Voted on those minutes.

We had uh we provided input on the biodiversity plan.

But do uh commissioners have any questions about minutes?

No.

Hearing none, are there any public comments on the minutes for our prior meeting?

Seeing none, um I'll move that we approve the minutes.

Second, may we have a vote?

Bryant, yes.

Yes, commissioner summer, yes, vice chairman.

Yes, Chair Davis.

Yes.

Okay, um, on to item five.

Oh no, I'm sorry, on uh item four, which is oral communications from the public.

And this part of the agenda is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any item that's not on the agenda, so not the heritage tree appeal or our 2026 schedule, but any other items.

Um speakers are limited to three minutes, and the state laws prohibit the commission from acting on non-agenda items.

Are there any individuals wishing to address the commission on non-agenda items?

Anyone online?

Seeing none, we will move on to item 5.1, uh, which is the heritage tree appeal.

And uh, somewhat complicated, or there's a lot of process.

Um, here's how to go down.

Staff will present a report.

Um, since we have multiple appellants, the first appellant will have 10 minutes to present, then the second appellate will have 10 minutes to speak.

The applicant will have up to 10 minutes to speak, and then the commission will have an opportunity to ask questions of the presenters, including the staff, the appellant, and uh, do we have to um then we'll open it up to public comment?

So uh typically allow up to three minutes for that, close public comment, then we will uh then staff will have an additional two minutes to address any final comments.

The applicant will have an additional two minutes if they wish to make any final comments, as will appellate one and two, and then the commission will uh deliberate, make a motion and potentially vote.

So that's how it will happen.

And with that, we'll turn it over to staff for presentation, please.

All right, thank you, Commissioners.

Russell Hanson, urban forestry manager within community services department.

Um, this evening we're here to present uh the appeal uh information for 150 Rome 151 Calderon Avenue.

Um, we'll go there.

Um so in this case, uh Heritage Tree Removal permit application to remove eight heritage trees was submitted in connection with the building permit number 259390.

Um the reason on the application listed was removal of eight heritage trees to accommodate the ADUs proposed under the building permit application to construct six detached ADUs.

Um what we have here is a site overview map.

Um you can see kind of starting down in the lower right-hand corner, tree number one is offset.

Um, first and foremost, I want to be clear these locations are approximate.

Um, there was not a formal drawing submitted to us that had both pieces.

So I did my best to scale it and figure out approximate locations, and so these are the approximate locations.

I can't tell you that they're exactly where they're going to be, but you can see some of the conflicts regardless.

So tree number one, kind of that lower right-hand side you can see um at the corner of one of the ADUs as well as number four, number three and two are attached, kind of overlaying uh second ADU, and then tree number five that is out closer to the parking lot.

Those red and blue lines that you see are power and water utilities, etc.

And so the concern there is is that they were going to be doing root pruning or otherwise.

Um tree number six, seven, and eight are all similar.

They're either right adjacent to the unit inside of the unit footprint or over the utilities, but that is a very narrow approximately 10 to 15 foot path there between the ADU and the parking lot as it sits.

If you get a little bit closer look, tree number one is a sycamore.

Kind of a decent structure, fairly good health, no real major issues with it.

Tree number two on the right, similar condition, has some other issues with the bark.

You can just barely make out in the pictures where it's a little more white.

Don't think that's anything significant or otherwise, but overall again, health, condition, structure all appeared to be fair.

Tree number three, another sycamore, similar condition, a little bit over the parking lot and some of the mailboxes, etc.

But again, generally good fair condition structure, etc.

Um, and then tree number four is a little bit further up.

Um ultimately that one again, similar sycamore, similar condition, no real issues that we could identify that would have otherwise qualified it for removal.

Um tree number five is the one I kind of talked about with the utilities adjacent to it, excuse me.

Um has a little bit of a co-dominant structure, but ultimately is fairly upright or otherwise.

So we're not really too concerned about it typically.

Um tree number six on the right there, again, fairly well structured, excuse me.

Both of these five and six are camphor trees.

Um tree number six, a little bit more of what we would have expected from a typical camper camp for good crown canopy spread, good health, etc.

Um, a little bit close to the parking lot.

So ultimately there is some potential for root conflicts in the future, etc.

Um tree number seven, similar condition, um kind of adjacent to the parking lot there, otherwise fairly good health structure, etc.

And then tree number eight again, kind of that co-dominant structure that we saw in the previous tree, but not anything that really stood out to us as otherwise hazardous or um that we would consider to be problematic, I'll say.

So is this yours?

Okay.

Good evening, Chair Davis.

Members of the Urban Forestry Board, Diana Fazelli with the city attorney's office.

I want to outline the legal framework that guided staff's decision to approve the heritage tree removal permit for 151 Calzerone Avenue.

California continues to face a severe housing shortage, which has prompted significant action by the state to expand housing supply.

In practical terms, this means the state has adopted numerous measures to streamline housing approvals and reduce local barriers.

Since 2017, more than a hundred housing laws have been enacted to simplify permitting, streamline development, and facilitate the creation of accessory dwelling units or ADUs.

Next slide, please.

A key element of this legislative effort is limiting local authority to delay or deny ADU projects.

California government code section 66317 subsection C expressly provides that no local ordinance policy or regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit for the construction of the ADUs.

So in other words, a city's discretion in regulating ADUs is extremely limited.

In this case, staff's decision to approve the heritage tree removal permit was required under state law and is consistent with Mountain View City Code Section 32.35 A2, which allows removal when necessary to construct improvements or to enable a reasonable conforming use of the property comparable to other similarly situated properties.

Here the removal is required to allow construction of the ADUs under state law.

Staff didn't have a basis for denying the heritage tree removal permit because it would have effectively prevented or delayed construction in violation of state law.

And with that, next slide.

So I'll just let you finish this up.

Alright, and so ultimately in this situation, we're looking for the urban forestry board to adopt a resolution to deny the appeals and uphold staff's decision to approve the removal of eight heritage trees at Calderon Avenue to be read in title only further further rating.

We further reading weight.

Attachment one was contained within the memorandum.

Presentation.

I'm not sure who appellate one is, but would one of you like to uh reverse?

Hi everyone, thank you for your time today.

My name is Rebecca Gracken, and I'm currently a PhD student at Stanford in the School of Sustainability.

I have lived at Eaves Creek side since August 2020.

Before coming to Stanford, I also studied chemical engineering with a minor in sustainability and the environment at MIT.

I am passionate about sustainability and I'm concerned that the removal of these eight heritage trees will have lasting and devastating effects to the community and the local ecosystem.

I'm asking you to appeal the decision to remove these trees, but I think at the bare minimum a delay is necessary in order to conduct a more in-depth assessment on the impacts of the local community and ecosystem, including with regards to flooding, drainage, and erosion.

Since moving to Eaves, I have seen the space shaded by these trees used for countless kids' birthday parties, family barbecues, and rest areas for community members of all ages.

I also just realized can you bring up my slides?

Yeah, I was just gonna ask you: is it the Stevens?

It's the PDF.

Or sorry, it's the PowerPoint.

This Stevens Creek.

Yes.

Yes, sorry.

I'm pausing your time while I did it.

Yeah.

There's actually a discrepancy in what they have marked as those trees and what you guys have numbered as trees in terms of what the Board Street, urban Forest Street has designated as numbers.

There are no sycamores in their approval and their appeal.

Yes.

Can you slide Sherla?

So they're appearing to be transferred.

FYI.

Not that it's necessarily material, but absolutely.

We listed all of the trees that were applied for in our presentation.

That's the reason for it.

We understand that not all of them were appealed.

Okay.

They were all appealing.

There are four point offline.

I have your PowerPoint back up, and I'm going to say, go ahead now.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Thank you.

So these trees provide essential shade to the community space, and it's crucial for resident well-being, mental health, and relaxation.

Removing these four London plain trees, which I believe are the ones that you refer to as sycamore, and the four camper trees will just store it, destroy natural sources of shade and take away valuable area for the residents to enjoy the outdoors.

This large green space, actually, no, like stay on the first one, I'll tell you the strange.

Thank you.

Um, this large green space is rare among apartment complexes in Mountain View, and we should be celebrating and protecting it.

Removing these trees will significantly reduce the usable community space and strain the apartment complexes' other communal resources even more.

So this here is a screenshot from the Wayback Machine.

So this was the apartment complex website that I looked at when I was picking where I wanted to live.

And one of the characteristics that drew me to the apartment complex are these self-proclaimed claims of being epo-friendly and being a green community, and also having access to large, wide open surrounding spaces.

Projects where costs are over optimized instead of co-optimized with sustainability in mind, directly contradict the sustainable framing that I was initially enticed with and told that I would be able to live in a community that cared about this.

In addition, this website touted the wonderful access to great open spaces, something that will no longer be true if these trees are allowed to be cut down.

These heritage trees are also part of an essential local system.

So if you can go to the next slide, please.

These trees are immediately next to the Stevens Creek.

Their roots provide much-needed anchorage to avoid soil degradation and erosion.

And I'm concerned that Avalon has not conducted the geotechnical report that is required in or that is needed in order to be able to understand what the impacts that the removing these trees will have on the creek and the ecosystem.

Building these six ADUs on the compromised soil will that because of the rotting roots from removing the trees, will also be susceptible to causing issues with the Stevens Creek because it will add significant weight to the soil.

I did some back of the envelope calculations, and just in terms of the foundation, it would be 270 tons of concrete on land that is already quite steep and will become even more weakened by the removal of these trees.

Removing these trees has the potential not only to affect our Eaves Creekside community, but also the Stevens Creek ecosystem.

I use the trail every single day to walk my dog.

And I over the last four years I've been taking pictures every time that there's lots of rain.

And these are pictures you can see the tennis courts in the top left corner of this picture here, and you can see how high the water is and how steep that embankment is.

The trees that are going to be removed are immediately on top of this embankment.

Removing these trees can uh will speed up the erosion process and risk causing a rapid irreparable harm to the Stevens Creek.

The northern embankment has this very steep drop-off, and the aid heritage trees represent a large proportion of the trees and the roots in that area, especially as most of the trees that are that you can see here are actually quite small and young, and so the roots are not as developed as the ones of the trees that are proposed to be removed.

Um the large root systems also help keep the soil in place and help with water drainage and ecosystem health.

As the effects of climate change worsen, so if you can go to the next one.

Um, these are more pictures of the of how high the water gets and how close we are to the apartment complex in the next one.

You can play the video, I don't know if it'll work.

Um, okay, well, is there a play?

I think that's no.

This is a video of how fast and how high the water is going when you have we have these large events of rain.

As the impacts of climate change get worse, we're gonna have less more rain in shorter periods of time.

The soil is not going to be able to absorb all as much water as it can today.

This is only going to get worse and worse with higher speeds and higher levels of water.

In addition to controlling erosion, these trees also provide a necessary barrier and protection from both particular and noise pollution from Highway 85.

The London Plain trees have been found scientifically from research papers that I can provide the citations if you would like to be one of the most efficient trees for removing small particular pollutants in the urban areas with up to 21.8% of air pollution removed, according to a paper published in urban forestry and urban greening in 2016.

And four of the trees that we that are proposed to be removed are the London Plain species.

In addition, allowing these trees to cut down goes in direct contradiction with the new biodiversity and urban forest plan that Mountain View has recently adopted.

And the multiplicity of benefits felt by these trees in terms of human health are not just raped by the residents of Eaves Creekside who have joined here today, but also by Landell's Elementary School, who's directly across the street from us, and countless students and parents that use the Stevens Creek Trail in order to commute from home to school, and countless other community members that also use the Stevens Creek Trail.

We've reached out to the friends of the Stevens Creek Trail group and got their support.

I think hopefully we will hear from them later on in the public portion of today.

Finally, there are plenty of opportunities to build more housing even within Eaves Creek side that do not require trees to be cut down.

Instead, we can develop projects that respect existing trees and find ways to balance our needs for man more man-made infrastructure with our needs for clean, healthy, and green living.

There will be more details about that later.

One good thing that has come out of this process though is, regardless of how today's decision is, is that the community has come together for this fight.

I have received significant community support to appeal this decision.

It was a GoFundMe that was put together, and um we were able to raise the amount necessary to submit this appeal in record time.

Various members of the Eve community have donated, expressed support, have showed up today, and have engaged with the post that I created on the Facebook page.

And most of these residents wish to remain anonymous due to fears of retaliation, but I would like their voices to be heard today, so I'm going to read a couple of statements that they prepared on their behalf.

It is clear that the impact of these trees and the area to the mental health and wellness of the community is strong.

So resident number one, the decision to remove community communal backyard and protected trees eliminates essential spaces for pets to walk and children's to play, with no alternative provided anywhere else.

These actions constitute a serious degradation of the living conditions that we were promised and pay for.

Resident number two, I am very disappointed about this development.

Resident number three, stop the greed.

What about the well-being and safety of the residents?

Resident number four, the greenery helps my mood so much, and I typically pass by there every day.

We'll definitely be a mental health hit if we really tear down all those trees.

Resident number five, I like that we have those trees.

It will be very sad if they are removed.

And resident number six, the magnificent heritage trees impress and solace me, who has had ample opportunity to witness not only their growth, but more importantly the range of benefits that they give me and the other tenants, improved air quality, essential wildlife habitats, shade from the blistering sun, shelter from the gusty winds, reduction of noise pollution from the nearby car traffic, and detection from soil erosion after each rain.

Thus allowing me to frequently use the nearby available grassy area with picnic tables and grills as I gather with my friend and family.

The area where the heritage trees are located serves as my haven in nature, a necessity to protect and heal me from the tragedies in my life as well as the current chaos in the region and throughout the world as seen in the media.

The heritage tree area builds community a much needed safe comfortable welcoming physical space for all.

During this process and others around the apartment complex as Eve tries to implement new um projects, Avalon has not been making timely and transparent decisions.

As is evidenced by their slight modification of the original plans that's such that slightly less than 500 square feet of concrete will be for bypassing the requirement for a stormwater runoff plan.

There has also been a severe lack of public engagement from Avalon with the residents and the broader community.

Avalon has designed these projects to quickly implement things before residents are able to engage only tell residents about projects at the absolute last minute.

So I thank the city for protecting our rights as residents and for this process that I'm participating in right now which has allowed me and other residents the opportunity to have our voices heard.

I am a strong proponent of affordable housing but I'm an equal proponent of sustainability and minimizing detrimental impacts on the environment.

Because of this I'm a strong proponent for sustainable city planning in such a way that we can build more housing in a way that does not require cutting down heritage trees and endangering the local ecosystem I urge you to deny the heritage to removals in conclusion I'm asking the city to block the removal of these trees because the trees are an essential part of the community and ecosystem because the risks of causing irreversible damage to the Stevens Creek necessitates an in-depth analysis of understanding these impacts if the project is to be completed as proposed and because there are other opportunities that could be pursued for including increasing housing without needing to cut down heritage trees thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry could could you tell me your name again just appreciate your presentation and next we'll hear from the second appellant hello would it be okay if we join the Zoom meeting and present more yes can I share from my do you have the link um can you show me how to share it just need her name.

My name is Bina or ITL.

And then it's a prompting to the and there'll be a share I should give you the option to share it.

Should be right in the middle which she moves around to the bottom if it's okay.

Yes I think that's right.

So when you're um I haven't got a lot of information yet so I don't think that's a problem it's okay it still shows me as a panelist and you can grab me if you want to no you can be multiple panelists.

It's all good if you have my presentation up to remote definitely through it works just so we can pause the time we'll just next slide and I'll um maybe five minute time or eight and a one can I just get like a two minute time or two absolutely force the time or trigger.

You wouldn't mind just clicking.

Yes.

Hello everyone.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to appeal.

I'm Cole Son.

I'm a resident at 151 call their own.

And my wife and I filed three to about the second appeal.

To prevent the disruption of the eight heritage trees at Eves Creek site.

And the construction of the six ADUs in their place.

Next slide, please.

Yeah, so I wanted to focus my discussion on the staff's argument that they provide in the menu in the memo.

We gave two main legal arguments for why we can't block the construction of the ADUs, and I wanted to address both of them.

So the first argument was that the heritage tree lock allows the construction because it's necessary to construct it to make improvements to the property.

And then the second thing that they claimed was that the California state law allows for ADUs ADUs to be blocked, and that we can't we can't block any of the plans for building the ADUs and appeal.

So I want to go through our rebuttals to that.

Firstly, the false claim that it's a necessity to build the ADUs in order to generate the six units.

So they necessity that we need to cut down all the trees to build six units.

And then secondly, the failure to uphold the ordinance's mandate.

So I wanted to talk about how we focus on just this one claim instead of balancing all the claims as the heritage tree ordinance says we must do.

So now I'm going to go into more depth on these three points that I talked about.

Next slide.

Okay, the first is the false claim of necessity.

So the arguments given for why we have to cut down these trees in order to build the ADUs is because it's necessary, because it's necessary in order to construct six day units.

In reality, I don't believe that it's necessary to cut down all these heritage trees, which provide so many benefits in order to construct six new units, which I agree is extremely important right now.

We need to build more housing.

But removing the heritage trees is not the only answer.

Removal is a convenience, it's the cheapest option for Avalon Bay, which is a 26 billion dollar corporation.

And they have an obligation with that much money, that much revenue.

They make $2 billion in profit each year, and that's about a million per employee that they have.

So they have an obligation to attempt to both construct new housing and protect what we already have to protect our urban forest and ecosystem.

So if an alternative exists that they can follow, if there's another way that they can build more units, six or more, then it's not necessary in order to build the units to cut down all these trees.

And therefore that argument with the heritage tree law doesn't apply.

Next slide, please.

Yeah, so here's a list of some other ideas that we came up with quickly that where they could build more housing without having to cut down any trees at all.

So the first and most obvious is that there's a huge leasing office at the front of Eaves Creek side.

It's much bigger than any other leasing offices from any of the apartments nearby.

And oftentimes there's no one there at all.

So this building is uh it's 2,300 square feet, and it's about the same height as a lot of the two story apartment buildings nearby.

Um so ideally you could fit up to the six units at their square footage that they wanted to build the ADUs for.

And you could still have room for a front desk and not have to uh not have to change the leaf to see an office location at all.

Uh and Avalon has already converted other buildings earlier this year.

They converted a portion of the gym into an ADU and shrunk the size of the gym.

So they're showing that they're willing and able to convert other buildings into additional units.

They don't need to put these ADUs and cut down all the trees in order to do so.

There's also other options too.

So you can densify existing units.

The majority of the units have been densified to two stories, except for 22 remaining units.

So that's 22 new full units, not small ADUs, that they could create by uh increasing the size of the other buildings.

The only reason they're not doing that is it's cheaper to use the ADU law.

And the third option is there's so much surface parking.

There's 161,000 square feet of surface parking here.

That's enough space for maximum 400 to 600 units if Avalon Bay can densify parking.

Obviously, this is a little bit more far-fetched.

You'd have to build a parking structure or a garage, but Avalon Bay is such a large and profitable company.

I don't think it's too big of a stretch to say that we would require them to build a different parking structure.

It would be different if it was an independent landowner, but given the size of Avalon, I think this idea is also on the table.

Next slide, please.

Cool, and then the ordinance is band-aid.

So the ordinance does not say that we can cut down trees just because it's a necessity for building and improving the land.

It says that we must balance these factors with the number of different criteria, which I'll go into in the next slide.

And we must do this with an emphasis on the intent to preserve heritage trees.

And I haven't seen this emphasis at all in this process so far yet.

I've just seen that it's a necessity for improving the apartment complex, and therefore we must cut down the trees.

Next slide, please.

So here are the other factors that weren't considered in the building permit.

There's the tree conditions.

So the arburst report showed that all the trees are in fair condition, they're healthy, and they're not in any danger of coming down anytime soon.

There's also section A5 talks about public health and safety.

We're right next to the highway 85, and these trees are blocking a lot of noise pollution, which has real health effects, but also ground level ozone and articulates and heat island effects, which become more and more important due to climate change.

Also, erosion and flooding, which Rebecca talked a lot about.

The trees protect the soil from eroding into Stevens Creek.

I'll talk more about this later, but this is listed in the heritage tree ordinance.

And there were not full studies, I believe, conducted to make sure that the uh the trees don't erode into the Stevens Creek Trail.

Next place.

Well, and then the third section is the state law, which you claim says that we can't, we shouldn't even be having this appeal, that uh we can't block it or delay it in any fashion.

Uh, this isn't true in the memo, you wrote no local ordinance shall be the basis, delay or denial of the building permit, but you omit a key qualifier, which is no local ordinance, policy regulation, other than the accessory dwelling unit ordinance 66371A, which states that we can't use discretionary ADU review, but it protects non-discretionary objective review.

So, based on objective factors, uh, we can delay or deny the destruction of the heritage trees in order to build the ADUs.

We just can't use discretionary or subjective factors.

So, my argument is that the decision to approve the ADUs was a ministerial error.

Next slide, please.

Okay, so the errors that I wanted to bring up is that we went to City Hall and looked at the plans, and there was no geotechnical report included.

Mountain View's own guidelines and standards for land use near streams requires a geotechnical study, and as Rebecca also mentioned, uh, based on the flooding, it would make a lot of sense to do a geotechnical report and make this public.

Um, and then also uh Santa Clara Valley Water District got back to us and said that they should have an opportunity to review the permit plans and a geotechnical report.

They're doing work on the uh on the fish watershed project there.

They have a vested interest in the health and safety of Stevens Creek Trail.

Uh, there was also no erosion control plan submitted with the building plans, and there was no flood hazard report.

As Rebecca mentioned, um, their initial plan uh required a flood hazard report instead of spending the money and time to make sure that this would not cause flooding, they just shrunk the uh the footprint of the building slightly and incorporated the existing concrete, the claim that it's just below the threshold to need a flood hazard report.

But I think while technically this might not require a flood hazard report, I think this just shows that it was done in bad faith.

Instead of focusing on the community's health and safety, they're just trying to do this in the cheapest way possible.

Um, yeah, and then uh there was also no consideration in the site plan for public health impacts.

This is seen in the fact that there isn't even a plan to plant new trees or anything of that, which is required in the heritage tree ordinance is to consider the public health impacts of tree removal and find revenues where possible.

Next, please.

Okay, sounds good.

Well, uh, I'm almost done.

In conclusion, I believe that the current argument for why we can't deny the heritage trees removal is a flawed reading of the state law saying that we can't have a hearing and use that at all as a basis.

And two, and two uh, is a disregard for the spirit of the heritage tree ordinance um because we need to balance these different factors, and we can't just look at one factor, and we have to have preserving the heritage trees in mind when we're balancing the factors.

So I believe that the board has a responsibility to protect our heritage trees and therefore our public health and quality of life.

So we urge you to deny the permit and instruct Avalon Bay to return with a plan that meets all objective city standards and demonstrates the emphasis on preservation that the law demands.

Thank you.

And I also wanted to bring up that I have some documents to submit to the board, the letter from Green Space Mountain View, and um and the staff prepared a resolution to deny our appeal.

So I prepared a resolution to accept our appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Snow.

Thank you.

Um the applicant has 10 minutes to present the applicant here.

So nobody representing the applicant is here.

So we will see what we're doing with that.

I don't have 10 minutes.

Ivy is the ultimate thing that I want to have the representative of the programs.

If you are the applicant, raise your hand.

Otherwise, we're we're moving on.

Just unmute this one.

I think this is just a resident, but I'm just gonna unmute Andrea.

Just to pin our Andrea Wall is Andrea.

Are you the applicant?

Excuse an applicant for what?

I'm sorry.

Are you the uh the permit applicant for the uh ADU development?

I don't think you are no, no, no.

I'm just a community member who's concerned, and I have a um like one-minute comment.

Well, we'll get back to you in the uh in the cut of the public comment section.

So you're not okay.

You're not a public comment yet.

Okay, I'll I'll hold on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, Andrea.

We're just making sure that the applicant was not present.

So uh now the commission has an opportunity to ask questions of anyone.

So we'll start with Commissioner Mitchell.

Um, yeah, so I have a few questions.

Um, so first one for applicants or the appellants, you know.

Have you guys attempted to?

I mean, you make I mean your presentations were awesome.

Um have you tried that to to take your case to the owner, you know, to the to Avalon or to get a group of people to make a case to Avalon.

Um, I mean, maybe that's a question.

So um, I they also, as Cole mentioned, have reduced the gym space.

Um, and so through that process, like Avalon has, in my opinion, been acting in bad faith and explicitly designing their process such that it's very difficult to for us to be able to do any sort of um organizing to be able to get our opinions heard or speak with them.

Um, through the gym reduction process, I also filed a petition to reduce the rent.

Um, and through that process, there is a requirement to have the voluntary settlement agreement that has been scheduled.

Well, we're in the process of scheduling that.

Hopefully, that means that I mean they're not even here today.

How are we supposed to have a com of you know a discussion with them?

If if and if you go to the leasing office, the people in the leasing office say that they are don't have control and that they don't have decision making.

Um, so Avalon has made it very difficult for that process for us to be able to engage with them, hopefully at the voluntary settlement agreement.

Um, and hopefully two weeks there'll be an opportunity for a discussion.

Um, that is if they show up.

Can I make a comment too?

They also have in the previous constructions of buildings.

They've been, they've been communicative and sent emails about what their plans are, but for this upcoming set of ADs, they haven't sent anything.

They've been completely sign up on it because I think they're afraid of opposition and wouldn't want to work with us on any other.

And they've never reached out with like we're thinking about doing this, we'd like to get comment.

It's more for the gym reduction, it was an email on them on a Friday saying in a week we will start construction.

Um next question, and this could be you guys, or it could be how many units are there in that proposal?

No, no, how many how many apartments are there?

299.

299.

Um, question for uh either city staff or or legal, you know what?

City council must deal with these situations um with regard to state law um on occasion with development projects.

What would mount use city council do in a similar situation i can't speak to what the city council did but we would advise them similarly as we have to I mean do they typically follow the advice of legal counsel for the city I mean yes that's my understanding um the other thing I guess is is do you have any comments on uh we actually have the city attorney who would like to okay is left and it's only on the city attorney wishes to speak and probably unmute herself to do so yes can you hear me okay yeah we can please go ahead good evening board members um I just wanted to see if I could answer the question about what city council would do typically we would they would handle this um probably in the same fashion they would have accepted all of the legal advice that provided that we provided they would consider the facts and they would apply the law as they were required to do and I have in my experience and being here in free year they typically listen to the advice from the city attorney's office in uh making their insurance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then just my last question for now is just you know there were some um issues brought up yeah how would you respond to some of the arguments um that the second appellant made with regard to objective I I can't remember the terminology was objective and non-objective um application of the law would I respond to that then I would respond that the uh that our heritage tree removal permit ordinance is a discretionary permit and there is no it's not an objective standard there's no objective standards within our ordinance um and so therefore it can't be included in considering whether or not to issue an ADU uh permit for construction of an EDU.

Yeah I I'd echo that um you know when you start getting into uh you know factors about well you could move the ADU here and not not have it here move it here you're starting to get into some subjective factors that you know are then delaying the process.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Mm-hmm, I had a couple of mostly for staff so I think they're probably to you John.

So in this situation where two people appeal the same item do they both have to pay the full fee yes.

I mean my understanding is that an appeal is filed at the city clerk's office correct and when one is filed if there is no way for the clerk's office there's a yeah there's a it's a process right well that's unfortunate it is we didn't know this is this is my turn now um so another thing that I saw was that I was having trouble sort of matching up the the tree numbering in the memo to the tree numbering in the arbitrary report and I kind of figured out six of the eight but it's a little confusing.

And then it starts to get a little confusing and so you get up to three six which is 11, 7 is 18 and night, and eight is 19.

It's really hard to evaluate.

Arborist, what the RBIS is saying about each tree.

Um, they they do list that they're recommending eight trees for removal.

These are the ones that I mentioning, but I'm having trouble figuring out which ones are there, three, six, and seven.

So I don't know if we need to solve that.

That would kind of be helpful to know.

Cause I think the dots are even in a different place.

Like trees six and seven, the dots aren't well, they're I guess year four and five aren't in the same places where they show six and seven.

So it's a little confusing.

I just want to be sure we all know what we're talking about to be proposed for a removal.

So all I can say is that we did verify which trees and those are the ones that are taped on site.

Okay.

Um I will I will take your point to order, and in the future, make sure that we align the reports to our staff memos.

I mean, it wasn't even clear that we had permission to go under their property, I'll say.

So, you know, if they're marked on site, that doesn't change anything.

I mean, it's private property, and it's not visible from any street.

Um, okay, so my next question.

Um, so I I'll just come out and say something and then we can talk about it.

So on the application component or the trees and people, which now is done on the website.

Um, there's that spot where it started as um tree replanting information, and then there's the number of trees proposed to be replanted and there's a little statement.

The city's standard replacement requirement is two new trees for every one heritage tree removed.

Now that's pretty objective to me.

That doesn't say, oh, if this and you know, depending on the species, it just says the city's standard replacement is two to one.

That is an objective standard, and it's right there on the application that they filled out.

So now to my question, which is what conditions of approval were being proposed by staff as part of the original approval.

It's not discussed in the memo.

So ultimately, in terms of staff, the intent would be to issue a permit that requires a two-to-one ratio.

The question comes in is are they subject to that permit?

Well, um, if you read the blurb about objective sign standards, it itself says also are something like, or are knowable by the applicant at the time of application.

So to me, something that is stated plainly on an application has got to be knowable because they filled it out right there in front of them.

So to me, that's an objective standard.

So back to my question.

You you said ordinarily, but is that what you're planning to do in this case?

Yes.

The intent is that after the conclusion of this meeting, if it is approved for the removal of those trees, we would issue permit that requires two to one replant.

Okay, that was my question.

And then um, and that's at a location to be recommended by you.

I see.

Yeah.

Sure.

Okay.

And as always, we work with property owners when they're willing to kind of discuss it.

We we don't necessarily have to agree.

It's their private property.

They may place them elsewhere if we can't reach an agreement with them, though.

Or they could conceivably request that certain number of them be in the race, I suppose.

Potentially.

Yeah, okay.

So my final question was the building permit application deemed complete, like all this stuff about the geotechnical and all that was it deemed complete.

So all I can say is that when I go into the project review folder, it shows that it is pending final payment.

That is the only update that I can provide you this evening.

I'm assuming, given that they're waiting on pavement that everything else is deemed complete, but that is an assumption on my part.

I do not have a final answer on that.

Okay, because in the jurisdictions that I work with, payment happens first.

So, okay.

Again, that would have to be something.

So, there is still a process that the building department is able to conduct that's enforcing the building code with them, which may include other submittals.

Potentially, sure.

Again, you would have to check with that.

It's deemed complete for purposes of issuance of the building permit.

Correct okay um yeah i have an opinion about that then i'll save it for my comments later um okay that's all i have thank you yes thank you so um so basically staff's position in in reading uh the the California government code is that uh we we can't do anything to delay or deny the permit application for an ADU and that basically means that whether we have a heritage tree ordinance or not is irrelevant in this case that's correct so really when when I was looking at the application and it said trees proposed to be replanted or mitigated or whatever it said zero that could very well happen our are is our position that because it's an ADU they don't have to do anything that is requested in the in our heritage tree ordinance um can I can I'll speak for that another little hearing yep we can okay so I just want to help provide some clarification and it'll also address some of the comments made by the second appellant I think part of the confusion that is going on here is that um there everyone I think needs to understand that state law supersedes local law so our ordinances our policies our regulations everything that we have in place takes a back seat to state law when state law speaks on a particular issue and in this case state law has spoken on the issue with regard to applications for ADUs and it has imposed very strict requirements on local agencies when it comes to approval of those applications and I can completely understand the passion for saving trees I live in an area with a lot of trees and I'm not saying that it is not unfortunate and that I am not empathetic to the appellants in the situation but our hands are tied and there's much much more in the state law that was not provided in in the responses to some of the board's questions because it is comprehensive and there are many many sections so it's not just objective standards it's also the objective standards that they have laid out so state law specifically states what our ADU ordinance can have in it and what kind of objective standard it can impose and our ADU ordinance does do that and it does not include things like trees and and you know the amount of trees and all of that.

So unfortunately we have a a separate ordinance that deals with with trees um you know that if we were talking about just our local ordinances it would be read in combination with our ADU ordinance but because state law has stepped in and said your AD or ADU ordinance must do these things can only obtain these requirements and you must ministerial approve so long as all those are dotted and teams are crossed our tree ordinance takes a backseat and our tree ordinance cannot be used in any way shape or form to delay or deny the building permit so a lot of the arguments that were made are almost really a tax on the building permit themselves they're not a tax on the tree permit and the building permit is not issue in this appeal.

The tree permit just takes a back seat and I and it's really unfortunate and it's not that I don't understand I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood sort of the order of power on in this particular concept.

May I uh please so um this is not a building permit just for my own personal reassurance does the building permit include safety check or yes that yes it does and the and the state law requires compliance with building code with building code standards and there are there are many many building code standards and that is that is part of the building permit process um you know the the city staff does not just take in an applicate ministerial doesn't mean no checks it means that you are you are applying the the California state standards that have been put in place and um building code requirements are specifically interest in the state law with regard to ADUs so I do I do hear the questions about and the concerns about erosion and and and you know the the rising creak and all of that but those are the types of things that will be taken into consideration in the building permit process and in the development of the project.

That's reassuring thank you and I have a couple more questions for for our staff.

So basically I the city attorney is telling us that we have no choice in the matter our tree ordinance is meaningless in this case uh so why are we going through this friendly rigmarole uh of looking you know I looked at the heritage tree appeal uh removal the signs that that were put up there is instructions there of how to file an appeal to community members filed an appeal a hugely commend you for doing that especially wonderfully written you you collected money from the community absolutely wonderful but to me it's wrong to imply that there is an appeal possible when there isn't an appeal possible when the appeal is is is bound to fail it seems to me not the right way to go about it and I'm I'm really surprised that we are pretending that there is a city process and there is no city process there is a state the state imposes on us a decision um I like calling a spade a spade I would have preferred a sign that says there is a law about ADUs the developer can take out any tree they want to they don't have to mitigate it that's it residents you should know that and you know at that point I could have I don't know put my head against the the tree but that's it I don't understand why we are why we are following this process because we can discuss and I I have any number of comments about whether this fits within our ordinance but I understand clearly that our ordinance is irrelevant but why are we pretending that our ordinance has any relevance in this case I think I think that's a question although it's beginning to sound like a comment but why why did staff choose to go that route I'm sorry I'm gonna step in here again and I'm gonna I'm gonna defend staff and I'm gonna defend my two attorneys because I want to let everyone know that this was raised to me as to whether or not the appeal should even go forward and it took me a lot of time to decide whether or not the appeal should go forward and it was my decision and I will take responsibility but let me explain to you why we have ordinances that have been adopted by city council and have been on the books for some time and this particular ordinance provides members of the public an opportunity to appeal and to be heard it is not a the appeal process is not a guarantee that you will win an appeal process is is an exercise of your due process rights your rights to be heard on an issue, even if that issue was not necessarily going to change the decision today, it may have an impact.

There might be council members listening to this, and they may change their ordinances.

The point is that they had an opportunity to be heard, and I was not willing to take away that opportunity for them to be heard tonight about their feelings about the tree, just because state law that has been enacted more recently has bound our hands with regard to these ADUs.

So it was not to send a false message or to pretend like we have an appeal process, and we really don't.

We do.

It's just in this particular case, because this tree permit is tied to an ABU application, building from an application, our hands are bound.

But I was not willing to take away the appellants' right to speak and to be heard.

And I will I will let you know that you know this did um raise our awareness to a complication in our ordinances, and we will be considering amendments to the ordinance to rectify this situation, and maybe that will result in an exemption for you know uh housing applications that that have to be ministerial approved and and can't be denied for any reason, you know, other than those provided in state law, and that would exempt this this sort of the tree permit from that entire process.

But we're still in the early stages of considering you know how the ordinance can be amended to avoid um this situation.

The other thing that I am looking into is you asked the question about whether or not they both have to pay the appeal fee.

Yes, it appears that that is the case, but I have considered whether or not um there should be a partial refund because technically we are collecting the fee in order to reimburse us for the process, and this is just one process, it just happens to be two people that are seeking the process, and so it may be that they get half of the feedback because you know we don't need to have double the money in order to process one appeal.

So I want you to know that that is a consideration that is on the table, um, to you know, take into account the fact that they had a right to speak, but they do not necessarily need to pay double in order to access that right.

Thank you, Ms.

Lope.

That's very useful.

I can't keep myself from saying that a right for which one has to pay is a questionable right.

But uh, let me see if I have any other.

Okay, those were my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for the answers.

Thank you, Commissioner Brian.

Commissioner Pelos, do you have any questions?

I just to make it clear, because there was a comment earlier about the trees they were appealing, it's the eight that were marked, correct?

Yes, correct.

To kind of answer what we're including.

Yeah, that where they're coming from is it unfortunately in our industry.

We don't, I'll say do things perfectly every single time.

And so you frequently have botanical names are more absolute, but even those are subject to change.

In this case, what was previously known as a platinus acerophobia, the botanical name is now a platinus hispanica or ex Hispanic across Hispanica.

That is the botanical name of the trees that we're talking about on the property.

If I've stepped back from the botanical name and use the common name that most people use, there are frequently two, three, four, five common names for that one botanical species.

And so in this case, what I refer to as a sycamore is the same as a London plane.

Ultimately, botanical name in both cases, their platinum is Hispanic at this point.

Thank you on that, appreciate it.

Um, just in process, in listening to the slope as well.

Um, were the appellants did the appellants have an opportunity with regards to addressing when the building permit was heard by the building department?

Is there any process that they were included or informed of, or have access to where they could have made these same types of presentations with regards to concerning of issuing a building permit?

I can't answer that one.

Jennifer, maybe?

I don't think there's a public hearing process for building permits.

I can I can answer that.

Um, once again, the state law is not our friend.

And it said ministerial approval without hearing.

So we weren't even entitled to hold a hearing.

The approval occurs.

It's the application is reviewed.

It's sort of a checkbox type of process that the building of building staff goes through and we cannot hold the hearing.

So no, there was no problem.

Thank you.

I'm good.

Thanks.

I know you're relatively new in the position because I came to your welcome reception.

I ate that cupcake.

In your um awareness, has the city ever contested state law?

Are you aware of any examples where the city was chosen to contest extensible state law?

This in what manner?

I can tell you that we have a legislative platform and and we have advocates that either advocate in support of or against state laws before they're adopted.

So yes, through that legislative process at the state level, I think we can we do have a practice for contesting.

I have not in my three years and some change here ever seen counsel, for instance, take an action directly against fake law out of protest, right?

In order to maybe drive it to the courts, because that's what would happen effectively if you know council were to take a stand ostensibly against state law, it would likely end up in the courts, and bodies that take that action, um, are typically inviting legal action so that they can take an issue up, you know, through the court process.

I have not experienced that here in Mountain View.

Um, and I honestly will say I did not see that happen in my nearly 15 years in Oakland, and that's a pretty that can be a pretty progressive city.

Um I did not ever see that kind of specific direct action.

I will tell you when I was in the courts, I saw judges do that.

I saw judges absolutely rule against the law because they wanted it appealed and they were hoping that the law would get overturned.

But that's where the only time I've ever seen someone take that kind of bold action.

All right, yeah, thank you for that.

I I don't know whether it's uh a legal action or a advocacy with aligned communities, but there's clearly a perversion of the original intent of the ADU law.

So now it's just a developer and property owner free-for-all.

Um, and that wasn't the original intent.

It was effective lobbying by the California apartment association.

Um, and now we're and it's effectively gonna neuter our sustainability and heritage treat.

So I'll save that for comment.

Sorry, that wasn't a question.

Um, so with that, um we're gonna open it to public comment from uh those that have not already spoken.

You know, limit the uh time to three minutes, and so if you've uh filled out a blue card and wish to speak now, please approach the podium.

And while you're getting ready, Alison, do we have people online?

Three hands up right now.

Okay, uh please proceed.

Uh hi, I'm Helen Sakarova.

I'm a former resident of Eve's Creekside.

Um, and um I would just like to like uh basically make people feel less bad about what's happening here.

Uh essentially, I understand people's environmental concerns about removing trees, but you should note that in the end, it's easy to see environmental impacts that are happening near you, and difficult to see environmental impacts that are happening further away.

If this construction were indeed to be stopped here, it would happen elsewhere.

And any potential environmental impacts could also happen elsewhere.

But additionally, there would be then a bunch of people commuting longer distances, adding to traffic, adding to air pollution, adding to fossil fuel usage, and so on.

And while I under like, and uh furthermore, I would like to say that the construction of additional housing, uh even if it's just ADU units rather than larger amounts of apartment buildings, it's not it's essentially something that's necessary a necessary step towards solving California's housing shortage.

Uh and this housing shortage.

Oh, is that three more?

Sorry.

Russell's time.

I was trying to show that side.

Yes.

And this housing shortage is both something that impacts economic opportunities for people.

Uh it causes rent burdens where 33% is no longer even of someone paying rent is no longer even considered rent burden.

Uh and it is a major factor in the amount, like the increasing amount of homelessness in California.

Um, and uh I understand uh the idea of like wanting to find better ways of uh building more apartments in East Creek side and so on.

Uh but more expensive ways of building apartments also like contributes to increasing like um more expensive uh ways of building apartments, longer delays and more studies and reviews before building uh ADUs or apartments, all of this essentially like increases rent in the end increases construction costs and increases rent costs.

Uh it's not so yeah, that is uh.

Yeah, uh like I'm sorry.

Okay, that's the goal.

So, a compelling uh point.

I appreciate your comment.

Thank you.

Um hi everyone, my name is Vera, and I'm also a resident at Eaves Creekside, and I am here to oppose the removal of heritage trees.

So, first I want to say that I also agree that housing is super important in the Bay Area.

Um, however, we have two goals here that we're discussing.

First, we have housing, and second, we have environmental concerns.

And what we're trying to bring up is that these two goals are not mutually exclusive, there are solutions where we can do both, and so we must do both.

Um, that there's so many different options for Eaves Creek side to meet their housing goals or even exceed them while not removing a single heritage tree.

And this is not subjective, it's uh showing that there is no necessity to remove the heritage trees, um, which was a condition to be able to use that ordinance.

Um, this is obviously just the cheapest way to do it for Apple and Pay.

Um, so what's happening here is not about necessity, it's about convenience.

Um, but first I wanted to talk about the purpose of this ADU law.

Like, why is it easy in California to build ADUs?

Um that law was passed to provide more housing while helping homeowners get another source of income.

It's meant for single families that have a space in their backyard and they want to add a unit, and it's a great win-win situation.

They get another stream of income, and the community gets more housing.

Um, this ADU law was not meant for multi billion dollar corporations to pursue Q product.

Um so this project is exploiting this ADU law that was meant to empower individuals, not huge corporations.

And by doing that, they threaten something that we can never replace.

Eight huge mature heritage trees that have taken decades to grow and provide so many benefits to the community, as Rebecca.

Also, many people involved are making rent claims about sustainability and protecting the environment, but it's nothing but greenwashing if you're not putting actions behind your words.

I also want to highlight that we live right next to Highway 85.

And if you go in person and look at these trees, they have a physical barrier.

Their canopy like goes tall and wide, giving us like a barrier against all of like the nasty stuff that comes out from like cars as they're driving on the highway.

And um that protects our lungs and hearts, and we need to use that as much as we can.

Also, there's an elementary school right across the street, and we know that children are even more vulnerable to respiratory problems.

So these are objective concerns that we have to the community health from removing these trees.

And I think that the decision to approve the removal of these trees was made lightly without critically thinking about any alternatives that are possible in the community.

So yeah, let's build more housing.

It's super important.

But it's also that's always in a smart way.

And this require Alpha and Bay to redesign and come up with other plans.

And I think that the burden here has a responsibility to hold these multi-billion dollar companies accountable on behalf of us, the people they represent.

So please, we urge you to deny building all of the heritage trees.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Shall we uh turn to somebody online?

Thank you.

My name is Wendy Howard Benham.

I live at 151 Calderon.

Uh my partner uh moved to 151 Calderon 23 years ago.

And when I moved in with him five years later, I was delighted to find that the property was blessed with so many mature trees like the older property that I had moved from the old neighborhood I had left.

To quote the urban forestry website, trees are a big part of the city's identity and provide our community with numerous benefits, end quote.

The trees under discussion provide not only the canopy for a recreational space, but are the anchors for biodiversity and support of the riperian environment of Stevens Creek.

Their roots also serve as the literal anchors of the soil.

Over the years, I have witnessed the degradation of the creek's banks in the increasingly violent winter storms.

I have watched as tree after tree on the creek banks has succumbed to the slippery mud and been removed.

I fear what could happen if these large magnificent trees were cut down and their roots receded, destabilizing the soil.

We are all aware that housing is desperately needed in Mountain View.

However, the six units proposed in this project would merely be zero point zero seven percent of the 11,000 units currently required to satisfy the state's mandate.

Meanwhile, there are housing projects to satisfy or two, I'm sorry, there are meanwhile, there are housing projects in process at Castro Commons and the Greystar Project at the Chase Bank site with more robust numbers.

And the units proposed here will not be the housing most needed, affordable housing.

As has been mentioned by others, there are many benefits to trees beyond the aesthetic.

They remove from the air, dust, and other particulate matter and absorb carbon dioxide and other pollutants like carbon monoxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide while releasing uh oxygen.

Uh what I didn't think had been mentioned, but Cole did mention it, as did Miss Summer, that these if these trees are removed, there is no evidence based on reading the application for removal that there will be any trees planted to replace them.

It takes a matter of weeks to build housing.

To produce trees like these takes decades.

They can be replaced, but by then your grandchildren will be old.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

My name is Diana Meribay, and I am also a resident of East Peakside at 151 Calderon.

I'm someone who regularly enjoys walking and sitting under the shade of these trees, and I'm really disappointed in this attempt to remove them.

And I'm even more disappointed that a corporation is as large as Avalon Bay, who's the third largest owner of apartments in the US, is not finding a way of increasing housing, is not finding ways of increasing housing that don't involve removing existing amenities.

There are definitely ways of, as others have mentioned, of increasing housing in our apartment complex without removing this beautiful green space.

And as has been mentioned, it's it's especially concerning that the trees are along the Stevens Creek.

So I often walk the creek trail and I can see just how steep the embankment is immediately beyond the fence that separates the apartment complex from the creek.

And I have I also have concerns about erosion and what would happen if there's increased frequency of rain.

But after, you know, hearing from the city attorney, it seems that we are bound by state laws that supersede this heritage tree ordinance, and I'm incredibly upset that.

Not only was it incredibly difficult for everyone to submit an appeal.

I just want to state that for submitting an appeal.

I tried looking on the Mountain View website, found different instances of mentions of how to do it.

There were different prices in different places, nothing was up to date.

And so I think it's upsetting not just that you know the state law in this particular case, but that it is so hard and that we had to pay such a large fee to go through this entire process.

But thank you, Commissioner, for uh pushing that out.

Um thank you everyone for being here today, and I just really hope that you know at some point in the future, this isn't all for nothing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other comments from people in the room.

Just rewrite.

I was my whole thing.

I'm Nancy Stirr, resident of Mountain View and uh tree lover.

Um I had some things to say, but I'm just going to ask questions.

I know you can't answer me in this uh setting, but I just hope that everybody will think about it.

I think everybody needs to think about this stuff.

Number one, they're not in the order, by the way.

Will this be another Google for the trees are removed and then oops, it's not financially feasible, or we changed our mind, or we didn't pass the geotechnical web survey, whatever.

Um I hope you guys will keep an eye on that.

Um, what if they weren't called ADUs?

What if it's simply an addition?

It's just that it's a remodel.

It's it's not, you know, just because they're little onesie twosy things, we just get to throw out our whole tree ordinance.

That's full.

Sorry, but that's just full.

Um, I don't know if there's a uh legal definition for that.

I don't expect an answer, but that's one of my questions.

Um isn't part of the law to challenge the law.

I mean, these are new laws, they're just coming down and everybody's scrambling to get it done, but isn't that what courts are for?

Isn't that what appeals are for?

Like, why aren't we challenging these things?

Why do we waste all this time on biodiversity and meetings and not even try?

Like, you know, Mountain View is considered a very progressive city.

People are really proud of that.

I'd like to see a very courageous city instead of just a progressive city.

So um, also I don't know if all the approvals are in.

Is this a dumb deal because you guys have approved the permits or not?

No one's really we don't know.

Um, is there a geotech study?

Is it required?

No, we don't know.

Um, and also I don't know if anyone noticed, but there are more than eight trees selected to be removed in this report.

There are just eight heritage trees.

A lot more trees are coming out here.

So uh no one's mentioned that.

I'd like to point that out.

Um I don't know, I can't believe that a state would make all you know that there's a law that says that staff can't direct or or suggest or guide a builder through different options.

Um I don't know what staff's doing there if they don't have anything, any jobs to do.

Um also with SD79 here, we don't we need all the trees we got.

Yeah, we need to save every single tree that we've I think you see.

Thank you.

We'll share in the room.

If not, we will turn to those that are participating online, and Alison, if you'll tee up our first speaker.

Uh first we have Bruce England.

Mr.

Englund.

Hi, all.

Commissioners.

Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive, and a member of Greenspace's Mountain View, been listening to all of this.

And we wrote a letter, submitted.

I'm not going to read the letter because I have some additional comments.

I'll just let you see the letter and it's part of the public record, so other people can see it too.

There's one other organization that submitted a comment letter to you.

I won't call them out because I'm not speaking for them.

But you probably have that as well.

So I'm truly alarmed by this, what's going on here.

And I'd say the bottom line is this needs to be kicked forward or up.

This should not be decided on tonight.

There are too many questions, even staff has acknowledged their questions.

I think you should give everybody involved a chance to look further into this and have it come back to you, or just forward it to City Council and let them deal with it.

Because as you know, you just talked about the biodiversity and urban forest plan work and how important it is that that be actionable.

Um you all commented on this quite a bit in your in your deliberations at that meeting that it's this isn't gonna matter unless we can take action on these things.

So I believe that this matter should be perhaps forwarded to city council and there should be some conversations with Senator Becker and Assembly Person Berman and say, as others have pointed out, this was not the intention of the ADU law.

And maybe this is the time to challenge it, or we can join with other cities, but I think we should take a strong stand.

We're not gonna have success with our biodiversity plan if we don't uh take a stand when we have to, and this rises to that.

So these are a bit in random order too, because I just wrote them down tonight.

But um, you know, you look at the difference between Stevens Creek, which is wonderful and glorious and everything, and you compare it with Permanente Creek, which is cement bound with properties pressed right up against the fence because that's those properties were built when we apparently didn't care about trees in nature, and now we do.

So we should not be constructing in the way that we did right up against Permanente Creek.

Um that was commented on um by one of the commissioners that this is a perversion of the law.

Totally agree with that.

And Avalon Bay should pay attention to the fact that they get uh community support for some of their projects in a variety of ways.

The organizations that I work with on advocacy, we've had multiple meetings and interactions with them on 555 West Middlefield.

It's a similar situation there where there is a tree, uh traffic buffer along the side of 555 West Middlefield that has been a huge problem and whether that should be allowed or not.

So my time is running out, but I would say that this needs to be escalated, and I would take a strong stand um to make that happen.

I hope you will do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

England.

Next we have Howard Engley.

And Howard, you have the floor.

Yeah, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Uh Howard Higley, I'm a long-standing resident of Mountain View, uh, a member also of Green Spaces MV and Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance.

Uh, first, uh I want to commend um the uh Eves and Calderon uh speakers uh and uh uh the individuals who have appealed the removal process.

Um they certainly have uh been uniformly uh endorsing the value of this uh green space.

I'll also pointed out potential alternatives to citing the ADUs on uh the complex and uh the failure of uh any uh actionable information from a geotechnical or water district uh uh standpoint on uh uh the particular placement.

Um I was intrigued uh by the uh uh Avalon and Vilaholmes' own arborist report actually placing a valuation um on the entire uh tree uh population, including the eight heritage trees slated for removal.

Um I'm not sure what the methodology is.

Perhaps uh the urban forestry manager here can speak to it, whether it's a strict uh forestry uh board per square foot cost, or whether there's actually some geoservices uh calculation involved, but the heritage tree removal on the arborist's own report um come to a cost of 187,000 dollars.

Um we are asking an applicant uh to do an in-kind or in lieu replacement, a two for one with uh 24-inch saplings, uh, that's in hundreds of dollars, or less than 2% of this total value.

So perhaps regardless of what the commissioner's uh decision is tonight, uh, we might revisit the fee structure for uh applicants and developers.

Uh I know that uh state statutes also prevents impediment of any additional affordable housing uh by increasing fees, but um there's something wrong here when uh that valuation uh is not matched by uh the replacement uh either on-site mitigation or off-site mitigation.

Uh uh maybe it's a uh a staff exercise to bring something because we've had a six-fold in uh to city council's attention, because we've had a six-fold increase in the heritage tree removal uh fee.

Uh let's uh think about something, perhaps a six-fold increase in the NLU fee, or a six times uh increase in uh um replacement saplings uh required uh by uh developers and owners.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Shaking.

We have Andrea Walls.

Can you hear me okay?

We can.

Okay.

Um my name is Andrea Wald.

I'm co-founder of Community for Natural Place Surfaces.

I believe in doing everything we can to protect our environment and health.

Um I'm opposed to the plans to remove the heritage trees at 151 Calderon Avenue.

The city is putting a lot of effort and thought and undoubtedly money into a biodiversity and urban forest plan, which calls for adding trees for shade, heat mitigation, aiding of biodiversity and general environmental health.

Why on earth does it make sense to cut down healthy trees?

Trees are essential for absorbing CO2, mitigating heat, attracting wildlife to keep biodiversity thriving, and simply for beautification.

Cutting down any tree unless it's diseased and would pose a danger of falling down should be avoided at all costs.

I hope you will not approve the removal of the trees as suggested by the urban forestry board.

Thank you for your consideration.

The trees, nature, and our environment, thank you too.

Thank you, next we have Jonathan Crohn.

Jonathan.

Hi, yes, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, hi.

Uh, so good evening.

My name is Jonathan Crohn.

Um, I'm a psychiatric nurse.

I'm currently earning my doctorate as a psychiatric nurse practitioner at the University of San Francisco.

I also contributed financially to this appeal because I really do care deeply about these heritage trees and what they mean to our neighborhood.

And I've lived here for a few years with my family.

I also want to thank all the appellants and residents who've spoken tonight, and they've raised really good points about the environmental impact and as well as alternatives, as well as the disappointment many of us have felt the regarding the Avalon has kind of bypassed community and failed to communicate transparently.

So rather than repeat those arguments, I want to speak on my area of expertise, which is mental health.

So even if it may be a foregone conclusion that state law will override local ordinance, I still think it's important to speak about.

So actually, my pro my doctoral project focuses on how environmental features, things like natural light, greenery, and familiar outdoor views can reduce agitation and improve emotional well-being for residents in a memory care center.

And through my research, I've really seen how this really just applies to all of us, not just, you know, the this vulnerable population.

And these heritage trees bring really calm, lower stress, and create a sense of safety and belonging that supports mental health.

They're also, I will say, uniquely perfect for where they stand.

Their canopy shade nearly like every communal space we share, this small park, the basketball court, the mailboxes, the walkways where we gather.

And I've seen a lot of meaningful moments under their branches, like kids playing basketball, families resting in the shade, picnics, neighbors chatting.

And those simple human moments are really what make this neighborhood a true community.

It has been disheartening to see Avalon's lack of transparency and willingness and unwillingness to engage with residents who care deeply about this space.

And that silence has made this process feel kind of detached.

The opposite of what those trees have brought to this community for decades.

I don't know what the council can or can't do within the limits of state law, but I encourage you to do anything you can do to preserve these trees, or at least to protect what they represent.

And once they're gone, we lose more than shade or beauty.

We lose a living source of calm connection and community well-being that can't be replaced.

So yeah, thank you for listening and for considering not just the legal framework and the environmental framework, but the human and emotional impact of this decision.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Next we have Katie Freiburg.

Hi Katie.

Hello, hopefully you all can hear me.

My name is Katie Freiburg.

Um, I'm a lifelong resident of Mountain View, and I just want to echo others that are opposing the removal of the Heritage Trees.

I have a master's in urban and regional planning from UCLA, and I've worked closely with parks and rec teams before in various planning capacities throughout my career.

Um, according to a recent article from the Mountain View Voice, Mountain View has been losing heritage trees at an alarming rate.

The greenery integrated everywhere into our neighborhoods is what makes Mountain View such a great place to live in.

Urban green spaces are important for our physical and mental health, as other speakers have noted.

Um, and it's our responsibility to do what we can to advocate for the preservation of trees that provide critical ecosystem services, social and cultural benefits, as previous speakers have also emphasized.

I urge you to consider the case presented uh to you today in opposition of the tree removal and at least delay the approval process in order to investigate the several points of tension brought up today.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for your comment.

And next we have Raphini.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Great.

Yeah, um, I just wanted to echo everyone who spoke so eloquently today to protect these heritage trees.

Um, I'm not gonna repeat all the reasons they gave because there's a lot, and they're all that it's enough.

Um, it's enough reasons to save these trees.

What I want to say to our commissioners is um encourage you actually to vote to save these trees and see what happens.

This is our opponent, this is the opportunity for our city leadership to reflect the values of Mountain View residents.

We've seen these values um repeated over and over again in our uh parks and rec strategic plan, all the surveys that were done, our biodiversity plan.

We are continually hearing from residents that we want trees, we want green space, that's why we're living here.

And it's it's really at the job of our leadership to make sure that um Mountain View reflects the values of its residents.

So I know this is going to be a really hard decision.

I know there's a lot of legal gray area, um, but the way, as Bruce said, we should we should do something about this.

We should take this opportunity.

Um, you as commissioners are in a decision-making power, and you do have the right to vote.

Um, to not cut these trees down and then see what happens.

Maybe it goes to city council, maybe it goes back to staff to figure out what the really legal ramifications are.

But I think um we're there, and I think we should do it.

And that's the only thing chance we have to start putting putting some teeth in our into our heritage tree ordinance and reflecting, having our leadership reflect what the values are in Mountain View.

So I have spoken at a lot of uh these commission meetings before, and I've uh I've been usually very um appreciative of the stances that the parks and rec commissioners have taken.

Um, a lot of times you've bring in and brought up really great points.

You often uh make hard decisions that are often the right decisions for our community and for our environment.

Um, and so I have hope that um you will also take the right stand today.

So thank you so much for letting me speak, and thank you to the appellants who brought this before us.

Also, I'm a member of Green Spaces, and I live on Villa Street, which does all the way across town, but I see this happening everywhere in Mountain View.

And it's it's it's just that one.

It's time we set a precedent here to not just let developers do whatever they want in our city.

Thanks so much.

Thank you, Rashmi.

Well, that's the novel.

That includes the online public comment.

Okay.

Thanks to all that made eloquent comments on the round.

Staff will now have uh two additional minutes, and I I guess we'll give any staff member a wishing to speak to up to two minutes.

Uh, Russell, you want to kick it off?

Sure.

So I'll I'll just keep it sweet, um, or short and sweet.

Um, again, uh, having reviewed this one, this is one that typically um, you know, I don't think we would have reached similar conclusions if we weren't involved with state law or otherwise.

And so it's very unfortunate.

Not something that we necessarily liked doing, um, but felt we were obligated to do beyond that.

Um, I would just say our experiences with the applicant for this permit were similar to what the residents is that they just weren't very cooperative with trying to kind of sit down at the table, have conversations, etc.

I guess is the best way to put it.

So uh again, just unfortunate out of it.

We went through this whole process.

I'll leave it at that.

Thanks, Russell.

Um, any further comments from any of the other staff members or city attorney.

Okay.

Um the appellant now has each appellate has two minutes.

So if you'd like to start with further comments, um, I would like to thank everyone again that came together to talk today.

Um, it's been really nice to see the whole community come together.

Um, I really appreciate the comments about taking a stance.

Um clearly, this is a perversion of a law, and a corporation that is as large as Alhalon should not be benefiting from from being able to do this.

I would also like to push back on the fact that this might delay their ADU construction.

Apparently, they haven't even paid for things that would probably be required in order to build the ADU.

And if that's the case, then this decision here to delay or to deny would not necessarily delay the construction of the ADU per se.

Um, I'm not a lawyer, but that to me seems pretty spelled out that what you guys legally are not allowed to do is delay um the building, and if they haven't gone through, um, I really don't want to see this tree removal be approved, they remove the trees and then and then the geotechnical report comes in and they say, Oh wow, we can't actually build here.

Um, and so I'd like to plant that seed in your guys' head that this is not necessarily a delay of the building of the ADU, which is what the law says that you can't do.

So I still think that you have an opportunity to make a decision here, and it doesn't necessarily mean that we're gonna have to go to court or whatever because it hasn't even delayed yet.

Thank you.

Sorry.

I have three more seconds.

And if you guys end up going to court, I am happy to bring the community together again.

And whatever's needed to be done.

Thank you.

Yeah, I also just wanted to thank everyone for showing up and showing support.

Um, and I wanted to address some of the comments made by the city staff's legal representation.

We don't have any legal representation on our side, so we have to defer to you on whether or not how we need to interpret the state law.

And I agree with you that the state law does supersede the city code.

Um, but I've read the state law and you've left out some cute points in it.

You said that um you said that the state law requires minister ministerial approval without hearing, but it actually says that it requires ministerial approval without discretionary hearing.

And my understanding of the word discretionary is it means subjective.

So we can bring up objective factors to deny or delay the approval of ADUs.

Otherwise, this whole process wouldn't be pointless.

If if an ADU can be placed anywhere, then there's no, there's no sort of review or appeal process where we can actually argue.

Then it's not a real appeal, it's just we're just talking here.

Um, so I mean, yeah, I believe that the factors that we brought up already are we brought up several non-discretionary factors.

There was no geotechnical report made available in the city plan.

I don't know if there is one, and the state in the site plan, I don't know if there is one or two main point.

And I think a lot of the concerns made here are very valid about that.

And it's also non-discretionary that they don't have to build it right there.

They haven't submitted any reasoning for why they can't build uh actual apartment units instead of ADUs or different locations.

I wouldn't say that those are subjective.

Objectively, they do a study and find that it can't be built anywhere else for objective reasons, then yes, but otherwise it's not subjective.

Yeah, that's my point.

Thank you guys so much for the time.

And with that, I think it's down to the commission.

So we will now have mission comments and deliberation and actually a motion.

Do any commissioners wish to kick it off?

I think we're going to have an a long and interesting conversation, and I would love to do it off.

Are the other commissioners in agreement for a quick break?

Sure, sure.

We should have a break.

We're gonna take uh five minutes.

We will return at eight o'clock.

So, what's that?

Which is your phone?

Is that your pen?

Yeah.

So much for it's not really good.

How much did you change?

What time did you get here?

Yeah.

Since we have our webcast muted, can someone uh confirm the webcast that we are on all now?

Thank you.

Yes, for any volunteers, we should start.

So, I'm happy to start.

So, I have a comments about the process, about the keys, and then about the actual matter before this.

So let's start with the process.

So seeing that this is the ministerial process, the applicant applied for their building permit.

This is my understanding what we just said.

Applicant applied the first thing they do is they apply for building permit.

And so they have to you know comply with our submittal requirements, and they have to pay their fees, and then when the application is deemed complete for our submittal requirements, then it can proceed.

Um presumably now that now we're sort of in the interdepartmental review stage, which in most jurisdictions I have never gone through the building permit in Mountain View, it gets routed around to the various departments, it would go to forestry, it would go to the technical review.

I'm assuming Mountain Views is consultant would go to public works, it would go to everybody, right?

And everybody gets their chance to look at it.

Said, wait, there's some heritage trees here, we need to go through the process of gaining a permit to remove those, and so that's why we're here.

But there's also all these other departments reviewing all these other things, which most of them are technical, like none of us.

Well, okay, maybe some of you are a geotechnical engineer.

I'm not, you know, it's not the public's job to review, you know, whether the dirt is going to stand up.

Geotechnical engineers do that and they do calculations and it's math, and it's based on their technical training and their license, so it's not ordinary for a project to be for, you know, any public body with technical matters like geotych review.

Um, but I will admit it's very confusing.

We're at a very confusing place in the process, and um, you know, this is all kind of new, and so it's still being figured out.

Um, you know, the from what the city attorneys have said, it's clear that the ADU ordinance is the only way local regulation that the city can enforce in this case, and that really doesn't have anything to do with the heritage tree ordinance, although I will say that I 100% think that an objective design standard objective standard could be inserted into the ADU ordinance applying to tree removal.

That it is completely objective that if a tree were removed that it shall be replaced with two.

That does not require anybody to exercise any discretion.

It's a fact.

If a tree is removed, replace it with two.

And so uh the fact that this is all new and we're sort of now sorting out the intersection between these multiple things.

I think that I would certainly like to see us go back to that ADU ordinance and um rectify things.

Um, you know, I do think that the it's wonderful that the public has been given the opportunity to state their opinions.

However, it's got to be extremely frustrating to feel as if it's a feudal exercise, and so you know, the concept with ministerial is that the you know the implications have already been dealt with to the point that a building official can implement a building code, but you know, clearly this has you know, this matter has arisen that's way above that.

Um now on to the fees.

It it really does seem to me that if more than one person feels under the heritage treaty ordinance that they should receive a refund, it's just not fair that, particularly now that the um fee has gone up substantially, which I can sort of understand why it went up because we were having all, you know, there was the potential anyway to have almost frivolous appeals.

Um, and this the higher fee kind of takes that out of um contention, but it it now is a fairly high figure, and when it just doesn't seem fair to me that we should collect more, double that if two people are could even be three or you know, more than two could have peeled.

So that's my opinion on the fees, and then the matter before us, um, you know, I appreciate all the comments and input, and clearly some of those are being driven by the fact that the apartment owner operator is not being very responsive to their tenants, and that really doesn't have anything to do with the city.

Um in general, I feel it's critical and critically important to build more housing, even accessory dwelling units, which are some of those, you know, nice naturally affordable because they're smaller type of housing, and you know, I do so that's the high level view though.

Now we're getting into the details, and here in this case, I think I'd I do feel supportive of um supporting staff's decision and denying the peel.

Um, but I will say that we may not be able to delay or deny the ADU application, but we should be able to mitigate the tree removal with clearly clear conditions of approval that we have already stated on the application, which is to um plant two trees for every remove every tree removed, and that is that should be determined by the director with the assistance of the city's arborist, so um for it further again requiring the tree protection standards, and I think there's another condition of approval that has been raised a couple times by our um public input, which is the timing.

I don't I don't see this tree removal permit as being a free standing permission to remove the trees, it needs to be associated with the building permit ordinarily that tree removal, you know, once the board or staff um you know approves it, it they could go cut the trees down.

I I don't think that I think it should be in the context of the whole building permit and not be freestanding where they could go act upon it, it needs to be tied up with it, and so I don't, you know, that's something a little bit different than what our heritage trees heritage tree ordinance says.

But to me, in that concept of we're in the um interdepartment review phase, you know, this is basically the conditions that are gonna be coming from the forestry department.

Tree shall not be removed until whatever.

I mean, to me, it we should wait till they are ready to construct them, not just do it once they receive their building permit.

I don't know, maybe there's no place for that.

Maybe they maybe link to some inspection that's ordinarily in the building ordinance, but I'll let you guys all figure that out.

So those are my comments.

Um, some of the speakers, um, I don't know if Katie Freyberg you're still on, but the park and rec commission has an opening.

I think Jonathan was gonna talk about that later in the meeting, but um thank you everybody for your thoughtful comments.

That's all I have.

Would you like to go?

Yes, uh, and I will I was going to uh show you some photographs that I took from of the crake, and I've had technical problems.

I can't do that, but uh Rebecca has uh has photographs that are almost the same as the ones I took.

Um, not this one.

If you can just scroll through some more and a little more.

Okay, that'll that'll be great.

Um so um let that just stay there while I find uh my comments.

So um to me, the fact that the that no representative of Avalon Bay is here, uh shows an interpretation of the California law that we're talking about as um, a developer can just point a finger at any parcel and say, I will take all these trees out because I'm putting in ADUs, uh, which is to me really completely shocking.

That um there is no, our ordinances don't mean anything, and because they're putting in ADUs, um, they can do whatever they want.

And when I was on council, I got off council of 2014, and Avalon Bay was actually, or whoever owned the property at the time, was actually talking about really densifying the whole property.

So, this is a project that has been there for what it's 10 years now, probably more than 10 years.

So I don't have a strong sense of urgency here that this project is ready to move now.

Um, so there is that.

Um, what Commissioner Summer was mentioning about the the building permits for me.

What when I looked when I looked that this is what one sees from the other side of the creek, the fence is like a foot, two feet away, and then that's where the ADUs are going to be.

So I went to the site to look at the at the trees with the sense that staff says we have to accept this, and then I looked over the fence and I said, My god, this is this looks to me very risky.

Okay, so while I love trees, I want to protect every tree.

This looks like a danger to me.

And so I'm happy to hear from the city attorney that the building permit will not happen without the geotechnical analysis and everything else, which I hope I hope that's part of the ADU process, as far as I try to learn a little about what the process is, and at least in San Jose, they seem to look at at flood risks and soil conditions and all the rest.

Like Commissioner Summer said, these trees don't go out until the process is completed, and not we'll take the trees out, and then they can dump the prefabs in place.

So that seems to me not much to ask.

Um in looking at the uh the proposed resolution that staff has suggested that we accept.

Um if California law obliges us to say, take out those trees, this does not fit under our heritage tree ordinance, and I'll tell you why I don't think it fits.

Um criteria for removal, the necessity of the removal of the heritage tree in order to construct improvements, and or allow reasonable and conforming use of the property when compared to other similarly situated properties.

So the Davy report describes the area as mostly flat.

Two feet over, there is a precipitous fall, and we all know that those banks are crumbling.

They're crumbling year by year.

You can see here the tree roots are holding the wall of the creek up.

We talked with staff years ago about is there anything we can do?

And it was like no.

So for me, a um a similarly situated property is all the properties along the Stevens Creek trail along the Stevens Creek.

And if we if a developer came and said we want to build something here and we want to build it two feet from the fence to the creek, that those are the properties we need to compare it to.

Not just a flat property somewhere in the middle of town.

So to me, this completely doesn't fall under our uh reasonable and conforming use of the property.

That's one.

Then we have balancing criteria, and as part of our balancing criteria, we are supposed to look at the topography of land and effect of the requested removal on erosion, soil retention, water retention, and diversion or increased flow of surfaces.

So this is a topography of the lab.

That you look at that, and that's not where um where you take out the tree.

And B, the effect of the requested removal on the remaining number of species size and location of existing trees on the site and in the area.

And in the Davy report, they said that tree is fine, no problem.

They're not requesting to take it out.

It's good.

When you look, so for one thing, the tree really overhangs the court, and I am sure if they put ADUs in there really, really close to the fence, by the way, two feet from the fence, they will have to prune some of that uh some of that tree.

Okay.

Now that tree, uh, Rebecca doesn't have it here.

I took a photograph, but obviously they didn't manage to uh to send it to staff.

Um that tree is completely holding up the wall of the wall of the creek.

If that tree has a major limb lock from it, that's the end of the tree.

So taking out the trees, pruning what remains, is uh is not something that falls within what we can allow under our ordinance.

So if we proceed with the with um rejecting the uh the approval or rejecting the appeal, I'm sorry, there is no way I would vote for saying that.

Um that um where is it?

That our that we we our code says it's okay to take out those trees.

If if, and I'm not saying I will, but if I voted for any resolution to deny the appeal, it would be a resolution that said California law forces out to forces out to give the permit, period.

Now, whether we want to go in that direction of even doing that is something else, but our tree ordinance does not support taking out those things.

All right, that's all I have to say right now.

Thank you for there's also your slide.

Okay.

Sure.

So I'm, you know, first of all, I I want to thank the applicants.

Um, you know, very comprehensive, well spoken um comments.

Um, I also appreciate the city attorney for sort of allowing these appeals to go or explaining the reasoning behind allowing the appeals to go through.

And I certainly hope that that there's a refund of some part just because it was the fees are based on recovery of cost to some extent, but you don't anticipate two of them, and then also if there's really not a true chance for the appeal to be successful, that's a separate issue anyway.

I hope I hope that there's um some kind of a refund.

You know, unfortunately for me, you know, it just doesn't appear from my perspective that BRC really has much latitude on this appeal.

Um I would say that you know, had it been legally permissible, I would absolutely have been supportive of the city working with the developer to identify alternate locations on the site for ADUs, and I probably would have um lean towards upholding the appeals.

Um, you know, my obviously, you know, we get lots of letters.

My primary concern is with preserving these trees for all the regular biodiversity and green space reasons, um, but also the these trees in this area, you know, provide a really serene shaded park area, um, that enhances the the to me the value of that um property for the residents of 151 Calderon.

Um I also share the concerns with the proximity of the ADUs to Stevens Creek and its steep banks and any environmental issues that um are related to that, and I I hope that that gets um thoroughly reviewed with uh any permitting that happens.

Um as an aside, uh I thought that the Arborist report, just in my opinion, excessively downgraded the condition of the trees.

I think that many of them to me seem in better condition than fair.

I I thought some of them were pretty nice.

Um I also wondered similar to to that, you know, whether you know it's a strategic move to sort of position this growth as ADUs and sort of get the cover um that comes with that rather than calling this an expansion of apartments or something like that that wouldn't have gotten the uh protection uh that that ADUs that ADUs got.

Um so uh at the end of the day though, unfortunately, you know, in for me if if the ruling in favor of the appellants could be det could be deemed as knowingly disregarding state law and creating unnecessary delays for the permit application, and it could possibly subject city and the urban forestry board to legal liability or other consequences, you know, that would not be a step that I'd be comfortable taking in this case.

So I would be um on the side of denying the appeal for legal reasons and upholding the city decision.

Um I also agree with the comments that were made um regarding the timing of the tree removals.

I absolutely don't want to repeat.

If we can, you know, again, I don't know what falls in our bucket and what doesn't on the on this one.

Um, but I I wouldn't want to repeat of the that uh Google uh thing where all the trees were removed and the development didn't happen.

So I to the extent that we could, and if this um appeal is denied, then I would certainly hope that we could tie the timing of the tree removal with either you know the approval of the project or the commencement of construction or or something like that.

That's um, I'll start.

That was gonna be my last point, but I'll while you just said it, I I feel the same way.

I I any way we can protect the trees until they have to go if that is the decision is is imperative, you know.

Um, and I'll uh the reason some of the reasons I say I'm I'm kind of emotional about this one, to be perfectly honest.

Um first of all, I want to thank all the input.

Outstanding, outstanding presentations, all the emails we got because we've got significant and re I I read through every single one of them, and I appreciate all the input that was provided, and uh it's refreshing to see that kind of input.

We don't always see input on things that uh, you know, whether it be the biodiversity plan, although we did get input there, but I mean, some of the things we we deal with, we don't get this kind of really good input.

So thank you so much.

I appreciate that.

Um, one of the emails we that I read, and and it was expressed here too, that the removal of the trees are actually the whole what I call a park, uh, is counter to what we're trying to promote through the pending biodiversity plan.

And granted, it hasn't been approved by city council yet.

But I mean, though the things that aren't going to, the only things that could be changed are minor details in that.

That's going, that's going to go forward.

I think otherwise we wouldn't have even taken it on, you know, two, three years ago.

Um, and this is just a wonderful piece of property.

When I visited illegally, I guess, because I went on primary property.

Um, I there were some people in in the park.

Well, there was a lady reading uh on a picnic table.

There were two people walking their dogs, and and I'm not even sure they all lived there.

They might have been in the neighboring places, but wonderful people that appreciated this and and realized, you know, just from a standpoint of being in uh a former physical education person and coach, the basketball court and the tennis courts are great, you know, and and I guess they're gonna be kept in some way, but the greenery around it adds to that, and the trees around it add to the the provide shade for those areas for those people, and and and two of the people I I guess you'd say interviewed or just asked questions politely while I was uh going there illegally.

Um I said, what do you think?

And they said, you know, we really really love this area, but we also understand that we don't have a lot of say in it in the fact that what a corporation is deciding uh with regards to this and taking advantage of a state law.

Um so bottom line, it's a precious in my emotional part, it's a precious open space for this community, the community that you all live in, and uh uh and as well as what Commissioner Mitchell said, the trees are in great shape.

I, you know, I I respect Davy Tree and what they, you know, and they can probably see more than I can see, but I I just they're they're the sycamores are gorgeous, you know, and uh I don't know that we have that many sycamores that are that mature around the city, and it is a protected species within our city, although I'm hoping I'm using the right term, the sycamores.

Um I echo what many of our speakers are saying, I'm disappointed I am with Avalon, you know, and that uh, you know, whether it's finding other places on the property, uh, or whether it's you know, just realizing how valuable that piece of property is to the people that are living there right now.

So my disappointment with them.

And although I feel incredibly uncomfortable about the situation, uh I'm happy that this meeting did provide a forum for the residents there and other people in Mountain View to look at and say, you know, guard, you know, uh we're in a tough situation here.

And the fact that, yeah, we need housing, and I think it's one of the things we talked about, or at least I remember several of us talking about it in the biodiversity uh discussion was weighing the the mandate by the state on the city of Mountain View to come up with more housing at the expense of eliminating open space, and it's just a real dilemma that the city council's facing, and then it extends to us as commissioners as we try to promote biodiversity and more trees, more open space, trying to find places uh, you know, for more open space.

So I that's what's all emotional I'm coming out emotionally.

But like Commissioner Missioner Michel also said, we're facing a law that had that was pushed through with the intent being as some of you have said, was for like backyard units, but the people that pushed the law through were also lobbyists that saw the opportunity to have things like this happen throughout the state.

And so I I'm I'm I'm just I'm crushed but I understand that we are subject to state law as well.

And so um I don't know what the motion will be but um I if if indeed it's one to support staff I I do agree with commissioner um now I'm going blank because I'm emotional but what was said earlier about uh Commissioner Bryant with regards to that one statement at the uh that the second to last paragraph of the the thing about and meets criteria for removal under Mountain Stewart City Code 32.35 I'd like to see that that that crossed out because had this been to us as just city code there was no way I would support that res if that makes sense I would I would say that it I I would try to find everywhere that it didn't meet City Cody it's only by state law that I would that I would support the motion any motion that is made if that makes sense to everybody again I'm being emotional.

So thanks for the time.

Thank you for your comments and uh I uh I think I hear in the two commissioners on this end basically a uh great regret the likelihood of supporting the uh staff activation and I've already told the city attorney I'm gonna abstain from that because that I know John thinks I uh exist to antagonize staff but uh it's really not that you know I I came to this position to be an advocate for the urban forest and green space and canopy and every time I've been interviewed by council I made it clear what my uh my role in my position would be here and you know what the city and its residents are embarking on an incredible journey with the biodiversity plan to recast the perception and the policies around our environment and and it's a remarkable undertaking and it's the outcome of this is you know trees are not an amenity they're not a decoration they're not um a visual uh appendage they're vital infrastructure in our city and um I'm gonna stop there for a second and say you know this I share the frustration that everybody has here um I also have the utmost respect for the city attorneys and they're doing exactly what they're supposed to do they're interpreting the law um like lawyers do and they're doing a good job at it and so I don't want to antagonize them either um but it seems that you know the the city's adamant the inability to influence these ADU things and I and I I feel very strongly I guess what I feel is this does have to bounce back up to city council.

I don't think I don't think at the end of the day we'll probably move the needle on this one but the city council's got to get engaged and probably with other communities and appealing to our state senators and assembly people and really addressing this issue of how the ADU laws have deviated from their rightful original purpose and turned into a cash machine for developers um what I will say is I have a motion prepared for the subordinate issue of um of immediately updating the heritage tree ordinance.

So I I could read to you kind of what I'm thinking and get any uh reaction to that, but that's not the um the uh motion under consideration uh in the staff report so I don't know if someone wants to uh make a motion or take action or have further discussion I'm sorry at this point we we're unable to take further I guess uh I would have a question for the attorneys um in terms of whether if we were to take the I don't I don't have the actual right that's the but if we were to tweak it um for Commissioner Bryant's um suggestion that really the reason that this is being um denied solely due to state law is due to state law is is that something that city attorneys would be comfortable with this is Jennifer I'll I'll speak to that we can we can definitely modify the vote was right make it short and safe saying that the Sonic California law if the appeal is denied thank you and it was due to California state law I'm sorry.

Yeah that seems appropriate since we aren't really we need to do the heritage tree order at all.

Do you want to discuss that now I want to ask um what if we all abstained what would happen then I mean this is nothing to do with us as a board.

Why do we have to be a robust stamp here?

What if we all abstain um okay I'm gonna give you the difficult explanation part of your duty under the code is to is to serve in this role as the hearing appeals board and that is a different role than the role that you serve when you are legislating and considering policy in the biodiversity plan you are sitting as a quasi judicial body and there are instances when the city council sits at the quasi judicial body as well and you have a different role and responsibility as a quasi judicial body you are you are acting like a court of appeals and you know it's it's I I understood there was going to be an ex abstention and I actually try to do some research on whether or not that's really appropriate when you're sitting in the quasi judicial body role because if you think of it as if a situation where you've got a case in court you know you went to the trial court you lost a trial court you go up to the appeals and we've got a court of appeal we've got three or five judges sitting there and you're you're you're arguing your case and they sit there and they say we're just not gonna decide I mean that the judicial system like I said this is about due process.

This is about an opportunity to be heard um by both sides this is about application of a lot of the facts and it's a tough role it's a really tough role and I completely understand it.

If you all abstain um I think status quo remains I think it's it's a bit of a problem because there's no final decision so you're also sort of depriving the appellants the right to petition to the superior court if they want to they need a final decision in order to do that.

I mean they could probably argue that this was akin to a final decision or they can they could go to the court and ask the court to order you to rule that's another possibility one or both sides could petition the superior court and say just issue an order to the board directing the board to rule and courts will do that because you have a duty to rule because the court literally can't the higher court the superior court can't make a decision until you decide and you can't stop the process and so a superior court would direct you to rule if it's challenged so you're in a really tough situation.

Look the uh section 32.31 appeals uh item d says the decisions of the urban forestry board and city council shall be final they are so if we abstain it bounces to the city council no so you get appeals that are non-development that so what does the code say Diana it it has to do with there's some pie some appeals go to city council some come to you if one comes to you your decision is final after you speak it goes to superior court if it's the if it's the type of appeal that goes to city council they sit as a quasi-judicial body their vision is final and it goes to superior court from them but you have jurisdiction over this particular appeal under the code.

You're saying city council doesn't have the authority to override the no we are not forestry board and city council because they're talking about the instances where they need to develop the if it's a development project which is decided by the planning department it would go to the city council if it were appealed that's also one of the options that the ordinance talks about this is the non-development right but it is kind of development down to me.

Yeah it was it and that's the thing it is strange because it's not a development project that would go to council right it's ministerial so it's decided at the staff level so this tree permit alone whereas in development projects the tree permit the development project the the all of the building application everything goes to city council together right and in this case staff decides the building permit you get the burden of handling the appeal for the tree we have no option in saying that the meeting's pointless not pointless it's a procedure it's a process it's difficult i i it's difficult but i think it is important that everyone got heard and i i i heard um all the speakers and i i heard the passion behind the difficulty and polling was appeal together but imagine if they had done all of that work paid the fee and then I made the decision that you can't go forward sorry you're gonna lose and I cut them off at the knees that's why they're here they get to be heard and it is motivating all of you to make comments and hopefully spur change I I mean I I understand we would I do have something else I want to I might have interrupted Commissioner I I just want to thank the appellants one more time because if you had not appealed we would not have heard about this so I think it really wrong to have had you pay the source the fee but thank you for uh let me just one short question now we we are all I think concerned about the trees being taken out before the process being completed what could we do to ensure that unless the the billing permit is issued those trees do not come out if I may John Marshawn community services director it is my understanding that the um project is complete as far as the necessary documentation this is one of the last pieces that needs to be complete they're actually waiting on us to get through this process and so I can tell you that we will make sure that all of that is complete before that the hermit is finalized.

So at the risk of repeating myself, but I'm not really worried about repeating myself uh um I'm not passing any assertions and stuff in any way.

I think you looked at the trees with the knowledge that you would have to approve whatever it is because of state law.

That you didn't do the kind of analysis and thinking and worrying that you would do the regular heritage tree removal because you knew that really we have no options in the matter.

Now what I'm wondering is the building permits, did they do the the geotechnical analysis or were they just going along with this is an ADU and we have to approve it, period?

I'll just point out that in the ADU submittal checklist, there are a number of some mill requirements.

Not a bit, nobody in this room seems to really know what the building department has reviewed, but one of those is a soil geotechnical report.

There's also require a whole bunch of other requirements that are added if they're within one of the FEMA flood zones, which if they're two feet from the bank, they're gonna be so they would have had to submit a bunch of stuff about that.

So I mean, look at it, it's like five pages of smells that they have to do for a ministerial application.

I mean, do you want to read it?

They have to do that.

No, I have to do it.

You know, all this grading and drainage in the C3C6, even though they're below 5,000 square feet, they still have to meet the C3C6 requirements, which are extensive.

It's a five that alone is a five-page form that a civil engineer has to do.

So there's building permit applications are grueling, it's really hard to get a building permit anywhere just so everybody's on the same page with that.

And you are working within the purview is the urban forestry board tonight.

Okay, can I bring up something that we didn't talk about?

Sure.

I know this is probably in the black hole of history, but when the Eaves project was approved, I'm assuming at some point they had to meet our parkland dedication requirements.

And was this space how they met it, or did they pay a fee?

Because if they're building on something that met their parkland dedication requirement, that's a problem.

Based on the ordinance at the time, that would not have been feasible if they received credit for that land dedication, it would have become city land.

And because it is not, I can state that it is private land and it and it was not designated as public.

We're calling it a park, but it's an amenity, it's not a park.

So I just want to put in another plug for us to not give up on creating additional objective design standards.

This is how we are going, we are not going to overthrow these laws.

We need to work harder and not give up on objective design standards that you know apply to urban forest things, um, you know, like just thinking about the building code, like you know, loot the hoops that people have to jump through, like special inspection, like when you're doweling from one concrete slab to another, there's a special inspection requirement.

They have to hire a structural engineer to watch them build that.

Yeah, we can't have something in there to allow us to build trees to add trees.

Those are as much about health safety and welfare as the city needs to do it it's time to do it it should be on that list of accessory dwelling unit standards for multifamily I'm looking at the city's website I'm sure state law you know has some stuff about it but I think we can add that to our design standards and we should it's it and it's not just for ADUs it's for all the other stuff that that um they these you know 100 state laws apply to so that's my pitch um you know I think we should act tonight all of us there's no reason to abstain Jonathan unless you have a conflict of interest how how is your interest in that going to advance it'll die here no it can't we're gonna we're gonna show up at the city council meeting and and so is Bill and all the rest of you till they get their act together and develop I mean I guarantee every city in the state is trying to figure this out you know objective design standards for you know to require tree replacement to the I mean what's so weird is usually when the project is before building official it would have gone through CEQA it would have gone through a whole bunch of you know review that is considered discretionary so by granting this ministerial review you there's a whole lot of things that have not been considered but we could we can add those to our codes we can yeah well they just aren't in there now it's a learning experience is why we should approve it not because we love it.

Yeah I think it's below the awareness level of city council and will remain there until they're forced through extraordinary action to confront it.

I mean the the if you look at some of those projects before the planning commission that are site redevelopments oh my god the number of trees coming out on those oh yeah where's all the peels on those this is just eight ADUs on a little area we got full sites with every tree removed and and yeah we need to build the housing but what about replacing the trees so yeah there's a lot stuff to deal with here and it's not going to be solved tonight by us talking more.

So we have both a parks and open space strategic plan and the biodiversity plan and that's what those requirements should go with.

As of that's what I was hoping.

And to stay a strategy and then they'll be outside in law if they're gonna have the weight of so they yeah.

I did want to discuss another motion and uh so I hear what you're saying.

And that's a it'd be a motion to request city staff to take to council a specific plan to immediately update the heritage tree ordinance to account for removals associated with PDU permits.

And include the revision processes that include the city from taking fees from citizens for appeals that are clearly not viable and that the city interprets it as conflicting with state law.

I I'm sorry that and maybe I heard in the hallways that we're looking at ways to refund some of the fees but I think it's uh it's a real disservice to the citizens to even allow them to pay the fees and file the the appeals if there's no way that it's viable so um I would like that to go the city council in a form of a pretty quick heritage tree ordinance revision.

I guess one concern I I would have with that is is doing piecemeal revisions to the heritage tree policy.

I think that that needs to be a comprehensive discussion at at some point and I I don't know that I would you would support it.

Yeah I mean maybe you can have comments and people can take notes and but yeah I just okay.

Go ahead.

Well, the other thing is that we're that's unrelated to this matter and it's not really on agenda for the fundamentally related to but well, I like it though, and one thing that I've never seen this group do is agendize something ourselves.

We can completely agendize something that wouldn't it wouldn't be staff supported, or just be an agenda is a discussion item.

Maybe maybe it has a we totally can agendize things from mission, sure.

I mean, yes.

So just so you are aware, as Burr and I were have been talking over the last couple of days, we recognize the need to do an update to the code, um, especially following this example, and then in speaking with staff and um preparing to come back with the um biodiversity urban forest plan, that is one of the the primary actions that they are interested in taking on as well.

So hopefully that gives you some sense of the urgency that we see in looking at this and bringing it to you and then to city council.

Yeah, and the reason I've articulated that motion as a request that staff so you can do it what you want, but that we're on the record as requesting it at the same time.

I'm not sure it's necessary given the work that we're looking to do.

Not be necessary, but I'm not sure how to recruit all happen.

But I hear it.

Anyway, um I think I hear interest in advancing a motion, including the meeting.

So does anyone want to make a motion?

So I don't want to make a motion yet, but I think this is at least two of us who uh are agreed that the paragraph in the resolution that starts with further resolve, um it the removal of the heritage trees is consistent with state housing law prohibiting local agencies from delaying or denying permits for the construction for ADUs, and I would take out the meets the criteria for removal under Mountain U City Code Section 32.35 A2.

Uh, it does.

So that a motion.

No, I I wanted to ask the slogan who said that it would be fine to make it short and sweet and just say we're being forced to do it by California law, and uh I'd like at least our residents to know that we are being forced to do this.

Unfortunately, it will say to developers, do whatever you want, but at least our residents should know that this is not what we want to be doing.

So if you have uh if legal side of the room has suggestions for how we could make this quite crystal clear, I would very much appreciate that.

I think it'd be acceptable to remove that section you just mentioned.

And perhaps it could say the urban forestry board find the determinants that the removal of the heritage heritage trees is required by state housing law prohibiting which prohibits local agencies from delaying or denying permits or the construction of ADUs.

So it that works as resolved by the urban forestry board of the city from Mountain View, that the heritage tree removal permit appeal is hereby denied, and the heritage trees may be removed pursuant to state law.

Do we need to say the heritage tree removal permit, whatever that may mean?

Well, there is a heritage tree rule permit, but the second one, the further resolve, that's where we would we can remove the last part of the sentence, and then instead of saying that the removal is consistent, we can say the removal is required by state housing law.

Well, I don't actually believe that it was not required, it doesn't say you must remove trees, that's not factual.

So we say, are you saying we should just say no?

No, I'm saying that it's consistent with the state law.

I think that can the word consistent is probably the uh I guess our legal is it.

What if we say instead of removal of the sorry, can everybody hear me okay?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

What if we say instead of removal of the heritage trees, just say issuance of a heritage tree permit?

Yeah, because you're not you know what I mean.

I I don't think anyone I understand no one's comfortable saying please go ahead and remove the trees, but I just think that issuance of the if you say issuance of the heritage tree permit is consistent with state housing law.

Is that better?

Yeah, I'd be much happier with working in lawyers.

And you could also scratch the sentence.

I think in the first result, it says by the urban forestry board and say uh Mountain with a Heritage Tree removal permit appeal is thereby denied and stop there instead of saying and the heritage trees may be removed.

I just I think if you just deny the appeal, the permit that has been issued spans, so you don't have to be on the record saying go ahead and remove the trees if that makes you uncomfortable.

Yes, why consistent rather than require required as much story?

Yes, but the state law doesn't require the removal of the trees.

The state law requires the city not to delay or deny, and state law doesn't.

Well, I mean, at least as it's an extra.

It doesn't require issuance of the heritage tree permit.

It requires issuance of a development permit or a building ADU permit.

No, it requires a ministerial level of review, not any kind of public hearings or anything like that.

But state law doesn't say anything about heritage trees.

No, it says nothing, yeah.

So I would say issuance of a permit.

I would take heritage tree out.

Well, she's that's our only purview is the issuance of the permit.

We aren't the building official approving a building permit and the other permits that are associated with this, which there are probably some consistent really implies that we have a choice of the matter, and I don't see that we have a choice in the matter.

So okay.

Other words, that's not required.

Uh should we be here to be required in order to remain consistent with state law?

It required in order to comply with state law.

Yes, yes.

How about that?

Yeah, do why it stands?

Well, the uh resolution drafting.

That sounds like we're sort of doing it in a rest.

I think I think we are doing it.

You wanted it to sound like that.

Yes, absolutely.

I I move that we go with that.

All right, I'll second it.

Okay.

Um, we have the motion and the second motion from Commissioner Filio, second from Commissioner Summer.

And can we repeat the motion?

It is to approve this resolution.

Just to approve it, as amended tonight.

Okay, okay, Commissioner Bryant.

Yes.

Commissioner Felios, yes, Commissioner Summer, yes, Vice Chairman.

Chair Davis.

Uh yes, with a gun to my head, you know.

That was the yes, right?

That was the good.

So that's uh on to our next question.

Thank you, all the participants.

It's a really difficult conversation.

City attorney's right.

It is brought with the motion, but it's also brought with a lot of very complex legal uh and environmental considerations.

So really, really applaud your uh citizen activism and your time here today.

Uh we're gonna move on to item 5.2 if I can find my uh agenda.

And this is to let everyone we're gonna take a two-minute break from the room.

I don't know why you wouldn't be interested in it.

Thank you.

Please don't check out a lot of that.

So, thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

So Jonathan, I want to see your talking point.

Well, I think when you do it, I think they need to fix that.

I'm gonna do a move by ordinance stuff and I'll be advised if I see it within a year.

Are we ready for the next item?

In the meantime, yeah, we need to be for the one thing.

Bring the meeting back to order and it moves director Marchant.

Thank you once again.

Uh so for this agenda item.

This is a review of the upcoming 2026 calendar year uh parks and recreation commission meeting schedule.

Um, these are the list of the regularly scheduled meeting dates as typical January is an outlier in which we are um looking at the third Wednesday of the month.

We have done that over the last several years to give staff time to get back from the holidays and be prepared to come before you.

And then in addition to that, we are making a recommendation to move the regular meeting start time from what has been 7 p.m.

to 6 p.m.

Um, and that is due to getting an earlier start.

Uh number one, number two, that members of the community are now able to join us virtually as long as our technology works.

And um, and actually there is new uh another state law that is I just became aware that all um advisory bodies within uh local jurisdictions will be required to offer virtual meetings.

We have been doing this because we have chosen to do so.

Um so it's a good thing that we were ahead of the game.

Um there are still some um commissions committees that are not um virtual within our own organization, so we're working to meet that um mandate as well.

So uh with that, uh that is the end of the staff's presentation and happy to answer questions.

Um I have a question.

So I see on November 11th is when is Veterans Day in 2026?

Isn't it the 11th?

But it was always the 11th.

You are correct.

So we wouldn't be able to do it that day, isn't that a holiday for the city?

Yes, yeah, which is good.

What date would you we should just propose something in this meeting and be done with it, right?

Correct.

I'm just laughing because I think in my entire career this hasn't happened.

That's usually on a Monday.

It's one of the federal holidays.

Yeah, it doesn't usually fall on a Wednesday.

So we can push that similarly to what we do in January, we can push it to the following week on the 18th.

Okay.

Is that good?

Yeah, yes, Alison.

Yes, because Thanksgiving's the following week.

Okay.

I wouldn't remember it, but since it's October, I guess.

Maybe you just want to make sure there aren't any other advice for coming in.

You need a motion to approve.

From what it says in the give Alison one more moment.

She's checking one other.

I just want to see if anyone calendar meets on the see if the public is okay with you.

Yeah.

I'm sure also.

But are there any members of the public that wish to address the calendar issue?

No.

Can we have one by six?

Um is there anyone online?

Um looking for the public.

No.

Nobody on the first season.

Um does the EPC me on the third line state.

Yes.

Does it need to be out of line?

Tuesday could be council potentially.

Oh, that's true.

Could we suggest the fourth and then with the caveat that we can confirm that there are no other complex and fourth?

So wouldn't that put it in the week of Thanksgiving?

You mean the fourth of November?

Yeah.

Like the fourth of fourth of November, I think.

Yeah, before that.

Okay.

So are we uh look to be either one or the other?

Is that what you're suggesting?

Fourth, that's not election day, is it?

No, it says election day is the third.

Yeah.

Um so November 4th is what I'm hearing as a suggested change, and then if there's any discussion or questions regarding the 6 p.m.

happy to answer any questions.

I'm sorry, does this item uh call for vote?

Yes, yes.

Uh so first uh commission comments.

Alright, so which other bodies start at six?

Everybody or I believe the only one that still starts at seven is EPC.

A couple start earlier, we get five or um four even.

I think the city council based on item start as early as five thirty.

It's really hard to eat dinner at every.

I mean, our meetings are long, so is the council.

What do they do?

Yeah, see that's the thing.

Uh, looks like the board of trustees is still 7 p.m., but the rest are earlier.

I'm fine with it.

I I eat after the meetings and so I'll eat it an hour earlier.

So anyway, but you're right, irrespective that as long as the public is okay with it if it if it helps staff get home earlier, I'm fine with the six o'clock start.

Yeah, in that respect I am.

I just fine.

I I just I agree.

Joe, with regards to the six, if it makes us as a when I say us, our body to work more efficiently, I think that that's a great idea.

Cause I I think we sometimes lose it a little bit when we have the long ones and where it's 11 o'clock.

And uh it this allows for, you know, just looking at what your agenda might be next year.

It I would give it a try because some of those agenda items could be long.

So that's what I'd recommend.

I don't I won't be with you other in spirit and probably not, you know.

But will you chime in at six?

Oh no, yeah yes.

Yeah, it's absolutely Sandy.

Did you were you checking with this?

No, I I didn't looked at this.

I thought I went to orders.

Okay, we have a motion.

Did we do we ask for public comment on it?

Yeah it's okay.

It might have been before six o'clock you can open back up for yeah I will once again ask if there's any public comment to the proposed meeting schedule with meetings occurring at six o'clock with the revision of the November meeting occurring on the fourth uh there's nobody online so I think we've I moved it we uh um approved the proposed uh agenda as amended with meetings starting six o'clock second that's good enough for you we can have a vote okay commissioner Bryant yes commissioner feelious yes vice chairman yes and chair davis yes probably great um staff announcements uh this is a special meeting so I don't have a lot of um updates other than this last Saturday um multiple divisions within community services not only recreation is the lead but also um uh shoreline provided ranger services uh for set up the day before and kind of kept on thing uh eyes on things overnight as staff set up um and then the performing arts um staff came to ring storf to support the monster bash event um with the the sound our park staff obviously got the park ready set up the the stage so really all hands on deck to make the community event happen and take place and it was a huge success just we weren't sure how it was gonna be with a little overcast a little sprinkle but uh the the community turned out and it was great so a wonderful event and we look forward to the next one for tree light and I have one announcement at the behest of the city clerk um to tell everybody remind everybody that the city is recruiting applicants for appointments to the parks and recreation commission as well as some other of the commission bodies applications are due at 5 p.m on November 6th so if anybody has um any friends or neighbors that you think would be interested in the parks and rec commission have them get an application that's a conflict oh sorry uh any other comments from commissioners um I was actually hoping Russell would still be here but but Brenda's here um an a bunch of trees on Astro just across from the train station they all died and that's like a little city property that the uh cafe there is using and I am very much hoping that you guys plant an oak tree there because it really needs a large canopy tree and so um I hope that's happening we're doing some improvements to that whole um we're repaving that area the restaurant has kind of led out a little bit so we're reclaiming that space and we're gonna make it a nice a nice area with um some mitigated trees and and some seating and things and I had assumed that this was public property that the restaurant had been allowed to use in view with with the public being allowed there but I'm I'm just hoping for a large canopy tree to kind of be a statement at the entrance to Mountain View because like on California Avenue in Palo Alto they have this island very close to the train tracks where they have a lot of trees and it just is a really strong statement even when you just pass by on the it's a nice it's a nice shady area that we can be again we've been mindful about it and providing kind of that big shaded sort of canopy area where people can sit, they can wait for the train.

They can it's just a nice little so so I mean on on the I mean the train area or something else with all the draw dying everything.

But next to the restaurant No, I I I know exactly where you're talking about yeah thank you thank you.

Well during the meeting at nine thirteen.