAND ICON OR BY DIALING STAR NINE IF YOU'RE DIALING IN. 19:03:55 I'LL MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT BEFORE EACH SECTION OF THE MEETING, AND WE WILL KINDLY REQUEST MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 19:04:01 TO PLEASE TURN DOWN YOUR MIC DURING THE TIME THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING, OTHERWISE IT MAY CAUSE INTERFERENCE WITH THE 19:04:05 SPEAKER SYSTEM. EMAILS SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK ARE COMPILED, DISTRIBUTED TO THE CITY 19:04:11 COUNCIL AND PUBLISHED IN THE CITY'S AGENDA CENTER ON FREMONT.GOV AND WILL BE PLACED ON FILE AND CONSIDERED PART 19:04:19 OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. AT THIS TIME, I WILL TURN THE MEETING OVER TO OUR ACTING CITY MANAGER. 19:04:28 I'M NOT SURE WHO IS -- >> Mr. Stott: I'LL TAKE IT, MAYOR. >> Mayor Mei: SORRY, THANK YOU, BRIAN, 19:04:32 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER BRIAN STOTT. >> Mr. Stott: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. 19:04:40 I DON'T HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS TODAY, BUT BY WAY OF INTRODUCTIONS, I'M JOINED BY OUR INTERIM ASSISTANT CITY 19:04:46 ATTORNEY, DEBRA MARGOLIS, OUR CITY CLERK, SUSAN GAUTHIER, AND SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE SENIOR STAFF. 19:04:52 THANK YOU. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. AND I'LL ALSO ANNOUNCE THAT THE 19:04:58 MEETING WILL GOING IN 11:30 P.M. IF NEEDED, AND I'LL ALLOW FOR 30 MINUTES OF GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, ONE MINUTE 19:05:05 PER SPEAKER, AND WE'LL ALLOW ANYTHING ELSE AT THE END AS TIME REMAINS. SO THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE ITEMS THAT 19:05:11 WILL BE PASSED WITH ONE COUNCIL VOTE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS WILL STAND. ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO 19:05:19 PULL AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR CAN DO SO BY RAISING THEIR HAND. DOES THE CITY COUNCIL HAVE ANY ITEMS 19:05:24 THEY'D LIKE TO PULL? SEEING NONE, DOES THE PUBLIC? LET ME LOOK. 19:05:32 WE HAVE TWO PEEK WHO HAVE RAISED THEIR HANDS AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. 19:05:41 ONE, KELLY. >> Ms. Gauthier: WHICH ITEM ARE YOU HERE TO SPEAK ON? 19:05:47 >> THE FIRST ITEM, AMENDMENTS TO VARIOUS ITEMS OF THE PARKING AND ZONING. 19:05:53 >> Ms. Gauthier: I'M SORRY, WHICH AGENDA ITEM? >> LET'S SEE. 19:06:06 >> THE AMENDMENTS TO VARIOUS ZONING ORDINANCES AND PARKING. >> Ms. Gauthier: IS THAT 2D? 19:06:11 >> YEAH. >> Ms. Gauthier: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT. 19:06:20 >> Mayor Mei: OKAY. NEXT IS -- >> Ms. Gauthier: SUR ESH. 19:06:24 >> SAME ITEM, 2D. >> Ms. Gauthier: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL COME BACK TO THOSE. 19:06:28 >> Mayor Mei: OKAY. >> Ms. Gauthier: SORRY, ONE MORE, MADAME MAYOR. 19:06:35 MOHAN IRE, WHICH ITEM YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON? >> 5B. 19:06:39 >> Ms. Gauthier: I'M SORRY? >> Mayor Mei: 5B. >> Ms. Gauthier: ALL RIGHT. 19:06:42 WE'LL GET TO THAT ONE. WE'RE JUST DOING CONSENT CALENDAR RIGHT NOW. 19:06:47 >> Mayor Mei: SO COULD I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE -- >> Ms. Gauthier: I'M SORRY, MADAME 19:07:02 MAYOR, WE HAVE ANOTHER HAND. IS THIS FOR THE CONSENT CALENDAR? >> I AM HERE TO SPEAK ON THE MOHAVE 19:07:04 HOMES. >> Ms. Gauthier: WE'RE NOT ON THAT ITEM. 19:07:12 WE'RE DISCUSSING THE CONSENT CALENDAR RIGHT NOW. >> Councilmember Jones: SO MOVED WITH 19:07:20 THE EXCEPTION OF 2D. >> Mayor Mei: MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER JONES, SECONDED BY -- 19:07:24 >> Councilmember Cox: SECOND. >> Mayor Mei: COUNCILMEMBER COX. ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE. 19:07:30 >> Ms. Gauthier: YES, MADAME MAYOR. COUNCILMEMBER COX, AYE. COUNCILMEMBER SALWAN, AYE. 19:07:38 COUNCILMEMBER KASSAN, AYE. COUNCILMEMBER JONES, AYE. COUNCILMEMBER KENG, AYE. 19:07:46 VICE MAYOR SHAO, AYE. MAYOR MEI, AYE. >> Mayor Mei: AND THE CONSENT CALENDAR 19:07:51 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM -- I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER -- I THINK IT WAS 2D? 19:08:02 YES. SO THANK YOU. NEXT IS SAIR MOUGHONIAN ITEMS. 19:08:09 CEREMONIAL ITEMS. WE DO NOT HAVE ONE THIS EVENING, SO NEXT IS PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS. 19:08:16 ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE SCHEDULED AGENDA THIS EVENING MAY DO SO UNDER ORAL 19:08:19 COMMUNICATIONS SECTION OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE WILL ALLOW FOR 30 MINUTES OF 19:08:22 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, ONE MINUTE PER SPEAKER. WE'LL ALLOW ANYTHING ELSE AT THE END 19:08:31 OF THE MEETING IF TIME REMAINS. SO LET BEGIN WITH THE LIST. I'M SORRY, I'M SCROLLING THROUGH 19:08:34 THINGS RIGHT NOW. >> Ms. Gauthier: I'M SORRY, I JUST WANT TO DOUBLE-CHECK, MADAME MAYOR, 19:08:39 YOU WANT ONE MINUTE, TWO MINUTES, THREE MINUTES? >> Mayor Mei: ACTUALLY SINCE -- WHY 19:08:43 DON'T WE -- SINCE WE ONLY HAVE SPEAKER, I THINK 3 MINUTES WOULD BE FINE AND EVEN IF IT'S MORE THAN ONE. 19:08:47 BUT 3 MINUTES. >> Ms. Gauthier: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 19:08:57 SONIA KHAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THIS IS SONIA KHAN, HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION 19:09:01 SPEAKING ON MY OWN BEHALF THIS EVENING. I'M GOING TO START READING THE REMARKS 19:09:09 BY A STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE ACLU AT 2:00 P.M. THIS AFTERNOON. DEREK CHAUVIN HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF 19:09:13 THE MURDER OF GEORGE FLOYD. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MINNESOTA STATE HISTORY, A WHITE POLICE OFFICER HAS 19:09:18 BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR KILLING A BLACK MAN. WHILE TODAY'S VERDICT IS A SMALL WIN 19:09:26 FOR POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY, AND MAY HELP HEAL A GRIEVING COMMUNITY, THE SYSTEMS THAT ALLOWED GEORGE TO BE MURDERED, 19:09:31 RIPPING HIM AWAY FROM HIS FAMILY AND THE COMMUNITIES THAT LOVED HIM SO MUCH REMAIN FULLY INTACT. 19:09:36 GEORGE FLOYD WILL NEVER AGAIN PLAY GAMES WITH HIS DAUGHTER. HE'LL NEVER GO ON WALKS THROUGH THE 19:09:41 PARK WITH HIS FIANCE COURTNEY. HE WILL NEVER PLAY BASKETBALL WITH HIS BROTHER. 19:09:49 TRUE JUSTICE WOULD MEAN GEORGE FLOYD WAS NEVER KILLED IN THE FIRST PLACE. THIS RACIST SYSTEM OF POLICING ALSO 19:09:55 RESULTED IN THE KILLING OF DAWN TAI WRIGHT BY POLICE LESS THAN 10 MILES FROM THAT TRIAL AND IT WILL CONTINUE 19:10:00 TAKING LIVES BY POLICE VIOLENCE AND INCARCERATION UNTIL WE OVERHAUL IT ENTIRELY. 19:10:06 GEORGE FLOYD SHOULD NOT HAVE DIED UNDER AN OFFICER'S KNEE, HE SHOULD STILL BE ALIVE TODAY. 19:10:13 SO SHOULD DAUNTE WRIGHT, BREONNA TAYLOR AND COUNTLESS OTHER BLACK PEOPLE KILLED BY POLICE. 19:10:19 TRUE JUSTICE FOR GEORGE FLOYD MEANS RENEWING OUR CONVICTION TO CREATE A WORLD WHERE POLICE DO NOT HAVE THE 19:10:25 OPPORTUNITY TO USE VIOLENCE TO TARGET BLACK PEOPLE. WE MUST ENSURE POLICE ARE NOT THE ONLY 19:10:31 RESORT FOR ADDRESSING HARM. WE MUST REMOVE POLICE FROM THE LOW LEVEL ENFORCEMENT OF OFFENSES THAT 19:10:39 SHOULDN'T BE CRIMINALIZED. WE MUST DIVERT FUNDING FROM POLICING AND TOWARDS COMMUNITY-BASED 19:10:45 SERVICES. WE DESERVE TO BE TRULY SAFE. AND I'LL JUST ADD A REMARK OF MY OWN. 19:10:52 I LIVED IN EAST L.A. IN THE CENTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS ON THE AFTERNOON THAT THE VERDICT CAME DOWN WITH THE 19:10:58 RODNEY KING BEATING TRIAL, AND I WAS WORKING AT THE COUNTY HOSPITAL, AND THERE WERE NURSES THERE IS WHO 19:11:06 PROMPTLY AT 3:00 P.M. STARTED PACKING THEIR BAGS AND GOING HOME WITH THE PHRASE "WE REMEMBER -- WE LIVE IN 19:11:12 WATTS AND WE REMEMBER 1968." THIS PROBLEM IS AN OLD PROBLEM, AND YOU'VE HEARD ME ALREADY DESCRIBE IN 19:11:18 THE PAST WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IS SYSTEMIC POLICE STATION. I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THAT 19:11:24 FEELING OF DREAD AND FEAR THAT WE ALL FELT WHILE WE WERE AT PEAK TENSION WAITING FOR THIS VERDICT TO COME DOWN 19:11:30 THIS AFTERNOON, THAT WAS A MEASURE OF THE TRUST ISSUES THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH IN POLICING IN THE UNITED STATES, 19:11:36 AND I HOPE THAT WE WILL ALL BE ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER TO FIND A WAY TO REFORM THINGS BEFORE IT GETS OUT OF HAND. 19:11:43 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS KELLY ABREU. 19:11:52 WELCOME, KELLY. >> THANK YOU. THIS CITY ORDINANCE, PARTICULAR CITY 19:11:59 ORDINANCE SPELLS OUT DETAILED REQUIREMENTS FOR EXACTLY HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED TO BE 19:12:05 BUILT ON PRIVATE LAND -- >> Councilmember Kassan: I THINK YOU'RE ON THE WRONG ITEM. 19:12:12 WE'RE NOT -- >> Mayor Mei: THIS IS PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE 19:12:19 AGENDA. >> KELLY, WE'RE NOT THERE YET. >> Mayor Mei: THE NEXT ITEM WILL BE 19:12:24 THAT. BUT YES, IF YOU COULD -- WE WILL TRY TO KEEP PEOPLE ON TRACK WITH THE 19:12:27 AGENDA ITEMS. THANK YOU, KELLY. WE'LL CALL YOU IN JUST A MINUTE. 19:12:35 THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, SEEING NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM ARE ITEMS THAT WERE PULLED FROM THE 19:12:40 CONSENT CALENDAR, WHICH INCLUDE ITEM 2D. WHICH IS THE SECOND READING AND 19:12:47 ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FREMONT AMENDING VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 10. 19:13:00 AND TITLE 18, TO CLARIFY ENHANCED DEFINITIONS. SO I'LL CALL THE SPEAKERS THAT PULLED 19:13:05 THE ITEM, AND I BELIEVE, KELLY, YOU WERE ONE OF THE SPEAKERS THAT PULLED THIS ITEM. 19:13:09 >> YES. THANK YOU. THIS CITY ORDINANCE SPELLS OUT ONCE 19:13:16 GWENDY TAILED REQUIREMENTS FOR EXACTLY HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED ON PRIVATE LAND FOR VARIOUS LAND 19:13:20 USES. ASSEMBLY, COMMERCIAL, HEALTHCARE, RESIDENTIAL. 19:13:27 THERE'S 50 PAGES OF DETAILED -- 49 PAGES OF DETAILED RULES IN THERE. BUT THE CITY HAS NEVER BOTHERED TO 19:13:34 LOOK AT WHERE THE REAL PARKING PROBLEM IS THESE DAYS. CITY PLANNERS, LAWMAKERS ARE LOOKING 19:13:42 THE OTHER WAY WHILE HANDING OUT DOZENS OF PARKING TICKETS, EACH MONTH NEAR MISSION PEAK REGIONAL PARK. 19:13:47 THIS PARTICULAR CITY ORDINANCE HASN'T ANY PARKING GUIDELINES FOR REGIONAL PARKS. 19:13:54 SO WHEN THE PARK DISTRICT DEVELOPS A NEW REGIONAL PARK, RESIDENTS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE BENEFIT FROM 19:14:02 APPRECIATION IN HOUSE VALUES, AND THOSE RESIDENTS FEEL SPECIAL. THEY WANT THEIR FAIRY GODMOTHER, THE 19:14:08 PARK DISTRICT, TO WAVE A MAGIC WAND AND MAKE FREE PARKING APPEAR. THEY WANT THE CITY COUNCIL TO RESTRICT 19:14:14 THE PARKING ON THE CITY STREETS AND LIMIT ACCESS FOR OUTSIDERS. THEY WANT THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF TWO 19:14:21 COUNTIES TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES AND PARCEL TAXES FOR ALL THOSE REGIONAL PARKS AND PARK RANGERS, BUT LIMIT THE 19:14:27 ACCESS TO A PRIVILEGED FEW. WHEN THE CITY BUILT THE NEW SABERCAT TRAIL AND RESTROOMS, THE CITY 19:14:34 REPURPOSED EXISTING STREET PARKING. THE CITY DIDN'T BLOCK PARKING NEAR THE ENTRANCES FOR ITS OWN TRAIL. 19:14:43 CITIES LIKE FREMONT SHOULD STOP POINTING FINGERS AT THE REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT WHILE DEMANDING CONCIERGE 19:14:46 SERVICE. THE CITY SHOULD BE A PARTNER, NOT A FREELOADER. 19:14:56 THE CITY NEEDS TO DO ITS SHARE TO EXPAND PARKING FACILITIES. OUR POLITICIANS AND PARK MANAGERS 19:15:03 SHOULD TAKE A BALANCED APPROACH THAT CONSIDERS REGIONAL VISITORS NOT JUST NEIGHBOR COMPLAINTS. 19:15:14 THANK YOU. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL RETURN TO OUR -- 19:15:18 >> Ms. Gauthier: SURESH WAS ONE OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS. >> Mayor Mei: IS HE STILL THERE? 19:15:26 I DON'T SEE THE -- SURESH? >> YES, I'M HERE. I WAS WAITING FOR THE UNMUTE TO 19:15:31 OCCUR. >> Mayor Mei: OKAY, THANK YOU. >> I JUST WANT TO AMPLIFY AND PICK UP 19:15:38 SOMETHING THAT KELLY SAID, AND I WOULD FOCUS ON THE SABERCAT TRAIL BECAUSE THAT WAS COMPLETELY A CITY DEVELOPMENT 19:15:47 ON WHICH I DO NOT KNOW THE NUMBERS BUT SOMEWHERE IN EXCESS OF 5 MILLION, I THINK, IS SPENT AND IS A PLAN TO SPEND 19:15:58 THE $20 MILLION WHEN THAT IS EXTENDED TO BUILD THE BRIDGE ACROSS THE 680. AND THE CITY FOR WHATEVER REASON CHOSE 19:16:04 TO BUILD A SMALL PARKING LOT OF 13 OR 12 CARS IN A RESTROOM. WHICH I APPRECIATE. 19:16:11 ACCEPT THAT PARKING LOT IS HARDLY EVER USED. AND THE OTHER ENTRANCES TO THAT TRAIL 19:16:19 STARTING AT THE PINE STREET AND WHERE ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO OF COURSE ARE BENEFITED WITH THE APPRECIATION HAVE 19:16:26 PUT UP SIGNS WHICH THEY THINK ARE LEGAL TO TELL PEOPLE NOT TO PARK IN FRONT OF THE HOUSES. 19:16:33 THEY BELIEVE THAT THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE HOUSES BELONGS TO THEM. AND JUST TO AMPLIFY, THIS IS THE 19:16:42 REVERSE ROBIN HOOD APPROACH. COLLECT TAXES FROM THE LESS FORTUNATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE RICH AND THEY 19:16:52 GET THE SPECIAL TREATMENT. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS, ALLS OF COURSE THEY DONATE TO 19:16:54 VARIOUS POLITICIANS. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. 19:17:04 SO AT THIS TIME, I WILL TURN IT BACK TO THE VOTE ON THIS ITEM, IF THERE'S ANY MOTION, PLEASE? 19:17:16 >> Vice Mayor Shao: SO MOVED. >> Mayor Mei: MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER 19:17:21 SHAO, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JONES. ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE. >> Ms. Gauthier: COUNCILMEMBER COX, 19:17:27 AYE. COUNCILMEMBER SALWAN, AYE. COUNCILMEMBER KASSAN, AYE. 19:17:34 COUNCILMEMBER JONES, AYE. COUNCILMEMBER KENG, AYE. VICE MAYOR SHAO, AYE. 19:17:44 MAYOR MEI, AYE. SO ITEM 2D PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS A 19:17:50 BOND ISSUANCE. ITEM 5A. WHICH IS FOR ST. ANTON COMMUNITIES. 19:17:56 THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFINANCING A 19:18:03 MULTIFAMILY AFFORDABLE PROJECT KNOWN AS INNOVIA APARTMENTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF 19:18:07 FREMONT. THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE FINANCING IS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL TAX 19:18:12 LAW. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM ANYONE WHO 19:18:17 WISHES TO SPEAK ABOUT THE PROPOSED FINANCING. AND DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT 19:18:28 THE FINANCING? OKAY. MAY I ASK IF THERE WERE ANY WRITTEN 19:18:34 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED TAX EXEMPT BONDS FOR THE PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CLERK PRIOR TO THE HEARING? 19:18:41 >> Ms. Gauthier: NO, MADAME MAYOR. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. AS SUCH, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW 19:18:43 CLOSED. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL? 19:18:57 SEEING NONE, CAN I ASK FOR AN ACTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING 19:19:02 REVENUE BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY? 19:19:08 >> Councilmember Jones: SO MOVED. >> Mayor Mei: MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER JONES AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER 19:19:15 KENG. ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE. >> COUNCILMEMBER COX, AYE. 19:19:22 COUNCILMEMBER SALWAN, AYE. COUNCILMEMBER KASSAN, AYE. COUNCILMEMBER JONES, AYE. 19:19:29 COUNCILMEMBER KENG, AYE. VICE MAYOR SHAO, AYE. MAYOR MEI, AYE. 19:19:38 >> Mayor Mei: SO THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. TO TAKE THE ACTION TO ADOPT THE 19:19:47 RESOLUTION ISSUING THE MULTI-HOUSING REVENUE BONDS. NEXT IS ITEM 5B, WHICH IS THE OMAHA 19:19:52 WAY HOMES APPEAL. AND I'D LIKE TO INVITE ASSOCIATE PLANNER MARK HUNGERFORD, WHO WILL 19:20:03 SHARE A PRESENTATION THIS EVENING. >> HI. I'M NOT SEEING THE ABILITY TO SHARE MY 19:20:10 SCREEN. IS THERE A PROMPT THAT I NEED? >> Mayor Mei: IT WOULD BE ON ZOOM. 19:20:14 IT'S USUALLY -- DEPENDING ON THE LOCATION OF YOUR APPLICATION, IT'S USUALLY IN THE CENTER. 19:20:18 THERE IS AN OPTION THAT'S USUALLY HIGHLIGHTED WITH A GREEN ARROW ON THE BOTTOM. 19:20:21 >> I SEE IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> Mayor Mei: YOU'RE WELCOME. 19:20:33 >> OKAY. GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. 19:20:40 THE ITEM BEFORE YOU FOR TONIGHT IS FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICANT FILED APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S 19:20:49 FEBRUARY 11TH, 2021 ACTION TO DENY A PROPOSAL TO REZONE AN UNDEVELOPED 6.84-ACRE SITE AT THE TERMINUS OF 19:20:54 OMAHA WAY AND THE WARM SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD TO A PRELIMINARY AND PRECISE PLANNED DISTRICT AND TO 19:21:00 SUBDIVIDE THE SITE TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW 13-UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME DEVELOPMENT. 19:21:04 BEFORE GETTING INTO THE PROJECT SPECIFICS, I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME SETTING AND CONTEXT INFORMATION 19:21:11 ABOUT THE PROJECT SITE. THE SITE IS BOUNDED BY INTERSTATE 680 TO THE EAST, WARREN AVENUE TO THE 19:21:16 NORTH, AND A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST AND SOUTH. THIS ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD WAS 19:21:21 DEVELOPED IN THE MID TO LATE 1970s AND IS COMPRISED OF ONE AND TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. 19:21:27 THE PROJECT SITE IS A REMAINDER SITE AND LIKE MOST IN THE CITY, IT HAS UNIQUE ASPECTS TO THAT PRESENT 19:21:35 CHALLENGES FOR DEVELOPMENT. THE SITE FEATURES AN EAST-WEST SLOPE WITH SLOPES THAT ARE GENERALLY THE 19:21:40 STEEPEST ON THE FREEWAY ADJACENT HALF. THE TOTAL GRADE CHANGE FROM THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE SITE AND THE 19:21:50 FREEWAY EDGE IS APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET AND THE SITE ALSO FEATURED A CREEK AND ITS ASSOCIATED RIPARIAN AREA. 19:21:58 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS THE SAME DESIGNATION AS THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. 19:22:12 OMAHA WAY WAS STUBBED AT THE WEST END OF THE PROJECT SITE IN ANTICIPATION OF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THIS 19:22:22 PROJECT TIES INTO THAT STREET SEGMENT AS INTENDED. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ALQUIST 19:22:30 PRELLO FAULT. THESE ARE IN RED ON THE PRESENTATION IMAGE. 19:22:36 SURROUNDING THE FAULT TRACES ARE AT 30-FOOT WIDE FAULT SETBACK ZONE RECOMMENDED BY THE PROJECT'S 19:22:40 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. THIS 30-FOOT AREA IS DEEMED UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURES. 19:22:46 THE SITE ALSO FEATURES FOR DORMANT LANDSLIDES. THESE LANDSLIDES WOULD BE ELIMINATED 19:22:53 THROUGH PROJECT-CREATING ACTIVITIES. WITH THE FAULT SETBACK AREAS REMOVED FROM THE SITE, THE GROSS ACREAGE IS 19:23:03 REDUCED TO A NET OF 4.53 ACRES. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD CONSIST OF 13 INDIVIDUAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOME 19:23:12 LOTS PLUS SIX COMMON PARCELS. PROJECT LOTS WOULD MEASURE BETWEEN 8,740 SQUARE FEET AND 19,151 SQUARE 19:23:18 FEET, AND EXTEND FROM THE PROJECT'S PRIVATE STREET, WHICH IS LOCATED WEST OF THE LOTS, TO THE EDGE OF THE 19:23:24 CALTRANS PROPERTY ON THE EAST -- EAST OF THE SITE. HOME PADS ARE PROPOSED IN LOCATIONS 19:23:30 WEST OF THE FAULT SETBACK ZONE. LEAVING AREAS EAST OF THE HOMES FOR BACKYARDS AND BEYOND THAT, THE 19:23:36 HILLSIDE OPEN SPACE EASEMENT THAT WOULD BE HYDROSEEDED AND PLANTED WITH TREES TO FORM AN ATTRACTIVE BACKDROP TO THE 19:23:40 PROJECT. THE HILLSIDE WOULD BE SEPARATED FROM THE USABLE PORTIONS OF RESIDENTIAL 19:23:46 LOTS BY RETAINING WALLS AND VIEW VENS, DEPENDING ON THE LOT, AND WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE ONLY FOR MAINTENANCE 19:23:52 PURPOSES WHICH WOULD BE OVERSEEN BY THE PROJECT'S HOA. ACCESS TO PROJECT LOTS WOULD COME VIA 19:24:02 A 27-FOOT-WIDE PRIVATE STREET THAT WOULD CONNECTOME HAW WAY. IT ALLOWS FOREFRONT LOADED HOMES, 19:24:07 THEREBY PROVIDING SIGNIFICANT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE NEW HOMES AND EXISTING HOMES LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE 19:24:11 SITE. THIS ORIENTATION ALSO REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF HILLSIDE CUTTING AND GRADING 19:24:22 THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY. A FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET WITH THE 19:24:26 HOMES AND HAMMER HEADS ARE PROVIDED AT EACH STREET END FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNAROUND AREAS. 19:24:33 THE SUBDIVISION INCLUDES A COMMON USABLE OPEN SPACE AREA LOCATED IN THE CENTER OF THE PROJECT, WHERE THE FAULT 19:24:47 ZONE EXTENDS FURTHEST INTO THE SITE. THIS LOCATION MAXIMIZES THE CONVENE YENS OF THE OPEN SPACE AND DOWN INTO 19:24:54 THE DEVELOPMENT. THE 13 PROJECT HOMES WOULD RANGE BETWEEN 2,181 SQUARE FEET AND 3,106 19:24:58 SQUARE FEET. ALL HOMES WOULD CONTAIN FOUR BEDROOMS AND FEATURE AN ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE 19:25:03 WITH DRIVEWAYS THAT CONNECT TO THE PRIVATE STREET. THE APPLICANT HAS ELECTED TO REZONE 19:25:08 THE SITE TO A PLANNED DISTRICT TO MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE OF THE SITE'S 19:25:16 PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS. THE BASIS OF DEVELOPMENT IS THE R-1-6 ZONE, THE SAME AS THE ADJACENT 19:25:21 NEIGHBORHOOD IN A DISTRICT THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE LOW DENSITY DESIGNATION OF THE SITE. 19:25:28 THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE R-1-6 STANDARDS EXCEPT FOR A PORTION OF PROJECT LOTS THAT WOULD HAVEWITZ 19:25:33 AND SETBACKS LESS THAN THE DISTRICT STANDARD. LOTS WITH SUBSTANDARDWITZ NUMBER SIX 19:25:41 IN TOTAL AND ARE LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PROJECT, WHERE POSITIONING OF THE SERVICE VEHICLE 19:25:45 TURNAROUND AREA AND AVOIDANCE OF THE RIPARIAN AREA PUSH DEVELOPMENT SOUTHWARD. 19:25:52 LOTS WITH SUBSTANDARD FRONT YARD DEPTHS ALSO NUMBER SIX IN TOTAL LOCATED PRIMARILY ON THE PROJECT'S SOUTHERN 19:25:58 HALF OR THE WESTWARD ENCROACHMENT ZONE IS GREATEST. STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THESE LIMITED 19:26:03 EXCEPTIONS TO THE R-1-6 DISTRICT STANDARDS PROVIDE FOR OPTIMAL SITE DESIGN AND A PROJECT THAT WORKS WITHIN 19:26:10 THE SITE'S CONSTRAINTS. ADDITIONALLY, THESE LIMITED EXCEPTIONS TO THE R-1-6 DISTRICT STANDARDS ARE 19:26:15 CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S SMALL LOT DESIGN GUIDELINES, WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO LOTS GENERALLY BETWEEN 19:26:22 4,000 AND 6,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH CORRESPONDS TO USABLE LOT AREA OF THE MAJORITY OF PROJECT LOTS. 19:26:30 THE PROJECT FEATURES TWO PRIMARY HOME TYPES: A STANDARD TWO-STORY HOME WITH LIVING SPACE ON FLOORS ONE AND 19:26:35 TWO AS SEEN ON THE SCREEN HERE, AND A SPLIT-LEVEL HOME THAT STEPS WITH THE SLOPE OF THE SITE, WHICH I'LL SHOW OWN 19:26:42 ON THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS TWO LEVEL PLAN TYPE IS FEATURED ON THE PROJECT'S WIDER LOTS. 19:26:50 ALL PLAN TYPES FEATURE HIGH QUALITY ARCHITECTURE OF CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN AND FARMHOUSE ESTHETIC WITH 19:26:53 TREATMENTS THAT WORK INDIVIDUALLY FOR EACH HOME AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE. 19:26:58 HOMES HAVE ALSO BEEN FOUND TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE RULES OF THE CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES. 19:27:05 THIS SECOND HOME TYPE IS A SPLIT LEVEL HOME FEATURING A STREET LEVEL GARAGE AND STORAGE AREA, AND TWO LEVELS OF 19:27:11 LIVING SPACE ABOVE. THE HOME IS DESIGNED TO STEP WITH THE SLOPE, REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF GRADING 19:27:16 THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY. THE SECOND FLOOR OF LIVING SPACE OF THIS HOME TYPE IS TUCKED UNDER THE 19:27:21 ROOF LINE TO REDUCE THE PERCEIVED MASSING. AS IT STEPS WITH THE SLOPE, THE HOME 19:27:29 MAINTAINS A TWO-STORY PROFILE. THESE HOMES, AS WELL AS THE TWO-STORY HOME TYPE FEATURED ON THE PREVIOUS 19:27:34 SLIDE ALSO MEASURE BELOW AS MEASURED FROM THE AVERAGE GRADE OF THEIR VARIOUS FOUNDATION LEVELS TO THE 19:27:42 MIDPOINTS OF THEIR ROOF SLOPES. IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, WE DID AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE 19:27:48 PROJECT. THAT ANALYSIS COVERED ALL REQUIRED CEQA DISCUSSION AREAS AND WAS INFORMED 19:27:53 BY NUMEROUS TECHNICAL STUDIES OFFERED BY EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELD PLUS MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF CITY COMMISSION 19:27:57 PEER REVIEW OF SITE GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES. THE INITIAL STUDY CONCLUDED THAT 19:28:05 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO AIR QUALITY, GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WITH I 19:28:14 STEM FROM THE PROJECT UNLESS EMISSION WAS INCORPORATED. LEVELS LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT HAVE BEEN 19:28:20 IDENTIFIED AND AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THE INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE 19:28:25 MITIGATED DECLARATION WERE POSTED LAST SEPTEMBER AND AT THE TAIL END OF THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD, A LETTER WAS 19:28:31 RECEIVED FROM GREENFIRE LAW ON BEHALF OF SAVE OMAHA WAY HILLS CHALLENGING MANY OF THE FINDINGS IN THE INITIAL 19:28:35 STUDY AND THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROJECT. 19:28:43 THE APPLICANT AND CITY STAFF REVIEWED THE SAVE OMAHA WAY HILLS LETTER AND ISSUED A RESPONSE LETTER FILED ON THE 19:28:49 APPLICANT'S BEHALF. THE RESPONSE LETTER WAS INFORMED BY SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNICAL ANALYSIS 19:28:54 PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT'S CONSULTANT, AND REAFFIRMS THAT PROJECT IMPACTS WOULD BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL LESS 19:29:01 THAN SIGNIFICANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA. STAFF BELIEVES NO NEW EVIDENCE HAS 19:29:06 BEEN PRESENTED WARRANTING A DIGSAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND ACCORDINGLY, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPOSED 19:29:12 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHICH WAS PREPARED PURSUANT TO CEQA AND BEFORE YOU FOR CONSIDERATION IS 19:29:20 COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE FOR THE APPLICANT'S PROJECT. ON FEBRUARY 11TH, THE PLANNING 19:29:24 COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROJECT. NINE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SPOKE. 19:29:28 SEVEN WERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT AND TWO WERE IN FAVOR OF ITS APPROVAL. 19:29:34 THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT RAISED CONCERNS RELATED TO THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT 19:29:39 ACTIVITY IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE FAULTS AND IN PROXIMITY TO NEIGHBORING HOMES. 19:29:46 THE EXTENT OF GRADING AND HILLSIDE CUTS, THE NEED FOR A PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, THE 19:29:55 POTENTIAL LOSS OF VIEWS OF MISSION HILLS AND THE SIZE AND HEIGHT OF PROPOSED HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOOD 19:30:00 TRAFFIC CONGESTION. THOSE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT SPOKE ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF INCREASING 19:30:05 HOUSING STOCK IN THE AREA, ELIMINATION OF FIRE HAZARDS POSED BY THE UNDEVELOPED HILLSIDE, AND THE QUALITY 19:30:12 OF HOME DESIGNS. FLEURNL CONCERNS RAIDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS INCLUDED NOISE 19:30:17 AND TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EXPOSURE TO THE FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS WELL AS A RELUCTANCE 19:30:24 TO SUPPORT THE REQUESTED LIMITED SUGGESTIONS TO THE R-1-6 STANDARDS BECAUSE THEY WOULD CONSIDER TO NOISE 19:30:29 AND AIR QUALITY EXPOSURE. AFTER RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM STAFF, THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT'S 19:30:34 CONSULTANTS AND THEIR LEGAL ADVISOR, THE PLANNING COMMISSION PASSED THE MOTION TO DENY THE PROJECT 6-1. 19:30:43 THE ONE DISSENTING PLANNING COMMISSIONER CITED SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF SIMILAR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS 19:30:54 BUILT WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO I-680. FOLLOWING THE HEARING, THE APPLICANT FILED A QUALIFYING APPEAL WITHIN THE 19:30:58 10-DAY APPEAL WINDOW. NO CHANGES OF THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 19:31:05 HEARING. STAFF STANDS BY THEIR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE 19:31:09 PROJECT. WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED AND THE APPLICANT AND HIS CONSULTANTS CAN 19:31:15 SPEAK TO THIS IN FINER DETAIL, IS A PROJECT THAT'S BORNE OUT OF EXTENSIVE STUDY AND ONE THAT'S DESIGNED TO 19:31:21 CONTEXTUALLY FIT WITHIN BOTH THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS TO THE 19:31:26 ENVIRONMENT INCLUDING THE OCCUPANTS OF NEIGHBORING HOMES HAVE BEEN MITIGATED PER EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO LEVELS 19:31:32 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. ADDITIONALLY, IMPACT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN 19:31:38 FUTURE PROJECT RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE INCLUSION OF HOME FEATURES SUCH AS CALIFORNIA ROOMS AND 19:31:44 STC RATED WINDOWS AND DOORS TO DEAL WITH FREEWAY NOISE, AND AIR FILTRATION UNITS WITHIN THE HOMES TO ENSURE 19:31:48 HEALTHY INDOOR AIR QUALITY LEVELS CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN THRESHOLDS. 19:31:57 FURTHERMORE, THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING -- FOR OVER 40 YEARS AND IS 19:32:03 DOING SO IN A CONTEXTUAL LISTENSTIVE MANNER WHICH THE APPLICANT BELIEVES HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE 19:32:09 IMPACTS. WHAT'S PROPOSED IS A 13-UNIT PROJECT THAT'S EQUAL TO ROUGHLY THREE UNITS 19:32:18 PER NET ACRE, WHICH IS AT THE LOWER END OF THE PERMITTED DENSITY RANGE OF THE SITE, WHICH ALLOWS UP TO 8.7 UNITS PER 19:32:25 DWELLING ACRE. WITH A NET ACREAGE OF APPROXIMATELY 4 1/2 ACRES, UP TO 39 UNITS COULD 19:32:31 POTENTIALLY BE ALLOWED UNDER ITS CURRENT DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE 19:32:36 LAW. UNDER THE RECENTLY ENACTED HOUSING CRISIS ACT, THE CITY'S ABILITY TO DENY 19:32:43 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE HAS BEEN CURTAILED. AB330, WHICH IS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST, 19:32:49 2020 THROUGH JANUARY 1ST, 2025, SPECIFIES THE CITY MUST APPLY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA TO 19:32:54 FACILITATE AND ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT AT THE DENSITY ALLOWED ON THE SITE BY THE GENERAL PLAN. 19:33:02 AS MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO, THE GENERAL PLAN PRESCRIBES A MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY OF UP TO 8.7 UNITS PER NET 19:33:08 ACRE ON THE SITE, WHICH WOULD EQUATE TO POTENTIALLY 39 UNITS. THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU, HOWEVER, IS 19:33:17 NOT ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE STANDARDS BECAUSE OF THE MINOR DEEF YAILINGSES TO R-1-6 LOT SET BACK AND 19:33:20 WIDTH STANDARDS. IT IS THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SB330. 19:33:28 HOWEVER, AN OBJECTIVELY COMPLIANT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT THE SITE COULD USE SB330 AT AN APPROVAL TOOL AND THAT 19:33:34 PROJECT COULD POTENTIALLY INCLUDE UP TO 39 UNITS. A LARGER PROJECT WOULD LIKELY BE LESS 19:33:41 CONTEXTUAL AND LESS COMPATIBLE TO THE SAT SEAT AND SURROUNDINGS THAN THE CURRENT AND PUT PEOPLE CLOSER TO 19:33:45 NEIGHBORING HOMES AND ALSO THE FREEWAY. SO WHILE THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY NOT 19:33:50 QUALIFY FOR SB330 BECAUSE OF THE TWO MINOR DEVIATIONS PROPOSED, IT'S VIEWED BY THE CITY AS A SUPERVISOR OR PROJECT 19:33:56 TO WHAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE DEVELOPED AT THE SITE WITH AN OBJECTIVELY COMPLIANT SB330 PROJECT. 19:34:05 STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED PURSUANT 19:34:11 TO CEQA, FINDING THAT IT IS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT, ADOPT THE RESOLUTION GRANTING THE 19:34:16 APPEAL, AND APPROVE THE PROJECT IN ITS VARIOUS ENTITLEMENTS, INCLUDING AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE SITE TO A 19:34:24 PRELIMINARY AND PRECISE PLANNED DISTRICT, P-2018-192. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. 19:34:33 I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU, MARK. AT THIS TIME, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO OUR 19:34:36 COUNCIL FOR ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. WE'LL BEGIN WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASSAN. 19:34:45 >> Councilmember Kassan: THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE NOISE ISSUE. 19:35:03 SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, THE NOISE LEVEL SHOULD BE IDEALLY BELOW 19:35:12 60-DECIBELS. AND DEFINITELY BELOW 65. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT TWO OF THE LOTS 19:35:21 WOULD EXCEED 65, AND THERE'S A PROPOSED MITIGATION OF ADDING CALIFORNIA ROOMS, WHICH ARE SORT OF INDOOR/OUTDOOR 19:35:26 ROOMS. BUT I DIDN'T SEE -- AND I'M SORRY IF I MISSED THIS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL 19:35:33 REPORT, BUT WITHOUT THE CALIFORNIA ROOMS, WHAT IS THE NOISE LEVEL ON THOSE TWO LOTS? 19:35:41 IT SAYS IT'S ABOVE 65 DECIBELS. WHAT IS THE NOISE LEVEL, ASSUMING SOMEONE WANTS TO GO OUTSIDE OF THE 19:35:50 CALIFORNIA ROOM? >> LET ME GET THAT FIGURE FOR YOU. JUST ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. 19:36:22 >> Mayor Mei: ALTERNATIVELY WE COULD GET BACK -- >> I'M SORRY, I HAVE THE DATA HERE. 19:36:32 SO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CALIFORNIA ROOM TO LOTS 1 AND 2 OR THE HOMES ON LOTS 1 AND 2 WOULD REDUCE THE NOISE 19:36:42 LEVELS BY APPROXIMATELY 5 TO 8 D/B/A FROM BACKYARD CONDITIONS. SO THAT WOULD BE FROM 65 AND 68 WOULD 19:36:48 BE THE READINGS ON THOSE TWO PROPERTIES WITHOUT THE CALIFORNIA ROOMS. >> Councilmember Kassan: THANK YOU. 19:36:57 >> Mayor Mei: OKAY. SEEING NO OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, WE'RE GOING TO TURN IT 19:37:15 OVER TO HAYES SHAIR OF THE ENVISUALITY GROUP, WHO WILL PROVIDE A PRESENTATION. 19:37:19 >> THANK YOU, MADAME MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERING OUR APPEAL. 19:37:26 I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO OUR ATTORNEY TO KICK IT OFF, ALICIA GUERRA. 19:37:30 >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, HAYES. THANK YOU, MAYOR MEI, MEMBERS OF THE 19:37:38 CITY COUNCIL. JUST REALLY QUICKLY, I'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN, WE SUBMITTED THE APPEAL ON 19:37:46 BEHALF OF OMAHA FREMONT TO SEEKING THE COUNCIL'S DETERMINATION TO OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF 19:37:51 THE APPROVAL ON -- OR -- ON FEBRUARY 11TH. AND THE REASON FOR THAT WAS TWOFOLD. 19:38:00 ONE WAS THE DETERMINATION TO DENY A HOUSING PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING WAS IMPROPER 19:38:06 AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW. AND THEN SECONDLY, I WANTED TO FOCUS ON THE CEQA ISSUES THAT ARE AT HAND. 19:38:14 THE CITY CONDUCTED AN EXTENSIVE INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA AS MR. 19:38:18 HUNGERFORD MENTIONED TO YOU IN HIS PRESENTATION. WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THAT IS THAT 19:38:27 THAT ANALYSIS WAS BASED ON SUBSTANCHION EVIDENCE, ENOUGH RELEVANT INFORMATION AND MULTIPLE INFERENCES FROM THIS 19:38:34 INFORMATION THAT CAN BE DRAWN THAT ARE REASONABLE THAT A FAIR ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT 19:38:38 PROJECT IS GOING TO HAVE A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, EVEN IF SOMEBODY ELSE COULD PROPOSE A DIFFERENT 19:38:44 CONCLUSION. BUT ARGUMENT, SPEC LAI UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION, EVIDENCE, PEOPLE'S FEELINGS 19:38:50 DON'T COUNT AS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNDER THE LAW, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION REJECTED THE 19:38:57 INITIAL STUDY ATITY MEETING ON FEBRUARY 11TH ON THE BASIS THAT THEY WERE KIND OF UNEASY ABOUT THIS 19:39:01 PROJECT, GIVEN THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TO WHICH THIS PROJECT WOULD BE EX-POACTED. 19:39:11 WELL, THAT'S NOT A BASIS TO OVERTURN AN INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEG DEC. THAT DOESN'T CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL 19:39:14 EVIDENCE. WE HAVE ALL OF OUR EXPERTS HERE THIS EVENING TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS YOU 19:39:21 MAY HAVE REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE ANALYSIS FROM AN INITIAL STUDY PERSPECTIVE TO SUPPORT HOW THE IMPACTS 19:39:26 WERE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL. THE COMMENTS THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE 19:39:33 SUBMITTED, BOTH THOSE LAST YEAR AND THE RESTATED COMMENTS THAT THEY SUBMITTED YESTERDAY IN THEIR LETTER ARE ALL THE 19:39:37 SAME. THEY'RE ALL RELATED TO OTHER PROJECTS, THEY'RE ALL RELATED TO OTHER PEOPLE'S 19:39:43 HOUSES. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, AND 19:39:48 THOSE IMPACTS HAVE BEEN AVOIDED AND ALL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL. 19:39:57 SO WE REQUEST THAT YOU OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL AND APPROVE THE INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED 19:40:05 NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE PROJECT. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HAYEST TO WALK THROUGH THE MEASURES 19:40:09 THAT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT TO AVOID THE IMPACTS. THANK YOU. 19:40:16 HAYES? >> THANK YOU, ALICIA. SO YES, AS MARK MENTIONED IN HIS VERY 19:40:22 THOROUGH ANALYSIS, THE PROJECT IS A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CONSISTING OF 13 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WHICH WE'RE 19:40:26 GEARING TOWARDS MULTIGENERATIONAL FAMILIES. WE'RE PROVIDING A ROBUST LANDSCAPING 19:40:33 AND A CONSERVATION EASEMENT USING APPROXIMATELY 73 -- TREES AND USABLE OPEN SPACE THAT WILL AVAILABLE TO THE 19:40:38 COMMUNITY USE. THE PROJECT WILL BE ACCESSED BY A PRIVATE LANE RUNNING ALONG THE WESTERN 19:40:44 PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WITH VEGETATIVE BUFFER AND STREET TREES. SO DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION 19:40:50 DELIBERATION, ASIDE FROM THE LEGAL CONFLICTS THAT ALICIA HAD MENTIONED, THE COMMISSION'S DECISION ALSO 19:40:54 PRESENTED SOME PRACTICALITY CHALLENGES. THEY EXPRESSED AN UNEASINESS ABOUT THE 19:41:00 PROJECT, WHICH STEMMED FROM TWO PRIMARY FACTORS WHICH WE WILL TRY TO ADDRESS IN SUCCESS SESSION. 19:41:07 SUCK SESSION. THE FREEWAY PROXIMITY IS AN ISSUE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATION AND NOT OF THE 19:41:13 PROJECT DESIGN, AND THE PROPERTY LOCATION IS ON A PARCEL FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 19:41:19 THERE ARE MANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE CLOSER TO THE FREEWAY AND WE'VE ALSO 19:41:26 INVESTIGATED MULTIPLE SCENARIOS AND ARRIVED AT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL AT THE BEST SCENARIO THAT CAN BE PRACT BLI 19:41:36 PRACTICABLELY ACHIEVED. WE HAVE TAKEN -- CONDUCTED A LOT BY LOT COUNT OF ALL RESIDENTIAL HOMES 19:41:41 FROM MILIPITAS ALL THE WAY TO THE SUNOL PASS ON THE NORTHERN CITY BOUNDARY THAT ARE CLOSE -- AS CLOSE OR CLOSER 19:41:53 THAN 200 FEET FROM HIGHWAY 680. THERE ARE 287 HOMES THAT ARE CLOSE OR CLOSER TO THE FREEWAY, AND OF THIS 19:42:00 TOTAL, 90% HAVE BACKYARDS FACING THE HIGHWAY. IN DOG OUR DESIGN PROCESS, WE DID RUN 19:42:04 VARIOUS SCENARIOS TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TO THE ACOUSTIC MED GAITION. 19:42:09 ONE WAS CONSTRUCTING SOUND WALLS BETWEEN 6 AND 14 FEET ALONG HIGHWAY 680. 19:42:16 UPON CONSULTATION WITH STAFF, WE DECIDED THAT A SOUND WALL WOULD HAVE MARGINAL REDUCTIONS AND WOULD ALSO 19:42:21 SEVERELY IMPACT VIEW FROM HIGHWAY 680, PLUS IT ALSO LOOKED DOWN UPON IN THE GENERAL PLAN. 19:42:29 ALTERNATIVELY, WE ANALYZED THE SCENARIO WHERE WE FLIPPED TO CREATE A BUFFERED REAR YARD SCENARIO, THE HOMES 19:42:34 THEMSELVES CREATE A BIT OF BUFFERING WITH OPEN SPACE BEHIND IT. THE RESULT WOULD BE MASSIVE RETAINING 19:42:41 WALLS, UTILITIES CROSSING A FAULT TRACE, INCREASED -- QUANTITIES AND PROJECT BACKYARDS WOULD BE PUSHED 19:42:48 ADJACENT TO OUR NEIGHBORS. THE CURRENT PROPOSAL WITH THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER OF TREES WITH A SEMI 19:42:53 ENCLOSED CALIFORNIA ROOMS AT THE TWO MOST EXTREME LOT ONLY. SO THE CONCERNS REGARDING THE 19:43:01 DEVIATIONS FROM P STANDARDS FROM THE R-1-6 STANDARDS, THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY CURRENTLY ZONED AS A PLANNED 19:43:06 DISTRICT AND THUS FLEXIBILITY WAS ENVISIONED FROM THE BEGINNING. THE DEVIATIONS FURTHERMORE ACCORDING 19:43:12 TO THE FREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE DEVIATIONS FROM THE UNDERLYING STANDARDS MAY BE APPROVED WHEN THEY 19:43:16 ENCOURAGE A DESIRABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT AND ARE WARRANTED BY THE DESIGN AND AMENITIES INCORPORATED IN 19:43:22 THE PRECISE PLAN OR PROVIDED TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. WE WILL DISCUSS THESE PROPOSED 19:43:26 DEVIATIONS AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON HOW THE PROPOSED PROJECT RESULTS IN A SUPERIOR PRODUCT. 19:43:39 TO TALK ABOUT THE VARIOUS DEVIATIONS, THE FIRST ARE THE REDUCED LOT WIDTHS FOR THE FIRST SIX LOTS AND THIS ALLOWS 19:43:44 US TO CLUSTER THE UNITS AWAY FROM SENSITIVE RIPARIAN AREAS BUT ALSO TO CREATE A LARGER CENTRAL OPEN SPACE 19:43:50 WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD USE. ALTHOUGH THE NARROWEST LOTS ARE 52 19:43:57 FEET WIDE, WHEN YOU AVERAGE OUT THE ENTIRE PROJECT, WE HAVE A 63-FOOT AVERAGE WIDTH, AND FOR BASIS OF 19:44:06 COMPARISON, THE COMPARABLE R-1-6 STANDARD IS A 55 FOOD LOT WIDTH. DEVIATIONS FROM THE SETBACKS ARE THE 19:44:15 FLAT AND WIDER UNITS, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 AND 13. THEY HAVE A MORE CONSTRAINED BUILDING 19:44:23 ENVELOPE BECAUSE OF THE FAULT TRACE BEHIND THEM AND THUS WE'RE -- STILL CONSISTENT WITH THE SMALL LOT 19:44:27 GUIDELINES. THERE IS A COMPARABLE ZONING IN FREMONT THAT USES THIS PARTICULAR 19:44:39 GUIDELINE. GREATER GARAGE SET BACK FROM THE -- THE HOMES ARE DESIGNED TO STEP INTO 19:44:47 THE HILLSIDE TO MINIMIZE THE PERCEPTION OF HIETD AND IT MAINTAINS A MAXIMUM 2 STORY EXPRESSION AT ANY POINT IN THE 19:44:52 ELEVATION. THE LARGE ROADWAY CREATES A LARGE SEPARATION AND THE BUILDING TO 19:44:58 BUILDING DISTANCE IS ABOUT THE SAME AS WHAT IS FOUND ACROSS YUCATAN DRIVE. THE PRIVACY-SENSITIVE AREAS OF OUR 19:45:04 PROJECT ARE CONFIGURED TOWARDS THE REAR OF OUR HOMES TO MINIMIZE PRIVACY IMPACTS TO OUR NEIGHBORS. 19:45:12 THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER IS DESCRIBED AS CONTEMPORARY CRAFT MAN OR RANCH AND MAIN TAKES A TWO STORY 19:45:16 EXPRESSION WITH A LOT OF ROOF LINE VARIATION AND THE DESIGN WAS DESIGNED WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGN 19:45:23 GUIDELINES IN MIND. OVERALL THE PROJECT WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A LARGE AMOUNT OF VARIETY WITH 19:45:30 HIGH QUALITY MATERIAL AND DETAILING CONSISTENT TO THOSE STYLES. WE PROPOSED A VERY LARGE LANDSCAPING 19:45:34 PLAN BEHIND THE HOMES SWELL IMPROVED OPEN SPACE FOR PASSIVE USE ACTIVITIES. 19:45:41 THE NEIGHBORHOOD SENSITIVITY, PARTICULARLY THE TOP OF RIDGES AS SEEN FROM YUCATAN DRIVE, WAS ALSO A 19:45:49 DRIVE-IN CONSIDERATION IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. FINALLY, THE APPLICANT HAS 19:45:54 DEMONSTRATED WITH PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE THAT ALL PROJECT IMPACTS ARE CONTAINED ON SITE AND THE FINAL BUILT 19:45:58 CONDITIONS REPRESENTS A MUCH MORE STABLE HILLSIDE THAN CURRENTLY EXISTS. 19:46:11 WE'RE CREATING A HILLSIDE WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE, RETAINING WALLS, PAVED FLAT WORM AND ENGINEERED 19:46:14 STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES. WE HOPE WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CONCERNS BY A THOROUGH DISCUSSION OF 19:46:20 THE CONSTRUCTION-STAGE MEASURES WE WILL BE IMPLEMENTING. FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL BE USING LICENSE 19:46:26 AND BONDED CONTRACTORS FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, INCLUDING ROUGH EX AND DIRT REMOVAL PROCEDURES. 19:46:31 WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE PERFORMANCE BONDS AND REQUIRE THAT ALL OUR SUBS ARE COVERED UNDER A GENERAL LIABILITY 19:46:35 INSURANCE. THE SOIL CONDITIONS WILL BE ASSESSED IN THE FIELD BY OUR GEOTECHS, PRIOR TO 19:46:41 ANY ROUGH CUTS. ANGLE OF REPOSE OF ANY CUT SLOPES WILL BE EVALUATED BY THOSE SAME 19:46:46 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS. WE'LL BE PROVIDING TEMPORARY SHORING CONSISTENT WITH OSHA REQUIREMENTS. 19:46:53 AS PART OF THE ACOUSTIC, WE WILL USE HOE EMISSION HAULING EQUIPMENT AND HAVE A PROTOCOL IN PLACE FOR TRUCKS TO 19:46:58 CUT ENGINES WHILE IDLING TIMES AND SILENCING THEIR BACKUP ALARMS. FURTHERMORE, THERE WILL BE NO PILE 19:47:04 DRIVING, BLASTING OR USE OF ANY EQUIPMENT THAT WILL RESULT IN ANY VIBRATIONAL IMPACTS TO ANY SURROUNDING 19:47:09 HOMES. OUR GRADING ACTIVITIES ARE ANTICIPATED TO LAST APPROXIMATELY 40 WORKING DAYS, 19:47:14 AND THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM THUS FAR HAS BEEN EXTREMELY RESPONSIVE TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS FOR MAINTENANCE 19:47:19 THROUGH THE YEARS, ESPECIALLY DURING HIGH WINDS. WE'VE REPAIRED MULTIPLE GOOD NEIGHBOR 19:47:29 FENCES AT NO COST TO THAT HOMEOWNER AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO RUN OUR OPERATION WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF RIGOR AND 19:47:33 RESPECT. WE ASK THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT OUR APPEAL REQUEST AND APPROVE THE INITIAL 19:47:38 STUDY -- TENTATIVE MAP AND PRIVATE STREETS. THANK YOU. 19:47:46 >> Mayor Mei: AT THIS TIME, I'LL TURN IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE 19:47:55 DEVELOPER. COUNCILMEMBER KASSAN. >> Councilmember Kassan: I DO HAVE A 19:48:01 QUESTION BUT I DO ALSO WANT TO TAKE ISSUE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S, YOU KNOW, 19:48:06 SAYING THAT IT WAS ARBITRARY OR BASED ON FEELINGS. I THINK THERE WERE SOME VERY 19:48:13 LEGITIMATE ISSUES RAISED, SO I HOPE THAT MAYBE THE APPLICANT WILL RETRACT SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS. 19:48:29 BUT MY QUESTION IS REGARDING THE ISSUES OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN TO REJECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S 19:48:35 DECISION, WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, BUT 19:48:46 MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE GENERAL PLAN DOES CALL FOR NOISE LEVELS THAT ARE LOWER THAN WHAT IS FOUND ON THESE 19:48:51 LOTS. I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SOME PROPOSED MITIGATIONS BUT THOSE MITIGATIONS 19:48:56 DON'T REALLY ADDRESS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE WANT TO GO OUTSIDE, EITHER THERE COULD BE CHILDREN LIVING ON 19:49:03 THESE PROPERTIES, THAT DON'T WANT TO JUST STAY INSIDE ALL THE TIME THAT WANT TO GO OUTSIDE AND PLAY AND THE 19:49:11 NOISE LEVELS ARE ALMOST 70 DECIBELS ON SOME OF THESE PARCELS. SO I JUST WANT SOME CLARIFICATION ON 19:49:17 HOW -- YOU KNOW, HOW THIS CAN BE FOUND TO COMPLIEL WITH THE GENERAL PLAN GIVEN THAT POLICY AROUND NOISE. 19:49:24 FOUND TO COMPLY. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER KASSAN. 19:49:30 WE DO HAVE A NOISE CONSULTANT, MICHAEL TILL, HERE TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO NOISE. 19:49:38 IN REGARDS TO THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, THE GENERAL PLAN DOES STIPULATE THAT PROJECTS CAN BE 19:49:44 APPROVED WITHIN A CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE RANGE OF 65 DECIBELS AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. 19:49:49 WE CAN ACHIEVE THIS USING A SOUND WALL. AGAIN, THAT COULD BE ONE REALISTIC 19:49:52 MITIGATION MEASURE THAT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. WE NEVER REALLY DISCUSSED THIS OPTION 19:50:00 AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE HONEST, BUT WE FELT THAT OF THE TRADEOFFS THAT WE HAD TO MAKE IN 19:50:05 DEVELOPING THE SITE, THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER SERVED WITH A MORE VEGETATIVE BUFFER OF TREES AND THE CALIFORNIA 19:50:11 ROOMS BECAUSE THOSE ARE ONLY -- THE LOTS THAT EXCEED ARE ONLY LIMITED TO TWO OF THEM. 19:50:19 SO IMPLEMENTING A SITE-SPECIFIC OR BUILDING-SPECIFIC SOLUTION SEEMED LIKE THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION FROM THE 19:50:28 DESIGN PERSPECTIVE. MICHAEL, IF YOU'RE ON THE LINE, DO YOU HAVE ANY -- LET'S SEE. 19:50:32 >> YES, I'M HERE, HAYES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> Mayor Mei: YES. 19:50:40 >> GREAT. SO YES, YOU'RE CORRECT, THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN STANDARDS FOR 19:50:47 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES IS 60 D/B/A LDN. THAT IS THEIR GOAL. 19:51:00 THERE IS AN ABILITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO PERMIT NOISE LEVELS UP TO 65LDN. AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEASIBLE 19:51:10 MITIGATION. SOL WHAT WE LOOKED AT WERE SOUND WALLS FIRST, AND HAVING A 14-FOOT BARRIER AT 19:51:27 THE TOP OF THE SLOPE WOULD REDUCE THE NOISE LEVELS AT LOTS 2 THROUGH 13 TO BETWEEN 59 TO 62 DB LDN. 19:51:37 LOT 1 WOULD REMAIN AT 66. ONE DB ABOVE THE THRESHOLD. WHAT WE FOUND WITH THE SOUND WALLS WAS 19:51:42 THAT IT WASN'T VERY EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THERE'S CONSIDERABLE SHIELDING THAT'S ALREADY PROVIDED BY THE SLOPE. 19:51:53 SO AN ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO CONSIDER THE CALIFORNIA ROOMS FOR THE TWO LOTS, LOTS 1 AND 2. 19:52:01 THIS TYPE OF MITIGATION HAS BEEN APPROVED ON OTHER PROJECTS. ONE EXAMPLE I CAN THINK OF IS PALM 19:52:16 AVENUE TO THE NORTH HERE. THE 65 LDN GOAL IS NOT ABSOLUTE. THERE ARE MANY PROPERTIES IN THE CITY 19:52:23 OF FREMONT WHERE NOISE LEVELS ARE BEFORE 65 LDN. THAT'S JUST A FACT WITH DEVELOPMENT 19:52:31 AS CLOSE AS IT IS NEXT TO THE FREEWAY. THERE COULD BE PROPERTIES THAT ARE BEHIND FREEWAY SOUND WALLS THAT ARE 19:52:44 EXPOSED TO NOISE LEVELS WELL ABOVE 65 LDN. >> MAYBE IF I COULD JUST INTERJECT 19:52:52 HERE, COUNCILMEMBER KASSAN, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE CITY EVALUATES A PROJECT'S CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, IT 19:52:59 LOOKS AT THE WHOLE THING IN TERMS OF AND LAND USE DESIGNATION, THE APPLICABLE POLICIES AND AS YOU POINT 19:53:08 OUT, THE NOISE LEVELS BASED ON YOUR NOISE ELEMENT. AND BECAUSE THE CITY HAS PLANNED THE 19:53:12 SITE IN TERMS OF GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, WE LOOKED AT 19:53:19 RESIDENTIAL USE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN WHILE MEETING THE THRESHOLDS FOR WHAT WAS ACCEPTABLE FOR 19:53:29 RESIDENTIAL USES UNDER YOUR NOISE ELEMENT POLICIES. SO AS THERE THILL INDICATED, WE LOOKED 19:53:34 AT MEASURES TO INCORPORATE INTO THE PROJECT IN ORDER TO AVOID AND SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL 19:53:40 IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO EXISTING CONDITIONS, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THE CITY HAD ALREADY PLANNED THE 19:53:46 SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND IN ALL INSTANCES, WITH THE CALIFORNIA ROOMS, INCLUDED IN THE 19:53:53 DESIGN OF THE PROJECT, IT SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENS THE IMPACTS TO ACHIEVE CONSISTENCY WITH YOUR NOISE POLICIES. 19:54:04 WE RECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE MAY PREFER TO GO OUT SIDE, BUT FOR THOSE FIRST LOTS, LOTS 1 AND 2, THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF 19:54:11 BEING WITHIN A CALIFORNIA ROOM AS A DIFFERENT WAY FOR FEASIBLY IMPLEMENTING MITIGATION TO FURTHER 19:54:15 LESSEN THE IMPACT. SO THAT'S HOW WE DESIGNED THE PROJECT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE 19:54:19 DESIGNATION, THE GENERAL PLAN'S POLICIES, AND THE NOISE ELEMENT CONDITIONS. 19:54:31 >> Mayor Mei: I DO NOT SEE A FOLLOW-ON QUESTION. I SEE A QUELL FROM VICE MAYOR SHAO. 19:54:38 SEE A QUESTION FROM VICE MAYOR SHAO. >> Vice Mayor Shao: I JUST WONDER IF COMBINING WITH A SOUND WALL, YOU WOULD 19:54:51 SWITCH THE SPACE BETWEEN THE STREET AND THE BACKYARD OF ALL THOSE UNITS. WOULD THAT FURTHER RECUSE THE NOISE 19:54:55 AND ALSO ENHANCE THE AIR QUALITY BECAUSE YOU'RE MOVING ALL THE UNITS FURTHER AWAY FROM THE HIGHWAY? 19:55:05 >> COUNCILMEMBER SHAO, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YES, WE HAVE ACTUALLY LOOKED INTO THAT 19:55:13 OPTION ALTERNATIVE ALREADY, AND UNFORTUNATELY IT ACTUALLY PRESENTS GREATER IMPACTS AND -- YOU KNOW, YOU 19:55:17 SOLVE ONE PROBLEM BUT YOU CREATE ANOTHER BASICALLY. THE PROBLEM IS THAT IF WE WERE TO FLIP 19:55:26 THE ROADWAY WITH THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES, THE ROAD WOULD HAVE TO CLIMB UP A MUCH STEEPER GRADE AND WE'D 19:55:34 HAVE TO CONSTRUCT MUCH SLEEPER RETAINING WALLS. A BUILDING CAN STEP A LOT FASTER, A 19:55:42 LOT HIGHER THAN A ROADWAY SYSTEM. SECOND, WE WOULD HAVE UTILITY LINES WITHIN THAT NEW ROADWAY, POTENTIALLY 19:55:47 CROSSING THE FAULT TRACE, WHICH WE DO NOT WANT TO DESIGN IN THAT PARTICULAR WAY. 19:55:57 >> Mayor Mei: OKAY. NEXT I ALSO HAVE COUNCILMEMBER JONES. YOU HAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? 19:56:03 >> Councilmember Jones: THANK YOU, MADAME MAYOR. REGARDING THE NOISE LEVEL ON LOTS 1 19:56:09 AND 2, I KNOW THEY'RE SLIGHTLY ABOVE WHAT THE NOISE ORDINANCE IS REQUIRING. 19:56:19 HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO EITHER INSTEAD OF OR IN ADDITION TO THE BOX TREES THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN, 19:56:29 BUILDING A SOUND BARRIER OF SOME TYPE JUST FOR THOSE TWO LOTS? >> YES, ABSOLUTELY. 19:56:35 THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT THE CALIFORNIA ROOM IS. IT'S BASICALLY AN INDIVIDUALIZED 19:56:44 ENCLOSURE THAT JUST IS UTILIZED AT THOSE TWO LOTS, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE DEFENDING. 19:56:50 SO TO CLARIFY WHAT THE CALIFORNIA ROOM PROPOSAL IS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING. 19:56:57 >> Councilmember Jones: WHAT ABOUT SOMETHING OUTSIDE TO ALLOW THE OCCUPANTS TO STILL MOVE THE YARD? 19:57:04 ARE THERE ANY MITIGATION MEASURES THAT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED THERE? >> I SUPPOSE THAT ONE OF THE -- I'LL 19:57:08 DEFER BUT I SUPPOSE THERE COULD BE A SOLUTION WITH A COMBINATION OF SOUND WALLS AND CALIFORNIA ROOMS. 19:57:16 YOU KNOW, AT COUNCIL'S PLEASURE, WE'D BE HAPPY TO CONSIDER THAT ALTERNATIVE. 19:57:22 AGAIN THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE HAVEN'T THUS FAR, IS MAINLY BECAUSE WE FOUND TO HAVE DIMINISHING RETURNS 19:57:25 BASICALLY. IN TERMS OF UNLESS WE GO TO A VERY HIGH WALL. 19:57:33 AND MAYBE MICHAEL CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT. >> THANK YOU, HAYES. 19:57:39 THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. WE DID LOOK AT THE SOUND WALLS, PARTICULARLY FOR 1 AND 2, WHICH WERE 19:57:49 THE MOST DIFFICULT TO MITIGATE. WITH -- A 14 FOOT NOISE BARRIER BECAUSE OF THE AT THE RAIN THERE, 19:57:57 THAT LARGE BARRIER ONLY PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL 2 DECIBELS OF NOISE REDUCTION AT LOT 1. 19:58:06 AND LOT 2, THAT NOISE BARRIER WOULD PROVIDE 4 DECIBELS OF NOISE REDUCTION. 19:58:13 SO WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE COST AND OTHER IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING SUCH A LARGE SOUND WALL FOR SUCH A MINOR 19:58:19 NOISE REDUCTION, THE BEST PLACE TO CONTROL THE NOISE IS AT THE RECEPTOR ITSELF. 19:58:28 CALTRANS HAS A POLICY THAT THEY WILL NOT BUILD A SOUND WALL UNLESS IT PROVIDES AT LEAST 7 DECIBELS OF NOISE 19:58:36 REDUCTION AT ONE RECEPTOR. SO IN THIS INSTANCE, THIS WOULD NOT CONSIDERED A FEASIBLE NOISE BARRIER. 19:58:43 >> Councilmember Jones: THANK YOU. >> I WILL ADD ONE MORE THING TO THAT. WE COULD POSSIBLY FEASIBLY EXPAND THE 19:58:49 SIZE OF THE CALIFORNIA ROOM TO INCORPORATE MORE OF THE BACKYARD, TO PROVIDE A GREATER BACKYARD COVERAGE. 19:58:58 THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY I IMPLEMENT. >> Councilmember Jones: OKAY, THANK 19:59:00 YOU. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? 19:59:04 COUNCILMEMBER COX. >> Councilmember Cox: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR. 19:59:13 I WANTED TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION. SINCE THESE HOMES ARE LOCATED NEAR 19:59:22 680, THERE IS A LOT OF AIR POLLUTION THAT'S GOING ON BEING ASSOCIATED WITH THE 680 INTERCHANGE. 19:59:35 AND I NOTICE THAT YOU HAD SELECTED A PARTICULAR VENT LITION FILTERRIZATION DEVICE THAT ONLY REMOVES ABOUT 80% OF 19:59:43 THE POLLUTION, AND FOR ME PERSONALLY, I WOULD THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER -- LOOKING AT ANOTHER TYPE OF 19:59:55 DEVICE THAT WOULD BE CLOSER TO THE 99.9% OF REMOVING THE AIR PARTICLES THAT CAN CAUSE CANCER OR RESPIRATORY 20:00:05 ILLNESS, AND I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, AND USING THAT TYPE OF EQUIPMENT AS OPPOSED TO A HIGHER GRADE THAT 20:00:13 WOULD REDUCE THE POLLUTION EVEN MORE. COULD YOU PROVIDE WHATEVER YOUR JUSTIFICATION FOR SELECTING THIS 20:00:24 VERSUS SOME OF THE OTHER ONES THAT WERE IN THE MARKET AND WHY THIS ONE? >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER COX. 20:00:31 I'M GOING TO DEFLECT THIS -- DEFER THIS QUESTION TO JAMES REIF, OUR AIR QUALITY CONSULTANT ON THE SELECTION OF 20:00:38 THE EQUIPMENT. >> YES, THANK YOU, HAYES. THE REASON FOR SELECTING THIS TYPE OF 20:00:44 VENTILATION SYSTEM IS THIS IS ONE THAT'S RECOMMENDED BY THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THEIR 20:00:52 PLANNING HEALTHY PLACES TYPE DOCUMENT. IT'S ONE RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, WHICH COMMONLY FACES 20:01:00 THIS ISSUE. IT IS A FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE METHOD TO REDUCE POLLUTION IN THESE TYPE OF 20:01:10 ENVIRONMENTS. IF WE GO -- MERV13 FILTRATION IS PRETTY EFFECTIVE. 20:01:17 IT'S VERY EFFECTIVE FOR THIS TYPE OF CONDITION. AND IT IS -- IT'S A REASONABLE WAY -- 20:01:25 THESE FILTERS ARE READILY AVAILABLE BECAUSE THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE TO MAINTAIN THIS SYSTEM. 20:01:35 SO IT CAN'T BE TOO ELABORATE WHERE IT'S EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE AND IT ALSO HAS TO -- I'M NOT AN EXPERT WITH TITLE 24 20:01:41 BUILDING EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS, BUT THE VENTILATION SYSTEM CAN'T BE TOO EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE, WHICH IS LIKE A 20:01:49 HOSPITAL GRADE, YOU KNOW, SURGERY ROOM-TYPE VENTILATION SYSTEM IS MUCH MORE ENERGY-IN10 SI. BUT THIS IS AN 20:01:54 EFFECTIVE WAY AND OUR STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT, TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION FROM THE FREEWAY. 20:02:00 >> Councilmember Cox: WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH STUDIES? WHAT DOES THAT REFLECT IN USING THIS 20:02:13 PRODUCT? >> WELL, THE ANALYSIS THAT WE DID, WHICH IS BASED ON HEALTH STUDIES THAT 20:02:22 HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE AIR DISTRICT SHOW THAT IT'S PARTICULATE MATTER FROM THE FREEWAYS THAT IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF 20:02:30 HEALTH RISK. AND THAT'S FINE PARTICULATE MATTER, AND IT'S DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER 20:02:36 FROM TRUCKS. THAT'S WHAT THIS FILTRATION SYSTEM IS FOCUSED ON REDUCING. 20:02:46 IT WOULD REDUCE OTHER TYPES OF TOXICS BUT IT'S NOT DESIGNED THAT WAY, SO WE HAVE NO INFORMATION REGARDING HOW IT 20:02:55 WOULD WORK FOR THAT, BUT WE DO KNOW -- SO WE DON'T TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN DESCRIBING HOW THIS 20:03:00 AFFECTS IT, BUT EVEN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THOSE EFFECTS, THE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE. 20:03:10 IN REDUCING HEALTH EFFECTS FROM THE FREEWAY. KOCH COX THIS IS NOT ONLY FOR DIESEL 20:03:21 THAT IT'S DOING THE FILTERING IT OUT THAT IT DOES NOT STATE ANY OTHER UNLEADED GAS THAT WOULD BE IN THE AIR, 20:03:26 IT'S NOT TAKING THAT OUT? IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT? 20:03:36 >> WELL, WE HAVE NO INFORMATION REGARDING THE EFFECTIVENESS, BUT IT HAS SOME EFFECT BECAUSE ALL OF THE AIR 20:03:52 THAT ENTERS THE BUILDING HAS TO PASS PRETTY EXTENSIVE FILTRATION. BUT THERE IS NO DATA, AND LIKE I 20:04:03 STATED EARLIER, THE MAIN EFFECT FROM THE FREEWAY IS FROM THE PARTICULATE MATTER, FROM THE DIESEL EXHAUST AND 20:04:16 FROM PARTICULATE MATTER. FROM AUTOMOBILE ENGINES AND ROADWAY DUST AND BRAKE DUST AND TIRE WEAR. 20:04:23 >> Councilmember Cox: SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS, YOUR HEALTH STUDIES IS SHOWING WITH OR WITHOUT 20:04:28 THIS IS WHERE THEY'RE GETTING THEIR RESULTS AND NOT COMPARED TO OTHER PRODUCTS THAT ARE OUT THERE IN THE 20:04:37 MARKET? >> YEAH, WE DIDN'T GO ANY FURTHER BECAUSE WE DIDN'T SEE ANY NEED TO GO 20:04:48 TO AN EXTENSIVE TYPE OF SYSTEM, SAY, LIKE SOME CARBON -- SOME FILTRATION SYSTEM WITH ACTIVATED CARBON BECAUSE 20:04:52 IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO BRING IT IN -- BRING THE PROJECT WITHIN THE CITY STANDARDS. 20:04:59 >> Councilmember Cox: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YES. 20:05:05 >> Mayor Mei: CLARIFYING QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER KASSAN. >> Councilmember Kassan: THANK YOU. 20:05:16 THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN. I HEAR THE STATEMENT THAT UNDER THE 20:05:27 ZONING THAT MUCH MORE DENSE PROJECT WOULD BE ALLOWED, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE CAN BE CASES WHERE THERE 20:05:35 ARE SORT OF CONTRADICTIONS IN TERMS OF WHAT'S ALLOWED ON A SITE. SO ACCORDING TO THE LAND USE PART OF 20:05:45 THE GENERAL PLAN, MORE UNITS WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE SITE, BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT ACCORDING TO 20:05:54 ANOTHER SECTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN, WHICH IS THE NOISE SECTION, THERE'S MAJOR CONSTRAINTS TO WHAT CAN BE 20:05:58 DEVELOPED ON THE SITE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN. 20:06:09 SO ISN'T IT A BIT SPECIOUS TO SAY THAT A DEVELOPER -- OR THIS DEVELOPER OR ANY DEVELOPER COULD COME ALONG AND 20:06:13 BUILD 43 UNITS ON THIS SITE? BECAUSE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD THAT NUMBER OF UNITS GIVEN THE CONDITIONS 20:06:24 OF THE SITE, THE NOISE AND THE FAULT LINES, THE OTHER CONDITIONS, EVEN THOUGH ACCORDING TO THE LAND USE 20:06:27 COMPONENT, THEORETICALLY IT COULD BE DONE. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 20:06:38 SO THE LAND USE ELEMENT DOES DESIGNATE THIS SITE AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY SUPPORT UP TO 20:06:51 8.7 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. AN OBJECTIVELY COMPLIANT PROJECT COULD POTENTIALLY REACH THAT CAP OR REACH 20:06:58 THAT MAXIMUM UNIT COUNT BUT IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ADOPTED STANDARDS ON THE BOOKS BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE 20:07:04 OBJECTIVELY COMPLIANT, BUT ALSO ADHERE TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN STANDARDS LIKE YOU SAID, LIKE CONDITIONAL NOISE 20:07:12 THRESHOLDS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY BY HIGHLIGHTING THE SORT OF THE CEILING 20:07:19 FOR THE SITE WAS JUST POINT OUT THAT SB330, IT DEALS WITH WHATEVER THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION IS FOR THE 20:07:25 SITE AND WHAT THAT CAP WOULD BE. BUT IT NOT SAYING THAT YOU CAN AUTOMATICALLY HAVE A PROJECT THAT 20:07:31 LARGE. THE FUTURE PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OTHER STANDARDS. 20:07:39 >> Councilmember Kassan: AND THERE IS NO STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES CITIES TO APPROVE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN VIOLATION 20:07:52 OF ANY SECTION OF THEIR GENERAL PLAN. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES, IT'S CORRECT THAT IF THE 20:07:57 PROJECT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLAN, THEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO APPROVE IT. 20:08:04 >> Councilmember Kassan: THANK YOU. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. I SEE THERE'S TWO MORE CLARIFYING 20:08:09 QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILMEMBER COX, OR IS THIS COMMENTS OR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS STILL AND ALSO COUNCILMEMBER KENG? 20:08:18 >> Councilmember Cox: THANK YOU. I WANTED TO FIND OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE, THE HOMES THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE 20:08:28 STORMWATER AND NICELY DECORATED OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, AND IS THAT LIKE CLOSER TO ONE OR TWO HOMES OR HOW 20:08:37 IS THAT SITUATED, AND WHO IS MAINTAINING THE STORMWATER, WHO WOULD BE THE OWNERSHIP OF HAVING TO COME ON 20:08:44 THE PROPERTY TO CLEAN THAT OUT FROM TIME TO TIME? >> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE 20:08:49 BIOFILTRATION THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE SITE AS PART OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR THE -- 20:08:53 >> Councilmember Cox: NO, THERE'S A STORMWATER THAT IS IN THAT PROPERTY AREA. 20:09:03 I WANTED TO FIND OUT WHERE IS IT POSITIONED AND HOW MANY HOMES ARE CLOSE TO IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAMILIES, 20:09:12 KIDS, YOU KNOW, THEY LIKE TO EXPLORE AND BE CURIOUS SO IT COULD COME AS POTENTIAL SAFETY -- A SAFETY RISK. 20:09:19 SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT PART BECAUSE I KNOW YOU SHOWED SOME BEAUTIFUL DESIGNS AND PICTURES OF THE 20:09:26 ARCHITECTURE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO FIND OUT WHERE THAT PART IS. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 20:09:33 SO THE NORTHERN END OF THE SITE DOES HAVE AN EXISTING DRAINAGE CHANNEL THAT PASSES THROUGH THE SITE. 20:09:41 IT ACTUALLY GOES UNDER INTERSTATE 680, PASSES THROUGH THE SITE AS AN ABOVE GROUND SURFACE FEATURE AND THEN ENTERS 20:09:50 INTO AN UNDERGROUND CULVERT THAT GOES BELOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST. THE PROPOSED HOMES HAVE BEEN -- THERE 20:09:57 WAS A STUDY DONE ON THE APPROPRIATE SETBACK FROM THE -- FROM THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND ITS ASSOCIATED RIPARIAN 20:10:03 KIND OF HABITAT AREA THAT SURROUNDS IT. 50 FEET WAS IDENTIFIED AS AN ADEQUATE 20:10:12 SETBACK FROM THAT FEATURE, AND SO THE WAY THE PROJECT IS LAID OUT, THE LOT 1 HOME WHICH WOULD BE THE CLOSEST HOME 20:10:19 IS LOCATED IN EXCESS OF 50 FEET FROM THAT FEATURE. AND THAT FEATURE WOULD BE, I BELIEVE, 20:10:28 FENCED OFF WITH A GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE SO IT WOULD BE INACCESSIBLE BY BIKE LODGE RESIDENTS. 20:10:36 >> AND TO ADDRESS COUNCILMEMBER COX'S QUESTION ABOUT MAINTENANCE, SO THE HOA WILL BE MAINTAINING THE AREAS OF 20:10:42 THE PROPERTY. THERE IS A LITTLE BIT -- AN AREA OF LAND SLIEPPED IN THAT AREA AS WELL 20:10:49 WHICH WE WOULD BE REMEDIATING AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. TO ANSWER YOUR BROADER QUESTION, FLOOD 20:10:54 CONTROL HAS AN EASEMENT THROUGH THAT WHOLE STRETCH OF PROPERTY AND ALSO AN ACCESS EASEMENT THROUGH OUR 20:10:58 MAINTENANCE ACCESS OFF OF WARREN AVENUE. SO IT'S GOING TO BE A COMBINATION OF 20:11:06 THE HOME OTHER THANS ASSOCIATION WITH ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL. >> Councilmember Cox: THANK YOU VERY 20:11:12 MUCH. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER KENG, I THINK YOU HAVE A 20:11:15 CLARIFYING QUESTION. >> Councilmember Keng: YES, THANK YOU, MADAME MAYOR. 20:11:28 I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND SO EARLIER YOU WERE REFERRING TO A PROJECT WITH MORE UNITS, LIKE MORE 20:11:40 THAN 40 UNITS TO BE APPROVED AND WOULDN'T THAT BRING MORE AIR AND NOISE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION AS WELL 20:11:53 BECAUSE OF THE -- IF IT'S HIGHER MULTILEVEL CONDO UNITS OR TOWNHOMES, THEY WOULD REQUIRE DEEPER FOUNDATIONS 20:12:05 AND THINGS LIKE THAT? >> SO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WAS ANALYZED BASED ON THE PROJECT 20:12:10 DESCRIPTION, BASED ON THE SCOPE OF WORK. A DIFFERENT PROJECT WILL UNDERGO A 20:12:16 SIMILAR EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON IMPACTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON FUTURE RESIDENTS. 20:12:22 SO YES, IT WOULD BE THOROUGHLY STUDIED SIMILAR TO HOW THIS PROJECT WAS STUDIED. 20:12:29 >> Councilmember Keng: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Mei: COUNCILMEMBER SALWAN, 20:12:31 CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? >> Councilmember Salwan: YEAH, A QUELL FOR STAFF. 20:12:41 THIS PROJECT KIND OF REMINDS ME OF A METRO PROJECT, SOME OF THE NOISE ISSUES AND SO FORTH. 20:12:50 I'M JUST TRYING TO FOR COMPARISON SAKE, WHAT WERE THE DECIBELS AT THE METRO PROJECT AND HOW DO WE MITIGATE 20:12:56 THOSE AND HOW DO WE LEARN FROM THAT PROJECT? AS FAR AS THE SHORTCOMINGS OR WHAT WE 20:13:03 CAN DO DIFFERENT? >> Mr. Pullen: WE DON'T HAVE THOSE DECIBEL NUMBERS READILY AVAILABLE, AND 20:13:11 YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE METRO CROSSING PROJECT THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY TOLL BETWEEN SOUTH GRIMMER BOULEVARD, KIND 20:13:16 OF -- AND WARM SPRINGS BOULEVARD ACROSS FROM THE BART STATION, RIGHT? >> Councilmember Salwan: THAT'S 20:13:22 CORRECT. >> Mr. Pullen: SO WE DON'T HAVE THE DECIBEL LIMITS BUT IN GENERAL, THE 20:13:26 METHOD OF ATTENUATING NOISE WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS. 20:13:36 THE PRIMARY METHOD WAS TO TURN THE INTERNAL FOYERS OR THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION TOWARD THE FREEWAY TO 20:13:43 PROVIDE SORT OF ADDITIONAL SPACE BETWEEN THE UNITS AND THE FREEWAY. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE -- ALL THOSE 20:13:52 BUILDINGS ALONG 680 HAD ANOTHER LEVEL OF INTERNAL AREA. BEFORE YOU GET TO YOUR UNIT TO DEADEN THAT NOISE. 20:14:00 THEN ADJACENT TO THE OPEN SPACES, BECAUSE THOSE OPEN SPACES WERE EXTERIOR, THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL WALL 20:14:12 PLACED THAT WAS LOWER, NOT ALL THE WAY UNIFORMLY ALONG BUT GRADUATED IN HEIGHT WHERE NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE 20:14:18 THE NOISE REDUCTION FOR THOSE EXTERIOR COMMON OPEN SPACES THAT WERE TO BE PROTECTED. 20:14:26 SO THERE WAS SORT OF A COMBINATION OF FEATURES THAT HELPED ATTENUATE THE NOISE. 20:14:31 >> Councilmember Salwan: OKAY, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF FOLKS WERE STILL KIND OF FRUSTRATED WITH THE 20:14:36 NOISE AND I STILL GET EMAILS ABOUT THAT. SO I DEFINITELY DON'T WANT THAT TO BE 20:14:42 THE ISSUE GOING FORWARD. SO THE LARGER FRAMEWORK, BASICALLY THIS IS HERE TO US BECAUSE IT WAS 20:14:47 APPEALED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THIS PROJECT IS NOT STRAIGHT GENERAL PLAN, RIGHT? 20:14:53 THERE'S SOME EXCEPTIONS THAT WE'RE GRANTING IN THIS PROCESS, IS THAT CORRECT? 20:15:02 >> THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT, BUT FOR THE SAFETY ELEMENT, BECAUSE 11 OF THE 20:15:11 13 LOTS WOULD HAVE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS WITHIN THAT CONDITIONALLY APPROVED -- CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE 20:15:23 RANGE OF 60 TO 65 DECIBELS, YOU WOULD HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW THOSE 11 HOMES, THOSE 11 LOTS TO HAVE NOISE 20:15:30 LEVELS WITHIN THAT RANGE. >> Mr. Pullen: I WANT TO PIGGY BACK ON THAT A LITTLE BIT JUST TO EXPLAIN THE 20:15:37 TRADEOFF HERE. THE HOMES ARE DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO REDUCE THE NOISE AS MUCH AS IS 20:15:45 PRACT COMPARABLE GIVEN THE SITE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. THE GENERAL PLAN DISCOURAGES THE USE 20:15:52 OF SOUND WALLS ON A PROJECT ADJACENT TO THE FREEWAY OR WHERE THE EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT IS ABOVE THE LIMIT. 20:16:06 AND REQUIRES MITIGATIONS TO BE PLACED, PRIORITIZING ONES BASED ON LANDSCAPING AND EARTHEN METHODS SUCH AS WHAT'S 20:16:13 BEEN PROPOSED TONIGHT AND SITE DESIGN. WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISSUES YOU'RE DESCRIBING, THE GENERAL PLAN HAS A 20:16:21 BAND THAT'S BUILT INTO IT THAT SAYS THERE IS A CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE RANGE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS DISCRETION 20:16:28 TO ALLOWL A PROJECT WITHIN. SO IT'S NOT THAT THE PROJECT CANNOT BE APPROVED WITHIN THAT BAND. 20:16:35 YOU HAVE DISCRETION WITHIN THAT BAND TO REQUIRE TO BE LESS THAN THAT BAND OR WITHIN THAT BAND. 20:16:39 >> Councilmember Salwan: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS FOR NOW. 20:16:44 >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER SHAO, CLARIFYING QUESTION. 20:16:52 >> Vice Mayor Shao: THANK YOU, MADAME MAYOR. SO REGARDING THOSE LOT WIDTH AND FRONT 20:17:07 SETBACK THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH R-1-6 REQUIREMENTS, ARE THESE FALLING INTO THE SO-CALLED ACCEPTABLE GRAY 20:17:14 AREA RANGE? >> SO THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST FOR A PLANNED DISTRICT. 20:17:23 THE PLANNED DISTRICTS ARE INTENDED TO BE UTILIZED WHEN THERE'S A SITE THAT HAS PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS THAT MAKE IT 20:17:34 DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP ?RUND A STAN TARRED ZONING DISTRICT, SO THERE'S FLEXIBILITY REPORTED TO A 20:17:43 DEVELOPMENT. HE'S PROPOSING FRONT YARD SETBACKS OF 11.2 TO 18 FEET INSTEAD OF NOT LESS 20:17:53 THAN 20 FEET, OR SIX OF THOSE HOMES, AND THEN LOT WIDTH RAO DUCKS FROM 55 FEET DOWN TO IF TWO FEET TO ACCOUNT 20:18:02 FOR THE SITE CONSTRAINTS. SO THROUGH A PLANNED DISTRICT, YOU DO HAVE FLEXIBILITY, AND FLEXIBILITY IS 20:18:10 BEING SOUGHT, YOU KNOW, IN THOSE TWO PARTICULAR AREAS. >> Vice Mayor Shao: TO MAKE SURE I 20:18:22 UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU JUST SAID, SO THIS TYPE OF FLEXIBILITY IS JUST GIVEN OR STILL UNDER THE COUNCIL'S DISCRETION? 20:18:34 >> Mr. Pullen: YOU HAVE THE DISCRETION PER THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE TO IDENTIFY WHAT EXCEPTIONS TO THE 20:18:42 STANDARDS ZONING IS ALLOWED IN A PD, BY OUR LOCAL STANDARDS. IN A SITUATION LIKE MARK WAS SAYING, 20:18:52 IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS AND MANY OTHER PREVIOUS SITUATIONS, THE TOPOGRAPHY IS AN EXPRESS REASON STATED IN OUR CODE 20:18:59 FOR WHY IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO GRANT CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS STAFF 20:19:10 RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT DESIGN, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS REDUCED, THE OVERALL LOT MODULE FITS BETTER INTO 20:19:20 THE DEPTH OF THE PROJECT BEHIND THE ROAD, WHICH HELPS WITH THE A GRADING, HELPS AVOID THE FAULT AND THINGS LIKE 20:19:24 THAT. SO IN ANY SITUATION WHEN STAFF IS REVIEWING THESE AS THEY COME FORWARD, 20:19:42 WE'RE LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY EXCEPTIONS BEING REQUESTED FROM R-1-6, THAT THEY'RE WARRANTED BY THE 20:19:52 PARTICULARS OF THIS LOT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> Vice Mayor Shao: WELL, I UNDERSTOOD 20:19:59 WHAT YOU JUST SAID. >> Mr. Pullen: DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION SUFFICIENTLILY TO SAY R 20:20:06 ZONING ALLOWS THE -- OR R ZONING ALLOWS TO YOU MAKE THE DETERMINATION AS TO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE 20:20:10 EXCEPTIONS? >> Vice Mayor Shao: RIGHT. MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S STILL UNDER THE 20:20:19 COUNCIL'S DISCRETION TO GRANT THIS FLEXIBILITY ON THAT. >> Mr. Pullen: CORRECT. 20:20:29 KEEPING IN MIND THAT AS MARK HAD INDICATED IN HIS PRESENTATION, THAT THE GENERAL PLAN AGAIN TAKING THE 20:20:37 CONSTRAINTS OFF OF THE SITE, OFF OF THE DEVELOPABLE PORTION OF THE SITE, SO IN THE CALCULATIONS PRESENTED TONIGHT BY 20:20:47 BOTH MARK AND THE APPLICANT, THE AREA THAT IS NOT ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED BECAUSE OF THE FAULT ISN'T CALCULATED 20:20:54 IN THE GENERAL PLAN DENSITY CALCULATION BECAUSE THAT'S NETTED OUT. SO TAKING THE REMAINING DEVELOPABLE 20:21:05 AREA, THERE'S A UNIT YIELD THAT THIS PROJECT IS AT THE BASE. IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE DENSITY 20:21:14 RANGE THAT COULD BE PROPOSED, THERE COULD BE POTENTIALLY CONFORMING PROJECTS THAT WOULD EXCEED THE CURRENT 20:21:19 NUMBER OR BE THE SAME AS CURRENT NUMBER, THAT WOULD -- GIVEN OUR EXPERIENCE BACK AND FORTH WITH THE 20:21:28 APPLICANT, NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE SITE-SPECIFIC CONTEXTUAL DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEING 20:21:37 PROPOSED TONIGHT WITH THOSE EXCEPTIONS. THAT'S THE TRADEOFF HERE OF THE ZONING 20:21:47 PLANNED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT TYPE. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. 20:21:52 AT THIS TIME, WE'RE GOING TO GO FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, AND SEEING THAT WE HAVE ABOUT 30 SPEAKERS, I'M GOING TO 20:21:57 GO WITH A MINUTE EACH. AND I SEE THEY'RE COMING IN, BUT I ALSO WILL NOTE THAT AT 8:30, WE WILL 20:22:03 BE TAKING A QUICK BREAK BECAUSE -- AND EACH SPEAKER CAN ONLY SPEAK ONCE. BUT WE'LL BE TAKING A QUICK BREAK 20:22:13 BECAUSE WE NEED TO GIVE OUR STENOCAPTIONER A BREAK ALSO. SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH MINGLY WU. 20:22:20 WELCOME. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MINGLIE WU. 20:22:27 I'M HERE TODAY TO STATE MY SUPPORT FOR THE OMAHA WAY PROJECT. I HAVE ALWAYS LOVED THE CITY OF 20:22:33 FREMONT. PERSONALLY, I VIEW THIS AS THE BEST CITY TO LIVE IN AND RAISE THE CHILDREN 20:22:38 IN THE UNITED STATES. I HAVE TWO GROWN CHILDREN, STARTING THEIR OWN FAMILIES NOW. 20:22:45 THEY ALL WANTED TO LIVE IN FREMONT. I BELIEVE THE OMAHA WAY IS THE IDEAL HOUSING PROJECT FOR MY -- FOR FREMONT, 20:22:51 NICE NEIGHBORHOOD, FOR HARD WORKING FAMILIES TO RAISE CHILDREN AND TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL WELL-BEING 20:22:58 OF THIS WONDERFUL CITY OF FREMONT. AND THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, COUNCILMEMBERS OF THE CITY OF FREMONT 20:23:04 HAVE DONE A GREAT DEAL OF GOOD THINGS FOR THE CITY. PLEASE, KEEP UP YOUR GOOD WORK AND DO 20:23:08 MORE FOR THIS WONDERFUL CITY BY SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT. WE NEED HOUSING. 20:23:18 WE NEED GOOD HOUSING. OMAHA WAY HOUSING PROJECT IS -- WE'LL ADD IT WILL TO THIS GOOD HOUSING 20:23:24 LIST. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS PARDEEP GANDHI. 20:23:37 >> HI. MY NAME IS PRADEEP GANDHI. I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. 20:23:44 MANY YEARS BACK, WE HAD FOUND A HOME IN PLEASANTON. BEAUTIFUL PONDEROSA HOME. 20:23:51 BUT MY WIFE TURNED OUT TO BE MUCH SMARTER THAN ME AND SAID, HEY, FREMONT IS A LOT MORE CENTRALLY LOCATED AND 20:24:00 THAT'S THE BEST DECISION WE EVER MADE. FREMONT IS A GROWING CITY, WE MOST DEFINITELY NEED HOUSING. 20:24:11 MANY YEARS BACK, YOU SAW THAT MISSION HILLS BEHIND COUNCILMEMBER JONES WAS TALKING, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A WINERY, 20:24:20 NOW THERE ARE HOMES AND THAT'S WHERE I FOUND MY BEST FRIENDS. WE REALLY NEED HOUSING, AND MR. PULL 20:24:30 ENSAID IT BEST, IT'S A F TRADEOFF. WE HAVE TO DRIVE 2, 3 MILES FOR A PARK. 20:24:35 SO THE CITY WILL HAVE TO GO VERTICAL, THERE WON'T BE ANY CHOICE. SO IT A HUGE TRADEOFF THAT WE HAVE TO 20:24:48 MAKE SOME GOOD DECISION ON. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS JOHN POO. 20:24:52 >> HI. HONORABLE MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBER, MY NAME IS JOHN POO. 20:24:59 I AM SPEAKING TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE OMAHA WAY HOMES PROJECT. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOOD FOR THE CITY 20:25:07 AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ALTHOUGH THIS PROJECT IS SMALL AND COMPARED TO OTHER PROJECTS, IT WILL STILL ADD VALUABLE 20:25:15 HOUSING STOCK TO A CRITICALLY LOW SUPPLY. EVERY ADDITION TO THIS HOUSING STOCK 20:25:21 WILL HELP BALANCE THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND CURVE. SO YOUR SUPPORT AND APPROVAL FOR THIS 20:25:27 APPLICATION WILL REPRESENT YOUR COMMITMENT TO HELP RESOLVE CALIFORNIA AND THE BAY AREA'S HOUSING CRISIS. 20:25:36 I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT AND APPROVE OMAHA WAY HOMES PROJECT. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC 20:25:46 SERVICE. >> Mayor Mei: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS SOHAIL UMAR. 20:25:50 >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> Mayor Mei: YES. 20:25:56 >> I LIVE ON YUCATAN DRIVE, A STREET BEING DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED OMAHA WAY HOMES DEVELOPMENT. 20:26:02 I WOULD LIKE TO VOICE MY CONCERNS AS FOLLOWS. THE FIRST CONCERN IS ABOUT TRAFFIC. 20:26:10 OMAHA WAY IS A NARROW STREET. IT'S THE ONLY ENTRY AND EXIT FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.