City Council Meeting; October 16, 2023

ahead and start with the calling of the royal council member hampton blessed and honored to be here. Councilor jones here, councilor lyon here, katherine madsen here, councilor massouda here. Customer service is here but is not yet into the meeting. Vice mayor williams here, mayor gordo here. There's a quorum of the council present. So mr chomsky, will you lead us in the pledge please please rise place your right hand over your heart ready begin. I allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under GOD indivisible with liberty and justice for let me begin by reading a brief statement regarding world affairs. We're all aware of what's happening in israel in the middle east in general and we deeply mourn the loss of life of so many civilians in israel and gaza to those who have lost loved ones to colleagues and residents and those worried about family and friends and please know that you are in the thoughts of the people of pasadena. Our hearts are with the people of israel and people all over the middle east in pasadena and around the world and those who desire peace and to live without fear. Everyone should have the right to be to a peaceful and prosperous future. We must have the conviction that the future can be better than the past and the patience to work for a just and lasting peace. You know, we were all horrified by the bombings that took place and the attacks that took place on innocent lives at particularly people who were enjoying themselves at a music festival. Children who were dragged into the street, women and people of all ages who were who were harmed and killed and we in pasadena denounce that and I would say our hearts and thoughts are with all of them so and their families in so I wanted to make that statement on behalf of the council and and the city. Um, next. Next we have a couple of commendations to present like in uh, lola ausborn and elizabeth luna. Lola osborne and elizabeth luna to join me uh daniel fong sandy greenstein, the this is a proclamation declaring bullying prevention awareness month and we all know that bullying is physical verbal sexual or emotional harm and intimidation intentionally directed at a person or group of people which often targets race, religion, ethnicity, gender or persons with disability targets of bullying are more likely to acquire physical, emotional or learning problems than those who are not bullied and students who are bullied and often fear riding the bus, going to school and in attending community activities . The pasadena youth network, a coalition of members from day one youth advocates passing a public library teen advisors board la pinteresque of teens center and pasadena youth ambassadors provides young persons in our community with forums for civic engagement and advance of the vision of youth create opportunities for involvement in the decision making process affecting youth and raise awareness around bullying and its long term and negative impacts on on members of our community. So this month the passing youth network will partner with students and leadership from local schools to distribute care kits and stand in solidarity solidarity against bullying. And today I'm pleased to proclaim the month of OCTOBER of twenty twenty three in pasadena as bullying prevention month. And thank you to all of you who have put in the work to ensure that this happens. Hi my name is imani. I go to john mayer high school and uh here is a couple of things that I have to say about bullying. Um, it's like I don't understand why people bully is it they do it for no reason. They do it for attention and like just to get attention to try to fit in with people and it makes sense. Um, sometimes whenever I see somebody bullying another person I ask them what they're bullying them for and they say like something just totally out of this world they'll just say like because they're ugly or because I feel like it and I just ask them like if you feel like it or if you don't feel like it just don't do it at all because you don't know what that person could be going through or what they could be going through at home or anything and yeah, that's all I have to say. Yes, my name is ticino . I'm the park supervisor for larpenteur park, also called supervisor petrofsky to the education center and we at the center petrushka park ah they're very concerned about bullying in our community and we want to make sure that all of our youth, our teens and children are safe wherever they are, whatever they're doing we're participating in the matter their creed, color, age, race, economic backgrounds, sexual orientation, bullying was not acceptable. So we teach our teens in the city of pasadena that love everyone, respect everyone wants to support everyone so they can grow up to be the teenager and adults we meet here in the city of pasadena. So as a result of that we will be having a forum connecting with the fact foothill family services to support anti-bullying. We have activities and games and information so that our teams know how to be up to standards here in the community and to make sure that bullying is not only here in pasadena but across the country. Hi, I'm sandy greenstein, chair of the pasadena human relations commission. we join the pasadena youth network to support the mayor's resolution on bullying prevention awareness month. Bullying is typically a hate incident or pattern that does not reach the level of crime for law enforcement. Our commission is working to address a range of hate incidents and practices. The proposed resolution aligns with our commission's engagement in countywide united against hate initiatives and our partnership with the western justice center. We're organizing a special program on thursday, NOVEMBER 16th where bystander ally training will be presented giving practical tools, steps and resource for preventing and intervening on incidents of hate and public spaces like bullying. The program will also explain how to use the county wide two one one system to report a hate crime or incident and how victims can be cared for in the aftermath. We hope you will join our commission and the community on thursday NOVEMBER 16th six to eight P.M. At the western justice center at 55 south grand avenue here in pasadena. We hope all of you will join us. We hope all of the youth and anyone out here will join us. Thank you and we're going to present for women. So on behalf of the city council, ty, um, I'd like to present this proclamation and to all of the youth and people involved declaring bullying prevention awareness month in pasadena and thank you for your work. Thank you all. Thank you, MR. And anyone who doesn't know I should get to know next we have a proclamation for code enforcement officer appreciation month saying if you worst in receiving the proclamation is will be israel del toro planning department neighborhood and business administrator. We all know code enforcement officers played an important role in our city. MR. Del toro. Thank you, mayor. So it is with deep pleasure that we have the opportunity to serve this amazing community. We have deeply devoted staff members and code enforcement officers and support staff that are entirely committed to preserving and improving the quality of life of our pasadena residents and our business community. So a pleasure to be here. Thank you, mayor. And on behalf of the city council, I'd like to thank all of you for your service to our city day in and day out. Some of you have been here for maybe even longer than I have. Yeah, I you've been here. Yeah, almost there. Yeah. So um so I'd like those of you who are recent uh employees uh thank you for joining our team so thank you for all that you do every day. Thank you. Thank thank you . ok next we do have some requests for adjournment in memory of individuals that we've lost in pasadena beginning with I'd like to request that the council adjourn in memory of john m. Hitchcock, former director of hillside's and a dedicated adric for children in nineteen seventy one john join hillside's at the as the assistant director and became executive director ten years later and would serve in the role for thirty years during his tenure at hillside's, the organization grew from one location one hundred employee residential treatment program with one million dollar a year budget to a multiservice center for children and families with twelve locations, 500 employees and a budget of 4.5 million. He was a beloved figure in past in the past in the community held leadership positions in numerous civic organizations and was a longtime parishioner of all saints church to his wife of 57 years eitam and his children and grandchildren. You have our help felt condolences. I worked with john as a youth like much of the youth advocates that are here today when I was at day one and I can tell you that john treated everyone fairly he was the besides a community leader and effective director, also a willing mentor and friend and I can tell you that we've lost a great champion for children and families in pasadena and altadena. But his legacy will continue as he he I'm sure recognized because he mentored so many of us in this community to ensure that we do what we can to help children and families in our community. So I'm asking that the council adjourn in memory of john m. Hitchcock, a friend and former executive director of hillside's. Thank you, bederson. Well, I just want to echo that I think you know, hillside's is in my district and I visit there regularly and it's just a remarkable place for kids that you in many cases have no other place to go and they're provide a helping hand and a safe constructive environment and he he was really a big part of that organization for a very, very long time. So I second your request, mayor. Thank you for pretty oh thank you. Yes. So I request that we also adjourn in honor of gene register who occupied many walks of life in our community . Her widower fred register is someone that many of us know from his many civic duties and roles in town. Gene was the head of school for a number of years at mayfield senior school was very active in women's groups and civic groups as well and she passed away recently after a long illness. So it's fitting and appropriate that we recognize and honor gene register. Thank you mayor. I well I join with you I, I like many of us knew gene register and again what a kind of person educator volunteer or advocate effective in everything that she did thoughtful and and in her own way direct certainly and you know and deliberate in everything that she did. And you know, we we we we of course have fred registrar in our mind and our thoughts but gene gene was a very effective individual and I always appreciated her kindness and and direct feedback and guidance that she sometimes quietly would provide. So we all feel the loss of gene register and we'll adjourn in her memory. Ok, yeah that completes the ceremonial matters. I believe we're going to go to item ten. This is the continued public hearing on the quasi judicial action the council discussed this at the last council meeting and continued to this meeting to be heard at the beginning of the meeting. We need looks. Are you guys you guys conflicted on who goes first? We're debating who's going who's going first. So ok before we why don't we why don't we would all right because we need council reavis for this item. We'll we'll just we all go to consent first for the consent item six was was received six letters in opposition are expressing concerns with item number six and I believe there's a speaker card to speak on item number six. So item six would probably not be part of the sweep motion. ok, is there any motion for the remainder of the consent so moved to the second second item six are there any objections seen on those matters approved ? So we need to do item six so why don't we go ahead and go to item six? Do we want to just do the public comment? Is that what you're yeah. Ok, let's go ahead and do the public comment on item six. All right. So yadi, welcome. Hi there. I'll make this quick. I don't support the purchase of this uh, high powered camera and also just generally having so many helicopters, five helicopters where the city is extremely excessive. Longbeach sacramento and san diego have two helicopters san and sonoma sharov have one helicopter if we really are flying seven days a week that is also excessive and goes from emergency use to just undertaking regular surveillance. The estimated cost per hour of operating these helicopters factoring in personnel fuel and maintenance costs is about a thousand dollars per hour making pasadena's helicopter program just excessive all around. Thank you so much. There's no one else to speak on the same so that completes the comment on this item, sir. Motion your move approval mayor. And I'd also note that we I believe we still work with other agencies and are able to recruit our costs and that would also explain the number of the units that we have. So that is correct. That's a service area is much bigger than the city of pasadena and these can allow our helicopters here. Mike, my mike is sorry maybe there is not but I maybe I need to be closer in these cameras, allow our helicopters to fly higher which is great for neighbors and noise pollution. So I am in favor of moving forward with the purchasing of these cameras. I noticed but I do think that it would be helpful to understand maybe the public safety meeting about our our heliport and the program and how big our service area is so that the community could be educated on we can provide that report to public safety. Yeah, we are a part of the L.A. Olympic program. We're part of the regional group and we provide services because we're in the in the middle of of many other cities in the region and jurisdictions including the county and the the national forest service. And so it's a complicated area to provide for safety purposes or and it's a tool that often assists officers in protecting the public by identifying individuals who MAY be out there in the neighborhood wanting to cause harm, warning the public about their whereabouts and also frankly ensuring that individuals can be brought in to police custody in the safest manner possible because police officers are able to understand what they're walking into before they even get to oftentimes before they even get to a scene. So with that there's a motion and a second we have a COUNCILMAN To revisit and revisit. I have one question, mayor. If the department is here I did note that the department explain in the staff report that the funding is not coming from the general fund. It's grant funded. I just wonder if they could explain a little bit more about that grant. Is that could that be used for anything else? Is that dedicated for this type of purpose? Sergeant mendenhall from the police department is here. He can explain. Good evening, mayor. Good evening, council members. Yes, mark and supervisor with our operations here in pasadena . The funding for this is a U.S. Grant. The urban areas security initiative grant so all funding would be from that grant in what can that grant be used for? Is it solely for uses like this? Could be used for a wide variety of things. What are we funding tonight as opposed to what could we be funding with this money when we secure grant from usc they prefer that it's a regional for regional assets and in this case, as the mayor discussed, we are regional. We have twelve partnering agencies that we fly for consists of an area of about one hundred and seventy five square miles in the san gabriel valley. So we do a qualify for that in terms of how we're providing a regional asset to the community. Got it. Thank you. That's helpful. So there are limited number of items we could use this funding for. We would have to be apply to a regional application and this is probably the most obvious one that we have. Correct. Ok, thank you for that. I do support council member hampton's suggestion that we dig into a little bit more public safety. I think it'd be helpful for the council and the public just to have a sense of where we are in this project of updating the cameras for each helicopter. I understand we have five and we've replaced one already. This will be the second that's my understanding. Is that correct? This would be the second camera if we were to get those to help standardize the fleet. So we did one in twenty twenty . Right. That was our first yeah. Just having a bigger sense of the ongoing project update the cameras would be helpful for the public safety committee to dig into the seams. Sure. The cost seems to be going down. I think we nearly twice as much the last time for the first camera 600 to 800 is the number the range that I recall has actually been consistent. This one's about the same as what was actually just a tad higher but it's pretty consistent pricing. The what happened was the installation went up so this is a package deal. It's also the camera plus installation I see got ok mayor just for MR. Hampton, did you second my motion. Great thank you. Ok any objections to the motion seen none that matters. Thank you. So now we go to item ten to um take up that public hearing that we were going to do at the start of the meeting. We have council members uh we need to recall ok, we start with life. Uh, yes. I my spouse has a potential economic interest in a property within five hundred feet of the subject property. So on the advice of the city attorney, I will recuse myself from this item. Thank you council member and for me out of an abundance of caution, my residence is located within a thousand feet of this property so I will recuse myself based on the advice from the city attorney. Ok, thank you both and for me I have reviewed the tape from last week and I am willing and able to participate in today's meeting. Ok, thank you MR. Hampton and mayor, the city clerk's office received two letters in opposition and are expressing concerns related to staff in dacian. These are new sorry these are new correspondence that we've received since the last meeting with one of the letters advocating for the item to go back to the design commission and for staff to prepare an environmental impact report for the proposed project and one letter was received in support of the development of the proposed mixed-use project with all the new correspondence distributed to the council posted online and part of the record for tonight's item along with all the correspondence previously reported. Thank you mayor. And this is a quasi judicial matter and essentially for the students that are here and the benefit of the public, what that means is we sit as essentially as judges. We're not sitting in our legislative capacity. We have to make findings based on the testimony, based on the facts and the reports that are presented at this hearing. We're in a legislative matter. We can we have a lot more freedom to bring in our own perspective or opinion based on other based on matters outside of the evidence and testimony that's presented here today. Ok, so we're just a point of order. Did we close a public hearing last week or whenever that was? We did close it and then we reopened it. So when did we do that tonight we did that last meeting. We reopened it and continued the public hearing. Ok, this is a continued public or their public comments. We do have a public comment. I'm going to look to the staff as nina chomsky in the yes. Please bring in nina chomsky. Nina. Yes, I'm here. Go ahead and speak. Thank you. I've been so early. I want to reiterate my comments from last time with a little more detail. I have listened in to the hearing the design commission on this matter and also I have listened to a number of other design commission hearings recently where there has been unmitigated negative figuration or exemption and there has been none practically or little or no discussion of any kind of secret or environmental discussion at the design commission there the staff doesn't make any comments. The commissioners don't comment except in this case for one moment of concern over the change in the project to avoid more detailed traffic review. This is a real squad challenge . It isn't going to hold up in the long run. The design commission doesn't understand what it's supposed to do when these matters come to it. It's supposed to act like other commissions and committees are here and a full environmental analysis and review you should have read and and thought very carefully about whether mitigated negative declaration is the proper document for this and that it's hidden in the back of the exhibit e one makes a real effort to even find it and to just jump to the conclusion as they seem to be doing it. The commission with the assistance of staff that you can just overlook that if you want to and positive trade on design because that's all you're there for and of course they are therefore they're designed to consider design. They are also there to fully consider what is they are responsible for under cequent doesn't go anywhere else unless it's appealed here which means you're going to have appeal after appeal after appeal and there's another project nearby where the square was almost utterly ignored. In fact it was utterly ignored and I think you have a real process problem and I would have thought you said that design and they should consider whether an irs proprietor or mitigated negative declaration is appropriate and we should have a full scale analysis. What is extreme? The important for protection of the public and our environment and for in the city proper development and adequate development. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have comments from erika foy followed by alan shey followed by megan folker foy. Welcome back. Thank you. How much time do I have? I didn't hear we have put two minutes. How much? two minutes. Ok, good evening. Livable pasadena is not sad satis this project should move forward given the design commission has not fully discussed the issues at stake. What's really frustrating is that the commission didn't bother to inquire why the v t or vehicle trip suddenly passed when the only change was the usage of the space from commercial to office. The project is basically the same just because you change a usage of a small percentage of the building doesn't mean it should be approved without further consideration and discussion. So here are the questions I am hoping you will consider asking this evening. Is this the first project in recent years who have had a very high threshold surpassed which is then fixed by changing the usage and not the size has any recent project surpassed fifty in the past? What number of vehicle trips were actually reduced by the change in order to pass the threshold? How many vehicle trips per day will this project produce? How many in combination with the other projects? How many cars currently are using avenue do these projects in combination double of vehicle trips on lake avenue? I'm going to guess that they do. Can lake avenue handle a double fold of car vehicle trips? Only an irr can tell us that. Lastly, why did the commission chair of design on the other large project at 141 lake say that traffic was not in their scope of review when in fact it is part of the eia they are approving this comment the loan should perk your ears up. I have a transcription of that exchange. Most of us are aware that if you sign a commission that approves the irs not the planning commission, someone needs to fix this asap before we find ourselves in a very bad and immovable situation. This is quite serious. Thank you. Alan shey followed by megan folker say welcome. I think the prior speaker was quite articulate in understanding the complications on southlake. I've been on southlake since eighty six and I'm only twenty one and I can tell you that we need to make sure the eia reports a thorough and complete so people can understand the consequences of all these developments. No one is here to to quash developments. We're just making sure that the appropriate steps are taken and that this body is doing their job of making everything has been reviewed to the to the constituents in that area. So I hope you take this serious because it's it can get pretty crazy over there. Thank you. And make folker spilker welcome . Good evening. Thank you. tonight we ask city council to return this project to the design commission so that there can be a full discussion on the record of the potential issues raised by this project. We are happy to see affordable housing coming in and happy to see this area of greenstreet seen some attention. But however good a project is does not eliminate the need for a full discussion of the potential impacts the project MAY have on our community. We have not argued against the size or the density of this project and asking for a full open review is not an abuse of environmental protections. Indeed, if the design commission feels that reviewing environmental protections are irrelevant then who is reviewing the environmental impact and work in the public? Ask questions. Thank you. Thank them. That completes public comment on this item. I have a personal look to my colleagues if there were any questions no there is their the staff report is available if you'd like it. If not we can dispense with the report. I need to close the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to hear the the staff report second, less of the appellant has said ok, you know we we closed the public hearing and then listen to the staff report am correct about that or do we have to take it now? Ok, the staff report should be within the public hearing. all right. But we did that last last time. So I didn't I I didn't know if they had an update or anything . We have an updated presentation of the council would like to see it otherwise we can we'll just defer to what the council would like to do. Well, let's go ahead and go through can we cover whatever is new and different but not repeat? I think it would be helpful for council to see it. Yeah, stephanie since narrows our senior partner will give that presentation mayor this is the most welcome good evening council. Um this item on your agenda is an appeal of the design commission's approval of a concept design review application for the new development seven nine seven forty two seven nine three. Um just to give some background on the project the project was initially submitted in twenty eighteen as a planned development which is subsequently withdrawn in twenty twenty two after changes to state law render the pd no longer necessary and application for uh concept design review was filed for the project on JUNE twenty twenty twenty two and was approved unanimously by the design commission on JUNE 13th twenty twenty three the project did undergo seagrove review which resulted in preparation of an initial study and to get a negative declaration both prepared by a consulting firm in compliance with sequoyah. the esm and d was circulated from DECEMBER first twenty twenty to JANUARY thirteen twenty twenty one. An appeal was filed on the project on JUNE twenty third twenty twenty three. The appeal was presented to city council OCTOBER 2nd and was continue to today's hearing as a quick side note sbe this project is subject to speed three thirty which limits qualified housing projects to a maximum of five public hearings. Tonight's meeting for this project would be meeting number four and the project still requires a final design review public meeting which would be the fifth hearing. The site is outlining some, uh, differences a comparison in the project from when it was submitted in twenty eighteen and then again in twenty twenty three. I wouldn't went to the design commission. The height and overall square footage has been reduced such that the project the smaller the unit count has been reduced in commercial square footage was reduced and wholly converted to office use the slide in the next slide just have some comparison renderings showing the change in the project from preliminary consultation to concept design review this slide uh these renderings are looking southeast from the corner of green street and o'connel avenue and this is looking northeast from hudson avenue as part of the secret review a number of technical studies are completed to assess for potential impacts the project MAY have. They are collectively listed here on this slide. It is worth noting that the technical studies that would be required are completed for an environment environmental impact impact report were done. It would be done at the same level as was done for this mitigated negative declaration . The city uses the same methodology and level of analysis for technical studies in both an or an area. Those topics found to have less than significant impacts are outlined here at the top portion this slide and those found to have lessened significant impacts with mitigation measures are outlined here at the bottom and include cultural resources, geology and soils hazard and hazardous materials, noise transportation and tribal cultural resources. Um, I want to quickly walk through the appeal arguments and staff subsequent responses . The first argument in the appeal states that there is evidence that the project would have a significant health risk impact from indoor air emissions as discussed at the last hearing, impacts on indoor air quality are not specified or required by the school guidelines or the california's air district guidelines. Sequoia does require a study of outdoor air pollution levels that would have the potential to have a negative impact on public health. The project was not found to exceed the levels specified by the established standards such that there would be such that there would be a less than significant impact on air quality. The second argument in the appeal states that the mitigated negative declaration fails to establish a baseline for hazardous substances and the concluding result that the project would not have a significant impact related to hazardous substances is not supported by substantial evidence. The project did undergo a phase one environmental site assessment as part of the esm indeed which did not result in the identification of hazardous materials on the site in the areas that were tested due to the fact that not all of the soil was tested on the site at that time and mitigation measure is included to ensure that the appropriate measures are taken during construction to identify, collect and appropriately dispose of any hazardous materials that MAY be encountered and to minimize and protect individuals from potential exposure. The third argument in the in the appeal states that the mendy's greenhouse gas analysis is based on unsupported assumptions staff's response details the review that occurred related to greenhouse gases and discussed the potential for emissions as a result of the project based on best established practices. The analysis occurred when the twenty sixteen building standards were in place and at that time it was determined that any impacts would be less than significant. The final mmd further clarified that the project would be subject to the updated twenty nineteen standards which has more stringent requirements to reduce emissions. The fourth argument which was received after the initial appeal was filed ascertains the analysis of energy impacts violates equal staff determine that the school guidelines cited apply to potentially significant effects identified specifically an environmental impact, reports the project cited by the appellate appellant in this argument were of drastically different magnitudes and settings in comparison to this project an additional public comment was received on SEPTEMBER 18th which states that the vehicle trip metrics analyzed in the initial mehndi showed significant impacts and that the project reduced office space to reduce those impacts which led to questions regarding how a small reduction could reduce this impact in staff's response to this comment, the original project included approximately sixteen thousand four hundred and eighty one square feet a restaurant or cafe and commercial or retail space which exceeded the vte thresholds. The project was subsequently revised to reduce the area by approximately two thousand one hundred and thirty five square feet and change the entirety of the use to office only which together resulted in no vte impact at this time it is recommended that the city council adopt the mitigating negative declaration and mitigation monitoring reporting program, adopt a private tree removal to allow for the removal of two protected trees on site. Find that the project will comply with all applicable design guidelines and the purposes of design review and deny the appeal and approve the application for concept design review subject to the recommended conditions of approval which will be further review. The final design review concludes presentation and we are available for questions so I have a just this is I think we're we're conflating two different processes these one being the sequel process which you know, subsequent to sb three thirty were and other changes in state law limits what our commissions and even council can review and the outside sequel process. So separating the secret process and where we are limited in fact maybe even prohibited from looking at traffic impacts and actually we are prohibited from really digging or making conditions based on traffic impacts. But we can also look to the outside squat process and I've said before that nothing prevents from looking at it outside of the secret process and making recommendations. And so the first question is did the how many times this has been to the commission for is my understanding well this is the fourth meeting on this item but it went to the commission for preliminary consultation and for concept design review. So twice, twice and under sb so that's for under sb three thirty then we're we're capped . This is outrageous part of some of the changes in state law. We're actually capped at the number of hearings that we can have at five and so for housing projects or a project that contains at least two thirds housing, it's capped at five meetings by meeting. So this is the fourth meeting one one recommendation was to recommend to the commission remand to the planning commission. But were we to do that then under sb 330 they would be the final decision maker with no ability to return to the council. Right. And the council is the final decision maker for this and there's also a final design review that needs to be done which is another meeting. Ok, typically so so so MR. City manager, I think you had some response. Well, I maybe think of a way to for us to procedurally handle this matter. Thank you, mayor. I simply wanted let the council know that I did look at the agenda items you attachments e one e two, three and four which are these school related documents those add up to two thousand four hundred and forty three pages of material. So that was presented to the design review commission and it was discussed and I've been told by staff they looked at the different videos and those documents were discussed as part of this process. That's that's I think your you're exactly on point. That's where I think the confusion MAY be is I think what when I when I read this transcript it does sound like members of the commission, even the chair were contemplating referring the matter either to the planning commission for findings or having the matter return or even come to the city council for findings. They did not believe they had the authority to make and I think what they're referring to is not the sica findings but the outside of sequel findings. Correct. And I think the specific comment maybe that was made by one of the commissioners reference is about the fact that sometimes it's outside of there when it comes to traffic ,it's outside of the design purview in terms of changing design related traffic impacts. That's the relationship between traffic and design, not traffic in the secret document. Ok, and so so I guess that's that's in my view clear evidence that the outside school discussion has never occurred. It did actually because it was is contained in the conditions of approval for the project so they when the project presented to the design commissioned by staff it included thorough review of the secret document and we had our consultants on staff available there. If anybody had questions there were actually some questions by the commissioners on the secret document and the type of document that they were doing and those questions were answered. There was a few technical questions asked from the commission on a few different matters related to air quality and some of the studies that were done. So there was a discussion at the design commission meeting. There's a traffic study that has secret components that's required and that was done and then we have here the local mobility analysis which is what we call outside sequoyah which is in addition to sequoyah. So we have an extra added layer here in pasadena that not all cities have and so those are typically reflected as conditions of approval in the in the entitlement and so those would be conditions. So they're looking at that with everything. I think the context of the conversation was making changes to a design as it relates to traffic impacts and how it is where do those intersections come together and how do you do that because one really is related to more technical rather than the design and the design commission is limited in their authority. They cannot reduce density. They cannot reduce height. They really are. If you look the findings that are required for design review, it's about the design of the project in the modulation and the finishes and those types of things. The but the document was thoroughly presented in disgust as as part of the project review at the same time. No, I understand that those are some of the changes that were made by state law that we couldn't look at the densities that we couldn't and I think that's the frustration that I'm seeing in this in this transcript is they're frustrated but it's not necessarily a jurisdictional question. It's more of a state imposed determination, if you will, that we they're not empowered to look at it. But but but they could look at it outside of sequoyah and it sounds like while they MAY have had discussions believing that they were talking about the sequel within sequoyah conditions and believed well we can't make we can't impose conditions and they're correct within sakwa but never got to the point where they they had a discussion about what conditions they that could be imposed outside of the sequel process if any. And I realized that we're limited. But the fact that the transcript reflects that conversation that leads me to believe that even the chair when she says it's a great idea but I think in terms of our committee it's sort of beyond the scope of our authority. And so the chair herself is saying I don't believe these matters are within our authority which leads me to believe that that discussion or at least they didn't understand that they they could have that discussion but it would be an outside of secret discussion and they MAY be limited even under the conditions there but it didn't it seems to have not occurred that the conversation might correct about that. It's it my understanding and reviewing the matters that they spoke about secure and outside secret because the conditions I'm looking to staff because we actually reviewed the meeting as well because there are specific conditions of approval contained in the entitlement related to the outside secure so that was part of what was presented to the design commission. Yeah. So again I think it's more about how does how does that the traffic impacts relate to the design and the design findings not in the context of the secret document here. Yeah, ok and so mr madsen's next I don't want to take up the mr madisen well I think you know I do think there's an issue here that of whether the commission or commissioners understood the charge, the discretion that they had within or not within sequel but MAY have had outside of cequent I've never got to the point where they discussed that in the context of an outside of secret discussion the conditions that they MAY have been able to impose. Please mr s I'm sorry I wanted to share in my experience as committee development director for a number of years here with the city and having attended year's worth of design commission meetings, one of the challenges that the design commission has is that these are projects that are by right meaning they fully meet code and sometimes they come in and they generate traffic. They do they generate cars, they generate trips and they generate more cars and maybe some of the neighborhood would like but they don't have the ability sequel outside of sequoyah to say I'm going to make the project smaller to address traffic. They can't do that and I think that at least in my experience many of the meetings were some frustration and it has nothing to do with the process that we've designed. It's it's really more about state housing law and what the ability of our design commission has in general and you can't make a project smaller just to address traffic concerns when it doesn't reach a significant impact level under sequoyah and this project did not rise to an iir level under sequoyah and therefore the the outside of sequoyah you don't really get to tweak and make the project smaller outside of sequoyah is about the circulation pattern in and around the project site to control intrusion into neighborhoods. And so I think the commission is aware of that there is annual training by staff and the city attorney's office with the commission about sequoyah and I think again the challenge and the frustration sometimes come that these projects are introduced into the city and they do result in traffic. But the way to address them is not through design. That's what I wanted to offer up there. And so I don't think there was any confusion or our process is flawed. It's just that there's frustration that exists and tension with development and traffic. Well, I'm reading the the comments of commissioner when I was not there and so but I see it this is a transcript and and commissioner says but I I I do I do want to piggyback off of what commissioner carpenter said because there are there was a comment that was brought comments about the last minute here about the traffic itself and I was reading that before this meeting. I would really like to actually talk to the department about it. The dotti to kind of get a better understanding about what was mentioned related to traffic and what not. And so even though the entrance and everything there is on hudson I'm sorry hudson right. And then the chair jumps in and talks and says yeah, it's a great idea to get more information about that but maybe it's a matter for the it's sort of beyond the scope of our of our authority. And so there was some confusion there and it sounds like there there was maybe even and I get it I mean there they are limited one of the concerns that they raised in the transcript is the the fact that there MAY be another project coming and you know, pre these changes by the state we could take those into account as part of our traffic concerns. But now we're limited. We and the commission are limited but I still think there was not a full understanding by the commission or individual members of the commission that they could in fact take up the matter and maybe even make comment or impose some level of condition or maybe make recommendations that's that's what's that's where I think the confusion is now under sb 330 if we were to remand this to the commission because normally that's what we would do is say well let's just send it back to the commission and have them weigh in on some of these concerns and then see what comes back. But under sb 330, another gift from the state if we were to do that, then that becomes the fifth and final meeting and then the council doesn't have an opportunity to weigh in. Am I correct about that? Yes, that's correct. Mr madison. Ok, thank you mayor. Well I do think inflation's happening here but I think it's it's not it doesn't compel a denial of this project. I think first of all this transcript is just a partial transcript. Correct. So do we have a full transcript? I mean their references no we don't. This is not stuff I understand we don't have the full transcript of the meeting. Right. Ok, and and there are even references in that partial transcript to other statements and portions. So like in court this wouldn't be admissible under the doctrine of completeness where you need the whole document so you can put context and and understand even the comments that are being cited in my recollection I could be wrong about this. Does this record have support from chir delgado didn't strongly support this project. I would like to point out that staff has indicated that this transcript is actually for one forty one southlake it's for another project so it's not for this project but I think it's being shown as an example of the discussions that were had so that might help and this is the first time we're seeing this so we don't have any direct comment from commissioner delgado. But I will say that commissioner delgado is the chair of the planning commission I'm sorry the chair of the design commission and she's on the planning commission. So she has a lot of experience in both bodies and has experience in secret documents serving on both commissions. That's what I'll add to that. Yeah, I'm not sure where mayor page one line 18 or 19 and 20 they reference 740 green which is this project but there is a project talking about a different project that's the other project but I thought they were making reference to but it's actually this project not the other project. So they're they're talking about no, no. But they're I think the point is they're talking about this project in the context of and that's right here and that's where this applicant is present . It's not before the commission presumably so you know, that's troubling as a quasi judicial review. Yeah, I think the problem is it's crystal clear that our code does vest the design commission with the authority to act on all of these measures. So we're looking at a project that's been downsized significantly is essentially a buy project and provide forty one affordable housing units. We need affordable housing in this city now I have to say just being completely honest I do not believe that we this is the fourth hearing because we continued this hearing no no this if well I was referring has been to the the the four meetings of the design commissioner I believe no. Three, we we actually conferred on this with outside council to make sure that we had it correct. And so this is the fourth meeting at council the concept but continuances do count in the in the well I disagree with that respectfully because when we you're saying if we had an earthquake in the building and we had to leave then that's another hearing and we couldn't come back and finish the hearing. I just I disagree with that. We I opened this hearing at the last meeting and then we resumed the hearing and I think I asked staff to be very measured and careful about what the city's position is in council and I was I have that same opinion until looking back but I'm not asking to opine about it. I'm just telling you I'm just clarifying you clarifying for you that the state statute does address that scenario. Ok, so you have a legal opinion about right. That you're waiving privilege on and presenting to the public ? Well, no, I'm just saying what the statute says. Well, I understand you understand so but in any event, this is the design commission's role. There was a unanimous recommendation the staff recommends it. It's been downsized. It's appropriate for the area in which the projects locate located. Yeah. I mean I get that we all resist the mandates from the state but don't we agree that we have a an obligation and an interest in providing affordable housing in our city in this project does that so I'm prepared to move to close the public hearing mayor unless there's any more evidence, questions, comments need a second? Is there a second? i'll second it questions comments on the closing public hearing. I'd move the staff recommendation but I would ask whether part of the motion or separately that there be direction to do some introspection about the code and about the responsibilities of the different commissions because we this is not something we should have any ambiguity about. Right. And I don't think our staff does but it's obvious that the community and even some of us do so we could probably benefit from clarifying creation of that, especially in light of this steady stream of mandates from from the state that takes certain projects out of square review altogether public that ok, what's that? I was just waiting to hear that the public hearing was closed. I said are there any objections? Oh so the public and the public schools like I saw yeah. Yeah ok. I just called into question and there were no objections. Ok, thank you kate. Sorry about that. The hearing closed. Yes it's all second class member madison's motion and I also support your recommendation or request of staff as well. So on the on the issue of going forward, I do think that we need not just clarification but to revisit as has been pointed out, you know, these changes in state law came so quickly that we haven't really had an opportunity to review in the context of our own code where these discretionary decisions can and can't be made or should or should not be made and that's a function of legislation and I don't know if the legislative policy committee has taken that up but certainly that would be an opportunity to to do that. I welcome that mayor as the chair of that committee be really helpful to have an updated sort table of the significant legislation in this area because they do come fast and furious and they're still going to a real patchwork of legislative policy from the state that can be hard to keep up with. We can bring that to the legislative committee. That'd be great. Thank you MR. You want your questions on the merits? Yes. So you know products like this have come to us before in the past and I have asked requested for the irs and I understand that this doesn't rise to that but as david raised mentioned you know and staff report in the presentation it says a slide ten says there will be no vehicle trade impacts whatsoever and assistant city manager raila's indicated an eloquently that this project will have vehicle impacts and I think that writing this in the report and saying that there won't be any impacts is incorrect. It's a fallacy and to have the public here to review it says that this is not going to have any impacts that the cases it is going to have impacts is going to have significant impacts. And I think that projects like this and I've asked this before and this has come up before with the design commission saying that we're not that kind of peer review to look at transportation related issues are transportation commission should be reviewing these these projects as well. So that's just my feedback to piggyback on some of the questions from councilor madsen . But the truth is is will have vehicle impacts. It is I mean we are locked in it. We vote no on this tonight. I mean this project is going to happen no matter what. So I believe it will well if I can clarify just expand a little bit further, COUNCILMAN Roehampton, that the initial study and the traffic study did I did identify vehicle impacts the reduce those to lessen significant impact with mitigation by changing a project description. So they are the the way the the office configuration was they reduced the retail and restaurant to office which has less trips. So there were they did address that and they reduce it to a level that was less significant. So and that's all disclosed in the traffic city. That was all part of the analysis. We have the number of trips we have the threshold that's all part of the public review that's done so they can see how those trips were triggered and what the change was to get those two lessons significant level. Thank you. But in the presentation that and I do see the staff report here so thank you. So in terms of the public participation and feedback for traffic concerns that does that's part of the design commissioner, whatever commission has jurisdiction over the review authority that's approving their project so it could be the hearing officer. It could be the design commission. It could be the historic preservation commission if that ended up being the only action that required discretionary review that doesn't typically happen. But it's it's the body that's findings at the same time in the and staff's position that the commission in this instance so this transcript is from a different hearing but the commission in this instance involving this hearing did have that discussion did make those specific and it explains why because when we watch the tape for this item we didn't see this exchange and it's because this is a different item because they did ask actually about the m&a and the type of document that was done in wine and andy has done it on npr and so there were some specific questions about the secret document when they had this hearing. so we did see that. And what was the nature of the the questions asked and did you consider any mitigation? I think that generally there's a perception when you do an m&a that there's lesser review that's done than any irr and the initial study still does a comprehensive review of all the same topic areas and we still do the same technical studies at the same level that we would for an E.R. Any E.R. Requires a longer noticing period. It requires the identification of alternatives. But in terms of the actual analysis that's done, we do the same analysis for m&a. So I think that's why the city manager was getting at the fact that, you know, there's thousands of pages of technical studies that support this this this determination on the square where you here so the full scale review was done and I think we were explaining that the difference between an m&a in an ira and that are still with a thorough review done. But in terms of mitigation opportunities were those discussions yes. The mitigation measures are part of what's presented. We have what's called a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. It has all the proposed mitigation measures. So that's part of what they review when they're looking at a secret document. Hampton, I just had a quick question about the office space so was reduced from retail to office space. Does it contemplate the office space is completely changed and now office space is almost like retail at this point where if you're working in an office you MAY be there for an hour and you leave and someone else is coming in for the next hour and they're leaving. So there's office space is completely it's upside down in comparison to what it was in twenty eighteen when this project was originally proposed . So the department of transportation has adopted thresholds and how they measure trip space on different land uses. So office is part of that. It's a different it's a different trip. Is it updated? It has not been updated since that I think twenty eighteen I am looking for walking or someone on transportation to come from when the last time they updated the thresholds was but we're typically finding offices the lower lowest user one of the lowest for producers still so it just say walking a trip because that is going to be up a lot tonight. The it the international traffic engineers manual updated I think it's the eighth edition. It's not a post covid document so it hasn't been updated to reflect any change circumstances and this project was actually studied when it came in approximately four years ago. So it wouldn't but but the fact is it's still less than than the high turnover restaurants that were originally contemplated. I think that that needs to be updated. I know that's another organization that needs that but maybe we should look at what is the office space looking like in pasadena now and on top of that, is this a project that is going to be it ? Will they be coming back to us in a year or two years and say we can't fill this office space, we need to turn into residential, we need to turn to a restaurant? So you know I mean this is a two step in this process. You know, I just want to I want the public to understand what these projects and the implications are the religion, the realistic applications to these products. So thank you. Yeah. I think the the state will take care of that as well. I mean the state's going to the state is going to make it so that you know all of these uses are interchangeable. I don't think it's going to be two years before before those changes are made and taken if they haven't already been I know they've been proposed. I don't know what the governor signed this time around but in regards to land use but it's not going to be more local authority so it's we're likely to have that in every office use that change. Ok, is there a motion? Oh, we have motion second and uh are there objections to the motion voting yes no, but we're doing and you want me to do about katzmann hampton. Yes. I can't remember jones is absent uh recusal customer alliance is absent due to recusal. COUNCILMAN Madison. Yes. COUNCILMAN Massouda yes. COUNCILMAN Reeves. Yes. Vice mayor williams and my vote is no well I appreciate the need to look at our code that you have proposed with staff direction. I'm not comfortable that a full environmental analysis has been done sufficient for the project and I'm not comfortable with the process. Thanks. Do you have a suggestion in that regard besides voting out everybody in the legislature? Uh, well no but I but I think at some point we do have to stand up to to sacramento. I don't think we can just say well that was that's it and we're just going to you know I mean I think we have to let our voices be known. So we had a vote on that as well. I know. I tried to persuade and then I'll bring that back. Yeah. Because I do think we should stand you know, this is the biggie. This is the beginning of more to come and when we voted at the time to take on sacramento we have the five votes. Oh yeah. The let's bring it back for a vote. But I mean that's as an urban planner does the whole process is just catawampus. So that's my no vote. I the project the changes have been great. I think it's really going to add to the community just would like more review of the environmental impacts and mitigations. Thanks mayor. Forto reluctant. Yes, the motion passes five in favor one no to absents. Ok, so next we're going to we're going to go straight to the central district plant. Did you win MR. You want the audience real quick? Oh, can we do that quick now you want to do it which it's on the demolition waste and management program is it can we do the demolition waste norden's program very quickly. Item thirteen, item thirteen. Do you mind if we do the ordinance quickly off for the ordinance? So this is an ordinance of the city of pasadena amending title eight cha