2026-09-22 - Planning Commission

00:00Hello and welcome to the planning

00:02commission meeting for September 22nd,

00:042026. Please rise for the pledge of

00:06>> allegiance

00:11to the flag of the United States of

00:14America and to the stands nationy

00:22for all.

00:26>> Thank you. And then city clerk, may we

00:28please have the roll call?

00:31Commissioner Funk

00:32>> present.

00:32>> Commissioner Linskog

00:34>> here.

00:34>> Commissioner Ralph

00:35>> present.

00:36>> Vice Chair Sharf

00:36>> here.

00:37>> Cherica Solron

00:38>> here.

00:40Wonderful. So we will now move on to the

00:42approval of the minutes. And um agenda

00:44item one is approving the September 8th,

00:462026 planning commission minutes. Does

00:48>> So moved.

00:49>> Second.

00:51>> Excellent. And may we please have the

00:53vote.

01:04[clears throat]

01:05>> The motion carries unanimously.

01:07>> All right, done in record time and we

01:09will move on to oral communications. Uh

01:12do we have any public commenters wishing

01:14to speak?

01:17>> We have no speakers, chair. All right,

01:19then we will move straight ahead to um

01:23agenda item two, which is to consider

01:26the general plan amendment to adopt

01:28amendments to the health and safety

01:30element. Do we have a staff report?

01:35Good evening, client commission. Um

01:37thank you for um the the meeting that

01:40we're going to be having on this item

01:42tonight. Sorry, I lost my train of

01:43thought for a second there. Uh we

01:45actually have uh two consultants online

01:47that is going to help us uh present this

01:49item. They have been responsible for

01:51putting the majority of the document

01:53together. Um staff has reviewed it. Um

01:56and I would like to uh state that in the

01:57staff report we had said that um this uh

02:00today the item would have been presented

02:02to the board of forestry and that we

02:05were going to give a verbal update about

02:06that and our consultant will provide

02:08that. But I did want to say that we

02:09received great kudos for the document

02:11that was presented to them. So without

02:13further ado, I do want to uh introduce

02:16Jacqueline Protzman Roar and Tammy Seal

02:19who are online on behalf of Place Works

02:21who will be presenting this item

02:22tonight. Thank you.

02:29>> Thanks Pew. Um I will go ahead and share

02:33my screen.

02:46And I just want to confirm before

02:48getting started that uh my screen is

02:50being shared.

02:52>> Yes.

02:53>> Thank you. Uh so good evening planning

02:56commissioners. Um, as you said, my name

02:58is Jacqueline Prosonar uh with Place

03:01Works and I'm the project manager on the

03:02consultant team for the health and

03:04safety element update and I'm joined

03:06this evening by Tammy Seal who is the

03:08principal in charge on the consultant

03:10team.

03:12So, this presentation will provide an

03:14overview of the health and safety

03:16element, summarize the proposed changes

03:18to the element as part of this update,

03:20go over state agency review, tribal

03:23consultation, and environmental review.

03:25and then provide staff's recommended

03:27action for the planning commission.

03:32So why update the safety element? A

03:34safety element is one of the mandatory

03:36elements of a general plan focusing on

03:39natural and human-caused hazards within

03:41and surrounding Certino as well as

03:43emergency response and preparedness. The

03:45current element was adopted in 2014

03:48during the comprehensive general plan

03:50update. State law does require a safety

03:53element to be updated when a housing

03:55element or a local hazard mitigation

03:56plan are updated to ensure compliance

03:59with current state law. So both the

04:01housing element and the local hazard

04:03mitigation plan which is part of the

04:05Santa Clara County multi-jurisdictional

04:07hazard mitigation plan were updated in

04:092024 prompting the update to this health

04:13and safety element.

04:14So this update addresses new statutory

04:17requirements for climate change

04:19resilience, emergency evacuation, and

04:21extreme heat, as well as updating the

04:24element and background documents with

04:26best available science and mapping for

04:28the existing topics such as fire safety,

04:31geologic and seismic hazards and

04:33flooding.

04:34The proposed health and safety element

04:36also incorporates the Santa Clara County

04:38multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation

04:40plan by reference which can improve

04:43eligibility for grant funding to

04:45implement resiliency and hazard

04:47mitigation projects.

04:52So the health and safety element is a

04:54highlevel broad document that is just

04:56one part of Certino's al overall

04:59approach to protecting the community

05:01against hazards. The building code has

05:04very detailed specific requirements for

05:07development activities, including the

05:09fire code and the new wildland urban

05:11interface code. And the city adopts and

05:13implements the state's building code and

05:15has the option to go beyond the state's

05:17code or be more restrictive, but it

05:20cannot adopt less stringent requirements

05:22or loosen building code requirements

05:24through the general plan. So the safety

05:26element provides policy direction to

05:29guide the review of development and

05:31resource use and can address gaps or

05:33establish more stringent requirements

05:35than the building code. The health and

05:37safety element must be consistent with

05:39the building code, the municipal code

05:41and zoning code, other elements of the

05:43general plan and other applicable

05:45county, regional and state requirements.

05:51So this slide provides an overview of

05:53the engagement consultation state agency

05:56and state agency review that have

05:58occurred throughout the project. In 2025

06:01the element was presented to you all the

06:05planning commission as well as the

06:06public safety commission which informed

06:08the development of policies and

06:10strategies in the element itself. The

06:13project team then prepared the the draft

06:15health and safety element from summer

06:172025 to spring 2026 which went out for

06:21public review from February 11th to May

06:238th of this year.

06:26During that time, we held a study

06:27session with the planning commission on

06:30uh March 9th, followed by two study

06:32sessions with city council on May 19th

06:34and July 7th. The project team revised

06:38the health and safety element based on

06:40comments received from commissioners,

06:41council members, and community members.

06:44The revised health and safety element

06:46was then submitted for review by CalFire

06:49on July 13th and review by Callowas and

06:53the California Geological Survey on July

06:5614th. And tribal consultation occurred

06:59during this period as well. So, the

07:01health and safety element is scheduled

07:03to go to city council on October 20th.

07:09And now I'll provide a brief overview of

07:11the changes to the health and safety

07:13element as part of this update. There

07:15were several of the topic se sess

07:18sections that remained the same as the

07:212014 version with revisions to policies

07:24and programs within those sections.

07:27Public safety was renamed to public

07:29services and two new topics were added

07:31based on government code requirements

07:33and those were extreme heat and climate

07:35change resilience. And then the noise

07:38topic was moved and renumbered

07:40accordingly.

07:45During the study sessions earlier this

07:47year, we did receive several comments

07:49from the community, your commission, and

07:52the city council which were integrated

07:54into the health and safety element. The

07:56project team updated regional

07:58coordination section uh to include uh

08:02PAS coordination and review and the

08:05emergency preparedness response section

08:07to include policies for block leaders,

08:10vulnerable populations, evacuation,

08:13hazard mapping and education.

08:16The fire safety section was updated to

08:18provide clarity for defensible space

08:21wildfire assistance programs and

08:23development in the fire hazard sparity

08:25zones.

08:27One policy was added to public services

08:29the public services topic for response

08:31times and the hazardous materials

08:33policies were updated to include

08:35environmental site assessments and

08:37storage of hazardous materials.

08:41Since the safety element was last

08:43presented to you all, extreme heat has

08:45been pulled out as a separate hazard

08:47from the climate change resilience

08:48section with policies for a heat action

08:51plan, vulnerable neighborhoods,

08:53protections for workers, enhanced

08:55shading, artificial turf, and urban

08:58forests. And policies were added for

09:01water conservation to the climate change

09:03resilience section. And finally, the

09:06noise section was updated as well with

09:09policies added for noise control, impact

09:12analysis, street signage, and garden

09:15equipment.

09:19So once the comments were integrated

09:21into the health and safety element, the

09:23project team submitted the element to

09:25CalFire for inform the the informal

09:28review process which started on July

09:3013th. CalFire staff reviewed and

09:33provided recommended changes and then

09:35the element was submitted to the board

09:37of forestry and fire protection on

09:39August 21st to be included on their

09:41meeting agenda for review which occurred

09:44earlier today.

09:46As mentioned earlier, the project team

09:48sent the element to the California

09:50Office of Emergency Services on July

09:5214th and heard back from Calles on July

09:5522nd, confirming that the draft is

09:58consistent with AB2140's guidance for

10:01integrating the hazard mitigation plan.

10:04The project team also submitted the

10:05element to the California Geological

10:07Survey on July 14th, but did not receive

10:09any comments.

10:14During the CalFire informal review

10:16process, CalFire staff did have edits to

10:19both the background content and the

10:21policies related to wildfire and fire

10:23safety. in the background section. This

10:26included updated updating the web link

10:28to the evacuation route capacity

10:30assessment, adding a description of the

10:33CZU lightning complex fire, and adding

10:36language confirming that that no areas

10:38of Certino lack coverage for fire

10:40protection services.

10:42In the fire safety policy section,

10:45policies were revised for new

10:47development and subdivisions in high and

10:49very high fire hazard severity zones.

10:52Policies were added to ensure adequate

10:54access and road maintenance in hillside

10:56areas and policies were revised for

10:59defensible space, roadside management

11:01and coordination of anticipated future

11:04locations of water supply.

11:06The board of forestry and fire

11:08protection resource protection committee

11:10reviewed the health and safety element

11:12this afternoon and did did not have any

11:15additional changes. However, they had

11:18unanimous praise for the safety element

11:20structure, content, and alignment with

11:22safe fires safe regulations and other

11:24programs.

11:29City staff led the tribal consultation

11:32process pursuant to Senate Bill 18

11:34requirements. A request was was sent to

11:36the California Native Native Heritage

11:38Commission for a list of tribe contacts

11:41on May 18th of this year. Staff sent

11:44letters via mail and email to each of

11:49the tribe contacts on the list received

11:51from NAHC

11:53and staff received one response from the

11:54Tamian Nation and initiated the

11:56consultation process on July 9th. Staff

12:00met with a member of the Tamian Nation

12:02on August 28th, the result of which

12:04confirmed that the tribe did not have

12:06any comments on the proposed policy

12:08amendments to the element.

12:12>> [snorts]

12:13>> The project team conducted environmental

12:15review pursuant to the California

12:17Environmental Quality Act. The health

12:19and safety element update qualifies for

12:21a SQA exemption under the common sense

12:24exemption set forth in SQA guidelines

12:26section 15061B3.

12:30Because the update is a program level

12:32document and does not commit the city to

12:34any specific development actions. The

12:37update does not include changes to land

12:39use or zoning, does not increase

12:41development potential, and does not

12:43grant entitlements for development.

12:46There are no provisions of the updates

12:48that would result in direct or indirect

12:50population growth or place additional

12:52demands on natural resources, public

12:54services, or infrastructure.

12:57and future implementation actions that

12:59could affect the environment would be

13:01subject to se separate SQA review at the

13:03time they're prepared.

13:09So with that, staff recommends that the

13:11planning commission adopt the draft

13:13resolution recommending that the city

13:14council adopt amendments to chapter 7,

13:18health and safety, appendix D, community

13:21noise fundamentals, appendix E, geologic

13:23and seismic hazards, and a new appendix

13:26H, health and safety background report,

13:29and find find the actions exempt from

13:31SQA.

13:34So that does conclude our presentation

13:36and we're available to answer any

13:37questions that you may have.

13:41>> Great. Thank you very much. And Pew,

13:43just to confirm, is there a second

13:45presentation from you mentioned there

13:46were two people or is it just this one?

13:48>> No, just staff from the same uh

13:50consulting company here.

13:51>> Great. Thank you. Then we'll take it

13:52back to the commission. Do we have any

13:53questions? Yes, Commissioner Ralph.

13:56>> Yes. Thank you for the presentation.

13:58Could we go back to the slides? And

14:00there was a slide that said changes from

14:03changes in 2026 I think it is called if

14:07you can project the slides one more

14:08time.

14:09>> Uh yes.

14:17And which slide would you like me to

14:19show?

14:19>> I think it's a changes in 2026 or

14:23>> this one?

14:24>> Yeah. Um yeah

14:27next one maybe.

14:30Yes, this one.

14:32So, um I had a couple of questions here.

14:34One is on the noise.

14:38I seem to recall past planning

14:40commission feedback on freeway noise and

14:42pickle ball noise. I don't see either of

14:43those mentioned in the noise category.

14:45Is there a reason they were omitted?

14:46>> I can take that question. Um freeway

14:49noise is actually extensively covered in

14:51the noise element uh as presented

14:52tonight. With respect to pickle ball, I

14:54know you and I had a conversation

14:56earlier about this too. uh we kind of

14:58have um language in there that covers um

15:02noise generating uses. So not just

15:04pickle ball but any uses that generate

15:07noise. I mean we have pickle ball today

15:08but we could have tickle ball tomorrow.

15:10And so in order to address those kinds

15:13of issues we kind of left the language

15:15to be um anything that generates noise

15:18needs to be mitigated and have

15:20mitigation measures associated with it.

15:21>> Yeah. If you can go back to the slides

15:23and keep the slides up please.

15:27So my question is on the slide itself.

15:29Given the extensive discussion the city

15:31has had on the topic of both preview

15:33noise and pickle ball noise. Is there a

15:35reason place did not include it in the

15:37slides here?

15:42>> Not necessarily. Uh they are part of the

15:44redline documents um uh that is

15:46presented in the package for planning

15:48commission review.

15:49>> Okay. If you can stay on the slide one

15:50more time.

15:52There's an there's an item under noise

15:54called impact analysis. Did impact

15:57analysis get included in the policy

15:59recommendations

16:01specifically for noise uh related to

16:05private or public areas?

16:08>> Can you repeat that question again?

16:10>> The impact analysis

16:12the last row on the slide impact

16:14analysis under noise was that included

16:16for noise emanating from change of use

16:19in public or private areas?

16:21>> Correct. Uh it's actually policy HS10.8

16:24that addresses uh the analysis and

16:27mitigation measures that needed to be

16:28provide that would need to be provided

16:30for noise generating uses in both

16:31private and public.

16:33>> Could we put that up? Is it possible to

16:34put that up?

16:35>> Uh sure.

16:37Uh video if you could project the staff

16:41uh [clears throat]

16:42computer screen.

16:45I actually don't know how to do that.

16:56Is there any way to zoom this?

16:59Can we zoom it on our side?

17:02Oh, there you go.

17:12Right. So, thank you. So, I'm reading

17:15the policy and thank you for including

17:18it. But it says includes adequate noise

17:21mitigation measures but it does not

17:24include impact analysis.

17:26>> Uh the way that you would have to uh

17:28generate those mitig mitigation measures

17:30would be through the noise analysis and

17:33actually um we are going to be

17:35presenting another municipal code

17:37amendment change to the commission

17:38that's coming up soon uh which will

17:40actually actually be including that in

17:42the MUN code as well. So I guess my

17:44question to place works, why was impact

17:46analysis not included in this? Because

17:48this is a an area of great concern and

17:52neighborhood feedback and this has been

17:54a topic of tremendous discussion

17:57consuming a lot of staff and uh council

18:00and commission time. I know the slide

18:03says impact analysis, but why did the

18:05policy not include impact analysis

18:06specifically? Question for place works.

18:11>> May I answer that question, sir?

18:13Place to hear from place works too, but

18:16go ahead.

18:16>> Sure. Their um scope of work is limited

18:18to the uh health and safety element. The

18:21noise element is a separate section that

18:23uh we were um not anticipating editing

18:26with this update, but due to the

18:28response that we received, staff

18:30actually looked at some of those

18:31policies and has been updating it. This

18:33is not Place Works updating.

18:35>> Oh, I see. So, Place Works was not the

18:38editor for the noise. Okay, very good.

18:43Um, if you can go back to that slide one

18:45more time

18:47and my last question here, I'll yield my

18:50time after this. If you can go back to

18:51the slide

18:55video, can you switch to the screen that

18:58um, Jacqueline was sharing? Thank you.

19:03On the fire safety, was there any

19:06consideration for I know in some other

19:09categories we talk about inter agency

19:11cooperation for example on the trucking

19:13hours and so on. Was there any

19:15consideration for fire safety to pursue

19:18similarly inter agency coordination to

19:21ensure that there's weed and brush

19:22abatement on the hillside and in the

19:24quarry lands?

19:30Not sure who that question should go to.

19:33Was this a placework section?

19:37>> Um I'm happy to

19:38>> Jacqueline, why don't you? Yeah.

19:40>> Yes. So, the fire safety section and the

19:44regional coordination section actually

19:46also um

19:49has a couple of policies that are for uh

19:54coordination between

19:56uh different agencies um that provide

20:00fire protection services. um and that

20:04they would work together for

20:07uh

20:09vegetation management in not only in

20:11Certino but in the surrounding open

20:13space and um I'm not sure about the

20:16quarry but I know the open space areas.

20:20Yeah, it's um concerning that we have no

20:24explicit mention of quarry because this

20:26is an area where staffing has gone down

20:28from 200 to 16 and there's a lot of

20:31concern around fire and brush. So, I'll

20:32leave it at that. We can make a motion

20:34if needed. Thank you.

20:37>> Any other questions?

20:40No,

20:41>> hi. um on page six of um the draft

20:45resolution.

20:47um where you describe the sheriff's

20:50office

20:52duties. Um I guess I can do it in a

20:55substitute motion, but there's something

20:56that uh needs to be added to that

20:59regarding

21:01the sheriff's primary responsibility

21:04being for C the city of Certino.

21:12>> Sorry. And and I it's only because of an

21:14unfortunate incident earlier this month

21:17um where there was a fake 911 call and

21:20they deputies were sent to another city

21:24um and we need to make it clear that the

21:28sheriff is responsible for our

21:30community. Thank you.

21:33>> Okay. Is there a staff response to this

21:36or

21:39>> I'm sorry. I'm actually trying to find

21:40this the page that um Commissioner Sharf

21:43is referring to.

21:45>> Page six of the draft resolution.

21:50>> Health and safety element public hearing

21:52draft

21:56about a third of the way down the page.

22:00>> Page sixap.

22:04>> Chapter seven.

22:06>> Page six of chapter seven, sir.

22:09That's what I'm looking at.

22:10>> Okay.

22:21>> And you wish to add this language where

22:24if

22:24>> right so

22:27um let me go back there now. So I the

22:30language I wish to add and I wrote it

22:32out here is the Santa Clara County

22:35Sheriff's Office primary responsibility

22:37is the safety and security of the

22:39Certino community which funds its

22:41operation. That's one bullet point. And

22:45then the Santa Clara County Sheriff's

22:47Office deputies serving Certino shall

22:50not deploy to other Santa Clara County

22:52cities without a direct request from the

22:55other jurisdiction or except in the case

22:58of an actual emergency.

23:04I can email you these if you wish.

23:08Yeah, Commissioner. Um, this is a little

23:11bit outside of my Bailey Wake, but I

23:13don't believe we can dictate to the

23:16Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department

23:18their discretion and their need to if

23:22necessary go to another jurisdiction.

23:24>> Right. I'm not say if it's necessary and

23:27the other jurisdiction requests it,

23:29sure. Well, it it again, it's I'm not

23:33familiar enough with the appropriate uh

23:36law enforcement requirements of the

23:37county, but you know, they I just don't

23:40know if there's instance where in

23:42absence of a request from a sister

23:44jurisdiction, the law enforcement

23:47believe to to exercise their duty, they

23:50would need to go to that jurisdiction.

23:54>> Okay.

23:55>> Are are do we have um we're still in the

23:58questions phase. Do you have more

24:00questions or

24:01>> um No, I mean I do I would not vote for

24:03this draft resolution in the current

24:05form though. Thank you.

24:07>> Okay. Um any other questions?

24:09Commissioner Ralph.

24:11>> Yes. Staying on that page five. When we

24:14look at the

24:17um emergency management, I guess it's

24:19called the OEM

24:22um resilience exercisers.

24:25Does that include the public works

24:27service yard? Is the service yard under

24:30the scope of the OEM drills or or uh TR

24:34simulating TR scenarios?

24:42Yeah, that is not something that um

24:44planning staff would know. That would be

24:46part of emergency services. But um to

24:49the extent that that is part of their

24:51responsibilities, I'm sure they would be

24:53including all city staff.

24:57I guess maybe the question for place

24:59works. Was there any evaluation of the

25:03drills themselves for whether they were

25:06comprehensive or needed updating or was

25:08that out of the scope of this?

25:15So that would be outside the scope of

25:16this. This is a policy level document.

25:18what what you're discussing is really

25:22operational emergency um at a at a much

25:25more granular level.

25:27>> Mhm. Okay. Thank you.

25:31>> Any other questions the commission? I

25:34have a few. So, um All right. On page 10

25:39of the document, I was curious just to

25:42clarify, um one of the lines was crossed

25:45out. It was the EOC can be fully

25:47functional within 30 minutes of

25:49activation for a level three activation

25:51on a workday. Um, and I noticed that

25:53that was redlined and or crossed out.

25:56Um, and I'm curious if that just no

25:58longer holds. We can no longer activate

26:01within 30 minutes. Is that something we

26:03should be concerned about and maybe

26:05needs some attention?

26:12I believe from a practical matter those

26:14things go into oper like emergency

26:17operations plans and not necessarily

26:19general plans but I will also let place

26:22works chime in if they have a response.

26:27>> Yes. um those those details would be

26:30more in in [clears throat] an emergency

26:32operations plan and they could uh change

26:36um and therefore it was redlined from

26:39this higher level uh longer range

26:42document.

26:44>> I see. Okay. Thank you. Um then it also

26:49noted on page 11 that the city reviews

26:52the the plan annually. Is this currently

26:56the case or is this aspirational?

27:00>> We'll have to check with the emergency

27:02off management staff.

27:04>> Okay. All right. I've got more

27:07questions. So on page 20, um this is

27:09more just for my own knowledge. I think

27:11there's a lot of community interest in

27:13this. It mentions that the Santa Clara

27:15County Fire Department has a hazardous

27:17brush inspection program for hillside

27:19areas. um including inspections of

27:21hillside properties by fire crews

27:23beginning in early April of every year.

27:26How do residents sign up for that if

27:28they want to have their home inspected?

27:33>> I believe they have to contact the fire

27:34department for that. Um I think the fire

27:36department has a dedicated website for

27:38their inspections and um things like

27:41that and we're happy to provide more

27:43information, but I believe they they are

27:45the ones who conduct these

27:47>> and they have a website for it. Yeah,

27:49that would be great because um we I have

27:52um spoken with a number of community

27:53members that are very concerned about

27:55the amount of fuel in their backsides.

27:58Um so, okay. Um I think I only had one

28:02final question. Um this was based off a

28:04public comment that mentioned something

28:06that wasn't noted in the health and

28:08safety element so far. Is there where

28:11would risk of trees falling onto roads

28:14fall within this health and safety

28:16element?

28:19or trees falling in general.

28:23>> I think that might come under the whole

28:25evacuation um concerns or but in general

28:29there is the urban um forest management

28:32plan that the city is preparing and it

28:35could probably go into that in terms of

28:37an action item

28:38>> for what you know as a more granular

28:41thing that staff should look to in

28:43evaluating trees when they're um looking

28:46at them.

28:46>> Okay, great. Thank you, Commissioner Ra.

28:50>> Yes. Going back to the policy HS10.8, if

28:54we can project the screen

29:32video. if you could please um share the

29:35staff screen

29:46on the item here around noise.

29:50Is the noise generating use considered

29:54to be a a new use or a change of use on

29:59existing?

30:02It could be a change of use as well. So

30:04essentially, if you had I'm going to use

30:07the the example um probably most

30:10relevant to pickle ball is the change of

30:12use from a tennis court to a pickle ball

30:14court. That would be a change of use in

30:17terms of the amount of noise that would

30:18be generated and therefore would need

30:20mitigation as such.

30:22>> And so that would be included in this.

30:24>> Correct.

30:25>> And does such a change of use require a

30:28cop? Currently

30:29>> not on public property.

30:32not on public property. Is there a way

30:35we might be able to recommend that

30:36tonight?

30:37>> No, it's outside of the scope of what

30:39we're doing here. But also, it is

30:41city-owned property. The city doesn't

30:43issue itself use permits generally.

30:47>> What other checks and balances might we

30:49recommend in policy language that would

30:52allow for an explicit oversight on such

30:55change of use?

30:56I I think what you're suggesting would

30:58probably best go in the um park parks

31:00and recreation or the open space element

31:02um in terms of the uses that go in

31:04parks, but this is outside the scope of

31:07that.

31:10Yeah, I I I hear what you're saying, but

31:12is there a recommendation on on the

31:16noise element itself given this is being

31:18updated? Is there additional

31:20recommendations policy language that we

31:22might use in in lie of CUP? Is there

31:25something else we might use such as

31:27recommendation for explicit council

31:30approval

31:31or or let me rephrase is there any other

31:33policy language in the draft today that

31:35refers to uh explicit council approval

31:39as a way to encourage that oversight?

31:43>> I I think what you're talking about is

31:44the process which this is not. This is

31:47really about the mitigations related to

31:50noise generating activities and uses the

31:53process itself by how um uses on public

31:58property change that that has its own

32:01place which is not in the health and

32:03safety element itself.

32:06>> Yeah, if I could add I think that would

32:07mostly be handled through an ordinance

32:09and be something that would be more

32:11codebased because this is laying the

32:13framework for what you would want. But

32:15if then you want to get into describing

32:16the type of permit or the body that

32:18would approve it, that would be more

32:19appropriate in a code.

32:23>> I guess there other places where we talk

32:24about ensure that conditions of approval

32:26are incorporated, but we couldn't do

32:28that for public recreational spaces.

32:31>> Well, I mean this basically says that

32:32there's going to be noise mitigation

32:34measures that would be implemented. So

32:36that is the condition of approval that

32:37the mitigation measure needs to be

32:39implemented.

32:39>> Understood. I think the difference is

32:41the mitigation measures would be staff

32:44uh administered whereas the conditions

32:47of approval would need explicit

32:49oversight from council or a commission.

32:52>> Actually administrative decisions almost

32:55always have conditions of approval

32:56associated with them. But again um uh

32:59you know this basically lays the

33:02framework for what happens when you

33:05change a noise generating use or when

33:08you place a noise generating use in a

33:10certain area and the process again that

33:13you're talking about in terms of the

33:15oversight that goes in those details

33:16that Luke was talking about. So is it

33:19fair to say we might incorporate

33:20language and again I'm suggesting it

33:22here as a question so my fellow

33:24commissioners are thinking about this

33:25but is it fair to use language such as

33:28ensure that conditions of approval are

33:31included and are non-ministerial as a

33:34way to ensure that there's oversight

33:36from council or a commission.

33:39>> Okay. So I I just wanted to add one

33:40thing where we talk like mitigations and

33:42conditions is mitigations are always

33:46conditions of approval but not all

33:47conditions are mitigations.

33:49>> So anything that is a mitigation for a

33:51project would be identified generally in

33:54a sequent document but also a condition

33:56of approval of the project. So if you

33:58had a permit those mitigations would

34:00have to be conditions

34:02>> but the conditions in that case would be

34:04staff identified or consultant

34:06identified. They could be they would

34:09typically be through SQA consultant

34:11identified.

34:12>> Okay.

34:12>> But any permit that's going through a

34:14hearing body, very few things go to

34:16administrative hearings. Only very small

34:18projects in this city do. So everything

34:21else would go to either the planning

34:22commission or the city of council who

34:24would be then looking at the mitigations

34:26and conditions.

34:28>> Thank you.

34:31>> May I?

34:32>> Yes.

34:32>> Yeah. So just just to follow up on that,

34:35I I think what what what I heard you

34:37kind of say before was that um it would

34:40not be unusual to I mean you know the

34:43municipal code has a lot of places today

34:44says this particular kind of decision

34:46comes must come to the planning

34:48commission. This must come to the city

34:49council. So this would this must come to

34:52an administrative hearing with

34:53appropriate notice. So you're just

34:55saying that that would be the mechanism

34:56>> would be a noticed hearing and generally

34:59would be before this body andor the city

35:01council. Great.

35:02>> Thank you.

35:03And if I may, I mean, things like

35:06capital improvement projects as an

35:08example, because those are the ones that

35:09would implement these mitigation

35:11measures on uh public property, those

35:14would have council oversight in any

35:17case.

35:20actually again related to that. So um I

35:25I don't know off the top of my head what

35:27the capital improvement threshold was

35:29for something to be included in that in

35:31that list. But again that this is just

35:33something the council can set as part of

35:35municipal code as to whether that

35:37whether that has a capital improvement.

35:39Yeah.

35:40>> Right. And that was the point I was

35:42trying to make that the process for that

35:44change should be is elsewhere and that's

35:46what should be amended if that is the

35:48desire but not here.

35:49>> Great. Thank you.

35:52>> Okay. Any other questions from the

35:54commission? Um then at this point we

35:56will break for public comments. Are

35:58there any city clerk?

36:00>> We have one remote speaker, Jennifer

36:03Griffin.

36:04Welcome Jennifer.

36:06>> Uh thank you. Can you all hear me? Yes,

36:09we can hear you.

36:10>> Okay, thank you. Um I uh my um this is a

36:15great document. Everyone has worked very

36:18very hard on it. I know this has had

36:21many meetings and I'm very pleased to

36:23see there was a very robust um

36:28commitment to update sections of this

36:30like for heat um wildfire evacuation

36:35etc. I think it's a good document. I'm

36:38very pleased with it. I just had one or

36:41two comments. One of them is that um I

36:45sent a letter to the planning commission

36:48earlier today and this concerns I think

36:52this is a piece of the safety and health

36:56element which is making sure that

36:59Certino has vital services. I don't know

37:03where this comes under, but I consider

37:05it a safety measure, which is that we

37:08maintain adequate grocery stores for the

37:12public to purchase food and groceries.

37:15We have drugstores and pharmacy so that

37:17we can have people residents

37:20particularly seniors able to buy

37:22medicine and pick up medical

37:24prescriptions and that we maintain

37:26enough gas stations that the public is

37:30able to fuel their vehicles and repair

37:32them. If you are trying to make sure

37:35that you keep gas in your car because of

37:40earthquakes, which if you've been

37:42through after 89 LMA Prietta, a lot of

37:46people around here keep a full gas tank

37:49because there are it's impossible to get

37:51gas in emergency situations like that. I

37:55don't know where those fall under this

37:58category but I consider those very

38:00important vital services particularly

38:03coming out of the pandemic where you

38:06know you have to maintain those in the

38:08city. I consider them as important as

38:13emergency access for fire trucks, uh,

38:17public safety with the police

38:19department, etc., etc., because they are

38:22we don't want to be a food desert where

38:25we have no grocery stores and we want to

38:28make sure that we have gas available for

38:31the public, especially if they have to

38:33evacuate. Um because you believe me when

38:37if there's an emergency you can't line

38:40up at the gas station to get gas. Um I

38:43also I just wanted to mention over the

38:45weekend I attended my high school class

38:47reunion in the area. One of the ladies I

38:50was talking to classmate um lives in

38:53Reno and she and her husband last week

38:55were were in Mendescino. They were not

38:58able to get back into their home in

39:00northern Reno because of the fire. They

39:03had to spend the night in southern Reno.

39:06Her son was able to get back in and take

39:09care of their um poultry and

39:11>> Thank you, Jennifer. That is your time.

39:13>> Scary. Thank you.

39:15>> We have no remaining requests to speak.

39:17Chair,

39:18>> thank you. Okay, we'll bring it back to

39:19this commission. Does anyone have any

39:20other questions? Commissioner

39:22>> Ralph

39:25the school if there's anyone else?

39:27>> I don't think so.

39:30>> Go ahead. That's okay. Okay, I just had

39:33one follow-up question on the public

39:34comment and this may be either for staff

39:36or for um the place works, but um for

39:40vital services, where would there be a

39:43place for that in the health and safety

39:45element at all or retention of vital

39:47services?

39:53If the commission wishes to have

39:55something, they could, but we can't

39:57force grocery stores to remain open. I

39:59mean, [clears throat] that's a business

40:00decision that they have to make. in the

40:02event of an emergency.

40:04>> Yeah, I guess I would just add I think

40:06that the speaker identified a legitimate

40:09issue. I mean, in terms of food deserts

40:11and that, but I think the health and

40:13safety element, you're primarily looking

40:15at environmental factors that can have

40:17an impact on the city and its residents,

40:19things increased heat, earthquakes,

40:22fire, flooding. Um,

40:25food services are obviously important,

40:27but the safety element is not really

40:28there to identify things that are of

40:31benefit to people's health, so to speak,

40:33like access to grocery stores. Um, I

40:37think you could appropriately have

40:38policies like that elsewhere in the

40:39general plan, I would think, in terms of

40:41mix of land uses,

40:43um, having things more walkable, more,

40:46you know, closely situated to the

40:48population, but I don't think this would

40:50really be the element to address that

40:52issue.

40:53Okay, thank you for clarifying,

40:54Commissioner Row.

40:57>> Yeah, going back to the construction and

40:59weekend noise, I believe it's HS10.3.

41:03I know this was another area that was

41:05discussed in the past uh planning

41:07commission. It appears there's no real

41:10change in this section other than

41:11editorial to add uh some editorial

41:14fixes.

41:16Was there consideration to add more

41:18restrictions on holidays or weekends? I

41:23know the Saturday schedule is what 9:00

41:25a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or 6 p.m.

41:29>> So I will say sir, we have not done any

41:31analysis on this section because the

41:33update to the to the health and safety

41:35element actually did not include a

41:37substantial revision to the noise

41:40element. But with that said, um we do

41:43have standards in the um municipal code

41:46with respect to construction hours and

41:48things like that. And this is just we're

41:50just aligning the text in here to to

41:52with that. We're not proposing to make

41:55any changes. There was no analysis done

41:59uh on that issue.

42:00>> But is it fair to say that commission

42:02could amend to suggest further changes

42:05here to apply further limits on

42:07construction noise on weekends?

42:10That's the commission's will.

42:15>> Any other questions?

42:16>> Um, yes.

42:19on the evacuation uh study and the

42:22related evacuation corridors.

42:25The place works memo explicitly

42:28identifies hotel Stevens Creek Mlelen

42:33um maybe a couple more but the actual

42:36text in the element the health and

42:38safety element chose to omit those. Can

42:42we comment on the rationale maybe from

42:45place works on why those were omitted?

42:51because those corridors, I believe the

42:53fire evacuation study showed it was up

42:56to 4 hours to evacuate in the event of a

42:58fire. So, seems like a fairly um

43:02contentious issue and we know we've

43:04received a lot of rest feedback on that.

43:07Uh the memo does some good work

43:08identifying it, but why was it not

43:11included explicitly in the uh in the uh

43:14element?

43:18>> [clears throat]

43:20>> I don't know if uh Place works has

43:22anything to add, but I think the

43:23evacuation study really was a standalone

43:25document that was done essentially as an

43:27appendix or part of this by reference.

43:31So, um I forget the length, but there's

43:33a lot in there. It was really as as you

43:35point out more of a capacity issue where

43:38you were identifying

43:40should you have something occur

43:41particularly on the west side where are

43:43your potential bottlenecks and delays.

43:46So this document isn't really trying to

43:49replicate what that's already doing.

43:51That was meant to be a standalone that

43:53required to be part of this.

43:56But that's probably another area we

43:58could explicitly name or maybe use some

44:00criteria to say the most congested

44:03corridors as found in the evacation

44:05study be considered for operational

44:07improvements and prioritized.

44:11>> Yeah, so far as I know that would be a

44:13fair thing to say. I I I probably

44:15wouldn't want to try to get a lot of

44:16detail, but if you wanted to like by

44:18reference

44:20use the evacuation study in the most

44:22impacted corridors to prioritize those,

44:24that would seem to be a reasonable thing

44:26to do.

44:27>> Mhm.

44:30>> And then the fire evacuation analysis

44:33itself, the scenarios that were looked

44:35at, I don't think they covered school

44:37drop and school pick. Was there a reason

44:39that the place works analysis did not

44:43consider the school drop and pick?

44:49>> Sorry. Uh for the evacuation study, you

44:51mean?

44:52>> I I think the scenarios that was that

44:55were evaluated included uh scenarios

44:58that were, you know, either had school

45:01ongoing like during the daytime um and

45:04um off times. But I'll let uh Jacqueline

45:06speak to it if if she has anything to

45:09add to that. But that was also developed

45:11with our um other consultant Fen Pierce

45:15who were the u the actual preparers of

45:18that evacuation study.

45:22>> So that is out of the scope of today's

45:24update.

45:26>> So the recommendations from the

45:28evacuation study were kind of picked up

45:30in the actual document. The evacuation

45:33study itself is outside the scope of

45:35what we're looking at today.

45:37>> And that study is that is that a done

45:40thing? There's no chance to have it

45:41revised to reflect because I know these

45:44corridors face extreme congestion during

45:46school drop and pick and it' be good to

45:48see what the effect of an emergency or a

45:51fire evacation during the school drop

45:52and pick hours would be.

45:53>> So again, I mean the this is a policy

45:55level document. This is not necessarily

45:58an operational level document and there

46:01are policies that have been included in

46:03the health and safety element that talk

46:05about dynamic traffic assignments or

46:07like doing those kinds of more nuance

46:10studies further down the road, but

46:12that's not a subject of this general

46:13plan update.

46:14>> But could we recommend through today's

46:17uh motion to update the evacuation study

46:20to analyze the school drop and pick

46:22scenarios? That is that that study is

46:25complete at this point in time.

46:27>> That is a complete document.

46:28>> Okay. Okay.

46:31>> I will yield my time if there's more

46:33questions.

46:34>> Does anyone have further questions? Vice

46:36Chair, did you

46:38Okay, then. No, I think we're

46:41Commissioner Ralph, if you have further

46:42questions.

46:44>> Um, yes, I did have more questions.

46:48Um,

46:49trying to limit my questions here. So,

46:51let's see what we want to talk about.

46:54Were there any additional

46:57limitations around the

47:01the uh I know we've had a lot of issues

47:03around delivery especially with these uh

47:07truck based deliveries now and they're

47:10coming in later and later in the night.

47:12Are there any considerations for setting

47:14hours of delivery so that I know

47:16Christmas time may be an exception?

47:18Maybe some other exceptions, but it

47:20seems like we're getting further and

47:22further into the night when delivery

47:23trucks are doing deliveries now. So, was

47:25there any consideration to setting uh

47:28hours of operation limits for

47:31areas uh especially residentially that

47:35that see these deliveries. Um, like Luke

47:39mentioned, this element is really about

47:41natural hazards and other um, uh, things

47:45that might impact um, city the

47:48community. So, no, that was not part of

47:51this update.

47:53>> Yeah, I think specifically this was

47:5410.73

47:56HS10.73.

47:59So it specifically addresses

48:03some aspect but could it be

48:06instead of saying the language I believe

48:08says consider whether could we be

48:10stronger in the language to say pursue

48:12instead of consider whether or was that

48:14considered to be more

48:17>> the consider is because I believe some

48:20of the streets may be restrict like the

48:23city might have there might be

48:25limitations on what the city might be

48:27able to implement on some of these

48:29streets. So, it would need study. So, I

48:32we did not again this was not the

48:34subject of the update. So, we wanted to

48:37have some policy language in there that

48:39would allow the city to pursue other

48:41options down the road uh and further

48:43study.

48:47>> Okay. Thank you.

48:50>> Okay. Um if we do not have any further

48:52questions, we will move to any comments.

48:58Um, I mean I I can I'm happy to Oh,

49:00Commissioner Fong.

49:01>> Yep. I was I was just going to say uh

49:03you know it was um I think it was good

49:05to see the process that this went

49:07through in particular. You know there

49:09were a number of areas which were

49:10enhanced as a result of comment along

49:13the way. Um you know I think that I

49:17think it's good there was you know there

49:18was quite a bit of public outreach with

49:20having two sessions at at city council

49:23to um take input. So I you know commend

49:25the uh you know the staff and the

49:28consultants on um on making that happen.

49:32I I do think one one other area

49:35that I might mention is uh I think it's

49:39it's very common

49:41for many of the projects that we

49:42consider uh here in in the planning

49:44commission. Many of them are coming with

49:46exemptions. Um so uh

49:52that's of of course that's an

49:54interesting it's an interesting area

49:56exemptions when you look at things like

49:58capacity um you know evacuation capacity

50:00for instance and I think the one of the

50:02natural questions that's raised um you

50:04know by the community is you know is

50:07this project this specific project by

50:09virtue of the fact that it's um it that

50:12it's getting um exemptions that you know

50:14that that might exceed the capacity that

50:16was considered

50:18Um I I think that um I wouldn't actually

50:22look at this I mean of course

50:24you know you could look at it in an

50:26obstructionist way to say well you know

50:27we shouldn't have we we shouldn't allow

50:29a particular project or an exemption

50:32because that would exceed this but I do

50:34think there would be a value in

50:36mentioning um how those things interplay

50:39as part of the um part of the document

50:42here maybe from the other side just so

50:44that there's a clearer level set for

50:47people when they pick up the document to

50:49understand what does it what does it

50:50really mean you know that exemptions are

50:52part of the of of how these things are

50:54are selected that these become you know

50:56they're still in play for something like

50:58a fire review or you know the these

51:00different things and to reflect that a

51:02little bit I think would be good in

51:04trying to make it clearer as to what

51:06what kinds of things you know that that

51:09the um that this kind of document took

51:12those things in consideration in the

51:14scope of the um policies that laid out.

51:17Um, I think that that that that would be

51:19a great thing. Now, I'll balance that by

51:21saying that, you know, for a document

51:23like this, there are many regulations

51:25about what it can and can't say and and

51:27I think that there's, you know,

51:28obviously there's been a huge effort

51:30here to make sure to be in conforming

51:31with best practice there. So, if there's

51:34not a place to talk about what does it

51:36mean if, you know, if a project is

51:39approved that's that's taller or or

51:41denser, um, that's probably okay, too. I

51:44mean that just that's the way it is. But

51:47um I would just say as a as a

51:49consideration that's something to

51:51consider if there's an opportunity to

51:52mention those things because I think

51:54just being clear about that um is better

51:57better for all parties.

52:00And with that that is my comment.

52:03>> Any other comments?

52:07>> Yeah, I'll go ahead and agree with that.

52:09But I I I certainly hope that the the

52:11health and safety element um development

52:13parameters do not get waved easily. Um

52:17uh my comments are similar in the sense

52:19that I I do think that a lot of progress

52:20has been made on this and so thank you

52:22to staff and thank you to place works

52:24for taking a lot of the feedback that we

52:26originally provided. I know that I I

52:28tracked um some of um the changes that I

52:30had recommended. So thank you for adding

52:32the community rating system around flood

52:34risk. Thank you for adding emergency

52:36management as a fifth point on page 50.

52:39Um I'm also glad you are accounting for

52:41population growth. This isn't something

52:42that we mentioned, but it is a concern.

52:45Um how do we adjust our infrastructure

52:47and emergency management as as the city

52:49population grows? Um and I hope that

52:52that gets taken up as a priority. Um on

52:55the freeway noise, I I do think that's a

52:57very interesting um point to make and

53:00the VTA has already undergone sound

53:02mitigation tests for Highway 85. So, um

53:05I do think that that one we can

53:07definitely continue to partner with our

53:08agency partners on that. Um on the

53:12section 2.11.3

53:14um absolutely yes to the addition of the

53:18managed traffic control. So this was not

53:20something that I saw before and in this

53:22latest revision on evacuation

53:25um they added a lot more around

53:28you know turn restrictions, signal

53:30timing adjustments, lane conversions um

53:32in the event of evacuation. And I

53:34actually think this is a just as

53:36important if not more important than the

53:38route itself is how we manage the

53:40traffic exiting from um the homes. Um

53:44that is that is how you if we can manage

53:46that appropriately that's how we would

53:48you know hopefully avert the palisades

53:50type situation. Um, and you know, my

53:52only feedback would really just be I

53:54think the the brief point that we made

53:56around maybe maybe there's a need to

53:57incorporate risks of trees falling into

54:00the urban management urban forest

54:02management plan. But um, yeah, I think

54:04otherwise I think this is looking good.

54:08Any other comments, Commissioner Ra?

54:10>> Yeah, I'd like to make a set of

54:14small motions that will make

54:16recommendations for amendments to the

54:18draft.

54:20um if that's okay.

54:23>> Yes.

54:24>> Okay. So the first one that I would like

54:28to

54:30move is the earlier comment I made which

54:33is on the evacuation constraint

54:35corridors.

54:37I'd like to move on HS2.11.7

54:40the evacuation constraint corridors

54:43to include text

54:46that says prioritize

54:49the evacuation route capacity assessment

54:53for any

54:55roadway changes on these evacuation

54:57constraint corridors.

55:00Once again, if if I may repeat that,

55:04prioritize the evacuation route capacity

55:07assessment for any roadway changes to

55:12our evacuation constraint corridors

55:14without explicitly naming any particular

55:16roadways. Do I have a second?

55:20>> I'm sorry, which page are you on now?

55:22>> I'm on HS2.11.7,

55:25evacuation constraint corridors. This is

55:26the fire evacuation study that that

55:29found certain roads like Stevens Creek,

55:32Fortell, Mlelen

55:34were evacuation constrained.

55:36>> Oh, okay.

55:37>> So, so this is an amendment to say

55:40perform or prioritize an evacuation

55:43route capacity assessment prior to

55:44making any roadway changes

55:47that further limit roadway capacity in

55:50the

55:52um corridors identified as evacuation

55:55constraint.

55:57Do I have a second?

55:58>> Uh, in in which uh policy number were

56:01you looking at that change?

56:02>> I believe that's 211.7 vacation

56:04constraint corridors.

56:09>> Do you want to

56:10>> mine is it 211-5

56:13prioritization,

56:14>> right?

56:15>> Can you project it, please?

56:18>> Video, can you project the staff

56:19monitor, please?

56:20>> Yeah, I only see mine going up to five.

56:26Yeah. So,

56:29evacuation awareness.

56:32Can we scroll down?

56:37Yes. So, without getting specific here,

56:40how can we add a recommendation to

56:43basically look at prioritizing

56:46capacity analysis prior to any roadway

56:49changes?

56:50I don't want to get too

56:52>> Can I ask a clarification question? I

56:54mean, isn't that going to happen anyway?

56:58>> That's what we were imagining that you

57:00know when you identif when we've

57:02identified the evacuation constraint

57:04routes that any changes that would occur

57:07in those segments would have to go

57:10through that analysis anyway.

57:15>> Yes. So I would like to make this motion

57:17to include a policy in and I'll keep it

57:21high level to include a policy in 2.11

57:25to

57:27prioritize an evacuation capacity

57:29analysis

57:30when any roadway changes are proposed

57:32for corridors

57:35um that have an evacuation

57:38um

57:40what is the term that have an evacuation

57:42uh capacity constraint currently

57:44identified.

57:47would something like maybe a reference

57:51to the evacuation study where

57:54your prioritization would be based on

57:56the corridors that have the most

57:59constrained vehicle to capacity ratio

58:02>> I think is where you're you're going. So

58:04to

58:06I I think to maybe have something to say

58:08consistent with the evacuation study and

58:11reference say dated October 2025

58:15>> since that's already part of this

58:18>> element

58:19>> by incorporation.

58:20>> I think that would refer people back

58:23>> to be able to identify which of the

58:26corridors were most constrained.

58:27>> Mhm.

58:30That that's fine with me.

58:33Did staff want to offer up a motion?

58:36>> Well, can I ask a clarification here?

58:39>> So, it I mean that's kind of like

58:42saying, you know, take the rest of this

58:43document into account when you're doing

58:45this implementation. That kind of

58:47applies to every single piece of this

58:50document is to say consider every other

58:52piece of this document. So, I'm not

58:54really sure what this adds to to our

58:57understanding or how it changes anything

58:59in terms of how this would be

59:01implemented. Question to the city

59:02attorney. May we make the motion and see

59:04if we have a second before we take

59:06discussion comments.

59:10>> Yes. Thank you.

59:12>> So c can you repeat exactly what you

59:14want to add?

59:15>> So the motion was to prioritize a

59:19evacuation capacity analysis

59:22for any roadway changes proposed that

59:25reduce capacity of currently evacuation

59:29constrained corridors.

59:32and Luke had a amendment to that. I'm

59:35open to his amendment if I can see some

59:37suggested text.

59:39I

59:39>> So I'm willing to second it, but I I

59:42would be curious if we feel that the

59:44existing language already kind of covers

59:46this. So HS2.11

59:48says ensure that evacuation routes into

59:51and out of the city have adequate

59:52capacity, safety, and viability in the

59:54event of an emergency. And I I generally

59:56think that's what we're talking about.

59:59>> Yes. So, so this is different in that

1:00:00when there are roadway changes proposed

1:00:03in these corridors, the proposal here is

1:00:06to require a capacity analysis prior to

1:00:10making those roadway changes.

1:00:12>> So, if I if I could just comment, I

1:00:14think that the problem is that if you do

1:00:16that, if you add that specific wording,

1:00:17that that implies that there would be

1:00:19ones that would not be subject. And

1:00:21that's something that there are no

1:00:22exclusions right now in the current

1:00:24document as it's presented. So, it's

1:00:25it's actually better that way. you know,

1:00:28it's up to the it's up to the city

1:00:30council or, you know, the staff can make

1:00:32a recommendation as to what what is the

1:00:34threshold. It's up to the city council

1:00:36to to enforce that, but they would do

1:00:37that in the municipal code rather than

1:00:39in this in this policy document.

1:00:42>> So, we might actually broaden the

1:00:44language. That's a good point. Thank

1:00:45you, Commissioner Funk. So we might

1:00:46further broaden the language then to say

1:00:50consider prioritizing

1:00:53evacuation capacity analysis

1:00:56on any changes made to Certino roadways

1:00:59that impact the capacity of the roadways

1:01:02without without limiting it to the

1:01:05corridors to your point.

1:01:10>> Yeah, I would support that. I think the

1:01:11part that I was getting held up over was

1:01:13the idea of having to perform an

1:01:14additional analysis, which I don't know

1:01:16that we can mandate. Um, but I think if

1:01:20you what you're saying is consistent

1:01:21with what Luke was saying is just the

1:01:23idea that they're taking into account

1:01:26the evacuation study.

1:01:28>> Yeah, it's not a mandate, but it's a

1:01:30recommendation.

1:01:32>> So, is your concern mainly lane removals

1:01:35on roads? Um it could be any form of

1:01:39impact that reduces the

1:01:42uh capacity of the corridors. I was

1:01:45going to suggest cap evacuation

1:01:47constrained corridors but commissioner

1:01:49fun believes that may actually lose in

1:01:53policy on the remaining roads and

1:01:54therefore we may suggest this for any

1:01:57corridor changes.

1:01:59>> Okay. But we were only losing that the

1:02:02the discretion because we were making a

1:02:04detail. So, I would just say that it's

1:02:07better to not not make a modification

1:02:09here. I mean, the the the policy that

1:02:12that uh that the assistant director

1:02:15recommended, that would have been what

1:02:16we would have done

1:02:18uh had we not amended the document.

1:02:22>> Yeah, I think there's significant

1:02:23concern around fire evacuation and I

1:02:25think that we need to raise the bar on

1:02:27this. So, I'm going to

1:02:30um make the motion to

1:02:33consider

1:02:35um Did staff have something written up?

1:02:37I don't know if staff wants to project

1:02:39if you have something written up.

1:02:44I have something written out but um it's

1:02:47your words which are prioritize the

1:02:49evacuation capacity analysis for any

1:02:51roadway changes on evacuation constraint

1:02:55corridors as identified in the October

1:02:582025 evacuations.

1:02:59>> Could you share screen please? Thank you

1:03:01for writing it up.

1:03:47Yeah. So, um I again I think this is not

1:03:51too dissimilar from the ensure

1:03:53evacuation routes into and out of the

1:03:54city have out of capacity. That said,

1:03:56I'm I'm happy to second it. I think it's

1:03:58so

1:03:59>> so I think the the one change I would

1:04:01make here in the language for it's

1:04:02saying for any roadway changes I would

1:04:04say for any roadway changes that that

1:04:07reduce capacity.

1:04:11So, um, if I can comment, I think this

1:04:13is already addressed in HS2.11.1

1:04:17where it says,

1:04:18um, and I quote, uh, continue to

1:04:22coordinate with emergency responders,

1:04:23the county and CAL trains to ensure

1:04:25evacuation routes are designed and

1:04:26maintained to remain accessible during

1:04:28emergency evacuations, and to ensure

1:04:31that changes to roadways continue to

1:04:33maintain adequate emergency ingress and

1:04:36egress. I mean, that's that's even

1:04:38broader than what you're suggesting. So

1:04:40it doesn't I I I I I don't think this uh

1:04:44serves any purpose whatsoever.

1:04:46>> Sorry. Could we get a motion and a

1:04:48second on the table first before we

1:04:50discuss?

1:04:52>> Do we have a second?

1:04:53>> I I already

1:04:54>> I think we did.

1:04:55>> Okay. So we have a motion and a second

1:04:57and if we want to share that policy that

1:05:00you're referring to

1:05:02or

1:05:03>> what was the policy again?

1:05:05>> Video. Can you share my screen? And I

1:05:06will just uh if I may, chair, just to

1:05:09clarify, this policy uh 211 was actually

1:05:13edited and added I believe as a result

1:05:16of the comments that we received

1:05:18specifically um a little bit to touch

1:05:21upon what Commissioner Ralph is talking

1:05:23about about uh roadway changes. Um and

1:05:26so that was added in at uh after the

1:05:30first city council study session to

1:05:32address those issues.

1:05:37Yes. So the language here says ensure

1:05:40changes to roadways continue to maintain

1:05:42adequate emergency ingress and egress.

1:05:45The suggested change is to do a capacity

1:05:48analysis to understand the effects of

1:05:51proposed changes.

1:05:52>> Well, [snorts] I I think we have a

1:05:53motion in a second. So maybe city clerk,

1:05:55can we just take a vote on this one?

1:06:11Okay.

1:06:12>> Are we seeing the vote?

1:06:16>> I guess we can't see the vote.

1:06:20>> The motion carries with Commissioner Fun

1:06:22and Commissioner Linskog voting no.

1:06:25>> Thank you.

1:06:27>> All right. Commissioner [clears throat]

1:06:28Ra, did you have further motions you

1:06:29wanted to make?

1:06:30>> Did anyone else have any suggested

1:06:32changes? I know.

1:06:33>> Yeah, I

1:06:34>> sure. I do. Um, yeah, I would like to

1:06:37add um on page,

1:06:42let's see, it doesn't have a reference

1:06:43number, but it's page six of the draft

1:06:46resolution. Um,

1:06:49two more bullets. The Santa Clara County

1:06:51Sheriff's Office primary responsibility

1:06:53is the safety and security of the

1:06:55Certino community which funds its

1:06:57operation.

1:06:59And another bullet, the Santa Clara

1:07:01County Sheriff's Office deputies serving

1:07:03Certino shall not deploy to other Santa

1:07:06Clara County cities without a direct

1:07:08request from other jurisdictions or the

1:07:11Santa Clara County Sheriff except in the

1:07:14case of an actual emergency.

1:07:18>> Is that

1:07:20Sorry. Um, is that something that we can

1:07:23mandate though in the health and safety

1:07:25element? I I would, you know, I

1:07:26understand the intent and I I support

1:07:28it. I'm just not sure.

1:07:30>> Okay.

1:07:30>> I would second the motion.

1:07:32>> Well, yeah, we're not sure. The city

1:07:35attorney was not sure either. Um, if we

1:07:38put it in and it has to be taken out, so

1:07:41be it.

1:07:41>> Yeah, these are recommendations. I would

1:07:43not hold the bar too high. This is going

1:07:45to council. Council can choose to reject

1:07:46it if they so choose. I would second the

1:07:48motion.

1:07:53any further discussion

1:07:54>> and and I just wanted to re

1:07:58repeat the reason for this was the

1:08:00unfortunate incident earlier this month

1:08:03which I hope will not be repeated where

1:08:06the sheriff went to another city for a

1:08:08non-emergency a fake 911 call and in the

1:08:12middle of the night and this this is

1:08:15totally uncalled for and we just had to

1:08:19pay all this extra money for the new

1:08:21sheriff's contract. Should we should be

1:08:23setting some parameters?

1:08:26>> Okay. So, if I can just comment on this,

1:08:28um I don't think any of us know whether

1:08:30it was a real or fake call because none

1:08:32of us were involved in it was ne none of

1:08:35our homes, none of us made the phone

1:08:36call, none of us were involved in any

1:08:39way. So, I would keep those judgments,

1:08:42you know, circumspect. Um and the Santa

1:08:45Clara County is their sheriff. Their

1:08:47jurisdiction is the entire county. Um

1:08:50and we don't know the circumstances of

1:08:52that call and what happened there. So um

1:08:55I would respectfully ask you to, you

1:08:58know, be careful what you say.

1:09:00>> So

1:09:00>> yeah, I I would just state that we do

1:09:02know the exact circumstances. Thank you.

1:09:04>> So So keeping this to the topic of the

1:09:07proposed motion, we have a motion and a

1:09:09second. Can we Does the chair have any

1:09:12clarifying questions or do we vote?

1:09:17>> Well, I'm just wondering if there's a

1:09:18way that we can make it a little bit

1:09:21less specific. I think the concern is

1:09:23around um how how sheriff time is used

1:09:27and you know would you be open to

1:09:29something a little bit broader just you

1:09:31know generally

1:09:32um clarifying

1:09:36how um sheriff is dispatched to

1:09:39different cities. Can you do you mind

1:09:40reading your your um motion again,

1:09:42please?

1:09:42>> Okay. So, the first one was it was two

1:09:45bullets. I don't think the first one's

1:09:47controversial. The Santa Clara County

1:09:49Sheriff's Office offic's primary

1:09:51responsibility is the safety and

1:09:53security of the Certino community which

1:09:56funds it its operation. And just to

1:09:59point out, this is separate from the

1:10:01overall sheriff which can go anywhere in

1:10:03the county um which we all fund. And

1:10:06then the second is the Santa Clara

1:10:09County Sheriff's Office deputies serving

1:10:10Certino shall not deploy to other Santa

1:10:14Clara County cities without a direct

1:10:16request from the other jurisdictions or

1:10:18the Santa Clara County Sheriff except in

1:10:21the case of an actual emergency.

1:10:26>> If you want to modify that,

1:10:30you know, fine. I don't think the first

1:10:34bullet is controversial.

1:10:36Um,

1:10:37>> yeah. I I think I'm I'm open to

1:10:41accepting the first if we can vote on

1:10:45the first and the second separately.

1:10:47>> Sorry, what was the I'm losing this now.

1:10:50What was the first and second?

1:10:52>> Okay, the first one is,

1:10:56and I guess we should change this a

1:10:58little bit. The Santa Clara County

1:11:01Sheriff's Office in Certino

1:11:05primary responsibility

1:11:08is the safety and security of the

1:11:11Certino community which funds its

1:11:14operation.

1:11:17>> Yes. I I'd like I would prefer to

1:11:19separate the first and the second.

1:11:20>> Oh, do you have anything that you want

1:11:22to put for the second or you want to

1:11:24just eliminate it entirely?

1:11:26>> Well, I have some hesitations. I I'm

1:11:28just not I think we need to better

1:11:30understand how dispatch works. But if a

1:11:33call originates from one city, then you

1:11:35know it may

1:11:37make sense that it is that city that

1:11:40goes to address it. Um so I just I don't

1:11:42know that I understand this well enough

1:11:44to

1:11:46>> so through the chair I think this is a

1:11:47policy recommendation.

1:11:50I think we probably don't want to get

1:11:52into execution and operations on the

1:11:54policy. The question is can we vote on

1:11:56the motion? Do we have clarifying

1:11:58questions on the motion? Because either

1:12:00way, we should take the vote.

1:12:02>> My my preference would be

1:12:03>> I would just comment it if this is not

1:12:05an operational comment. I can't believe

1:12:08there there isn't such a thing. This

1:12:10isn't policy.

1:12:12>> Uh I I would prefer to vote on the first

1:12:14separately. Please,

1:12:16>> can we get a second for the modified

1:12:17motion?

1:12:20>> Sorry. Was the was the

1:12:22>> originator of the motion accepting the

1:12:24amendment?

1:12:26I'm willing to vote on the first one in

1:12:29separately.

1:12:31>> So to clarify, the first one is just a

1:12:33definition of what the Santa Clara

1:12:35County

1:12:35>> Right. Right. The first one is the Santa

1:12:37Clara County Sheriff's Office in

1:12:38Certino's primary responsibility

1:12:42is the safety and security of the

1:12:44Certino community which funds its

1:12:47operation.

1:12:49>> Well, do we even need to vote on that? I

1:12:51mean, I don't know what we're voting on.

1:12:54Well, apparently someone believes it's

1:12:57not their primary responsibility and

1:12:59that's why we had this situation.

1:13:00>> Yeah. No, I I just clarify I get the

1:13:03second part, but the first part is sort

1:13:04of it's not a vote worthy. Let's just

1:13:07combine the two and vote on it.

1:13:11>> I mean, the first part isn't really a

1:13:13motion, right? It's it's just stating

1:13:15the obvious.

1:13:15>> He's asking for,

1:13:16>> right? It is stating the obvious, but I

1:13:18think it has to be stated. It is not

1:13:20explicitly stated in the health and

1:13:22safety element at the moment.

1:13:23>> Right.

1:13:24>> All right. Let's vote.

1:13:25>> Okay. So, vote on the first one.

1:13:27>> The first bullet.

1:13:29>> So, we're voting on the original motion

1:13:30or just the first bullet.

1:13:32>> The first the new motion is the just the

1:13:36first bullet.

1:13:36>> Can I get a second for the motion?

1:13:38>> Just just to be clear, um I think

1:13:40Commissioner Sharf made a motion that

1:13:43has two parts and there was a friendly

1:13:45amendment to remove the second one and

1:13:48just maintain the first one. Correct.

1:13:49>> And I think Professor Sharf is okay with

1:13:51that. And now is the second okay with

1:13:53that?

1:13:54>> Oh

1:13:55>> yeah. Go. Yeah, it's fine. And then we

1:13:57can move on to the second one.

1:13:59>> Yeah, we're not removing the second.

1:14:01We're just voting one.

1:14:02>> Right.

1:14:09>> And who was the seconder for the motion?

1:14:11>> It was Commissioner Row. [snorts]

1:14:13>> Commissioner. Okay.

1:14:17>> Come on, baby.

1:14:20The motion carries with Commissioner

1:14:22Fung voting no.

1:14:24>> Okay. So, now moving on to the next

1:14:27bullet. Um,

1:14:29how can we

1:14:32do something to prevent say something

1:14:35that will prevent the kind of incident

1:14:37that happened?

1:14:38>> So, so just staying on the policy

1:14:40language, I believe you had language.

1:14:41Could you read it again?

1:14:42>> I did. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's

1:14:44Office deputies serving Certino shall

1:14:47not deploy to other Santa Clara County

1:14:49cities without a direct request from

1:14:52other jurisdictions or the Santa Clara

1:14:55County Sheriff except in the case of an

1:14:57actual an emergency.

1:14:59>> Okay, second.

1:15:01>> Okay, let's just vote on it then.

1:15:15The motion fails with Chair Cassolron

1:15:18abstaining and Fung Commissioner Fung

1:15:21and Commissioner Linskog voting now.

1:15:25All right. Do we have any other motions?

1:15:28>> Uh yes. Uh is there anyone else that had

1:15:32I can yield my time if there's someone

1:15:34else? Anyone else have changes?

1:15:37>> Yes. My uh would I would like to make a

1:15:39motion that we incorporate

1:15:43um risk of trees falling into the urban

1:15:48forest management section which is um

1:15:51HS8.4.1.

1:15:53Is there a second?

1:15:55>> Sorry. What's the section?

1:15:57>> Uh HS8.4.1.

1:16:00>> What is the What is this?

1:16:02>> HS4.1. Hold on.

1:16:04>> Sorry. 8.4.1. Oh,

1:16:06>> 8.

1:16:07>> H.

1:16:12>> Is it H.4.1?

1:16:14>> HS-8.4.1

1:16:18urban forest management plan.

1:16:19>> So, could you restate the motion again?

1:16:22>> Uh, just to incorporate um

1:16:25addressing

1:16:27trees that are at risk of falling.

1:16:35So clarifying the safety word you mean

1:16:38because it says attention to safety

1:16:40>> I guess. Yeah. Tree maintenance is

1:16:42included here, right? Tree maintenance.

1:16:43>> It is. I I'm not sure what attention to

1:16:45safety means.

1:16:47>> It is that it is that

1:16:49>> essentially ensuring that the trees are

1:16:51healthy and safe and not going to tip

1:16:53over.

1:16:54>> Okay, then I think that's fine. I'll

1:16:55withdraw my motion.

1:16:58>> Do we have any other motions?

1:17:00>> Yes, I did have several. Um, anyone

1:17:03else?

1:17:05No one else. Just me. I could stay here

1:17:07all night.

1:17:10But, uh, did we need to take a break?

1:17:12>> How about I make a motion that we

1:17:14approve the staff recommended motion?

1:17:18>> I'll second that.

1:17:19>> Uh, sorry. Um, just to clarify, if there

1:17:21are additional motions that are want to

1:17:25be made after this, does does approving

1:17:28>> I think there was we made a motion. We

1:17:29should vote on Yeah, we made a motion.

1:17:32We have a second. Let's vote.

1:17:36>> Sorry, I'm trying to understand. So,

1:17:37we're still working through the

1:17:38discussions, but there's a motion to

1:17:41approve the staff recommendation. Are we

1:17:44allowed to work through the discussion?

1:17:46Is this a call the question or

1:17:50>> right? If it gets passed, then it's

1:17:52done. You can't make more.

1:17:54>> I understand. Are we are we trying to

1:17:56cut short discussions? If so, should it

1:17:58be a call? apparently.

1:18:00>> Yeah, there there

1:18:00>> if we if we if you made another motion,

1:18:03>> would we can we discuss it or not

1:18:06discuss it? I don't think we have a

1:18:07choice. A motion has been made.

1:18:09>> Okay, let's work that.

1:18:10>> But I' I'd like to understand. So,

1:18:14if we do not accept this, then does it

1:18:18end up rejecting the entire health and

1:18:20safety element?

1:18:21>> We would continue the discussion. Right.

1:18:24>> Okay.

1:18:26>> This is a little bit unusual. I think

1:18:28what I'm hearing though is a motion to

1:18:31end debate. If that passes by a four to

1:18:35five vote, then the next motion would be

1:18:38to move the staff recommendation because

1:18:40there's no more discussion. The only

1:18:41thing rem pending is the staff

1:18:43recommendation. Okay.

1:18:46>> Okay. So I I So to Commissioner

1:18:49Lindskco, do you want to convert your

1:18:51motion to end debate?

1:18:54So, I can't make a motion to just vote

1:18:56on the staff recommended action.

1:18:58>> Yeah, I don't I don't think so. I think

1:19:00it's um it's if to do that, you're

1:19:03effectively asking to end debate because

1:19:06your fellow commissioners want to

1:19:08continue to

1:19:10discuss and debate.

1:19:13>> Sure. Okay. I'll I'll make a motion to

1:19:16end debate.

1:19:18>> Clarifying question to the city

1:19:20attorney. Is that the same as call the

1:19:21question? It it's it's a little bit

1:19:24different because there's no question to

1:19:26call. If there was a motion and there

1:19:28was debate on the motion, then then

1:19:30someone can call the question.

1:19:32>> Okay. Thank you for clarifying.

1:19:36>> There's been a motion in a second. Let's

1:19:38vote.

1:19:38>> Okay. Yes, we are voting.

1:19:49The motion fails with Commissioner Fong

1:19:51and Commissioner Linskog voting yes.

1:19:54Okay. Then we will proceed with uh

1:19:56Commissioner Ralph.

1:19:58>> Okay. Did anyone else have motions? Am I

1:20:00the only one?

1:20:01>> Yes.

1:20:01>> Okay.

1:20:03>> Okay. So I want to go back to the

1:20:06um

1:20:08the

1:20:10noise study that we talked about

1:20:12earlier. If we can

1:20:16make a motion to

1:20:18require

1:20:20an impact analysis

1:20:22on change of use on existing or new

1:20:26public or private

1:20:29facilities.

1:20:32I think we have a

1:20:33>> I'll second that.

1:20:35>> Let's uh I want to make sure we get the

1:20:39the language right here.

1:20:41>> So before you vote on that, chair, um

1:20:44I'm hearing there's a motion on the

1:20:45floor.

1:20:47Um to Commissioner Linskott, this might

1:20:50be appropriate time to make a substitute

1:20:51motion.

1:20:54>> Sorry, we're still trying to understand

1:20:56the motion. So if you may have a minute

1:20:58to

1:20:59>> I I apologize. I thought you made a

1:21:00motion. I thought someone seconded.

1:21:02>> Yeah.

1:21:03>> Yeah. I'm trying to What section was

1:21:05that?

1:21:05>> Right.

1:21:06>> So,

1:21:10>> there either was or was not a motion.

1:21:13>> Well, it sounds like there was a motion

1:21:14and a second. I mean, I'm happy to make

1:21:16a substitute, but I don't know that the

1:21:17vote will be any different.

1:21:19>> Well, then I I I gave you the

1:21:21opportunity to just earlier I I decision

1:21:25that you don't want it. That's fine.

1:21:26>> Thank you.

1:21:29>> Okay. Okay.

1:21:29>> Okay.

1:21:30>> So

1:21:32once again, just to clarify, the motion

1:21:34was to

1:21:36recommend impact analysis

1:21:39on any change of use of existing or new

1:21:44public

1:21:46or private facilities

1:21:49uh that may

1:21:51involve noise generating activities.

1:21:54>> Okay. Uh city clerk, may we please have

1:21:56the vote? So just to clarify before we

1:21:58do the vote, this is where the staff

1:22:00told us we did not need to do this

1:22:02because this is already covered.

1:22:04Correct.

1:22:07>> Correct. Thank you.

1:22:10>> Could you clarify? Okay. So this was the

1:22:13the mitigation steps would be preceded

1:22:16by impact analysis. Was that right?

1:22:18>> Yes. But if you wish to make that

1:22:20clearer that's fine.

1:22:24>> So I'm just trying to understand. So we

1:22:26would not have a scenario of mitigation

1:22:30steps being discretionary based on staff

1:22:33input. Would it always be preceded by an

1:22:36impact analysis?

1:22:39>> Correct.

1:22:40>> You would need an analysis in order to

1:22:42come up with mitigations. Otherwise,

1:22:44>> okay,

1:22:45>> where would they be coming from?

1:22:46>> Okay.

1:22:47If it pleases the commission, we could

1:22:49add the words noise analysis into this

1:22:54policy rather than in some form and

1:22:57>> um rather than coming up with a new

1:22:59policy.

1:23:00>> Mhm.

1:23:02>> Yes. So I want to go back then to the

1:23:04language here for I think it's HS 10.8

1:23:08as it reads right now. would say is

1:23:10prior to approving noise generating uses

1:23:11including public or private within or

1:23:14adjacent established residential areas

1:23:16ensure the proposed noise generating use

1:23:18includes adequate noise mitigation

1:23:21measures.

1:23:22>> So I

1:23:23>> with um upon a noise impact analysis

1:23:28maybe add those words there. Maybe you

1:23:30could just say um proposed noise

1:23:33generating uses

1:23:36based on an impact analysis that

1:23:38includes noise mitigation measures. I

1:23:41think what you're trying to say is that

1:23:42the mitigation measures came out of an

1:23:44analysis,

1:23:44>> right?

1:23:47>> May I ask a hypothetical here? If I say

1:23:51lived across from a pickle ball court

1:23:53and I was concerned that a change that

1:23:55there was a change in policy and we

1:23:57added this wording then that would I be

1:23:59forced would I potentially be forced to

1:24:02pay for a study

1:24:04an impact study?

1:24:07>> Not you as the complainant but the the

1:24:10actual you you the actual person

1:24:13applicant would have to prepare that

1:24:16noise report. So, so stated differently,

1:24:18for example, if we had a commercial

1:24:20facility that opened a pickle ball club,

1:24:24a private pickle ball club, you know,

1:24:26there are several pickler and so on. So,

1:24:29if they decided to open that close to a

1:24:31residential area, I think we'd want to

1:24:33have language that ensures that an

1:24:36impact analysis occurs. So, this is just

1:24:39tightening the language to include that.

1:24:42I believe there was a recommendation

1:24:44that was if you may repeat that. I think

1:24:48the existing language says includes

1:24:51adequate noise mitigation measures as

1:24:54identified by an impact analysis.

1:24:58>> I'm going to try to type this up if you

1:25:00give me a second.

1:25:01>> Thank you.

1:25:02>> I guess it would be this and I would I

1:25:04would say the hypo hypothetical is

1:25:06actually the same question. If I were an

1:25:07applicant who was looking to build the p

1:25:09this pickle ball club now I would be

1:25:12required to do an analysis.

1:25:13>> You would be required to do that today

1:25:15>> anyway. Yes, I understand.

1:25:17>> So can I ask another clarifying

1:25:18question? So will this language uh

1:25:21revision make any difference in terms of

1:25:23the actions of the staff?

1:25:25>> I would say no. I mean you typically

1:25:28look at impacts you know what is a use

1:25:31going to do whether it's under sequa or

1:25:33otherwise and certino with a chapter 17

1:25:37built in you generally have things that

1:25:40would only be done under sequa like we

1:25:43do phase one phase twos independent of

1:25:46squa in in Certino not all cities do

1:25:48that so

1:25:50>> I think this may be ensuring something

1:25:52more but I I don't think it's addressing

1:25:55something that isn't already addressed

1:25:57Okay. Thank you.

1:25:59>> So I Yeah, I have one question. This

1:26:01says prior to approving the noise

1:26:04generating uses. What about existing

1:26:07noise generating uses that already

1:26:10violate our noise standards?

1:26:12>> Well, they would be subject to the noise

1:26:13ordinance. So every everything is. So um

1:26:18pickle ball always seems to be the

1:26:20example. Um I theoretically we don't

1:26:24have a private pickle ball court that

1:26:26I'm aware of, but um the question has

1:26:28come up, what if somebody built a

1:26:30pickleball court?

1:26:32>> I think you could build it and you could

1:26:33look at it. You probably just couldn't

1:26:34play on it.

1:26:36>> Okay,

1:26:36>> because you'd be in a single family

1:26:37neighborhood and you'd violate the noise

1:26:39ordinance. As soon as your neighbors

1:26:40complained, you would be above the

1:26:41threshold most likely. So um

1:26:45>> but a municipal pickle ball facility is

1:26:48allowed to generate violate the noise

1:26:50ordinance or what?

1:26:52>> Well, if I may restate through the

1:26:54chair, if I may restate the question, uh

1:26:57is there a way to word this so that it

1:26:59would apply retroactively to existing

1:27:00violations?

1:27:04>> I think you're getting very far a field

1:27:07from this document at that point.

1:27:09>> Okay. So the motion was to amend HS10.8

1:27:12eight to include explicit language

1:27:16around impact analysis.

1:27:19>> Yep. And I had seconded that.

1:27:22So, uh, may we please have a vote? Thank

1:27:25you.

1:27:42The motion carries with Commissioner Fun

1:27:44voting now.

1:27:47All right, Commissioner Row, how many

1:27:49more motions do you have?

1:27:51>> We could take a break, Sher. We've been

1:27:53going for a while.

1:27:53>> Uh, I don't Does anyone else We don't

1:27:56need a break. Um,

1:27:58maybe I'd ask if you can consolidate

1:28:00some of your um changes into one motion.

1:28:04It might be faster.

1:28:10through the chair. Was I to share any

1:28:12language? Sorry, I I'm a little

1:28:14confused.

1:28:14>> Um I understood your your revisions to

1:28:16the previous motion. So that was fine.

1:28:23>> I wanted to test if my fellow

1:28:25commissioners wanted to do anything

1:28:27about weekend construction noise. Is

1:28:29there any appetite for additional policy

1:28:32around weekend construction noise? So,

1:28:34what is the current hours for weekend

1:28:37construction noise?

1:28:38>> I believe it's 9:00 a.m. to 700 p.m. on

1:28:41>> on weekdays.

1:28:42>> On weekends?

1:28:43>> I don't think they have weekends.

1:28:45>> No, weekdays is 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

1:28:47>> It's 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

1:28:49>> 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays.

1:28:50>> On weekdays.

1:28:51>> And then weekends is 9:00 a.m. to 700

1:28:54p.m. I believe.

1:28:58>> I think I'm fine with that personally.

1:29:01>> Okay. Is that that also shouldn't that

1:29:04belong in a that's not in um the health

1:29:05and safety element that should be in an

1:29:07ordinance right yeah

1:29:08>> there is a construction noise

1:29:11>> construction and maintenance activities

1:29:13so policy 10.3

1:29:17so if you want to look at the policy I

1:29:20think it's 10

1:29:2210.3

1:29:26yeah construction and maintenance

1:29:27activities 10.3 three.

1:29:32Well, I guess the policy is broad enough

1:29:34that I don't think it stipulates any

1:29:36specific hours. Is that right? So, we

1:29:39won't really change anything here.

1:29:40>> Correct.

1:29:41>> Okay. Okay.

1:29:45Okay.

1:29:57I know there was number of freeway

1:29:59related

1:30:01especially around the portal area there

1:30:02was some sound barrier or absence of

1:30:05sound barrier sound walls I think it was

1:30:0810

1:30:12was it

1:30:12>> I believe we added uh two policies um

1:30:17>> yeah 10.4.1 correct and two

1:30:20>> and two

1:30:20>> Mhm. Okay.

1:30:22>> And three.

1:30:25>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for adding

1:30:26that.

1:30:30Okay. That's really good. I don't see

1:30:31any change there. At least not I don't

1:30:35know if anyone else sees any.

1:30:37>> Nope. Are we ready to move the approve

1:30:40the um the rest of the health and safety

1:30:43element?

1:30:43>> Um

1:30:47yes. There was one more around the inter

1:30:50agency

1:30:52um recommend inter agency coordination

1:30:55for the weed and brush abatement on

1:30:59adjacent county parcels and quarry

1:31:01parcels.

1:31:02Where could we

1:31:05where could we add that?

1:31:07I think we wanted to be a little bit

1:31:09more prescriptive on that given the

1:31:11violations that are being observed.

1:31:14Is there a

1:31:16section there that would

1:31:20>> if I may ask a clarifying question and

1:31:22that would be for the city to do what

1:31:31coordination I understand. I just want

1:31:32to understand what the outcome would be

1:31:35of that.

1:31:38Um the outcome would be for the city to

1:31:41be able to request or require uh so so

1:31:45today the city can require weed

1:31:48abatement inspections from the county on

1:31:50city land on city parcels. However,

1:31:53there is no mechanism to require the

1:31:56same on adjacent parcels that surround

1:32:00the uh certino hills. So quarry hills

1:32:04specifically. So, how how may we may how

1:32:06may we include that?

1:32:09>> I'm not sure that the city has any

1:32:11authority on on those parcels or

1:32:13properties. Um, you know, if there are

1:32:15any observed um violations, those would

1:32:18have to be reported to the fire

1:32:21department and they have a website where

1:32:23you can report those violations.

1:32:27>> So, you have other places here that

1:32:28talks about cross agency, right? I'm

1:32:31trying to see where your language was

1:32:32>> around emergency services. Yes.

1:32:36>> Okay.

1:32:38>> Right. Because my understanding if

1:32:39you're talking about the core land

1:32:40that's uninccorporated.

1:32:42>> Yeah. I I think the other parts of the

1:32:44document where we're talking about inter

1:32:46agency coordination, it's still

1:32:48providing a service within the city.

1:32:51Whereas this sounds like you would be

1:32:53addressing parcels that are not in the

1:32:55city. So they would be beyond the scope

1:32:57of the document. You'd be talking about

1:32:59county land.

1:33:02>> I believe there are seven parcels that

1:33:04are city- owned that the quarry has

1:33:06>> which would be covered under this

1:33:08already.

1:33:10>> Yes. H Highleberg does own properties

1:33:12within the city but those would those

1:33:14would be covered by this document

1:33:15because they're within the city of

1:33:16Certino.

1:33:18>> Okay. Yeah. So, I'm just looking at your

1:33:20strategy on interjurisdictional

1:33:23coordination and I'm trying to see if

1:33:25something like the language in HS132

1:33:28could apply in the fire management.

1:33:31I guess you have something in 1.4.

1:33:37So, so how about this? Could we look at

1:33:401.4 and amend it to include

1:33:43Right now it references work with the

1:33:45county and the Mid Peninsula Open Space

1:33:47District. Can we include the quarry in

1:33:49this? So, I would

1:33:50>> Are we supposed to work with the quarry

1:33:52though? I mean, we're working with the

1:33:54county to make sure that their lands

1:33:56would be

1:33:58uh, you know, fire hazard-free and that

1:34:00would not just the land they own, but

1:34:03the land that they have jurisdiction

1:34:04over, which would include the quarry.

1:34:06>> Okay.

1:34:08Okay.

1:34:11All right. Very good. Um and then the

1:34:14last one was we've had a significant

1:34:16amount of truck noise related questions.

1:34:18Is there anything that can be added

1:34:20there that was maybe we can look at the

1:34:23truck noise related?

1:34:24>> I saw another section. Yeah.

1:34:26>> Um just just so I may respond to that

1:34:29chair if that's okay. We did add um I

1:34:33believe there were two policies that

1:34:35were added about truck noise. Um, one

1:34:39was related to street actually one

1:34:42policy that was added uh about street

1:34:44signage to you know make sure that uh we

1:34:49can implement signage on the streets um

1:34:53whether that is to restrict truck

1:34:55activity or what have you.

1:34:57>> Do you have a section number? Uh yes,

1:34:59it's 1073.

1:35:09>> And if it pleases the commission, this

1:35:12policy could be renamed to say quiet

1:35:14hours and street signage. But the bottom

1:35:17line, the intent of this policy is to a

1:35:20figure out whether we can do something

1:35:23to um implement quiet hours on these

1:35:27streets and if it can be done through

1:35:29signage or enforcement or what have you.

1:35:32But we don't know that at this point.

1:35:34This is just that starting point of what

1:35:36can be done in the future and that needs

1:35:38to be further evaluated.

1:35:40>> Yeah, thank you. So this is I think

1:35:44HS10.7

1:35:46and that's I think it covers some of the

1:35:49concerns. It does not talk about

1:35:51weekends. However,

1:35:53that would be covered under the signage.

1:35:55I I I don't know that and that would be

1:35:58whether those are quiet hours whether

1:36:00weekends are considered quiet hours or

1:36:02not and all of that discussion would

1:36:04happen later. It's just not something

1:36:06that we've evaluated or know whether it

1:36:09can be done at all.

1:36:11Yeah, I would still move to amend 10.7

1:36:14to just include

1:36:16where it says truck trucking activity

1:36:18hours to avoid late evening and early

1:36:21morning. I would just amend that to

1:36:22include weekends late evening and early

1:36:24morning.

1:36:27Minor minor amendment

1:36:29>> sorry where are you seeing

1:36:30>> uh 10.7

1:36:32reduction of noise from trucking

1:36:33operations

1:36:36page 83

1:36:37>> and it was to avoid late evening early

1:36:39morning. What was the change?

1:36:40>> And weekends.

1:36:41>> Okay.

1:36:43All right. I'll second that.

1:36:44>> Okay. It's a minor change.

1:36:49>> Oh, so I have one more change. Did we

1:36:51want to vote on that? Yes.

1:36:52>> One first or what?

1:36:53>> Um, yeah, let's do that. Um, city park.

1:36:55>> So, so was there was the change related

1:36:57to the same section or

1:36:58>> No.

1:37:00>> Was there other changes from this

1:37:01section around trucking related noise?

1:37:05Anyone else or

1:37:07>> No.

1:37:09Um, so city clerk, may you please have

1:37:11the vote. Thank you.

1:37:18>> The motion carries with Commissioner

1:37:20Fung voting no. Okay, vice chair.

1:37:23>> Okay, this goes back to the chair's um

1:37:28statement earlier about the urban forest

1:37:29management plan. So, I would like to add

1:37:34another line at the end

1:37:38that says to encourage the removal of

1:37:40non-native trees.

1:37:42And the reason for this, I don't know

1:37:45how many people remember what happened

1:37:47during a storm a few years ago where

1:37:49eucalyptus tree blew over on Alpine

1:37:52Road, killed someone in their car, and

1:37:55it's

1:37:57the non-native trees pose a danger even

1:38:01when you don't realize that they pose a

1:38:03danger. Um, no one thought it would blow

1:38:07over in a big wind, but it did. It

1:38:09killed someone inside their truck. And I

1:38:12think we we should really be encouraging

1:38:15the removal of the non-native trees.

1:38:17>> Vice chair, uh would redwood trees then

1:38:20be encouraged to be removed?

1:38:22>> No.

1:38:23>> Redwood trees are non-native, right?

1:38:25>> I believe redwood non-native.

1:38:27>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:38:28>> Yeah. I was curious what your definition

1:38:29of non-native is

1:38:31the issue of native non-native. We could

1:38:34be here really late,

1:38:35>> right? How about we just put in

1:38:36eucalyptus then?

1:38:38That might be different than probably

1:38:40about 500 different types of eucalyptus.

1:38:42Some of which most people wouldn't know

1:38:44are eucalyptus. So I'm

1:38:46>> But it's not telling people to remove

1:38:49them on their own property. This is on

1:38:51city property where the city's at risk

1:38:53if something happens.

1:38:57I I think that's where, you know, I had

1:38:59originally been going with my first ask

1:39:01around, you know, removing trees that

1:39:03are at risk of falling and we had

1:39:05decided that it was already covered

1:39:06under that that safety

1:39:08>> phrase.

1:39:10>> Okay. How about you put that back then

1:39:12explicitly?

1:39:13>> I think the safety phrase covers that.

1:39:16>> The safe safety phrase covers that

1:39:18already.

1:39:20If you

1:39:20>> Yeah, maybe we better not put that in

1:39:21because that would actually increase our

1:39:23liability if we did that and something

1:39:26happened.

1:39:27>> And if I may, I mean, through the

1:39:29process of development of that urban

1:39:31forest,

1:39:32>> what is it called?

1:39:33>> Urban forest management plan, those any

1:39:35and all comments will be, you know,

1:39:37accepted from the public and this could

1:39:39be part of that discussion

1:39:42at that time.

1:39:44>> Okay, then I withdraw that. Yeah, I did

1:39:47want to raise another Sorry, could I?

1:39:50So, we're having this freeway traffic

1:39:53cutting through our city uh through the

1:39:55Fortill corridor and Stevens Creek

1:39:57corridor and I believe you have some

1:40:00traffic coming related items, right? I

1:40:02think it was 10

1:40:046

1:40:06is that right?

1:40:0810. Yeah, 10.6. Trafficcoming solutions.

1:40:14Is there anything more comprehensive

1:40:17than as stated? I don't think there's

1:40:20actually any change in the language

1:40:22here.

1:40:23>> You're talking about the noise element

1:40:25that does, you know, cut through traffic

1:40:27doesn't necessarily

1:40:30belong in that section.

1:40:37So the question was is there a different

1:40:39section where we can recommend

1:40:42trafficcoming solutions to freeway cut

1:40:45through traffic

1:40:46>> in the mobility element? Yes.

1:40:48>> Okay.

1:40:51U which we don't have today and likely

1:40:54we will have no budget to get to.

1:40:56>> Most likely not.

1:40:57>> Okay. So is there anything within the

1:40:59scope of this section

1:41:01that we are looking at in the health and

1:41:03safety element because

1:41:06it does create a fair amount of smoke

1:41:08pollution with all the freeway traffic.

1:41:09I don't know if anybody's seen the

1:41:12evening traffic on Foothill and Stevens.

1:41:14It's all the freeway traffic cutting

1:41:16through the city.

1:41:18>> Not to my knowledge in this section.

1:41:23>> Any ideas from the commission city has

1:41:25>> around traffic coming?

1:41:30You want to build a wall? Okay.

1:41:35>> Okay.

1:41:36>> I don't have any other changes.

1:41:39>> All right. So, um we will do we have a

1:41:42motion to approve the uh

1:41:44>> So moved.

1:41:44>> Yes. Okay.

1:41:46>> All right. And second. Okay. Second.

1:41:51>> All right. City clerk, maybe please have

1:41:53the vote. Thank you.

1:42:02The motion carries unanimously.

1:42:06>> Okay, thank you very much. So, we um and

1:42:09that was a great discussion. Thank you

1:42:10everyone for your patience. Um we will

1:42:12move on to staff and commission reports.

1:42:14Do we have any staff reports?

1:42:17>> I actually do not have much to share at

1:42:19this point.

1:42:20>> Do we have any commission reports?

1:42:26All right, then we'll move to future

1:42:27agenda setting. Do we have any future

1:42:29agenda setting items?

1:42:32>> Um,

1:42:34I wanted to check if the data center

1:42:36ordinance was already proposed as a

1:42:37future agenda item. I can't recall if it

1:42:40is in this TBD list or not.

1:42:43It's my understanding that there is

1:42:45anformational memo that has been

1:42:46requested by uh uh Mayor Moore and that

1:42:50will be uh sent out soon and probably in

1:42:52the next 30 days.

1:42:53>> I'd like to propose since this isn't

1:42:56showing up in the list, I'd like to

1:42:57propose a study session for a data

1:42:59center ordinance.

1:43:02>> Okay.

1:43:02>> Do I have a second?

1:43:06>> Yeah, I thought we did too, but it's not

1:43:07showing in the upcoming

1:43:09>> um this is not a TBD list. This is only

1:43:12the list of projects that will be heard

1:43:14by the commission in the upcoming

1:43:16>> Yeah, I'm pretty sure we we voted on

1:43:18that one already.

1:43:19>> And I don't have the TVD list in front

1:43:20of me, but if it is on there, then it is

1:43:23on there.

1:43:23>> Chair have the list. We can always add

1:43:25it again.

1:43:26>> I don't Yeah,

1:43:27>> I remember because you you and I voted

1:43:30for it.

1:43:30>> Okay. Hopefully, it's there. Okay.

1:43:32>> I I think it may have been a little

1:43:34different. My recollection was you had

1:43:36something very specific about data

1:43:38centers. Um, and this is a more generic.

1:43:43Um,

1:43:45>> well, if you have something that's okay.

1:43:46I think we can always

1:43:47>> That's fine.

1:43:48>> Just I'm hoping that will come up at

1:43:50some point, but All right.

1:43:52>> Okay.

1:43:54All right. If uh without any future

1:43:57other further agenda setting items, we

1:43:59will adjourn the meeting.