Video
Transcript
Segment 1
[00:01:35] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Good evening everyone. Thank you for joining us for our study session. Uh, the City Clerk will take attendance by roll call.
[00:01:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?
[00:01:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.
[00:01:51] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Kamei?
[00:01:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here.
[00:01:55] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?
[00:01:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Yo.
[00:02:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?
[00:02:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.
[00:02:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?
[00:02:05] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.
[00:02:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos?
[00:02:08] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Here.
[00:02:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: We have a quorum with Vice Mayor Clark absent.
[00:02:13] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Thank you. Um, all right. So now we'll begin with our study session. The purpose of this study session is to receive City Council input on the proposed legislative program priority issues to guide the City's regional, state, and federal legislative advocacy during the 2026 session. Reviewing and updating the legislative platform at the beginning of each legislative session is an essential component of the City's legislative program. This helps to ensure that the City Council's current priorities are reflected in the platform and provide direction to staff and the City's legislative advocacy firms to enable efficient and effective engagement on the regional, state, and federal issues and initiatives that affect the City's priorities, programs, and operations. Um, we're going to skip that presentation part, um, right now and go straight to our Intergovernmental Relations Manager Christina Gilmore. Following Ms. Gilmore's presentation, we will receive a presentation from our state legislative advocacy firm, California Public Policy Group, and our federal legislative advocacy firm, MMO Partners, followed by public comment. If you would like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk below, uh, City Clerk now. Following public comment, the item will come back to Council for discussion and feedback on the state and federal platforms. There will be a short break during which staff will compile major themes from the Council's feedback. Following the break, the staff will present the themes to help determine areas of Council consensus. We are also anticipating a visit from, uh, State Senator Josh Becker but he is, um, running a little late so, uh, when he appears we will break from our usual scheduled program to, uh, have him join us for his presentation. Um, so, um, uh, Intergovernmental Relations Manager Christina Gilmore, shall we?
[00:04:25] Intergovernmental Relations Manager Christina Gilmore: Okay. Good evening Mayor and Council. Christina Gilmore, Assistant to the City Manager. The purpose of the study session item this evening is to receive City Council input on the proposed legislative program priority issues to guide the City's regional and state legislative advocacy during the 2026 legislative session. Joining me this evening is Dane Hutchings, Founder and CEO of, and Jake Whitaker, Director of Grant Services from California Public Policy Group, the, um, who are the City's state legislative advocacy consultants, and Kyriakos Pagonis, Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs from MMO Partners who is the City's federal legislative advocacy consultant. Dane, Jake, Kyriakos and I will pres will present the proposed legislative program priorities to the City Council for discussion and input. Afterwards staff, CPPG, and MMO will be available to answer questions about the proposed platform.
[00:05:25] Intergovernmental Relations Manager Christina Gilmore: As part of the fiscal years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 Strategic Action Plan, Council reaffirmed their commitment to implementing an enhanced legislative program and maintaining effective intergovernmental partnerships under the Organizational Strength and Good Governance strategic priority. In 2021, the City engaged the services of California Public Policy Group, CPPG, to assist the Council and staff on the City's regional and state legislative advocacy efforts. And in 2024, the City engaged MMO Partners to provide federal legislative advocacy services to support the expanded federal legislative program.
[00:06:05] Intergovernmental Relations Manager Christina Gilmore: The purpose of the legislative platform is to serve as a guiding document for the City to promote and preserve its interests at the regional, state, and federal levels. It provides direction for City staff and the legislative consultants to engage on a variety of legislative issues. It allows staff and the legislative consultant to quickly triage and assess legislative matters, um, because as we all know there are hundreds of, um, bills that usually are introduced every legislative cycle and advance very quickly through the legislative process. And finally, it provides focus and supports proactive Councilmember engagement to help advance the City's priorities.
[00:06:45] Intergovernmental Relations Manager Christina Gilmore: So for a summary of our legislative engagement for 2025, we were very active. Um, with the assistance of CPPG, the City, um, engaged on eight measures, receiv receiving, achieving favorable outcomes on all eight measures. Additionally, our federal legislative platform was very robust this last year. Um, the City, um, with the assistance of MMO, um, engaged on, um, seven pieces of federal legislation during the 119th session of Congress, um, achieving federal, uh, favorable outcomes on four of those bills. Um, I will note that the, um, Unlock Housing Act, which was introduced by, uh, in the House and Senate and authored by our Congressman, Congressman Liccardo, was the result of, um, City input to him on housing legislation. Um, and then the Housing for the 21st Century Act was recently passed as of yesterday, um, in the House. So we're very pleased that the City has had some very good and favorable input on, um, current legislation in the 119th Congress. In addition to federal state and federal legis legislative engagement, we've also engaged in federal earmarks, um, obtaining federal earmarks and then state and federal intergovernmental affairs.
[00:08:15] Intergovernmental Relations Manager Christina Gilmore: So our 2026 regional and state legislative platform that we are here to discuss tonight is based on the adopted 2025 platform. Um, we received feedback from each of the City departments on the, the platform. It does carry forward 11 policy issues that the Council has prioritized. It modifies sixteen, adds five, and deletes one policy statement across six issue areas. And it lists a total of 147 policy statements. I believe the staff report erroneously wrote 141 and so I'm updating that tonight. It's 147, so apologies for that error.
[00:08:55] Intergovernmental Relations Manager Christina Gilmore: Our federal platform is also based on our adopted 2025 platform. Again we received feedback from each City department. It carries forward four issue areas that were identified in the 2025 platform and it includes the addition of one and the modification of two policy statements in one issue area and lists a total of 52 policy statements. So after the, um, presentations from our state and, um, federal legislative advocates, um, will return to the Council to provide input on the study session item. I'll read the question here and we can revisit it, um, um, later on if we, the Council requires us to or asks us to. But are there any policy issues, priorities, or policy statements that Council would like to discuss, seek further clarification on, modify, add, or remove from the proposed regional, state, and federal 2026 legislative platforms? With that, that concludes staff presentation and I will hand it back to the Mayor.
[00:10:00] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Uh, thank you, um, uh, Intergovernmental Relations Manager Christina Gilmore. Um, I guess what we'll do... Oh, uh, he's, uh, Senator Becker's not here yet so we can move on to, uh, CPPG. Welcome.
[00:10:25] Dane Hutchings: Hello, hello. Good evening Mayor and Council. Dane Hutchings with the California Public Policy Group. Um, here to give you a little, um, look back on 2025, provide some trends on what we think are going to be happening in 2026 so far, and then, uh, dive into the platform discussion at the appropriate time. I also brought with me today Jake Whitaker, Director of Grant Services. He's going to provide, we're going to do a little swap here, and he'll provide a little bit of insights on, uh, municipal funding, uh, looking into this year as well. Um, next slide. Uh, yeah, let's just roll that next slide.
[00:11:05] Dane Hutchings: So looking at 2025, the 2025, uh, uh, City of Mountain View, uh, look back as, um, Christina mentioned, we did, um, uh, have some fairly remarkable success this year on the, on the legislative front. I would say we highlighted a few, uh, the one I really wanted to highlight is Senate Bill 423. Um, this was a really a last minute, uh, gut and amend, uh, really towards the very end of session that would have, um, when you look at it, had a really profound impact to the City of Mountain View in particular because it would have suspended all commercial real estate transfer taxes for 12 years, multifamily for 12 years, and single family for five under certain conditions. And so, um, you know, a critical funding source for the City to provide critical services and so we were able to stop that bill. Um, I will tell you that it is, there's a very high likelihood that this issue is going to be introduced again. We've seen one bill introduced already specific to the City of LA, um, but we do anticipate, uh, this being broadened, uh, or at least attempts to propose it in the coming year.
[00:12:15] Dane Hutchings: A couple of others, uh, AB 382 by our Assemblymember Berman, um, took a couple of years for him to get this done but, uh, instituting pedestrian safety, uh, uh, school zones for speed limits. And then, um, again another, uh, uh, this one even though it's Petrie-Norris, this is really kind of a joint, uh, uh, effort with Senator Becker when he was the Chair of Energy Committee, um, which helps, um, uh, uh, financing options, permitting assistance, and ratepayer savings, uh, in AB 825, all things that we currently support. Uh, and really had a, um, great conversation and dialogue back and forth with your sustainability department on the technicalities of that so, um, really, really sharp team that you all have here.
[00:12:59] Dane Hutchings: Next slide. So looking forward to sort of like the policy trends that we see and again we're, we're, we're early on in the, in the first year, the second year of the two-year session. Um, the bill introduction deadline is until February 20th. Um, we probably will see another thousand or so more bills be introduced really in the next couple of weeks. A lot of spot bills, but from what we've been able to see and then some bills that have, that advanced out of their first house in January, um, you know, local revenues, parks, infrastructure, transportation impacts, mitigation fee acts, real estate, real estate transfer tax, all of those things are really going to be front and center this year with respect to local revenues.
[00:13:45] Dane Hutchings: Um, one of the, uh, outcomes that came from a Select Committee on Housing Construction which is chaired by Assemblymember Wicks, uh, is, you know, the, the, uh, the, um, goal of that Select Committee was to try to find ways to speed up housing construction. Um, one of the takeaways that, uh, I think is germane to local agencies is, uh, folks on the panel talked about more uniform code standards. And so as we know, last year, uh, reach codes were essentially suspended for six years and what we're already starting to hear is that they want to make this permanent, they want to have more regionalized, uh, code standards thus to allow for, uh, larger multi, um, uh, uh, you know, multi-regional projects.
[00:14:40] Dane Hutchings: Um, we're looking at, uh, you know, Senate Bill 79 which was a fairly controversial bill with respect to transit-oriented development. Uh, not so much on the aspect of wanting to increase density around transit but one of the critical issues in SB 79, uh, is the inability to comply with some of those provisions particularly the trans, the, uh, alternative plan for transportation. Um, there's an SB 79 cleanup bill underway. Uh, it's Senate Bill 908. Uh, our team has pulled together, I just saw it actually as I was walking in, a fairly detailed analysis of what some of the challenges, uh, that the City could face and actually had a really good conversation with your planning team and Assemblymember Berman's office, uh, in the fall to really try to understand some of those implementation challenges. Um, so we'll be giving you a detailed memo with respect to, um, what we're looking to try and, uh, perhaps, uh, modify.
[00:15:40] Dane Hutchings: Um, there was a bill that was just announced, um, uh, from a Southern California lawmaker to try and expand, uh, uh, uh, HHAP funding, uh, to smaller cities. So this is a good thing but in, and it doesn't take away from the allocations to the Big 10 or Big 13, but moreover, uh, allows, uh, the COCs or requires the COCs to really disperse those monies to, uh, local agencies. And so again, you know, fairly helpful tool to get dollars out locally to help with, um, you know, our unhoused population.
[00:16:15] Dane Hutchings: Um, Governor Newsom in his State of the State address specifically targeted the, uh, private equity sort of taking and purchasing the, the single family homes. It's something that the state legislature has tried to accomplish for some time, even just trying to get transparency around the issue. Uh, those bills have been stopped, uh, but, uh, the Governor, you know, kind of called for it this year and so there's a, uh, uh, um, Evan, uh, I'm sorry, um, Assemblymember Lee, uh, uh, has, uh, taken, Alex Lee has taken the charge on this one and so, uh, uh, we see, we anticipate some bills happening in that space.
[00:16:50] Dane Hutchings: Um, you know, I think, uh, you know, more broadly election year politics, we're going to see a lot of, uh, uh, you know, sort of election year things driving sort of policy narratives, um, particularly around contracting issues and things like that. And then of course we've already seen pieces of legislation that are, uh, in response to some of the things that we're going to be, um, that I'm sure Kyriakos and team will be talking about on the federal, uh, immigration tactics. Um, and so lots, lots in store in 2026. Next slide.
[00:17:20] Dane Hutchings: And on the budget side, looking a little bit better than we had initially anticipated. Uh, last year we projected a structural deficit somewhere north of 13 billion dollars. We've seen additional revenues come in over projections and so, uh, about 6.2 billion, uh, just in January, uh, numbers alone over expected revenues. Overall performance of 22% uh, revenues coming in over, over than, uh, uh, uh, than expected. Now, uh, that's, that's fantastic news. Unfortunately, well, I shouldn't say unfortunately, um, but Prop 98, some of the education obligations, a lot of those dollars are just sort of siphoned off the top and, and, and are constitutionally obligated to go to public education. Nonetheless that, that, that budget gap is considerably smaller so we do think that, uh, there's, this is an opportunity to present with our state, uh, lawmakers potentially some priority projects to see if we can't try and vie for a state, uh, budget allocation. Um, and so keeping our fingers crossed on that and working with your team to assess those, um, uh, what that, you know, what those projects are.
[00:18:20] Dane Hutchings: And then lastly before I kick it over to Jake, uh, next slide, uh, just wanted to just go over some real quick, you know, key dates. And so February 20th is that bill introduction deadline. I anticipate seeing about a thousand more bills be introduced. A lot of them unfortunately are these spot bills where it just says it's the intent of the legislature to modify, you know, XYZ in the government code. And so we have to then really kind of do some sleuthing and figure out what's going on there and triage those bills. When March hits we start really, you know, uh, rolling into policy committee season. Uh, mid-May will have the Governor's May Revise, um, and then that'll roll us through the bud through through budget season, so May to June 15th. And then we adjourn to summer recess, uh, on July 2nd. And then really that last mad dash, August 3rd to August 31st, um, is, uh, the last, uh, uh, month of the session which would conclude the second year of the two-year session. So if a bill, um, does not advance in this two-year cycle, it is officially, you know, stopped and halted and, and won't be proceeding. Um, and then of course, uh, September 30th being the last day for the Governor to sign or veto, uh, legislation. So I'm going to step aside and let Jake, um, talk a little bit about funding and then I'll, I'll wrap us up.
[00:19:55] Jake Whitaker: All right. Good evening. Uh, so again I'm Jake Whitaker, Director of Grant Services. I work with, uh, Intergovernmental Affairs Manager Christina Gilmore and staff to identify and support the City's efforts to apply for discretionary grant funding programs. And two, uh, major themes that I just wanted to talk about tonight as far as funding outlook for 2026 goes, and I know on the federal side, uh, MMO Partners will have more on that. I know Surface Transportation Bill Reauthorization is top of mind as part of your federal, uh, agenda. But looking at, uh, FY 26 is the last year of programmed funding through the Inf Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the IIJA. And so one thing that we've been looking at that's top of mind for us, we met with staff earlier today, uh, to talk about getting an update on the Rengstorff Grade Separation project efforts to potentially bring federal funding in to support closing that budget shortfall, and then looking at other, uh, opportunities for transportation investments in the City of Mountain View. So there's a number of different programs authorized under IIJA that we're tracking with the Railroad Crossing Elimination, the Safe Streets and Roads for All. And also looking at, uh, funding through California Transportation Commission that's going to be coming down later this year, couple different programs around active transportation, around larger scale investments to address, uh, congestion and, uh, goods movement efficiency, and also, uh, upcoming through the MTC, the One Bay Area Grant is going to have its fourth round coming up this year at the regional level and making sure, uh, that we're supporting the City's efforts to bring those regional dollars into Mountain View as well. Uh, next slide.
[00:21:40] Jake Whitaker: And then the other major thing that's top of mind, so this is year one of the rollout of the Proposition 4 Climate Bond. And so what we're seeing is, uh, there was, um, in the last legislative session, uh, the legislature did not exempt the Climate Bond, uh, from the Administrative Procedures Act which has added several months of delay to the rollout of that funding. There's an effort and a bill currently working its way through the legislature to address and apply that exemption. Um, but I know that, uh, at the agency level there's a lot of pressure to get these funds out and to, so we've started seeing draft guidelines published by California Natural Resources Agency, Strategic Growth Council, etc., um, to begin moving these grant programs into the competitive stage. And so they published the draft guidelines, they're open for public comment, and then, uh, will open up for applications. We're going to see a lot of things starting to move as we head into spring of this year and into the fall. And what that all entails, you know, funding around sea level rise adaptation, uh, through, uh, the Ocean Protection Council, also funding that was allocated, expedited in the last legislative session to the Coastal Conservancy. Um, there's going to be funding for the Statewide Park Development Community Revitalization Program through OGALS. That's got a $200 million allocation in the Climate Bond for parks that's going to be coming out this year and it's, that, that's all the money for parks in the Climate Bond. So we want to make sure that we're staying on top of these things because a lot of it's going to be, it's only going to be one competition for a lot of these programs under the Climate Bond. Uh, Resilience Centers, Urban Greening, uh, Environmental Enhancement Mitigation, number of different things that we're, uh, monitoring and working with staff to assess. Uh, one of the challenges that we have and is that there is a requirement, uh, that at least 40% of the funds be allocated to disadvantaged communities for anything that's funded under the Climate Bond. Mountain View does have a hard time meeting a lot of those statutory definitions and agency defined, um, methodologies for determining disadvantaged status, uh, but looking for ways to find competitive, you know, where we can a competitive edge, uh, where we have strong projects to put forward. So that is my update on funding.
[00:24:00] Dane Hutchings: Thank you. Uh, next slide. So moving to, you know, to the legislative platform, and, you know, I will spare you the reading of going through all of the slides. Uh, the full platform is provided in in Attachment A. But as a reminder, uh, next slide. Um, you know, how we typically engage on your behalf, we use the platform once it is formally adopted to consistently engage with the state legislature throughout the process, not just the state legislature but the executive branch and and, you know, administrative agencies as needed. Um, just sort of outlining some of these examples, so it's, you know, it's going back, not only submitting our initial comment letter or position letters, but resubmitting those as they are amended, so long as they continue to align with the platform. Testifying in policy committees advancing legislation, meeting with legislators, their staff, committee staff. Uh, negotiating amendments, uh, on the City's behalf, uh, with respect to, you know, having a really good feedback loop with your technical staff here. Um, you know, seeking funding for key programs, uh, meeting with stakeholders. So really all of the above. This, this platform really allows us to be able to screen out what's important versus what's not important, you know, because there are about 2,000 bills every year that are active and moving. Um, and because full service cities, you know, from police and fire to housing, homelessness, planning, public works, you know, uh, and everything in beyond, we're, you know, we're actively tracking about 900 measures each year. Uh, and, you know, we really want to pick our spots on where the things that are the most important and this legislative platform allows us to do that, uh, and I think do it at a very effective level. So, um, very much looking forward to your, your, uh, engagement and feedback. And, um, I think from that point on, oh, next steps. Um, you know, again how can we be, uh, in support of the City and its advocacy efforts? You know, are there critical funding priorities from your vantage point that we haven't heard from staff that we should be keeping in mind? Major policy areas of importance that we need to be keeping a special eye on that isn't touched on in the platform? You know, should we be assessing any major issues or projects or initiatives that we that we haven't heard from your from your departmental staff? You know, things that really have a, an impact on your departments and and and, you know, the residents that you represent. These are all things that we're sort of hoping to, uh, you know, glean from you in this conversation. And, uh, looking forward to hearing that. And and from there I will kick it back over to, uh, Christina. Thank you.
[00:26:55] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you very much. Um, we are... I believe the State Senator just confirmed for 5:30. So we have like three minutes. Hopefully he'll hop on. I, I'm nodding. Did you want to start and then when he comes in we'll just...
[00:27:20] Intergovernmental Relations Manager Christina Gilmore: Why don't we have Kyriakos start and then as soon as he comes in we can, um, swap in the Senator.
[00:27:25] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Thank you.
[00:27:28] Kyriakos Pagonis: You want me to go? Well thank you, um, Mayor, Vice Mayor, uh, Councilmembers. My name is Kyriakos Pagonis, Vice President MMO Partners. Uh, appreciate the invitation to be here and anytime I can leave Washington, uh, I'll take it so appreciate the, the courtesy and and thank you for allowing us to represent the City in DC. Really appreciate the, the trust and and look forward to continuing to work with you. Next slide. So as Christina highlighted, uh, and she did a wonderful job going over some of the issues we've worked on, some of the funding, but I'll just do a quick, uh, synopsis here of of those things. So FY 26 appropriations advocacy, um, actually first let me just step back for a second. I think last year we were here, this is February of this time 2025, new administration. Uh, first time you all had done a platform. Uh, a lot of questions about what the administration was going to do. Um, and a lot of chaos I think, a lot of uncertainty. Uh, we've certainly seen that play out. Um, there were about 200 plus executive orders, cancellation and pausing of of federal funding. So a lot of a lot of uncertainty at the time. I think stepping, you know, forward a year, I think if you had asked me at the time would we have passed appropriations bills, uh, with earmarks, um, you know, would the courts have stepped in to to sort of take, uh, control a little bit back from some of the the steps that the administration's taken, local government stepping up, um, and so, you know, I want to say that I think, you know, while things have certainly a lot of chaos still, a lot of uncertainty, uh, Congress did pass 11 of the 12 appropriations bills. Major step. Last year we had a CR, no earmarks. Uh, so there there has been some progress, uh, made I think. Uh, you know, Congressman Liccardo, the two senators have stepped up, secured about 3.1 million in federal funding for the City's projects, uh, both housing and on climate, the Charleston Slough, uh, tide gate project. That's still pending but, you know, certainly, uh, advocated for it. The Council came back and and made the plea for these things so appreciate your involvement. Uh, on on the legislative side we have major housing legislation that's, you know, just passed yesterday.
[00:29:55] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Um, thank you so much. We're going to do a temporary break on you Mr. Kyriakos to welcome our State Senator. Um, thank you so much. We will get back to you as soon as we move him from the attendee list to our panelists. He is virtual. There we go. Hi Senator Becker.
[00:30:12] State Senator Josh Becker: Hello. How are you?
[00:30:15] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Good. Can you hear us?
[00:30:18] State Senator Josh Becker: I can. Can you hear me okay?
[00:30:20] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We can hear you. Thank you for joining us.
[00:30:23] State Senator Josh Becker: Okay. I'm in my car because I'm out at an event. Uh, thank you for, uh, fitting me in here in the schedule. Um, really, um, excited to kind of give an update and you know if we have time for a few questions tell me however you want to, um, uh, you know, use the time. But first to give a little bit of an update, um, from the legislative perspective, uh, from Sacramento, from my legislation and then we can talk, uh, more generally. First always start with the budget. Uh, the budget this year is a little bit of a discrepancy between the Governor's projections and the LAO, Legislative Accounting Office, uh, um, projections. Uh, right now it's trending more towards the Governor's projections. He projects a smaller, uh, deficit than the LAO had projected. So we obviously continue to monitor that while we go, um, uh, to the end of the fiscal year. Um, I wanted to, uh, talk about a number of things. Uh, number one, um, really to make sure everyone knows, and uh, I think many already do, uh, about, um, some implementation from previous bills. So I, I was thinking about doing a blog called Year Six because I feel like in my year six year a lot of things are coming to fruition. In 2023 I passed a bill called the Delete Act, uh, to let folks delete their information from data brokers. We have over 545 registered data brokers in California. These are people who buy and sell information about every one of us. By definition you have no relationship with them and, uh, they collect hundreds of pieces of information about each one of us: where we lived, where roommates have been, what we purchase, even our health history. Um, and we wanted to, you know, give people a chance. I've been working on this for a long time. What, how can we really tackle this? So we, uh, set up a, a button called the Drop Button. You go to privacy.ca.gov and you can fill this out now. The first deletion doesn't happen till August 1st and then it happens every 45 days after. So it's a permanent deletion, a one stop shop to delete your information from all data brokers. Uh, already we've had 225,000, uh, plus people sign up, which is quite remarkable and way ahead of our projections. Happy to answer any questions about that. We continue to add to that and I'll have some more privacy bills, uh, this year as well.
[00:33:40] State Senator Josh Becker: This year brings about new, uh, committee assignments with our new pro tem. I will be chairing two committees. I'm very, one of very few people that are chairing two committees. I think there's only one other in the legislature. So I'm chairing both Natural Resources, uh, which is everything water, wildfire, and of course, you know, forest resources, um, and, you know, sea level rise, all of those issues, uh, as well as Human Services. And, uh, Human Services really our safety net. So at a time when the safety net, uh, I think you probably hear a little bit about that, the time when the safety net is really threatened, uh, from the Trump administration, uh, excited to jump in and chair, uh, Human Services. And I'll talk a little bit about a child care bill, um, I'm doing in a moment. Um, so my, uh, bill package is focused on a few areas. Uh, energy cost reductions. Uh, building on, uh, last year. Uh, I'll continue to serve on Energy by the way and still be very quite involved in that. And, uh, we passed what many people said was the, kind of the most substantial energy policy in 20 years out of Sacramento and a piece of that, um, was a bill to really tackle rate, the rising costs of utilities, particularly energy utilities. And we did a lot of great work, um, happy to talk about that, and but, you know, there's still more to do I believe and we're going to follow on, uh, that this year. Wildfire resilience, uh, criminal justice issues, access to patient care, uh, child care subsidy reform, and then, um, uh, then there's a computer science standards update, um, that we've been looking at as well around how do you incorporate AI concepts, uh, in that.
[00:35:05] State Senator Josh Becker: Um, wanted to say first of all I'm really glad that to see the Lot 12 housing project is moving forward. Uh, I appreciate that the Council reallocated funds to ensure that groundbreaking can move forward. So I was really, um, excited to obtain money, I think it was 10 million a number of years ago, um, but it's really taken all of you to push it over the finish line and, um, tremendous effort there. I continue to chair the Bay Area Caucus. This will be my last year as chair and we've continued to focus on, uh, affordable housing among other issues and I know that, uh, funding for affordable housing continues to remain a huge issue and it's something I believe we need to prioritize this year with a hou bypassing a housing bond, uh, in the legislature. Um, and then, uh, I want to thank the Mountain View Police Department and the Council for taking quick action, uh, around the, uh, ALPRs upon discovering that unauthorized law enforcement agencies were able to search information captured by those cameras. Uh, it's more important than ever to protect ourselves from federal overreach as well as core privacy, uh, issues. So, um, commend that quick action. And I want to congratulate the City for being recognized for its Excellence in Financial Planning and Transparency, um, with the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Financial Officers Association. Uh, that is a, a recognition of a job, uh, well done. So, uh, with that happy to, um, to answer any, um, any questions.
[00:35:53] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Senator Becker. I'm just going to, uh, look at my colleagues to see if anyone has any questions or comments to you, uh, in this session. Uh, Councilmember Hicks.
[00:36:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well first I'm going to say just thank you so much for taking time out of your event to come. And just the one area that you said you could expand on, you said you've made, um, significant progress expanding I think it was energy and sustainability, so if you could tell us just a little bit more about that, that was the, the piece that I wanted to hear a little more about.
[00:36:25] State Senator Josh Becker: Sure. Well last year, um, we did a couple things. Um, number one, um, I had a bill that was sort of unusual for Sacramento in that it was many bills in one, about ten bills in one, uh, that was SB 254. And because we know there's not one silver bullet for reducing, uh, electricity rates. So, uh, among other things, number one, we extended the Wildfire Fund, which we had to do because ultimately wildfire victims are, uh, otherwise, um, the ones who suffer. Um, so that was a big part of it. And then we'll be back this year. My bill also called for a report by April 1st to look at liability reform. So right now we have something called strict liability, so that means if for utilities so even if I, if I happen to be driving a truck and I run into a, uh, utility pole and it causes a fire, the utility is still responsible for it. And ultimately we're, we're sort of paying for these fires on the backs of ratepayers, which isn't really a very, um, equitable way to sort of go about it. So looking at this whole topic of liability reform is an important one. But number one we extended the wi the wildfire fund, so that was important. But we also put in language around bang for the buck for wildfire spend. The reason if you look at the rise in rates over the last 14 years, it the generation, uh, cost which is, you know, actually solar, wind, all that stuff has risen at at just, uh, really about the rate of inflation. Um, even transmission costs have gone over 14 years from about a billion to two billion if you look at, uh, the utilities, um, um, their what their their requests for, um, for for for their rates. Um, what's really increased is the distribution costs. So that's the pole the last mile of poles and wires. Um, and that also includes all the wildfire spend. All the money we've had to spend, um, now to, um, to, uh, lessen the risk of wildfires. Now we want to spend that money, we want to lessen the risk of wildfires, but we got to make sure we're getting bang for the buck. For example, we can't underground all 100,000 miles of wires that PG&E alone has, right? Even 10,000 miles would, um, would be prohibitively expensive. So there's language in there around bang for the buck for wildfire spend.
[00:38:35] State Senator Josh Becker: Uh, there's the beginning of public funding of infrastructure. So, uh, estimates from TURN, The Utility Reform Network, we could save up to $3 billion a year if we did public funding of infrastructure, about 50% of the cost. So we start that in this bill. Um, we required that the utilities had $6 billion of the wildfire spend, uh, they do with securitized debt instead of equity. If they do with securitized debt, they don't get that guaranteed rate of return, they don't get the 10% return. Um, and they don't get to rate base it. So six billion of that spend, spend we want them to do, we said you got to do that with securitized debt. You don't get to rate base that. Um, there are a lot of other provisions. There are provisions around streamlining making it faster, uh, to, which is one of their complaints as well, but, you know, it does add to cost if we have unnecessary bureaucracy, as Wade Crowfoot says, cutting the green tape essentially, um, to get things built faster. And then there's other additional scrutiny around the rate of return itself. Um, so that's my relatively short explanation of what was in that bill. Um, so that was a big piece. Uh, the other thing that we did of course, we extended our Cap and Trade system and that will return $60 billion directly to ratepayers via the climate credit over by 20, you know, over between now and 2045. Um, and then, um, I took on the task of something that they've been working on for sort of 10 plus years which is to establish a regional, um, energy grid across the West and people are very excited for that. This is only for, um, that marginal those, you know, we really our greatest strain between 40 and 100 hours a year. Um, and we have a lot, increasing amounts of excess solar most of the rest of the time. So it will let us sell our excess solar and then in those times where we have those extreme heat events, better share, uh, resources across the West. So those are, those were sort of three big things, um, that we did last year.
[00:40:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. That's, that's exactly what I wanted to hear a little more from you about.
[00:40:43] State Senator Josh Becker: Yeah. It's get, it gets into the the the wonky territory but, uh, you know, hopefully that was helpful.
[00:40:49] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Oh that's okay Senator Becker. We're a very wonky Council.
[00:40:53] State Senator Josh Becker: Good. I like, that's why I like you guys. Yes.
[00:40:55] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Next we have Councilmember McAlister.
[00:41:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Senator, good to see you. Uh, are you still on the Transportation Committee?
[00:41:05] State Senator Josh Becker: Um, I am not. Um, we just had a shift so I'll be on Rev and, Rev and Tax, which relevant to some of the stuff we talked about. Um, but I'll still be quite involved in those issues as Chair of the Bay Area Caucus.
[00:41:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. My, another couple of questions on energy you were talking about it. With the refineries closing up in, uh, Benicia and those areas and the potential of our price of gas, gasoline going up, uh, is there anything that can be done to try to temper that, uh, large increase? We've heard some people are saying seven, eight dollars. And I know there's big environmental concerns but then there's the reality of we need fuel to run many different things. So where are we on that with with you?
[00:41:50] State Senator Josh Becker: Yeah. Yeah. Great question. Another thing we spent a lot of time on last year and I don't think we're in danger of of, you know, hitting nearly those those prices but, um, but something we very much had to tackle. Um, and and beca so number one, you know, um, I'm certainly be very involved in efforts to ramp down demand, right? We're we need to ramp down demand and we're not ramping down far enough fast enough. So that means, you know, transition electric vehicles which also means charging infrastructure, um, and that means charging infrastructure also in low-income neighborhoods. That means charging infrastructure for renters. Um, it means a lot of things. It means figuring out ways to tackle medium and heavy duty trucks, uh, despite, you know, the Trump administration blocking, uh, some of our attempts, uh, to do so. So we need to ramp down demand and we need to ramp down demand faster because we're still importing, um, uh, you know, millions of barrels, um, into, uh, every month into California. Um, I think probably every day actually. And so, uh, one of the things is we have the tightest environmental standards in the world. So in an area like Kern County, um, in areas that does not threaten public health or is not in anyone's backyard or near a health facility, um, we said yeah we got to go ahead and we got to make it easier actually, um, and to fix my my I sit right in front of the the the Republican Senator from Bakersfield Senator, uh, Shannon Grove. She was quite happy with that a piece of legislation that we passed through. So we're in this kind of mid-transition period as the CEC, uh, put it. So as we ramp down demand, as we ramp down, um, we got to make sure that we provide and we don't have that escalating gas price. That also means things like we'll we'll be importing more finished product. Um, and, um, and we want to look increasingly this year at that issue as well like how can we maybe trade with other states. Right now we have our own blend of gasoline, um, which makes it, uh, us unable to do that. Maybe that's something we need to relook at. We did that because of air pollution in play especially in places like Los Angeles. Well, you know, as with the transition to electric vehicles and much more efficient cars, uh, that's still an issue but less of an issue. So how do we, um, consider those those issues going forward? I also spent time in the Amazon as you know with, um, as you may know, uh, representing our state and our country in Brazil, uh, first ever, um, uh, first ever, uh, COP, uh, Council of Parties that was held in the Amazon region. And, uh, did a resolution last year, we want to get off of oil from the imported from the Amazon. 50% of the oil that's extractively that's sort of, um, um, uh, harmfully mined from the Amazon that's exported comes to California. Um, so with all those reasons we need more of a comprehensive strategy and that's another reason I'm excited to chair Natural Resources. Natural Resources, all those issues that you raised and that I just talked about are squarely in the the, um, uh, squarely in the in the realm of the Natural Resources Committee. So I think we took some some bold action last year that I think across the board people are excited about, um, and, um, we'll need to do more this year too.
[00:44:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. My last question is about roads. How are we, there was talk about doing some equity ways of raising funds for, um, our roads because they're getting pretty deteriorated and some of it could be for the EV cars that, the incentives, that they're not paying their fair share. How do you address that issue?
[00:44:55] State Senator Josh Becker: Yeah. Uh, well there's some, there's an Assembly bill...
Segment 2
[00:45:01] Councilmember John McAlister: ...all the specifics of but basically it really calls for a study of that issue and I think it kind of got reported um in in a way that scared a lot of people that there's going to be another tax and people are already paying the gas tax and no that's not the case. I think it was looking exactly at this issue that you talked about right which is with the declining gas tax what are the other alternatives for us to raise revenue. We already did put a fee on uh for electric vehicles uh drivers a number of years ago. Um but we do you know we do expect the gas tax to keep going down. It is going to keep going down and we have to figure out a way um you know otherwise to to to pay for the roads. Um so uh that's something we we will continue to look at this year.
[00:45:47] State Senator Josh Becker: Thank you Senator.
[00:45:49] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember McAlister. Councilmember Showalter.
[00:45:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Hi Senator Becker thanks so much for um taking time to be with us and also um yes your uh your gang your blockbuster uh legislation last year on the environment was um just music to so many people's ears around here. Um we we were really delighted at Silicon Valley Clean Energy in particular about the um uh allowing the the marketplace the energy marketplace that we can use. It will be very right it will be very very valuable. Um but on the affordable housing front or or building more housing front one of the things that we want to promote in Mountain View is condos. And we hear again and again and again that um construction liability uh is a real barrier to that. Is there any progress on um uh changing those construction liability uh laws in
[00:46:50] State Senator Josh Becker: Yeah thank you. First of all thanks for the kind words. Um yeah we will um so we did uh Senator Steve Glazer did take that on a couple years ago and I voted for it. Um in I was on the BNP committee uh but it didn't get moved forward um and it it ties into some um you know some some deals in the past some some struggles in the past some compromises in the past. I you know but I've said myself that I am willing to take it on and I actually offered to carry something this year. Um I was told that Buffy Wicks who um is a strong housing voice and I've talked to her she's my vice chair of the Bay Area Caucus she said she was going to take it on. So um and she's well positioned to do that given her other housing work. So I'll check in with her on that um but I told her I will support it in any way. I know it's a a controversial issue but I it's one we absolutely have to address. So uh thanks for the reminder. I'll check in with my team and I'll check in with uh Assemblymember Wicks. Um but she did tell me she was going to take it on and I said I would be fully in support.
[00:47:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well that's fabulous. Well another thing I just want to do is brag. And that is um it it's in the natural resources uh uh area um we are finishing a sea level rise protection project. And um what we are uh it is also a habitat restoration project. Um it that's the it's the um construction on Pond A2W and we we've done all the um construction to um fortify the uh the um the tongue of the landfill that sticks out uh so that it's well protected. We've built the horizontal levee. The um there have been two breaches on Permanente Creek and Stevens Creek so tide water is coming in to raise the level of dirt there and we hope that in about ten years we will see a marsh. But we're hav but another aspect of this that I think is um going to be great fun for all of us is the Stevens Creek Trail is is going to be extended 1.2 miles out into the bay on top of the Stevens Creek levee on that side. And we're going to have our grand opening on um February 20th. So I don't know if you can make it to that it would be wonderful if you could but someday I know you will want to ride your bike out there.
[00:49:19] State Senator Josh Becker: Well that's fantastic. Well thank you for your leadership on water and thanks to the council and I'll I'll make sure my team gets uh these you know we want to be able to lift up those kinds of projects. Uh and as you know I secured a lot of money in the budget last year around for coastal resilience and sea level rise and um but uh projects and and it's a huge priority up and down up and down the bay. So thank you for the to your council and to Mountain View for your leadership and look forward to helping uh helping promote that. That's super exciting.
[00:49:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah it is. Thank you.
[00:49:52] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Showalter. Councilmember Ramirez you had a question?
[00:49:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. Uh thank you Senator we appreciate the update and uh the generosity of your time with us and I don't want to take too much more of it. Um I did want to ask um if you could share a little bit more information about um the child care legislation that you're uh you described earlier. Um I don't know if it has a number or if there's uh any way we could learn a little bit more about it and how we can support that work that you're doing.
[00:50:19] State Senator Josh Becker: Thank you. Uh doesn't have a num number yet uh but it's going to revamp the child care subsidy system to among other things ensure a stable and equitable reimbursement of child care contractors. So that's the focus. We'll be working with a lot of the advocates um on that and I'll let you know as soon as we have a um a as soon as we have a number. And I'll just say also you know I've told um Senator uh Aguiar-Curry from the Women's Caucus who's been a leader that she has the full support of the Bay Area Caucus in really focusing on child care this year. We know that's something that um an area uh of of great need. I served on the Child Care Partnership Council of San Mateo County before I was elected so I got involved in all the facilities the workforce uh you know as well as sort of the policy side. So um you know we have done some good things since I was there around uh rate reform and around um around TK but um I I know TK also provides additional burdens for some of our our Basic Aid districts and um uh but uh anyway the the the point being that we knew we know we need to do more on child care and looking forward to working with um folks locally as well as I know the San Jose City Council is also focused on it. So um uh working we'll work with with them as well. So um I'll get you the number of that bill once we have it.
[00:51:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Great thank you.
[00:51:40] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Ramirez. Councilmember Kamei do you have some questions for our dear Senator?
[00:51:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Hi Senator. Hello from Washington DC. Um I'm I'm in a different screen. I don't know if you can see me on your phone. Um but thanks so much for being with us. Just like uh two quick questions. So I know you held like a Select Committee hearing on um on economic development and innovation and being that we're Mountain View it'd be really interesting to hear like any findings or things that we should be thinking about. I don't know any feedback that might um impact the bills that you're going to be putting forward by next Friday. Just thought I'd ask. Thanks.
[00:52:19] State Senator Josh Becker: Um yes well thank you for asking because that's something I am very um uh super super passionate about kind of given my background and I was also on the state workforce board and ba ba ba ba ba. Actually had you know I really want to continue to bridge the gap between the Valley and Sacramento. I had Irvine Foundation in my office today the CEO of Irvine as well as Omidyar uh in remotely. Those are two organizations that focused uh a lot on funding um from the nonprofit side the workforce development uh efforts here in the state. Um also talked to them about AI and workforce is something we need to be in front of um uh given all the the advances in on AI in the Valley. Um in particularly um you know I did a roundtable first um during the break last year and then we had this hearing and we had Wisk Aero for example at um at the the roundtable I did in the district. And you know that's an example of an industry that vertical takeoff um aircraft industry all three of those companies were founded in California. Two are already manufacturing outside of California. They've already made the decision. Not we're not can't unfortunately do it in California we're going to manufacture elsewhere. And Wisk has not decided. Uh Wisk is now at Moffett Field. Um and so that's just an example. We we don't want to lose those jobs. Those are good jobs and we want those uh folks to stay in uh California. We also had in my roundtable and in the hearing uh Josh Richmond who led the site selection for uh PsiQuantum to build the world's first quantum computer. They ended up picking Illinois. It's not a um it's not a low tax state it's not a low union state. It's in fact it's high tax and high union but um they went there for various reasons that we heard about. And so it it it I think this is going to be an ongoing effort. I think it will probably may lead to some stuff this year but really probably more likely next year as we um as we think more about doing strategic economic development here in in in California. Um um and um I I guess that's sort of what I'll say about it for now but we're we're working on the um write-ups from last week and I'll I'll share those with you. Um we did hear from cities and like to you know Fremont for example I think has done a lot um and we heard from the City of Fremont there. And it'd be good to compare notes with say Fremont and Mountain View and some other cities um in our district on on what more can be done um to to again I mean it's it sounds it sounds small but a lot of times it's just feeling wanted honestly for these companies. Like they really like they want to feel wanted and they feel wanted by other states and they don't always feel wanted by California. So um uh thank you for asking it. It's certainly a passion of mine and and something we're again we'll do some work this year but I think it's going to be probably a two year effort.
[00:55:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great thank you so much. And then just last just want to say thank you on your leadership for SB 747. I'm assuming you don't need any advocacy from the city but if you if you do um please let us know. Thanks so much. Those are my questions Mayor.
[00:55:23] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Kamei and those are our questions from our city council Senator Becker. So thank you so much for joining us. We know that you're your favorite we know your favorite city you don't have to confirm or deny that. Um um do you have any other um um questions or comments for us before we let you go to what's most likely your next event that you probably have to run to?
[00:55:44] State Senator Josh Becker: Yes I appreciate thanks for letting me join here uh remotely. I'm not in the witness protection program um just calling from my car but I I do appreciate being able to join remotely. Um no thanks you covered a lot of the big issues um you know uh you know I'll just say that we continue um you know a big part of our job is constituent services um and uh we we have I think we closed 580 cases just towards the last half of last year. So we um are here for your residents for all those issues. And then you know a lot of the focus this year is also just going to be dealing with HR 1 and the fallout of that around healthcare and other human services. So again I'm excited to chair human services. I know it's going to be a big challenge this year um but I'm excited to work with you as we uh try to keep the safety net as strong as possibly here in California. So thank you.
[00:56:43] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you again Senator Becker and thank you to your staff as well um Alex uh Isabelle and and Joan are always very helpful for us and you're always welcome to join us here in your favorite city.
[00:56:54] State Senator Josh Becker: Well good and look forward and also want to work with you you know as we talk about you know additional housing and talk about you know some of our corporate partners for example I know Google that had committed various housing and I've sort of been trying to stay on them as well uh to make sure that that land's going to get either developed or turned over to developer um to um to to make sure that because that's a significant amount of housing that I know we're all counting on. So look forward to working with you on that as well.
[00:57:21] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you so much.
[00:57:23] State Senator Josh Becker: All right thanks all.
[00:57:25] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right bye Senator Becker.
[00:57:27] State Senator Josh Becker: Bye.
[00:57:30] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Uh thank you so much Mr. Kyriakos. I'm sorry we had to go to our now we're back to our general programming.
[00:57:38] Kyriakos Pagonis: Thank you. Okay so I think we were talking about just the highlights for 2025 uh talked about the earmarks legislative advocacy on housing transportation and climate uh formula funding um and then development of grant pro program uh development and then your actual federal program development. So next slide please. So as I was saying uh as far as the community project funding so with your your your guidance and direction the excellent work of of your staff uh the support from both Senators and Congressman Liccardo uh 2 million was just signed into law for the Evelyn Housing Affordable Housing Project. Uh we have 1.145 million for the Charleston Slough Tide Gates uh to deal with some potential flooding. Uh that's pending uh final approval of the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Um but again you know this wouldn't have been possible without your direction and and city staff and the delegation's support. So uh crossing our fingers that the the Homeland Security bill uh with the funding gets gets through but that's pending. Uh on federal programs with your advocacy uh and direction you know CDBG program was was funded at FY 25 levels uh so 3.3 billion even though uh I think the President's budget eliminated the funding uh Congress uh funded it at 25 levels that's about $618,000 that the city receives annually uh from the program. On HOME uh the House bill had zeroed it out as did the President's budget. Uh the final bill includes 1.25 billion for the HOME program. Uh again so some formula funding that the city uh receives on affordable housing. Homeless Assistance uh was funded at 4.1 billion that's 500 million more than FY 25 uh so significant increase in Homeless Assistance. Uh Yes In My Backyard Pro Housing there was 50 million uh in included in the bill. Again it was zeroed out in the President's budget and in the House uh budget request as well. Uh FTA formula funding at 4. 14.3 billion which is the authorized level and then uh discretionary funding for CRISI uh is 1.1 billion. Uh those funds uh like for CRISI that we expect grant notices to be coming out in the next quarter. Uh next slide. And then as was mentioned earlier HR 1 the One Big Beautiful Bill Act uh was passed uh back in July. Uh it's obviously uh a mix of of of various items. Uh a couple of things to highlight though uh that were also on the platform and included in the bill there was an increase in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. Uh it does protect and did not uh eliminate the tax exemption from municipal bonds which I know this council uh pushed hard against uh them cutting. Uh it does cut uh significantly cut Medicaid and and SNAP uh it and it does rescind um significant energy credits that were uh passed in the Inflation Reduction Act. Uh it does also include uh an adjustment to the SALT benefit uh and so that that will take place this year. Uh a couple other things that we we worked on uh on legislation that will carry over into 2026 Surface Transportation Authorization uh also known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that will expire at the end of September. Uh Congress is in the process of of releasing a new bill the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee we expect will will release a a bill sometime in in the spring. Uh the city did submit uh some comments to uh this to the delegation uh one around uh the CRISI and RCE program so the Railroad uh Railroad Crossing Elimination program to prioritize uh those projects like Rengstorff that are further ahead in design. So those are comments that we submitted for consideration and also to uh ensure that future funding um is is is more directed at at the local level like the Surface Transportation Block Grant program does. So a couple of those things we're we're we're pushing for and and we'll find out you know how we how we do it once this bill uh is introduced. On the housing uh front affordable housing front as Christina mentioned uh Representative Liccardo introduced the Unlock Act. That that just that came from your city staff directly talking about you know ways in which uh there can be uh tweaks to the CDBG program to make you know that program more flexible to allow for for some funding to be uh used for affordable housing. Um and then we we recently saw as as of yesterday the Road to Housing Act uh comprehensive bill uh it's comprised of 36 other bills two of which are uh Representative Liccardo's bills that um would would streamline some environmental uh NEPA requirements and also um to to provide some other incentives uh to to reduce barriers to zoning. Uh that that passed and again uh your staff is is looking at the bill and we're expecting the House and Senate to come together at some point uh and pass a a final bill probably uh towards the end of this year is is my guess. On climate uh the council weighed in on the Groundwater Rise and Infrastructure Preparedness Act. We're also watching a bill uh that has passed the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee it's the FEMA Act it's uh to reform FEMA also to create a new uh mitigation program that's formula based as opposed to uh a competitive program like the BRIC program. So that that's got some momentum it it passed with with significant bipartisan support uh and we're we're watching to see how that plays out this this go around. Next slide. So this session um of Congress we're we're here to talk about your platform uh as Christina mentioned there are a couple of tweaks that were made to it but setting the stage for what's on the on the congressional agenda FY 27 budget uh the President will probably release uh the administration's budget request in the next few weeks. Uh we expect Congress to do earmarks again. In fact we were um just late earlier today talking with Rep Representative Liccardo's staff about his process. Uh the Senators are hosting a webinar on Thursday to talk about their uh process to um and and guidelines for earmark requests or community project funding requests. We talked to staff today about a potential uh project idea so the city is is getting ready and and will be in a good position to to submit projects when when called for. Uh as I mentioned the Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill uh that's a major piece of legislation that either has to get reauthorized or uh what probably is more likely is they do a one year extension of the bill. Um I know a couple comments were made about EVs uh earlier uh just to point out that you know when when they were looking at HR 1 uh you know taxing electric vehicles was on the table the House had included in its version of the reconciliation bill the Senate did not. Uh but it's certainly going to be on the table for raising revenue for the next bill um is is is making sure that uh at least I think from from some perspective that EVs also pay uh some some use or or user fee for for vehicle use on the roads. Housing again we we've got two bills both passed in in the Senate and the House with tremendous bipartisan support. Uh so we we we think that you know there this is a good year for housing. Uh certainly you know they're talking about affordability with elections coming up so uh we see some momentum around that. The Water Resources Development Act uh primarily funds the Corps of Engineers. Uh we do see uh Congress moving ahead on on a biannual biannual basis doing doing that bill. So that that's going to be marked up again probably sometime in the first or second quarter of this year. Last you know we're we're certainly watching as Jake mentioned uh you know some of the federal grant opportunities on CRISI and RCE. Uh we're talking to staff today about potentially uh looking at the next round there should be about 1.1 billion in CRISI money uh available. I think some of you are planning to come back uh to Washington during the National League of Cities conference. Uh would be a good opportunity to go by and and talk to DOT about Rengstorff uh and and pitch the the project um before any sort of grant notice is released. Uh next slide. So that sort of ends our presentation. I just want to say again you know advocacy as you all know is a team sport. Um you know we wouldn't be able to do any of this without your direction your involvement. Uh your your staff is tremendous um and your delegation is um just doing a great job. So uh appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.
[01:07:36] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Mr. Kyriakos. Um we because it's a study session we will first go to public comment before we start with council questions. So would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk. We will take in person speakers first. Each speaker will have three minutes. All right. Um are you are you speaking on this item Mr. Scarborough? Yes. All right. Go ahead.
[01:08:35] David Scarborough: Hello City Council. Uh nice to be back and see you all again. As I was looking through the um the things that you're going to be looking at for the federal agencies and for the federal legislation I was thinking about how we want to have a community for all and how we have federal agencies that are very hostile for many people in our community due to you know however they've decided to um focus on them. So I was surprised not to see anything on there addressing pushing back against federal overreach or protecting our communities and our vulnerable populations and all of us. So that's just my comment. Thanks.
[01:09:20] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Mr. Scarborough. We will now move on to our virtual speakers. Uh Mr. Cox.
[01:09:30] Robert Cox: Thank you. Can you hear me?
[01:09:32] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We can.
[01:09:33] Robert Cox: Okay great. Um I'm speaking for Livable Mountain View tonight and we appreciate the city has prioritized many items for federal and state legislation that align with our city values particularly that of being a community for all. Um we do urge the council also to prioritize items that affect Mountain View most urgently in particular two that we want to bring up. One is to support the introduction of legislation to clear up and extend the timelines for SB 79 local alternative plans. We thank you for the discussion that we had last time on this. Um the the uh state is doing a good job in cleaning up the definitions but the timelines are still unclear and the maps for each of the zones have still not been delivered to all municipalities. And so uh since the council has decided to start work on the local alternative plan next year uh getting some clarity on the timelines is of utmost importance so please uh advocate for that. I was glad to hear that SB 908 may deal with that. I looked it up on the legislative portal it's just a placeholder bill right now so let's get some real stuff in that bill and get this done. The second thing is uh we want to echo a comment that Vice Mayor Clark made about supporting legislation that gives cities like Mountain View that have a pro housing designation more flexibility in determining where new housing will be built. Right now Mountain View and Campbell uh maybe there's a few others uh are the rarities in Santa Clara County um in terms of being pro housing cities and we really believe that if there were more flexibility in doing this more cities in our county would want to jump on the idea of being pro housing cities and then that would be the um much better path toward getting the housing problem solved which is a regional issue something we've heard very much. So anyway those are the two things we wanted to talk about. Thank you very much. I'll yield the rest of my time.
[01:11:39] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Mr. Cox. Um we now uh that was all our speakers. So council will now have the opportunity to ask questions and to discuss and provide feedback on this study session question. Uh does any member of the council have questions? All right Councilmember Hicks.
[01:12:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well I do have one question. I think this would be federally there was my um fellow council member uh asked about taxes on uh EVs. I'm wondering I've also I read this and it was some time ago so maybe you can clarify. I read about uh taxes on uh by weight of vehicle which of course car use I mean I have a a tiny very light car and there are others much heavier. Mine is not using the road very much. Um is there do you know of any legislation federally on on that uh I believe this was a tax uh tied to registration um which is not the biggest tax you pay but anyway. Um so uh I do you know anything about uh taxes tied to weight?
[01:12:52] Kyriakos Pagonis: So I there's there's probably several bills around that issue. I don't have an answer on the specific and and we'll we'll come back to you with an answer on that. Uh as I said earlier there was uh language in that HR 1 you know the House version that would have taxed EVs um specifically electric vehicles so that I don't think it was necessarily around weight. Um and that would have I think generated about 15 to 20 billion you know for for the for the bill over that five year period. So um we'll come back to you and and do some research on specific legislation around the weight.
[01:13:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay thank you very much.
[01:13:29] Kyriakos Pagonis: You're welcome.
[01:13:30] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember McAlister.
[01:13:32] Councilmember John McAlister: While you're up there thank you for uh getting out here. I'm sure you said oh warm weather I'm out of here so I can drive a car. Uh help me understand the process between the city how you interact with Sam Liccardo. Does it start with the city and then it filters through him or do you sort of go parallel with him or does uh Christine say hey get a hold of Sam we want this? Just give us a sense of how things work.
[01:14:00] Kyriakos Pagonis: Yeah I I think it's I don't think there's one clear answer. I think you know on for example I was talking about the you know FY 27 Community Project Funding requests you know the the Senators uh have local representatives as as does uh Congressman Liccardo. In some cases they'll reach out to to the city um before we we interact with them and you know vice versa it's sometimes us interacting with them and then coming back to the city with information. So uh I think it really depends on on the issue um you know again I think on like the appropriations side if that's what you're specifically talking about. Um you know because we know the cycle starts and and sort of when it starts we we proactively uh will engage the delegation about getting their their guidelines and and guidance. Um you know they they all will send out information sort of at at one time to their constituents um and sometimes you know Christina will get information before we do and um and she'll report it back to us and we'll work you know with the delegation per per direction.
[01:15:08] Councilmember John McAlister: So like with the money that the one point or three million dollars or so forth. So do we get it and then you sort of do you work with Sam and his to go advocate or to get votes for it?
[01:15:22] Kyriakos Pagonis: So so on on that particular issue you know we had worked with uh with you all city staff last year to sort of identify projects ahead of time. Uh and so when the process opened up um the city working with us uh developed you know their their you know an application sort of a grant application uh that was submitted to their offices. Their offices will review uh all of the projects that come in. So on the House side uh they're limited to 15 uh projects that they can submit uh to the committee. On the Senate side uh before last year they could submit as many as they wanted. This year uh under Republican control they limited uh you know to about uh I'd say I think four or 500 projects overall. So uh so in that case you know the Senators will rack and stack and so will the Congressman because you know he's going to have a number of projects that are uh submitted to him. And so I think again your advocacy coming back talking to him talking to his staff here I know the Mayor uh Mayor Kamei at that time you know was was talking to his staff about the priorities of of the city and again I don't think you can take any of it for granted. I think you have to continuously uh update and educate um and I think you all uh did that last year and I think that's why you you got two out of his 15 uh requests submitted.
[01:16:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Sure. And since we have you here uh go to the crystal ball and what do you see in the midterms?
[01:16:47] Kyriakos Pagonis: Uh you know I I think you know it's hard to listen if I were to make predictions I I'd lose a lot of money so um I I think what you can say is looking at history right I think his history tells us that the President's party typically loses during the midterms. Uh I don't see any reason to sort of go against that sort of historical trend. Um I but you know um I don't know how how voters you know will will react in November. Um but you know I I do think you know history is is is a guide here and so that's kind of where I'll I'll stand.
[01:17:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you.
[01:17:28] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Mayor do we are able to ask to the state or are we just going to do the federal then go to the state? Oh this was all questions for all all. Okay so if I had some questions for the state yes go right ahead. Unless Chris has some federal then I'll follow up with the state afterwards. Well he's standing there you might as well get him while he's all warmed up. I think he wanted to ask federal questions anyway so go ahead.
[01:17:53] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: It's just um piggybacking on the prior question. Should we just assume the um the reauthorization for the um anything tied to HOV lanes whether it's the EV decals or anything like that. Should we just assume that's dead and not going to be probably not going to make it into any of the reauthorizations? Because I know it hasn't made it in thus far and expired. I just didn't know if there were any efforts to save it or if it's just gone.
[01:18:15] Kyriakos Pagonis: Yeah I I wouldn't say that anything is off the table at this point. I mean we we haven't seen any legisla we haven't seen any bill text um and so I I think like I said earlier I think if you were looking at what the House did during reconciliation on on EVs I would expect to see that come up again. I I don't see why they would not take advantage of their majority and if they wanted to get it done previously I I still think that's going to be on the table as a revenue raiser for sure. Um the Senate you know will maybe take a different approach but um I think they're going to be looking for ways to raise revenue and EVs you know under the current climate I think are are are ripe for that type of um action.
[01:19:00] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Okay thanks.
[01:19:04] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Can I ask Thank you for your time. Can I ask somebody from the state? Yes go ahead.
[01:19:11] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay so um that you were talking about park fees and I reading through some of our items that were coming up today and that we're going to have uh there's a contradiction in park fees and housing development. So the housing development the YIMBYs and the YIMBYs and all that they're trying to make it less affordable I mean cost less to build and so they're restricting our ability to charge fees for parks. And yet on the other side you're saying okay well we want parks so we're going to get fees. So why is there any change that there could be a swing in the pendulum of you know restrictions so that we can actually afford to a you know charge developers to get things done in the city?
[01:19:58] Jake Whitaker: So I think that um uh it's I think it's a case by case basis with respect to the jurisdiction from a statewide perspective. Um there was a recent study that's getting a lot of traction from the Turner Center which attributes less than 5% of total construction costs attributed to local government fees. Um you know I think for folks like us who represent city government and go that I think that's a pretty good uh you know being pretty good stewards of those dollars that are coming in. Um when you look at the dollars that come in they are highly regulated highly transparent we have to have direct dollars that go right to those services. Um there are other aspects that drive housing costs considerably more than than uh uh than less than 5% on average. So speaking to it as a whole I think that's one of the messages that a lot of folks who represent local agencies are trying to convey. And I think that um at least having the authority for the local agency to negotiate on those fees versus them being you know eliminated capped reduced or otherwise um uh uh unable to collect puts us in a position where we're not able to negotiate in good faith with with developers on specific projects. And so um you know I I think that everything's on the table this year with respect to to trying to defend our ability to assess reasonable fees. Uh the city is doing a remarkable job whether it's through land dedications and uh upzoning policies or pro housing designated city. You all have a really really incredible story to tell that we are conveying to the legislature. Um but ha you know we have to be able to assess fees to provide those critical services or maintain that infrastructure. Um and so that's that's the the the sort of the grappling that we're we're dealing with. I don't know um if that sort of answers your question or...
[01:21:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Well open space parks quality of life are very important to the residents of Mountain View. And yet as we continue to do this developments and being you know sort of restricted by these outside groups saying you got to do this so you can get housing for it. We're not we're building more but we're taking away from the quality of life. So that's why I'm saying is there...
[01:22:25] Jake Whitaker: Oh I okay I see. It well and so and I and I don't and I will say I don't think it's mutually exclusive. I think that a lot of the legislature is legislations is is really trying to focus on infill development. Um you know uh converting infill sites. Uh but I do think to a certain extent in in talking with your planning folks and your park folks um you know parks are important. They're they're not just an uh uh an amenity that I mean they reduce you know there's all sorts of statistics that talk about uh overall community health accessibility walkability you know these are all things that get folks outside uh builds a sense of community. You know you want to provide amenities to those folks you know not just build um high density housing with no amenities right. And so um you know there are trade-offs uh but yes I do think that there is a um uh uh a narrative that continues to uh advance that um that local fees are the the barrier to um uh to addressing the affordability crisis and I would say communities like Mountain View that are doing really phenomenal work uh I think may um have a different narrative.
[01:23:31] Councilmember John McAlister: How do you define small cities? Because you yeah you mentioned earlier small cities or getting into this thing and I just wonder how you Mountain View is a small city?
[01:23:39] Jake Whitaker: How do I So with well that that particular bill is uh opening up HAP dollars to cities under 300,000. So you know in that in that case you would be we would be a small city. Um really I you know I can't really define who what's a small city and what's not. The legislature does that for us a lot of times I hear um uh depending on the issue if you're a population of 30,000 or less. Oftentimes we've been seeing lately uh even if you are a population of 30,000 or less but you're in a county that has a higher county population then you're not a small city. We saw that with SB 707 last year with some of the Brown Act stuff so uh you know it's not for me to define it uh but it's I suppose a term of art um uh with respect to who's who's a small city or not.
[01:24:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you.
[01:24:29] Jake Whitaker: Small city but big heart. That's right. That's right.
[01:24:35] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember McAlister. Uh Councilmember Showalter.
[01:24:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah you mentioned that um there was some effort to suspend reach codes permanently. So can you discuss that a little bit?
[01:24:50] Jake Whitaker: So what I and to be clear there was not a piece of legislation that that we have seen right now that will suspend reach codes permanently. We saw what happened with AB 361 which was then effectively rolled into the budget. So it put legislators in a very tough position to either not vote for the state budget uh or not. They put policy in the budget which we don't like to see. Uh but there are when you look at some of the findings coming out of the Select Committee on Housing Construction uh one of the findings coming out which really these select committees are a pretext to introduce a host of bills right. So for example uh Assemblywoman Wicks um hosted or was the chair of the Select Committee on Permit Reform and then right at the February deadline there was a press release with 25 bills on permit reform. So it's so we're we're waiting for these bills to start coming but one of the big sort of takeaways that we grap grabbed onto we wrote in memos and provided to to to staff um was this sort of theme about well it's good that we've got the suspension of these codes we need to think about longer term uh uh uh you know more you know uniform codes and and really usurping local codes is what what the theme we kept hearing because that was uh another impediment to rapid construction. And so again it's a trend. We haven't yet seen anything in print but I but you know to answer your question that's that's what we're we're seeing.
[01:26:20] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay well please keep us informed that's really um very negative trend.
[01:26:23] Jake Whitaker: Yeah. Absolutely.
[01:26:26] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Showalter. Councilmember Ramirez.
[01:26:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. Um I'll try and be quick because we still have to discuss the item. Um but I wanted to uh get um a better sense of um uh we were talking about trends and and risks. What are the risks associated with some of the real property trans transfer tax preemptions that you've described. It seemed like there was some good news coming out of LA which I think is sort of the the ground zero for a lot of this effort. Um so is there is there still a threat to Mountain View what are you observing?
[01:26:59] Jake Whitaker: Yeah so uh Isaac Bryan just introduced a bill and I started it's it's in the in the 1000s and so I I don't have it off the top of my head but I believe the bill inter was introduced I believe it was yesterday specific to LA and LA County with respect to their the the the mansion tax as they're you know referring to down there. Um I can tell you um in in this forum uh uh that there are a contingent of uh Bay Area lawmakers that are looking to try uh and expand this statewide. Um and you look at what was not what the end result was um last year with 423 but the RNs the non public versions of the bill that were circulating and they were really talk talking about two things. Number one the document transfer taxes that are assessed at the county level that trickle down to the cities and then the real estate transfer taxes which ab which in theory undermine the locally vo voter approved you know statutes that you have. But the impacts of that provision particularly for Mountain View on the commercial side was the most I've seen even from much larger cities with respect to you your unique commercial population. And so the the policy framework that we've been seeing is this 12 year suspension of real estate transfer taxes for commercial 12 year suspension for multifamily and then five years for single family homes but that's if there was a disaster in in in that in that region right. So um when we were running the numbers and again this was like back of the napkin with with your team uh in the wee hours of the session some of these transactions were in the in the billions and even a 1% or 1 and a half percent fee on that was substantial to provide those city services. And so um it is I see a a major threat and a opportunity for us to really provide that uh education to your delegation. I was actually had the opportunity to to connect with your uh uh Housing and Planning Deve uh Director um uh uh earlier today. We're going to be working with uh City Manager's Office too to really ki try and find ways to tell the narrative tell the story what those impacts would mean for city services and be more proactive because this will be a very very tough issue and frankly those big tough issues they like to you know work into the very very end of session or try to work it into the budget which would be frankly the worst case scenario because then again it puts those legislators in those tough positions. And so uh really trying to drive awareness on that issue now.
[01:29:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you so it sounds like priority one for us perhaps.
[01:29:37] Jake Whitaker: Yeah.
[01:29:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um the other question um I I had other questions but I'll just limit it limit myself to one more. Um I know I think this month was the deadline for um I guess the the conclusion of some single stair reform work that uh Assemblymember Alex Lee had introduced years ago. Um do you happen to know where that's landing? Is the state legislature continuing to look at single stair or is that sort of not no longer uh under consideration?
Segment 3
[01:30:00] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Call it out. Is it helpful for you to have things explicitly called out, or like language would be just... the existing language would be just fine?
Segment 2
[01:30:06] Jake Whitaker: I am not familiar with that term. Single you said single stair reform? I'm I'm I'm sorry I wasn't I
[01:30:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh that's that's okay I don't want to pretend to be an expert but um it it sounds like something maybe we could look into and come back later.
Segment 3
[01:30:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: So, um, just to make sure I'm understanding your question, you're talking about adding specific policy statements to either platform. And you're asking if staff would like you to provide specific language or if you would just like themes or buckets and that staff can go back, develop the language and bring it back to the Council for approval and adoption? Is that what you're asking?
Segment 2
[01:30:18] Jake Whitaker: Ye yes I I will yep I'm writing it down and I can talk to his uh Chief of Staff and and get the download on that for you and get back to you.
[01:30:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you very much.
[01:30:28] Jake Whitaker: Yeah absolutely.
[01:30:30] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Any other questions from council? Um it's interesting um this is a question for Miss Christina so I'll be free to take your seat we'll probably have more discussion that will be fun. Um but Miss Christina um as I'm looking through uh the um the platform right now and there are some things that that some members of council may uh support or want to push to support but it's kind of under like certain buckets of things.
Segment 3
[01:30:38] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yeah, so like as Councilmember Ramirez mentioned, single stair reform, that's not explicitly called out in our thing. But I was also thinking about how Councilmember Showalter mentioned to Senator Becker about the condo liability bill kind of thing.
[01:30:52] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: And those seem, could be under our buckets of like Item 8 and 10 of support legislation that would incentivize production of missing middle, or like support legislation that allows for middle income and affordable home ownership opportunities.
[01:31:06] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Those kind of fall into that bucket, but I don't know how staff would interpret that in order for us to move forward on essentially specific legislation, should it come up.
[01:31:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Sure. So I think probably the best path forward would be for Council to provide us with the themes. So single story or... sorry, single stair legislation is something that the Council is interested in.
[01:31:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The staff would, with our legislative advocates, develop some platform statements, vet it through our internal departments, and then bring it back to Council for adoption. And then we will also recommend what bucket within the platform that we think that would best fit.
[01:31:50] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Thank you so much. That's helpful. I see a hand from Councilmember McAlister.
[01:31:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'm going to go straight to your question. It says, are there any policies issue? Um, Councilmember Showalter took my, uh, one of my policies I wanted to talk about was the condo liability. I've been pushing that for, uh, I don't know, since 2014.
[01:32:13] Councilmember John McAlister: And when someone said it was a sticky issue, I'm going, hey, you do it or you don't. So I would think that would be a high priority because if we're talking about middle income, and this is for our former mayor, she likes that. So let's, that's specific. I'd like to see that.
[01:32:29] Councilmember John McAlister: And the other, with my businessman hat on, the frivolous lawsuits that are coming through, that have been coming through, I don't understand why there hasn't been progress on it because if you have an issue and you're not in compliance and somebody gives you six months to say get it done, and you're getting sued the whole time, it just doesn't...
[01:32:49] Councilmember John McAlister: I've seen businesses in downtown Mountain View go out of business because the lawsuits are, you know, tens of thousands of dollars where we just said, hey, give me six months, I can correct it. So I would like to see that, two specific issues brought to the attention of our distinguished gentlemen from Sacramento.
[01:33:10] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember McAlister. Councilmember Showalter. And I guess now we are moving on 'cause... is this a question or are we moving on to answering the question? Oh, okay. Let's go.
[01:33:24] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, uh, I put in a little bit of a laundry list in the questions. It's on page two of the questions, Question 5: Are there any policy statements to add?
[01:33:33] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And one is support legislation that rewards pro-housing cities with funding incentives and permitting flexibility to create great neighborhoods. Anyway, you mentioned in your answer that there was a little bit related to that, but I personally think we should buffet up.
[01:33:52] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So I'd be interested in how other people feel. Then the other one is support funding for soft story retrofits. Um, that's a thing that, um, gosh, it's fallen through every crack it could possibly fall through, but, you know, it should still be on the list. It's important.
[01:34:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Support construction liability reform. Um, add, under environmental sustainability, um, now under CEQA, we have to get consultation from tribes. And I'm just wondering if the tribes really have the capacity to do that consultation or if they need some sort of assistance, training, etc. to better do that. That's not so much a local thing as it is a, you know, more of a statewide thing.
[01:34:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, and then, uh, support stormwater management implementation with funding and technical assistance. Um, I know some of this is done by the Regional Board, but again, it's a blanket thing that I think is very important, particularly as our stormwater management requirements get more and more rigorous.
[01:34:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, and, um, then should we be adding something related to regulations of ALPRs? Um, I didn't see that on the list, but it could have been there, but anyway, I'm concerned about that.
[01:35:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And then, uh, as our consultant brought up, uh, I wasn't aware that reach codes are conceivably on the chopping block. Um, as a civil engineer, I just have to say that a disaster is a terrible thing to waste.
[01:35:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And, um, the way that civil engineers are... I mean, I'm sort of outgoing, but a lot of civil engineers typically aren't. They're working in their labs and they're trying... they solve problems, and they don't really get a chance to tell people about what they're doing very often.
[01:35:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And then there's a disaster that comes forward and somebody says, 'Well, how can we do this?' And, you know, these researchers raise their hand and say, 'Well, by the way, I've been working on this for 15 years. This is what we could do.' And they're able to bring forward their research and it can be implemented.
[01:36:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's been very important from time to time with earthquake requirements. It's been very important with hardening against wildfires. And I don't know what the next disaster is going to be, but I just feel like, um, I want to share that, uh, you know, that idea that that's what reach codes are for.
[01:36:27] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And we don't want to freeze the building code. We want it to be a living document. So that's my last one. Thank you.
[01:36:35] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Showalter. Councilmember Clark.
[01:36:38] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, I'm fine with most, if not all of those. The one thing that I would emphasize is, if there are... it sounds like there might be legislative vehicles in this session that we can utilize for a Prohousing City designation. Is hard to get, and it should be.
[01:37:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, and I think one of the things that we're hearing from the community is, you know, we're putting up with a lot of a lot of change in order to effectuate and build additional housing. And I think a lot of folks are uncomfortable with that, but at the end of the day are proud that we're moving in that direction.
[01:37:21] Councilmember Chris Clark: And I think the approach of the state so far has been more of a stick approach where it's, um, you know, whether it's SB 79 or other things, it's kind of a 'everyone is treated the same' or the housing element process where 'everyone has the same deadline.' And we've learned a lot about how maybe to change all these things going forward.
[01:37:38] Councilmember Chris Clark: But I think the biggest thing for me is just saying, look, if you have gone to the effort of getting a Prohousing designation, you know, maybe in terms of processing housing element applications in the future, maybe there are different buckets, right?
[01:37:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: So HCD isn't inundated and maybe the non-Prohousing cities go first and they have a deadline by which they need something certified. Maybe the Prohousing cities are in a second bucket and, you know, or when they submit, as long as they submit something that's substantially complete, they're assumed to have submitted a compliant housing element.
[01:38:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: And the clock stops unless HCD later says, you know, 'No, you need to make these other additions,' but you're not stuck in that window of time where like Builder's Remedy applies. Like there's an assumption that if you're a Prohousing city, that you're a good actor, right?
[01:38:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: And I think that carrot approach would really go a long way toward incentivizing other cities to take that approach. Uh, I know there are funding benefits now, but I think some relief in terms of the housing element application process.
[01:38:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: SB 79 set a really quick deadline for us to adopt a local alternative. If Prohousing cities had an extra six months or a year, that would be an enormous benefit to us because we can still produce the housing or at least zone for the housing that we need to zone for and comply, but we're given the grace to do it appropriately and not just on a quick shot clock.
[01:39:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: And I think the only other thing that I would say is, to the extent that you know, some of the other jurisdictions that have that Prohousing designation, San Francisco, maybe San Jose soon, those are powerhouses in terms of lobbying.
[01:39:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: And so to the extent that we can, instead of just saying, 'Hi, we're Mountain View, we want this thing,' if... I think we're a wonderful, if not the best city, very close to it, but, um, you know, we would have I think a lot more lobbying power and clout, thank you, for if we were to partner with some of the other cities that are either already Prohousing designated or going for that.
[01:39:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: And if we... I just think that's a better approach. So the really big one for me is just figuring out some way in the next year or two to kind of change that dynamic so that we're getting a little bit more credit for all the effort that we're taking and frankly, some of the pain, the political pain that we're suffering as a city because of that.
[01:39:53] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think it will help us move our housing goals along. Soft story retrofits, as Councilmember Showalter pointed out, we don't want to let any crisis go to waste. And I feel like in this particular circumstance, we're waiting for the crisis to occur.
[01:40:09] Councilmember Chris Clark: And I guarantee you when we have the next big one, there will be all sorts of political momentum to retrofit soft story structures that haven't fallen down. And I worry that we're going to lose lives if we don't act sooner than later. And I would really prefer not to act after we have some sort of crisis that forces folks to act.
[01:40:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I... and then the other big one is just, I know it's a hornet's nest, but there has to be construction liability reform for condominiums at some point. I don't know what the right answer is, but we're dealing with that in my current condo complex because we're approaching year 10 and all the litigators come out of the woodwork.
[01:40:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: And the insurance, it really affects the insurance right now and the HOA dues because it's almost impossible to insure condo complexes. Uh, anyway, that's a whole other can of worms. But, um, and the other items that were mentioned were fine with me.
[01:41:02] Councilmember Chris Clark: The only other thing that I would mention is, to the extent that if there is any sort of legislation... I know I don't want to get into ALPRs, that's a totally separate bucket, but I am heartened by, I didn't think it would be very successful, but I'm really impressed by the data that's coming out of San Francisco on the speed cameras and safety, especially in school zones and other areas.
[01:41:26] Councilmember Chris Clark: And so I think right now they've only authorized a certain number of jurisdictions to do that. And I think that any jurisdiction should have the option to at least try those. I think there are far fewer privacy implications associated with that, especially if you set the thresholds high enough for speed and other things.
[01:41:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: But it's really hard and expensive for us to have the number of officers doing traffic enforcement constantly in those areas. And if some of that could be automated, I think we would end up with much, much safer streets. And I think the data is proving out that it's actually an effective way to really reduce fatalities and accidents and have an impact. So that's the only other thing that I would add.
[01:42:10] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Ramirez.
[01:42:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, there's a lot of new ideas, and I think one of the things that we don't necessarily have to do with this platform, but over time it might be good to think about a prioritization.
[01:42:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The document over time risks becoming so sprawling that we'll have 400,000 different statements and it's not really clear what we care most about. When, I think there are some themes that are emerging as clear priorities, including protecting our ability to impose a real property transfer tax, for instance.
[01:42:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So that's something I won't be around for much longer, but maybe the next Council could think about. There were a couple of things I wanted to suggest. So one, I appreciate Councilmember Showalter bringing up the soft story retrofitting, seismic retrofitting issue. I was surprised that we've talked about this a few times and that wasn't in the list when that's been a concern for the city for a long time.
[01:43:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I wanted to flag C 33, which is a very long statement that in my opinion is a little bit hard to parse. And I wanted to suggest having staff think through revisiting that to make it clearer about what we want to achieve.
[01:43:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And what I would suggest in particular is we're starting to see some, in my opinion, bad actor developers use the State Density Bonus Law to reduce or eliminate our inclusionary housing requirements.
[01:44:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And in particular, reducing either the number of affordable units that we would otherwise require or reducing the affordability of those units, which in my mind is just clearly antithetical to what the State Density Bonus Law is supposed to do, which is provide incentives to provide affordable housing.
[01:44:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So my suggestion or request would be for staff to think through this and suggest some language to basically say that we would support legislation that would enhance or strengthen the city's ability to impose inclusionary housing requirements and oppose efforts that allow developers to reduce the number of affordable units or the affordability of those units.
[01:44:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Through the State Density Bonus Law or through other mechanisms. And we'll see potentially one of those projects pretty soon. And actually, so I asked the question, I appreciate staff reminding us about the State Density Bonus Law bill that the City of Mountain View ran with then Assembly Member Evan Low.
[01:45:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And grateful to him for carrying the bill. And it's unfortunate it didn't go very far, but I think that's, this is especially if we start seeing this more and more, I think this is a bill that we should think about running again and maybe scoping it where it's clearer what we're trying to achieve, which is preserving affordability or creating affordable units.
[01:45:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So that would be personally, that's my top priority, although there are a lot of really good ideas that my colleagues are suggesting. I don't oppose treating Prohousing designated cities differently, but I do think we should be thoughtful in our advocacy.
[01:45:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I don't... there could be a time and a place when Cupertino becomes a Prohousing designated city and, you know... Yes, I agree. So yes, hard to get. We have it and it should mean, you know, it provides value for our city. So thinking through that, I think is important.
[01:46:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The last thing I would suggest is there's a statement regarding e-bikes and we got a little bit of feedback from the community. I don't know what the statement should be, but I do think that we should advance safety and ensure protections for riders, but without discouraging or deterring the use of that technology.
[01:46:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: There are many people who will use an e-bike because it's convenient and easy, right? And if it becomes too onerous, then instead of using the e-bike, they might drive, right? So it would have the opposite impact if we overregulate that technology.
[01:46:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So again, sort of thinking through that language and supporting efforts like, we want more people to use e-bikes. It's better than if they drive. But we also want to make sure that they are safe to use, right? And that they're not causing challenges with multimodal facilities. So those are my suggestions. Thank you.
[01:47:02] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Ramirez. Councilmember Hicks.
[01:47:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So in case, Mayor, you're keeping track, I agree with all the items that have been brought up by Councilmembers before. Okay. I think that my bigger things are, I assume that we will be tracking all legislation related to SB 9, but I wanted to call out a few things that in particular that I would like us to pay attention to.
[01:47:36] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Like Councilmember Ramirez said before, all of these things, basically each thing we bring up you do thoughtfully, but I assume that that's, for example, you had said incentives for cities with Prohousing designation. I assume that applies to everything we lobby for, that we do it thoughtfully, that if it's bad legislation even though it's under one of our rubrics, we won't go for it.
[01:48:03] Councilmember Alison Hicks: But so that said, track all legislation related to SB 79 and particularly alternative plan implementation challenges. You know, I think from the previous meeting when this was on our agenda, we saw that our city was affected more than a lot of Bay Area cities, over 20% of our land mass.
[01:48:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: But also when I've looked up what cities are affected, a lot of them, even though their land mass is affected around BART stations for example, the only thing really affected is a very giant parking lot. And that's really different than our situation where it's the heart of our economic vitality plan.
[01:48:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So because we're so impacted, I think anything that might intersect with our Prohousing designation, anything that might give us an extended timeline to implement SB 79. And in particular, possibly allow a statutory CEQA exemption, which is any legislation around that, that is one of the more time consuming parts of the alternative plan implementation in my understanding.
[01:49:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And let's see if I had any others... Yeah, and anything... anything protecting, I think transportation oriented development works best if it's mixed use, not purely housing. So anything that protects a mixture of uses, any legislation that speaks to that, in a thoughtful way. So that's one. A bunch of things under the rubric of tracking legislation related to SB 79 and the alternative plan.
[01:50:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: A second one is there's been a lot of changes in how homelessness is addressed both statewide and federally. And I'm hearing some talk of how it might be... I know this is a ways out, but I think it's better to talk early and also I will not be on council when it's closer.
[01:50:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Any talk about how homelessness is covered in the housing element. I've heard rumors that... how do I say this politely? Seem like they might just dump solutions on some cities and I think everybody needs to pitch in on this one.
[01:50:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I would like to be a part of this discussion. I think that, you know, people of all income groups have family members who have drug, alcohol and mental health problems and end up homeless. And so I think all of us need to do our fair share. And I want to make sure that the next housing element has everyone do their fair share and has ways of doing that.
[01:51:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: In particular, maybe adding a 15% AMI designation might be one way. But again, do it thoughtfully, look at all different approaches. The rest of mine are kind of minor, so I think I'm gonna skip them.
[01:51:47] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: You sure?
[01:51:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: You want to hear them? Okay. So I would like to see legislation that allows or encourages addition of worker housing to offices and other... so not to disallow that.
[01:52:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: If an area is zoned for office, I have seen certain offices allow people to park their... people who are doing cleaning for the office park their RV there in the parking lot and use the restrooms. I think there might be better solutions.
[01:52:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I've seen public storage including bedrooms for people who are managing them. I think there's an opportunity for workers who are having trouble finding affordable housing to have that sort of carved out of various places, offices and public storage and so forth. And I would hate to disallow that or have people doing it in secret.
[01:52:47] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So any legislation around that. I would also like any legislation that facilitates offices used as homeless transitional housing. I know there's talk of in San Jose in particular and other cities of turning offices to housing, to apartments basically.
[01:53:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: That's pretty hard to do because of some of the infrastructural changes that are needed. But to use them as transitional housing, I think could be a pretty quick fix for a lot of people and kind of a game changer in the way that do I call it retrofitting hotels has sometimes been. So that's another thing I would be interested in seeing. That's it. Thank you, Mayor.
[01:53:39] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Hicks. Councilmember Kamei, did you have anything you wanted to add to the platforms?
[01:53:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thanks, Mayor. Uh, no, I think colleagues have been good about adding. I just want to take the opportunity to thank staff as well as our state and federal lobbyists who've been helping us achieve some of our goals.
[01:54:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I mean, over 3 million dollars of federal earmarks during this administration I think is a really huge win for our city, our community, our residents. As well as things that we're monitoring in the state level, being able to work and I know advocate for in our capitols.
[01:54:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So just want to take a moment because our state platform, we've only had for what is it, four years going into year five? And then just one year with our federal advocacy and I think we've really made momentum. So I also want to thank colleagues for moving in this direction.
[01:54:42] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I think we had discussed it for a while and then took the plunge in this direction and I think we're seeing all our hard work and forward thinking pay off. So I just wanted to take that opportunity.
[01:54:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And in that vein, really hoping that we can educate our residents on these accomplishments that we've been able to make. I don't know if staff has an idea of how we're going to be able to roll that out and educate our community about these exciting new funds that we'll be able to use for our community.
[01:55:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: But would love to be able to make sure that we're kind of connecting the dots on the direct... you know, we're hearing directly from the community, we're using that to inform our legislative platform, and we're translating that into resources into our city. And so I think like that would be a really great thing for us to be able to elevate. So thanks.
[01:55:47] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Kamei. I'll finish up before we take our five to ten minute break so that staff can capture major themes and then read it back to us.
[01:55:58] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: I agree with pretty much most of what my colleagues have asked for. I'll do a heavy emphasis on condo liability reform. I think that is one of... we're at a time where I think it's a strike iron now that it's hot kind of thing, because I do believe that there's a lot of action going towards it.
[01:56:21] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: And we really... it's not that we don't... it's not anything against renters. We just... it's... we want that option to be homeowners to be available. Like we can't have barriers to it kind of thing. I also support the single stair away reform as well.
[01:56:44] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: The big thing is, as I'm thinking about it, I'm like, is this a good idea? Is this not? But you know, I'm just going to go for it. In the federal platform, someone from public comment mentioned about immigration.
[01:56:59] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: And I did notice that we didn't mention... and I know it's something that's actually kind of scary for our partners helping us lobby to the federal government. It is a very antagonistic relationship on certain policies.
[01:57:22] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: But I do think we should still hold certain policies. As we mentioned, we are a community for all. And so we care for our residents, all our residents regardless of immigration status. And so we should support legislation or oppose legislation that causes harm to them.
[01:57:47] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: I guess that... I don't know how we would address that. Our federal advocacy program is still so new and so it's hard for us to navigate through that and this is a very unprecedented times when it comes to our federal government. So I know that we need to approach that very carefully, but I would love us to at least find a way to address it. I see Councilmember McAlister.
[01:58:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just want to add our question about the condos. So there's also the ability, condo conversions to take existing apartments and do that. So I don't know if that's a legislative thing or is that something internal that the city can do. I'm not totally privy to that idea.
[01:58:40] Councilmember John McAlister: So if that's any part of that, that would be helpful too so that we get them to build them or that if they're taking a building and they want to convert it, that that's also taken care of too. So just to get both ends of that going.
[01:58:55] Councilmember John McAlister: And I did also want to comment on Councilmember Ramirez. I agree with him that this is rather robust of number of items. And if there's some way that you can, and I'm sure you could, consolidate it to really get the meatier items in there so that when we do talk about it or we don't lose the... well I start reading so many of them, they started blending together seriously.
[01:59:18] Councilmember John McAlister: How they were very common in a lot of respects. And so if that's possible to consolidate and beef up the ones that we really want to get done, then I think that will be good for the community, for our advisors and for the Council.
[01:59:34] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember McAlister. I see your hand up, Councilmember Kamei.
[01:59:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. I'm sorry, Mayor, the time difference is already getting to me. So I agree with you on how we can double tap on our community for all. And I was thinking about that because Senator Becker co-sponsored Senator Wiener's bill on the No Kings Act.
[02:00:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And so I actually don't think it's just a part of legislative, or sorry, federal side, it's also for the state. Sorry. So I'd love to be able to adopt it for both our state and federal advocacy. I was looking through our list of priorities. I don't know if it can... something that can fit under, you know, Bucket D or Bucket J.
[02:00:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: But I think maybe a statement kind of similar to what we've done before, just supporting legislation that reaffirms communities for all or something like that and something super broad and then kind of gives us the ability to be supportive would be something that we could add. That would just be a suggestion, but thank you for bringing that up. I had meant to say that as well, but thanks.
[02:00:58] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Kamei. I didn't even think about adding it in the state legislation. I was like, oh, that's actually a good idea. Yeah. I think there's gonna be a lot at the state. Probably more impactful at the state actually, so than kind of just yelling at cloud kind of feeling.
[02:01:17] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Um, all right. So with that, do we have any other comments or... Oh, go ahead, Councilmember Clark.
[02:01:23] Councilmember Chris Clark: Just very quick in terms of prioritization. I mean, you I think you've heard some themes. In terms of prioritization for this year, if especially at the state, you know, if there are legislative vehicles that we can... that exist, you know, those are the conversations that we should... it sounds like Buffy Wicks has something around maybe condo liability reform based on what Senator Becker said.
[02:01:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: I don't know if there is a legislative vehicle for soft story retrofits. It's important to me, but if there doesn't exist a vehicle, then maybe this year unfortunately isn't the right time. But it sounds like there might be a legislative vehicle for some of the Prohousing City items that we talked about.
[02:02:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I think that's just a given that we'll prioritize the ones that we will actually sort of move... maybe move forward this year at the state level and the others are more just themes, at least that's my opinion.
[02:02:19] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Clark. And with that, we will take our 5 to 10 minute break. So we will... it is 19:02 now so we'll take a 10 minute break and we'll come back at 19:12.
Segment 4
[02:20:30] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right, welcome back everyone. I call this meeting back to order at 19:20. Um, so now we have um our staff um bringing us back up to um what we all came up with.
[02:21:05] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Thank you Mayor. Uh, so staff took notes based uh from Council's feedback and based on um what we heard mentioned by two or more Council members we have seven items um or seven themes that we heard that the Council would like to have added to um the regional and state legislative platform. Um, so we w- I will read out um the themes and then um we will confirm uh that we have a Council consensus for these themes. So the first would be Prohousing City flexibility. This um is an added statement and edit to um item C 33 um within the um the existing or the proposed legislative platform. Funding for soft story retrofits. Condo liability barriers. Property transfer tax which is an existing proposed statement for A 17. Community for All. SB 79 Alternative plan timelines which is also an existing proposed statement for C 32. And finally single stair reform.
[02:22:25] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Sounds great Councilmember Ramirez?
[02:22:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. Um I know these are themes but um I I feel like for the first item there's a um it may be worth breaking it up into two separate things. The Prohousing city uh flexibility um is important and I'm I agree is is one of the uh themes that emerged from the discussion but I think that's def- different from um state density bonus law reform or revision to ensure that cities can continue to enforce local inclusionary housing ordinances. So maybe clarifying that first one to to differentiate the two.
[02:23:10] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Showalter?
[02:23:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I think I was the one who talked the most about the reach codes but no one objected and I wondered if there was any other interest in adding um protecting reach codes.
[02:23:30] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yeah. Yeah I I I see a lot of nodding heads on my colleagues. Um so. Should we. How would we treat items that only one Council member mentioned therefore not on the thing but...
[02:23:43] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: So we have another slide...
[02:23:45] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Oh.
[02:23:46] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: ...that shows...
[02:23:47] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Oh okay.
[02:23:48] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: ...the other items that we captured that um uh was only mentioned by one Council member I can go through those as well if if you would like.
[02:24:00] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Okay, so there's a separate slide. So for um moving on from this slide, do you want us to have a a like a straw poll being like yes this one? Okay. So um. Are we are we good? All right. Everyone in favor of these added legislative items, please raise your hand. Unanimous wait uh yes I see Councilmember Kamei. Unanimous. All right. Shall we move on to the next slide.
[02:24:24] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay, and so the next slide shows um several items that were mentioned by one Council member. Um so starting with reach codes. Storm water management. Automated license plate readers. Speed camera pilot programs. ADA frivolous lawsuits which is um an existing statement in uh E 8. CEQA Tribal consults. E-Bike safety without over regulation which is an existing proposed statement in K 20. TOD mixed-use. Homelessness in housing element. Housing as part of office and public storage use. And office conversions to transitional housing.
[02:25:10] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to treat this like a consent calendar. And uh if people want to withdraw any of those items, we can vote on it separately, but then everything else that that stays on there we could do a straw poll on that. Does that sound like a plan? Okay. Okay, so does anyone want to pull anything from these items? I see Councilmember Clark.
[02:25:34] Councilmember Chris Clark: It's less to pull and just I don't know which of those um even have I keep saying legislative vehicles but sorry but have anything in the hopper this year because if they don't then you know it's fine for us to identify themes but I don't think they really rise to the level of priority this year for me. So like Automated license plate readers I don't know if there's any legislation coming this year or any of the other stuff. Or but some of these vehicles or these um some of these things are just empty so who knows what they'll be. But anyway I just wanted to point that out like I these are all great but I don't want to focus time and energy on things that probably aren't even gonna move forward in this session but.
[02:26:18] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Ramirez?
[02:26:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. I um I don't want to pull anything either. I agree. They're all uh important. Maybe a slightly different um spin from the way the Vice Mayor placed it but uh as Councilmember McAlister said, you know, it's good to prioritize and and maybe uh this is why I think if it it didn't show up in either slide but uh maybe it would be helpful for uh the Council if if we agree to give staff direction to think about maybe having sort of like here are our higher priority items and here's in case something comes up serendipitously um or some other way of differentiating the things that we want to focus on from like this is good to have in our program but it's not the priority for today.
[02:27:10] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: I'm not entirely sure how to put that in a straw poll. Um but uh as no one seems to be pulling any items... Oh wait. Oh. Miss Audrey... or City... Acting City Attorney... City manager. Why do I keep on mixing that up?
[02:27:33] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you Mayor, Councilmember Kamei. Um I think that uh a prioritization of the entire platform would probably be a difficult achievement for a return adoption and I'm not hearing that that's what's being suggested but just perhaps some things that get highlighted um as being of a higher priority in which case the the prior slide of things that had more Council members um speaking to those things um uh might be things that we would would note in that way and that would be an easier thing than than trying to go through the entire platform to prioritize. Um there's you know alternative ways to address this list as well. Um you know reach codes was one that I I think you know maybe had I saw the nodding as you brought it up but not the the the the people commenting towards it. And you may or may not feel that that same way as a Council for for this entire list. It's certainly up to you to to prioritize more within within this list.
[02:28:45] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: That that sounds good. Um we will now go before I go back to Councilmember McAlister I'll go to Councilmember Kamei.
[02:28:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thanks thanks so much Mayor. Um and through you maybe I can just get clarity from staff. So I think the way I view our legislative platform and our priorities every year is talking about the different themes that um fall into our seven priorities. And so with these different additions, I would s- I would suspect that staff would take these and put those under the different, you know, buckets um through, you know, that are that are called out and listed out. My understanding was rather than it being necessarily like a proactive exercise at at this juncture, it would be kind of like a monitoring and so for the different items that we adopt in our platform um because it's so robust that both our state and federal partners are looking um and flagging for us any legislation if we want to do letters of support or any advocacy or if they're seeing anything coming that might be a a a bill that we want to um kind of weigh in on similar to kind of what we saw with like the unlock act. So I would feel comfortable and maybe I'm misinterpreting how we do our legislative process but I would be comfortable adding everything that colleagues recommended because it kind of gives us this broad portfolio with which we can kind of track as different legislation comes in. Um but I don't know that I would feel ready to prioritize at this point. I would just kind of want to adopt and kind of see how things go throughout the legislative processes this year. I mean that's how I have envisioned our adoption of the legislative platform and priorities and I think what has happened in the past is staff has also been uh if they've heard certain things that we've said or the community has brought certain bills that they want us to um support, we've also done that so it's it's also iterative. So I do yeah I just wanted to share that because I feel comfortable adding having them put them in the different kind of tranches um and them keeping us apprised as as the legislative um cycle continues. And I don't know if staff wants to weigh in and comment but that's been my understanding. Thanks.
[02:30:51] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yes, thank you Madam Mayor and Councilmember Kamei. Um yes, we certainly can have these items in and we have different types of actions that we take in the the advocacy process and sometimes it's just a watch and monitor. Um sometimes it goes all the way towards sponsoring legislation so um having these there as things that we can act on should there become an opportunity certainly is um is very possible.
[02:31:25] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Great. Thank you. Councilmember McAlister.
[02:31:29] Councilmember John McAlister: Um one way to prioritize things is like uh the reason I brought up the ADA frivolous lawsuits that was a legislation last year they was trying to get that moving along. So there's some activity in the house. Same with e-bikes. That's being done. So one way to say hey let's prioritize things that are actually happening at the state capital that's a hot topics and so that way our uh consultants can say okay yeah this is going and we actually have something to worry working on and let's get the momentum and push it forward. So that's uh that's one way to look at things to get it going. If it's active out on the house up there. That's why I advocate for frivolous lawsuits cause we need it. We need em all.
[02:32:19] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember McAlister. So it looks like no one's pulling anything away from this it looks like. So on this list, does everyone feel comfortable including it into our our platform. Uh please raise your hand if you are. Yay, unanimous. On to the next item. Or next slide. Oh, no more slides?
[02:32:44] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: That that concludes the Council input. So with that staff will um take these themes back. We will work with our legislative advocates and our department heads to um develop um policy statements and incorporate them into the platform and bring that back for Council adoption on February 24th.
[02:33:04] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Wonderful. So that looks like that is our items. Thank you so much to our our lobbyists who are doing those big works in our in our state and federal capital. Um I'm excited to move forward with our platform and seeing how we can uh push some weight in Sacramento to make things a lot easier for our city and our residents. Um I'll be excited to work with both with all of you. Um put me in coach. Let's go. All right. We are now moving on to our regular session. We could we could do like a five minute break if oh oh. Oh, that was sarcasm. Okay. Um. All right, so let's move on to our 6:30 regular session. We'll begin with uh call to order. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Mountain View City Council of February 10, 2026. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
[02:33:59] All: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[02:34:24] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. And next the City Clerk will take attendance by roll call.
[02:34:29] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks? Here. Councilmember Kamei? Here. Councilmember McAlister? Yep. Councilmember Ramirez? Here. Councilmember Showalter? Here. Vice Mayor Clark? Here. Mayor Ramos? Here. You have a quorum.
[02:34:49] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. And as we have a Councilmember participating remotely, all votes will be taken by roll call this evening. So now we move on to item 3, Presentations. Please note, these are presentations only. The City Council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation items. If you would like to speak on these items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. So we are moving on to 3.1, Black History Month Proclamation. We are happy to be joined this evening by uh City Attorney Jennifer Logue to accept this proclamation. Uh Jennifer would you join me at the lectern?
[02:35:43] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. The proclamation reads: Whereas, the City of Mountain View takes pride in recognizing February as Black History Month, celebrating the many noble contribution, notable contributions that the people of African descent have made to our community, state, and country. And whereas, the theme for the 2026 Black History Month, designed by the Association for the Study of African American Life and History, is 'A Century of Black History Commemorations,' and this theme marks the 100th anniversary of the first Negro History Week, established by Dr. Carter G. Woodson in 1926. And whereas, inequity and injustice still lingers in our cities, state, and country, and it should be the aspiration and responsibility of every resident to advance the American ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. We honor the contributions of Black residents who have enriched our community through their leadership, service, and cultural contributions. Now, therefore I, Emily Ann Ramos, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of February as Black History Month in the City of Mountain View and call upon all residents to reflect on the significant achievements of Black Americans. Would you like to say a few words?
[02:37:04] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes, please. Thank you. First I'd just like to say thank you very much Mayor for the honor of asking me to accept this proclamation. It is very much appreciated. Um Black History Month is an opportunity to reflect on the enduring contributions, resilience, and leadership of Black Americans. Black history month is not separate from American history. It is an essential part of the institutions, laws, economy, culture, and democratic ideals we live with today. This month invites both celebration and reflection while also challenging us to continue to work the work of building institutions and communities that are fair and inclusive and just. I accept this proclamation not on my own behalf, but in honor of the many organizations, leaders, educators, advocates, and community members who do the hard, often quiet work of advancing equity, inclusion, and opportunity every day. Their efforts strengthen our community and help ensure that everyone feels seen, valued, and respected. Thank you again for the recognition and for the City's continued commitment to being a community for all, a place where diversity is not only acknowledged but is embraced as a source of strength.
[02:38:29] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Now uh for our next proclamation, Lunar Lunar New Year. Um we are happy to be joined this evening um by one of our graduates of the Chinese Language Civic Leadership Academy to accept this proclamation. Will you join me at the lectern? All right. Right here. And then I'll read it out. So the proclamation reads: Whereas, today we commemorate Lunar New Year and join families in Mountain View and around the world in welcoming the Year of the Horse. And whereas, the Lunar New Year, predominantly celebrated by millions of Asian and Pacific Islander Californians, including people of Chinese, Korean, Singaporean, and Vietnamese heritage, among others, is a time of joy and renewal. On this special day, families gather to celebrate and prepare for the arrival of a new year of good health and prosperity. Across the state, parades, community events, and family meals illustrate the rich cultural history and diversity that define California. And whereas, we look forward to a joyous new year, we proudly reflect on the contributions of Asian and Pacific Islander Californians who literally built California, from America's first transcontinental railroad to the farms and small businesses foundational to our state's economy. We also recognize that discriminatory laws, xenophobic policies, and mistreatment suffered by Asian and Pacific Islander Californians are a blight on our state's history. And whereas, today in rejecting past prejudice and embracing inclusion, let us join our Asian and Pacific Islander friends and neighbors in celebration. We also encourage California schools to take time to educate our students about the traditions of Lunar New Year and the past and present contributions of the Asian and Pacific Islander community in our state. And whereas, as the door to the Year of the Horse opens, we wish good fortune, health, and happiness to all those who celebrate. Now, therefore I, Emily Ann Ramos, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the City Council, do hereby proclaim February 17th as Lunar New Year. Would you like to say a few words?
[02:40:54] Public Speaker: Yeah, sure. Um first of all, thank you so much for this proclamation and uh for the City's continued support of our fourth Lunar New Year celebration on February 27th. Lunar New Year is an important cultural tradition for many families in our community, and we deeply appreciate the City's recognition of its value and its commitment to inclusion and cultural celebration. Um this support helps bring people together, strengthens community connections, and honors the diversity that makes our city so special. Um on behalf of our community, thank you again um for your partnership and continued support. Thank you.
[02:41:44] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. We are now moving on to... Would any member of the Council like to say a few words? Councilmember Hicks.
[02:41:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I just wanted to thank Jennifer for all her hard work. Or uh City Attorney Logue. And point out that um in celebration of your accepting it, you will be leading the next item on the agenda. Is that on our agenda? Is that true?
[02:42:14] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes, I will be leading the next item.
[02:42:19] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: The best way to celebrate a proclamation. Um so um as I promised in my um inaugural speech, I always lead one of the Council meetings with a call to action and call to service and a call to community. And so with that, just a small announcement as we um mentioned with the Lunar New Year proclamation, um the applications for the 2026 Chinese Leadership Academy are now open. We recommend um uh people to this um free eight-week long program that's now uh the applications are now open from to through Friday March 6th uh for Chinese Mountain View residents to apply. Um the the City of Mountain View holds it's it's the third Chinese Language Civic Leadership Academy uh in March 2026. The Chinese Leadership Academy is a free eight-week long program for Chinese-speaking Mountain View residents. The program is designed to improve participants' understanding of local government and city services. Through the program, participants are encouraged to increase their civic engagement, leadership, and volunteerism in the community. The Academy also prepares individuals to serve on City Council advisory bodies and committees. So we highly recommend people to sign up and join. It's a really good opportunity and and one that a lot of neighboring cities are very jealous of our program. All right. Um I see no other hands uh from our Council. Um we will now take public comment for presentation items. Will any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the presentation items listed on the agenda. If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have three minutes. I see no hands up. So we will close uh public comment on our present- our presentation items. We will now move on to item 4 Consent Calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the Council wishes to pull an item for individual consideration. If an item is pulled from the consent calendar, it will be considered separately following approval of the balance of the consent calendar. If you would like to speak on these items or the next item, oral communications on non-agenda items, in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. Would any member of the Council like to pull an item? Councilmember McAlister.
[02:44:24] Councilmember John McAlister: I have questions on 4.1 and 4.2.
[02:44:29] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Just questions or no are um are you not pulling?
[02:44:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Hmm. Um if I pull and ask a question what's the difference? I'll just pull for uh questions.
[02:44:49] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Uh which one are you pulling?
[02:44:51] Councilmember John McAlister: 4.1 4.2. I'm not pulling them I just have questions so.
[02:44:59] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Oh okay. So yeah. Um Councilmember Showalter.
[02:45:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I would like to um pull uh 4.2 so we can have a brief um description of the project from the um staff. I understand uh staff is here ready to do that and um it I see that this um this project the transit center grade separation it's something um an access project it's something that um is of interest to many people in the community and how we're going to do this uh pedestrian um the pedestrian improvements and bike improvements people just want to hear about it. So I am not uh in any way opposed to it I just would like to raise the awareness.
[02:45:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um just um City Attorney Logue if or or um or Audrey do do we if we want a presentation or something like that do we need to pull the item for a separate vote or can we do the presentation and discussion just without actually doing a separate vote in formal...
[02:45:59] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Um you do not need to pull the items for the the um information that's being requested or to ask a uh question. Um it's fine to have those questions answered and the information shared and then you can vote on both items together.
[02:46:19] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. So that's probably what we'll do. So we'll start with Councilmember McAlister. Feel free to ask your questions for both 4.1 and 4.2.
[02:46:29] Councilmember John McAlister: Well um uh Councilmember Showalter sort of uh I will follow up on once they give a presentation on 4.2. So that that was sort of one of questions there. On 4.1, I just had one question. Um had ever the thought and I don't know if I brought this up before, was there any consideration to leasing the land, long term lease, and was there a possibility of and if we did, what kind of revenue could we generate for the city?
[02:46:59] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: Good evening, Jennifer Ng, the Public Works Director um here at the City. So this item before you for the notice of intention to vacate Fairmont Avenue was actually brought to the City Council last year in November of 2025. Um the reason why it's being brought forward again is because the public hearing date has changed. Originally the project was going to be heard in December but because the new date is now March, we need to re-notice the intention to vacate this piece of public street. So your question of did we discuss previously uh whether or not to do a long term lease instead of selling the land. That question did come up previously. Um it was determined that the uh lease of the land would not um would not provide what the developer needed in order to have a cohesive development project. This piece of uh street is bisecting their project and in order for it to be a comprehensive project, it needs to be uh basically one one one piece one cohesive piece of land. Uh to answer your question of you know what type of revenue could the city see if it were to be leased, um it's pretty marginal. Uh estimates from our real estate group are putting this around $150,000 a year.
[02:48:19] Councilmember John McAlister: So over time it would bring some. Was there any talk about putting an arch at one time? This came along some this project was uh started before I came on board. Was there any thought of an arch over that street from the developer?
[02:48:34] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: Um I haven't been here that long. I've only been here 15 16 months so I don't have the full on history. I have not heard of any mention of an arch going over Fairmont previous.
[02:48:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Well thank you. So.
[02:48:54] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: You're welcome.
[02:48:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Um to finish this one up, I'm going to register a no vote on 4.1.
[02:49:04] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember McAlister. Uh Councilmember Hicks.
[02:49:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I just have a question for City Attorney Logue. Um I've been recused in the past from this project. Do I recuse? I think out of a bun- an abundance of caution and because I have not even spoken about this in any way and always been recused I will continue to recuse myself from this one.
[02:49:29] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes, you can recuse. You don't have to leave and I actually thought I heard that but I guess we didn't get an email to you but you can recuse without leaving since it's a consent.
[02:49:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, I will be doing that.
[02:49:44] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Thank you Councilmember Hicks. I guess the next thing is the presentation on 4.2 that staff has presented?
[02:49:54] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Or brief exclamation it might be. Not sure which.
[02:49:59] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: Yeah, my apologies. I don't have a formal presentation prepared but a quick explanation of what the project is. Um maybe I'll start similar to the other question and just start with a little bit of history and background. Um so uh once upon a time we were moving forward as a city with two grade separations in the city, one at Castro and one at Rengstorff. Um about 2023, um we got word uh um we got word that the cost escalation cost um cost estimates for both of those projects had grossly exceeded the amount of money that the city had put aside for both projects. And in early 2024, City Council made a difficult decision to prioritize Rengstorff as the grade separation project that we were going to move forward with. Good news for all of you that one's proceeding on track. Um but we're here to talk about Castro tonight. And so when the City Council made the difficult decision to prioritize Rengstorff, a um simplified project to close off Castro Street to vehicular movements um at uh the rail sep- at the rails was was um conceived and approved. And so the project in essence is to uh create some permanent improvements to close off vehicular access in the northbound and southbound movements um crossing the rail tracks um and to keep pedestrian and bicycle uh access across Central Expressway north um to Moffett Boulevard and south to the downtown intact. Along the way we'll be making some improvements creating a plaza. We'll be creating some bike lanes along Evelyn. Evelyn from Hope to the west will be um turned into a one-way westerly directional street uh with either class 2 or class 4 bike lanes along it. There'll be some traffic signal modifications, some ADA curb ramps, um those kind of things that come with civil improvements.
[02:51:49] Councilmember Chris Clark: And just a quick follow up. So if we were to um if infrastructure funding were to materialize in the next few years, um how difficult would it be to revive the the pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing there or are we kind of just writing it off?
[02:52:09] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: It's about $271 million was our estimate in 2023. So if a giant bucket of money fell from the sky and we found $271 million, um we would abso- I believe as a city we would obviously you guys would would have a a vote in that but um I believe we would uh uh resurrect, is that the right word? Resurrect the Castro um uh grade separation as fully originally envisioned.
[02:52:34] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. But there nothing we would do tonight would preclude us from doing that or none of these improvements would preclude that. Okay.
[02:52:44] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: Correct. Correct.
[02:52:47] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Clark. Councilmember McAlister.
[02:52:49] Councilmember John McAlister: So I had a couple questions. I always like to get data. And part of your plan here is to reroute traffic. And you're going to take it from the main street through some of the smaller streets. Um was there a traffic count done before or after to see what kind of impact rerouting cars from Evelyn through uh Bryant and Franklin streets?
[02:53:14] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: Traffic count in terms of number of vehicles that would have to reroute?
[02:53:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. Cause you're you're taking them off Villa. I mean you're taking them off Villa and you're going to put them on Evelyn for those cars that are going westbound on Evelyn.
[02:53:29] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: So this is this was envisioned as a long-term interim project, right? I guess it's sort of long-term permanent. Um traffic counts were done um original to the grades uh the Transit Center project was the original master plan for this project. Um at that time and when we were going to do the grades separ- the full grade separation, there was a connection envisioned from Evelyn um Avenue up to Shoreline Boulevard. So there'd be a direct tee-in connection. Traffic counts were done uh back in 2019 for that. Um I don't have those exact numbers for you uh right now tonight but I can follow up certainly if you would like that data.
[02:54:09] Councilmember John McAlister: This this is uh related to figure 10 vehicle circulation? So that's that's where I was concerned uh that was my question. Cause you have them going down on uh Okay. I mean when we start redoing traffic it's it helps to have some data to go with. So now when you said the 275 that was the full full blown thing and it's appears that our uh desire to do a full grade crossing is not realistic. But a pedestrian bike may be more realistic. What are so if with that in mind, what are we trying to accomplish with all this this bike lanes, this diagonals, all this uh are we trying to simplify it or are we trying to make it simple or are we just is there is it possible a case of over engineering? Where we got a uh class 2 lane then it goes to class 4, etc. And so what is the goal of this deal? Is to move bodies or help me out here.
[02:55:34] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: First and foremost, the goal is safety, right? So closing off the intersection between the rail and the vehicles is um going to eliminate a point of conflict that is going to be um you know a safety improvement for our community. Um another piece of safety that we are looking at is having a wider um and singular point of crossing um of Central Ex- of of the rail crossing on the east side of uh the rail connection with Castro Street. And what that does is it provides um a nice and comfortable 15 foot wide pedestrian walkway to get across the rail tracks. Um we'd be making the necessary ADA improvements. Um and we would be making sure that once again the number of conflicts with um between peds and bikes and you know potentially rail would be reduced to only one location.
[02:56:59] Councilmember John McAlister: So uh part of it you start with a uh class 2 bike lane and then you upgrade it to a class 4 um along the Castro. Why why why is that uh pro- programmed in like that?
[02:57:14] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: Class 4 is generally seen as bicyclists as less stress of a bike facility because there is a separation of a vertical element between typically bicyclists and vehicles. So a class 2 regular bike lane is just a stripe on the street.
Segment 5
[03:00:00] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: ...just a six-inch stripe that's separating the bike lane from a vehicular lane. A Class IV bike lane typically will have some sort of width of buffer, excuse me, along with some sort of vertical element, whether it's a channelizer or like the paddles that you see out on El Camino Real. Or really in fancy cases, you could put up a vertical curb.
[03:00:24] Councilmember John McAlister: So on Evelyn, if you're going to have a—you were taking out or considering taking out 10 parking spaces to put in bike lanes. Do you anticipate—what makes, what information makes you think that there's going to be bicyclists going down Evelyn versus going down some other streets to take out those parking lanes and put in those bike lanes?
[03:00:49] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Well, Evelyn Avenue is part of the county-wide VTA multimodal bike network. And so it is identified as one of those elements in a county-wide plan, right? So it's more than just the City of Mountain View that is looking at Evelyn Avenue as a connector. So we would anticipate that based off of that and other plans and maps that we have for envisioned build-out of our bike network, that this would be an amenity that could be used in the community. We did talk a little bit about the loss of parking in the last CTC meeting that we had at the end of last year. Staff did take a commitment to take a look at how parking could—parking elimination could be reduced. I know that's a double negative, but how we could retain parking. So we committed to taking a hard look at that design to seeing if there was any way to reconfigure to try to save some parking spaces, noting that there are businesses nearby.
[03:01:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Was there—were you—I think I had one of my last questions was, is there possible if we can take—are we taking money from the Castro project and applying it to Rengstorff?
[03:02:13] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Yeah, so back in 2024 when Council made the decision to move forward with the Rengstorff project, it was decided that we would retain the City's portion of the local match for Castro, which is roughly a little over $6 million, for this simplified project. The rest of the Measure B money—2016 Measure B money, I should clarify that—the rest of that money that was previously earmarked at that time for the Castro grade separation then was transferred over to the Rengstorff grade separation project in order to make that project whole financially and continue on.
[03:02:58] Councilmember John McAlister: And how much is this project costing?
[03:03:02] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Overall project is just a little over $6 million. Construction is anticipated at our estimate right now to be about $4.2 million.
[03:03:15] Councilmember John McAlister: $6 million to put in bike lanes and reconfigure the streets?
[03:03:19] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: It's building quite a bit of civil improvements as the rail interface with Castro, you know, we're planning on building a plaza. There are some stormwater improvements. We're putting in some trees along Evelyn to the west of the Transit Center. And so we're really trying to make this, you know, a nice project with the money that we have.
[03:03:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.
[03:03:45] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: You're welcome.
[03:03:46] Councilmember John McAlister: So, no, I was just understanding the process here. So we're—since it was pulled, we'll have a single vote on this? Because Councilmember Showalter pulled it.
[03:03:59] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: I clarified that if the purpose for pulling it was to ask questions and get information, that it was not necessary to pull it and that the Council could still act on the Consent Calendar with one vote. If there are no votes for either item, Councilmembers can specify.
[03:04:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so I'll make my comment then and then we can do it. I'm also going to register a no vote on this one. I think we're—it's—I'm not still clear about the amount of money that we're spending on some of these projects. I hope that as we go through these various processes of putting things in that we start looking at the data a little more. We're looking at, is there a way to accomplish other things—the same thing with a little less money? And you know, some people say it's not a lot of money, but $6 million is quite a bit. And we're not generating a lot of revenue. I still believe in safety, but sometimes a second fresh eyes are important to take a look at something like that. So those are my comments and we'll go from there. Thank you.
[03:05:08] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Hicks.
[03:05:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I just was going to briefly thank the Councilmembers who highlighted this because I think it is of great interest to the community. And when I first saw it on Consent and read the title, which is "Transit Center Grade Separation and Access Project," I was like, oh my gosh, they're bringing it back and they put it on Consent? How did I miss that? But I want to say to members of the public who are interested, the Council Transportation Committee did talk about this at length and that should be recorded and available if you want more—even more information than in this highlighted session tonight. And in addition, a part of this recommendation tonight is to amend the title name from Transit Center Grade Separation, etc., to "Castro and Evelyn Bike and Pedestrian Improvements Project," which is appropriate given the changes that are happening. So I hope that further clarifies what's going on.
[03:06:09] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Hicks. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on these items? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have three minutes. I see no one in the queue and I see no one's hands up. So we will now bring this back for Council action and note that a motion to approve the Consent Calendar should also include reading the title of the resolution attached to Consent Calendar Item 4.1. As a reminder, all votes will be taken by roll call this evening. And Councilmember Hicks will be recusing herself on Item 4.1.
[03:07:03] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. I see a motion by Councilmember Showalter, seconded by Councilmember Ramirez. Take it away, Councilmember Showalter—oh wait, I need to read it, right? Yes. Yes.
[03:07:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, well, I would like to move the Consent Calendar. And that includes reading Item 4.1: Adopt a Resolution of Intention of the City Council of the City of Mountain View to vacate a public street and easement at 881 Castro Street, to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a date for a public hearing to consider the vacation for March 10th, 2026.
[03:07:44] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Showalter. Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour?
[03:07:48] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I was just noting that I saw a hand up with Councilmember Kamei and I wanted to give her that opportunity to speak if she wished to.
[03:07:56] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes. Councilmember Kamei?
[03:07:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thanks, thanks so much, Mayor. Thanks, Ms. Ramberg. So I just wanted to also vote no on Item 4.1. And then for 4.2, thanks for the conversation about the Transit Center. That item actually came to CTC I want to say two or three times. And that might be the reason we've had ongoing discussion at CTC. So I think there will be quite a few meetings that people would be able to watch. But we got a lot of public comment at those meetings, both in person, virtually, as well as written. So hopefully all colleagues got that too. Thanks, Mayor.
[03:08:45] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. I guess now we will bring it to a vote.
[03:08:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Roll call.
[03:08:50] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We have to do roll call.
[03:08:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Did we have a motion and a second?
[03:08:53] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We did. From Councilmember Showalter and then seconded by Councilmember Ramirez. Let's have the roll call vote.
[03:09:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?
[03:09:05] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.
[03:09:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?
[03:09:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.
[03:09:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?
[03:09:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, with recusal on 4.1.
[03:09:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Kamei?
[03:09:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, no on 4.1.
[03:09:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?
[03:09:19] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no.
[03:09:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Clark?
[03:09:23] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yes.
[03:09:24] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos?
[03:09:25] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes.
[03:09:27] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries.
[03:09:31] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Before—we are now at Item Number 5, Oral Communications. I would like to make an announcement before we move into public comment on non-agenda items. We understand that there has been significant interest in the City's Automated License Plate Reader pilot program. Last week, Mountain View's Automated License Plate Reader cameras were turned off. Our Police Chief, Mike Canfield, decided to shut off the cameras after a Police Department initiated audit discovered that Mountain View's data has been accessed by federal and state law enforcement agencies in violation of our approved policies. Based on the information available, there is no indication that federal access was used to support immigration enforcement activity during the three-month period in 2024 where the Flock Safety nationwide search function was enabled on the first camera that was installed. In early January, as part of the police audit, staff also discovered and turned off a quote "statewide search function" that had been enabled without their awareness. It is very concerning and disappointing that this happened. At the same time, we are aware of how this technology has helped our Police Department in their ability to investigate burglaries, home break-ins, and a reported kidnapping, which protects our community. We also recognize that the most important tool for public safety is the trust of our community. Thank you to the community members who have contacted the City Council and me on this matter. At our next meeting on Tuesday, February 24th, my Council colleagues and I will vote on whether to formally end the contract with Flock Safety.
[03:11:15] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Now on to Item 5. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the City Council's subject matter jurisdiction for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the Council from acting on non-agenda items. If you would like to speak on this item or the next item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have three minutes. We will start with Greg Herrera. After Greg, we will have John Scarborough and then Eva Tang, followed by Albert Jeans.
[03:12:12] Greg Herrera: Good evening. First time here. My name is Bill Herrera, Greg Herrera, owner of Family and Bill's Towing. I tow a lot of motorhomes for you people. And they're very expensive. And you have a project in place, but it's confusing the way they want me to tow them and hold them. It's costing me like $14,000 per unit to keep for 30 days. And the City cuts it down where they only want to fund me $3,500 for disposal only. Not for towing it, not for storing it, not for taking the garbage out, not getting rid of the stuff inside, the fuel. There's a lot of costs to it. I don't think the City knows. And I just want to bring it to your attention that we could try to address it. To pay for this fee. Because I was able to do one—one a month, you know, just do it out of—for business wise. But now there's—I'm getting three or four a week. And they're getting to be expensive. It's costing the business money. And we have to tow them for the City to stay on rotation. So I'm trying to see if we could talk about how we deal with the expense of getting rid of these motorhomes that you want us to get rid of. Any comments how we go forward with this?
[03:13:42] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We're not allowed to act, take action on items that are not on the agenda. This is open public comment, so this is your time to speak. And we might take action in a future meeting.
[03:13:57] Greg Herrera: So where do I go from here? I talked to you. So now what happens? I'm—you can't talk?
[03:14:04] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Madam Mayor, our Police Chief is in the audience and would be happy to follow up with the speaker.
[03:14:13] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Thank you. So you can follow up with our Police Chief.
[03:14:15] Greg Herrera: All right, thank you.
[03:14:17] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. All right. Mr. Scarborough. After Mr. Scarborough is Eva. And then after Eva is Albert.
[03:14:28] John Scarborough: Hello again. City Councilmembers, John Scarborough, as mentioned. And I thought it was really great that we had the party in downtown Mountain View on Saturday. It was great. I caught the last bit of it. The energy was great. Met some people I have not seen in a while. So that was—that was really a good surprise. And I think it's really good that we have that space to bring our community together and just, you know, I don't think I thank y'all enough for having that space there and for the other things we have. One thing that I don't think is building our community very well is having the surveillance data and having it get out. And potentially be used by hostile agencies that are targeting people in our community. People in communities all over the country. So I'm really heartened, you know, when I got the announcement from the Police Chief saying that he was shutting them down. And I went out two days later and checked out the ones on Rengstorff. The one near Cast—near Central had blue lights on. The one up near San Luis had the blue lights on, plus every time a car went by, the LED illuminators would just flicker like that, as if it was still on. And I understand from the Mayor that there was some delay turning it off. But they're electronic. They're internet of things. They should be able to be turned off immediately. So I don't understand that. Anyway, I don't think we can trust that company. And I think that we need—I understand that there have been efforts to make sure that the data is not getting out anymore. That they are truly not being used. But I don't trust them. I think we should cover up the cameras and remove them as soon as we can. Thank you.
[03:16:19] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Eva Tang followed by Albert Jeans. Mr. Jeans, feel free to make your way up so we don't have to wait for...
[03:16:25] Eva Tang: Mayor, I am requesting permission to move about the chambers during my comment.
[03:16:34] Eva Tang: I—oh, sorry. Let's try that again. Mayor, I am requesting permission to move about the chambers during my comment.
[03:16:44] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: The problem is we won't be able to—the people who are on Zoom wouldn't be able to hear you.
[03:16:48] Eva Tang: Oh no, that's fine.
[03:16:55] Eva Tang: No? 'Cause I'm just going to do this.
[03:16:59] Eva Tang: Hey! Hey!
[03:17:02] Eva Tang: Because I was right. I know it's obnoxious to rub it in your face like that, but I've spent years making public comment, meeting you personally, serving on PSAB itself, and enduring MV Voice article comments pinning me as clueless with no grip on reality. I think I deserve to gloat and also scold you at least a little bit. Because as Council, I've heard you brush us off countless times as young, dumb activists. We've been educated professionals of all ages, technical writers, researchers, educators, engineers, and programmers who understand cybersecurity. We've had years of experience at the institutions you supposedly respect. And even if we didn't, you still should have listened to us because we are members of the community. My high school English teacher still lives here. She lives in Whisman. She keeps asking me when I'll replace you. Lucky for you, I keep laughing at that. I was 13 when I spoke to a school board for the first time. In high school I was playing a lobbyist in the California Youth and Government program. I was the youth you would have patted yourself on the back for encouraging to participate in civics. I just grew up. I got less cute. I'm not that nice and have different values from you. So your eyes glaze over whenever I speak. So I hope you're actually ready to listen now. Chief, you're going to want to hear this too. Because while the Chief has been praised by the community for his quick action in turning the Flock cameras off after supposedly discovering the data breach, I have to point out what everyone's ignored. The Voice requested a record of all the requests from outside agencies for Mountain View's Flock data in July 2025. You may or may not recall that is when I emailed Council and Chief about my concerns with Flock, which were largely ignored. My records request came in November and I was denied this information once again in violation of the Freedom of Information Act in December. If I hadn't mentioned this records request in my public comment on January 27th, when would the public have known about this data breach? When the Chief said January 30th that he couldn't tell the Voice why the Flock data breach happened? An agency statewide could search Mountain View's Flock data supposedly unauthorized for over a year? Why is that? Where was the point of neglect? The denial of my records request in December? Denial of the Voice's record request in July? Or the very beginning, when our policies stated the Special Operations Division Captain is supposed to approve every request from an outside agency? So we can blame Flock all we want...
[03:19:30] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Eva. Next we have Albert Jeans.
[03:19:40] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Do you have a presentation? Ah, okay.
[03:19:48] Albert Jeans: Yeah, thank you very much, Mayor, Councilmembers. I'd like to ask you to start thinking about the Parkland Dedication Ordinance because this came up last week at the EPC meeting for a rowhouse development where staff presented a new formula for computing the parkland dedication fee that would be paid by a developer. It's kind of summarized—I won't read all this of course, you can read that—but basically this fee is represents the project's proportional share of the cost to providing three acres of park and recreational space per a thousand residents. And staff cited a Supreme Court ruling, this recent Supreme Court ruling, which seems to invalidate the current Parkland Dedication Ordinance. Next slide please. So try to understand this better, I put this into a formula. And basically it's—it's not that complicated. You have—every—every what do you call planning area has a certain amount of parkland and that's generally except for Miramonte I think, it's less than the ideal, you know, Quimby Act which is three acres per thousand people. So there's a deficit. So in this equation here under the red, we have the Quimby Act amount of land is Q, you know, times the number of people in the—in that area, minus the actual area of parkland. So that's the deficit. And then the new formula says take that proportion, you know, based on the population of the new people in the development. For example, there's 400 people, you take 400 divided by 80,000 people and that's their share of that parkland deficit and that's all the developer has to pay. So I simplified this equation to see if I could learn anything else. And see the next slide. And it turns out you can rephrase—this is exactly the same, you know, simplified equation. And so what this means is the amount of land that the developer should give is equal to the—the Quimby amount which is just the population—the small n is the population of the new development—times the Quimby ratio, 0.003, minus the current amount of parkland and its proportion of the population. That's n over n plus n. So in other words, if the new population is 4% of the City's population, they only have to—they essentially get a credit for 4% of the parkland—all the parkland in the City of Mountain View. And so the—it is essentially a credit because it takes away from the Quimby amount that they should have be paying, which is the, you know, three acres per thousand people. So next slide please. So essentially my question is, why should the developer be given credit for existing parkland which somehow automatically the new residents get a share of? You know, the new residents didn't pay anything. They haven't been paying taxes. Um, you know, it's true the existing parkland is not the, you know, Quimby amount, but anyways, this leaves the City with a big deficit if this kind of calculation goes through. Thank you.
[03:22:49] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. That seems to end our public comment. I see no virtual speakers. Yes, I see no virtual speakers. We will actually take a five-minute break to—so that staff can set up for the next agenda item. It is now 20:23. Uh, we will reconvene in 20:28.
[03:31:13] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Are we ready? Yes. All right. Calling this meeting back to order. 20:31. We now move on to Item 6, Study Sessions. 6.1: Charter Modernization 2026 Ballot Measure. The purpose of this study session is to present proposed amendments to the City Charter and to provide the City Council with an opportunity to review, discuss, and provide feedback on those proposed amendments. The study session is intended to solicit City Council direction and policy input to inform further refinement of the proposed Charter amendments prior to any formal consideration or action. City Attorney Jennifer Logue will present the item. If you would like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. All right. Ready for the staff presentation.
[03:32:13] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thank you Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers. City Attorney Jennifer Logue presenting this item for you this evening. So although you just read it in the in the script, I will just briefly state that the purpose of this study session is to present some proposed Charter amendments for Council consideration and to get your feedback and policy direction before we take any formal action of bringing legislation back to place a ballot measure on in 2026. So just to provide a little bit of background. Council 2025-27 Work Plan includes a project to place Charter modernization amendments on the 2026 ballot. The proposed 2026 amendments are intended to be non-controversial and technical in nature. Substantive policy changes are have been deferred to 2028. And the reason why we have deferred them to 2028 is because we want to minimize ballot complexity in a year that includes a City bond measure. And there's a risk of bundling non-substantive Charter amendments with substantive amendments because when you do so, you risk the entire measure failing. And that prevents the City from accomplishing even routine and necessary amendments. So it is typically a little bit better to separate them if you are trying to just get routine cleanup and necessary items passed. Otherwise you can just do multiple ballot questions, but that's financially expensive as well. So separating it in two two election cycles is is why we've recommended doing that for the substantive and non-substantive amendments. The other reason is because substantive amendments really should not occur without the benefit of a Charter Commission or a Charter Review Committee. Such a body provides structure, public engagement, subject matter focus necessary to look at the Charter holistically. And they assist in developing well-vetted recommendations for substantive changes. And proceeding with major revisions in the absence of that increases the risks of a failure. And at the time that the 2025-27 Work Plan item was adopted, we did not have time to convene a Charter Commission or Committee in order to do substantive amendments. So we're proceeding with just the minor amendments in 2026 if you so choose.
[03:35:05] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Okay. In the development of the proposed amendments, the City Attorney's Office worked closely with the City Manager and the City Clerk to obtain feedback. But I also conducted extensive peer city benchmarking review of nine charter cities. The review included larger cities that regularly update their charters and therefore often reflect more current drafting standards, as well as nearby jurisdictions to ensure that the proposed amendments are consistent with contemporary practices of Mountain View's neighboring cities. While the other charters reviewed varied significantly in structure, organization, and substantive requirements, and definitely do not contain identical language and provisions, the review definitely helped provide a general understanding of modern drafting approaches and commonly used requirements. I have split the proposed amendments into five categories to help facilitate a focused Council review and feedback related to the amendments. The categories are generally arranged from least to most complex. These categories include Typographical Corrections, Gender-Neutral Language, State Law and Operational Alignment, General Modernization and Clarification, and then one change for a Municipal Code Reference Update. The purposes of each of these proposed categories is stated. Typographical Corrections is obvious. It makes cleaning up typographical errors makes the Charter more readable. Gender-Neutral Language would improve clarity and inclusivity and align with contemporary drafting standards. State Law and Operational Alignment, the purpose is to update provisions that no longer reflect current state law or the City's current operational framework. And then General Modernization and Clarification, the purpose is to update outdated terminology and address specific areas where Council has expressed an interest in modernization. And then finally, the Municipal Code Reference Update is to update outdated Municipal Code references in the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act. I will now take you through each of the categories. Again, Typographical Errors is pretty straightforward. During the comprehensive review of our current Charter, we identified a typographical error in Section 1107. And so basically staff is just recommending that we correct any typographical errors. To the extent that we are already taking this to the electors, we might as well correct typographical errors in the process.
[03:38:05] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Gender-Neutral Language. Staff review—our review of the Charter identified the use of gender-specific terminology that is outdated and inconsistent with modern drafting practices. We recommend that the Charter be amended to replace gender-specific terminology with gender-neutral language. Review of other city charters showed that nearly all peer jurisdictions use gender-neutral language throughout their charters. I think there was only one that did not and I believe they're undergoing a charter cleanup currently and will likely make that change. If Council supports this recommendation, the affected Charter sections would be 602, 711, and 1603. 602 and 711 are the City Manager's duties and responsibilities and the City Attorney's duties and responsibilities respectively, which still contain gender-specific terminology. And 1603 is the construction of the Charter. And in that section, we would just add a provision that provides a general statement that the Charter is to be read as gender-neutral, plural is means singular, singular means plural, and just sort of a general statement. So those would be the affected Charter sections if you supported that recommendation.
[03:39:30] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: We'll now move on to the section related to State Law and Operational Alignment. The first section that we're recommending a Charter amendment is Section 501. And this is for clarification of the term "elector." Section 501 of the City Charter uses the term "qualified elector," which is not actually defined in the Elections Code. So this is a requirement for all Councilmembers to be a qualified elector. But and in that same Charter section, it says "as defined in the California Elections Code." But because "qualified elector" is not defined there, it creates some confusion. The term that is actually defined in the California Elections Code is "elector." And so we would just add a simple clarification that our use of the term "qualified elector" as used in the Charter has the same meaning as "elector" under the California Elections Code. All comparable city charter cities require Councilmembers to be electors. They handle how they describe that definition differently. Some just use the word "elector" and then some actually have the requirements directly in their Charter, such as you need to be a resident, you need to be over the age of 18. And so I'm just recommending that we clean up ours to provide clarity on what "qualified elector" means in our Charter.
[03:41:00] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: The next section is Section 504. And this section governs how we handle Council vacancies. Currently there is a 30-day deadline to fill a City Council vacancy. And that creates a constrained timeline to complete the steps necessary to fill the vacancy by appointment or to call a special election, particularly when vacancies arise unexpectedly. The recommendation is to extend the timeframe to either appoint or call a special election from 30 days to 60 days. In review of other city charters, there were varying approaches. Several of the jurisdictions do allow up to 60 days. Others had no specific deadline and had much more complex processes. Notably, California Government Code Section 36512, which governs general law cities, also provides general law cities up to 60 days. And so if we switched to 60 days, we would be aligning with state law and many other peer jurisdictions.
[03:42:15] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Sections 514 of the Charter currently requires that ordinances and resolutions be read in full unless further reading is waived by unanimous vote after the title is read. Section 515 of the City Charter currently requires roll call vote for adoption of ordinances. Staff recommends amending Section 514 of the City Charter to remove the requirement that the title of ordinances and resolutions be read in full, and amending Section 515 of the City Charter to revise the current roll call voting requirement so that roll call vote is required only if requested by a Councilmember or required by law. Of the nine charter cities I reviewed, only Sunnyvale requires the ordinance title to be read. And only Santa Clara requires a roll call vote. State law does not require reading of a title if the title is included on a published agenda and a copy of the full ordinance is made available to the public both online and in print at the meetings prior to introduction or passage of the ordinance. The City of Mountain View already includes the title on the agenda and makes the full ordinance available to the public online in advance of Council consideration. And the City could easily make a printed copy available at the meeting if it wished to fully align with the state law framework. However, it is not required that we align with the state law framework. I just wanted to let you know what state law allows and that it does not require, it provides a way out of reading a full title. And state law generally does not require a roll call vote, except in specific circumstances such as this evening when we have a Councilmember participating by teleconference.
[03:44:15] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Section 709 of the City Charter governing City Clerk duties contains outdated references to maintaining "books," which no longer reflects the City's current electronic record-keeping practices. Therefore staff just recommends amending Section 709 to replace references to "books" with "records" to modernize the Charter while preserving the substance of the City Clerk's duties and responsibilities. Section 902, staff recommends amending Section 902 of the City Charter which governs appointments and terms for Boards, Commissions, and Committees to clarify the requirement for staggered terms and to align the Charter with the current City practice.
Segment 6
[03:45:01] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Currently section 902 requires appointments and terms expirations to occur on January 1. However several existing boards commissions and committees operate on appointment cycles that do not align with the January 1 schedule. For example, Youth Advisory Committee typically makes appointments in June. So the proposed amendment would preserve the intent in to ensure staggered terms and continuity of service while providing flexibility to accommodate different appointing cycles currently in use by the city.
[03:45:35] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: All right. Section 900 is probably the one that is most complex. Section 900 of the City Charter generally governs appointed boards and commissions. As part of the Charter modernization effort, the City Council expressed a desire to explore whether the Charter requirement that all members of boards and commissions be residents and qualified electors of the City of Mountain View should be modified to instead authorize City Council to establish membership qualifications for individual board, commission and committee members by ordinance or resolution. Rather than provide a recommendation, I have provided three options for Council's consideration. Option 1 would maintain status quo, which is all members have to be residents and qualified electors. Option 2 is a partial delegation, which would maintain the residency and qualified elector requirement for Charter-created bodies, but would not maintain that requirement for Council-created bodies. And Option 3 would be a full delegation to City Council to establish membership criteria for all boards, commissions and committees. To help Council decide which option you prefer, I will share a peer city comparison chart and take you through the pros and cons of each option on the next several slides.
[03:47:10] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So on the slide that's presented now, you can see that I've created a peer city comparison chart. In the first column it shows the name of the city. In the second column, this is where they have Charter-created boards and commissions, meaning that within the Charter, the body is created and the duties and responsibilities of the body is generally included in the Charter. And for each of the cities you can see most of them required the members of Charter-created bodies to be qualified electors and residents of the city. For Oakland I said yes, most Charter-created bodies because there are some Charter-created bodies that have very, very complex membership requirements and so those didn't necessarily have residency requirements, they had other complex membership requirements, but they were spelled out in the Charter. Los Angeles was an outlier. It's a very, very large city and they had no general provisions governing boards and commissions in their Charter. The provisions were just specific to each board and commission and often were in the ordinances rather than in the Charter. And then San Francisco just said yes, they all had to be residents and qualified electors unless otherwise provided in the Charter, which would allow for a specific body to be created and have it called out what the membership qualifications would be. By contrast, all of most of the cities, if it was a Council-created body, it did not require the members to be a qualified elector or a resident in the Charter. So when the Council created the body by either ordinance or resolution within that ordinance or resolution, Council had the freedom to decide what the membership qualifications were going to be.
[03:49:15] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Okay. Option 1 would maintain status quo. And status quo currently under the Charter, members of all boards, commissions and committees must be residents and qualified electors of the City unless otherwise provided in the Charter. I can tell you that there is nothing in the Charter, none of the boards commissions or committees created in the Charter allow them not to be qualified electors. So everyone would have to be a qualified elector and a resident of the city if you maintain status quo. There are pros and cons to this. Obviously it maintains clear and uniform eligibility standards for all bodies. It ensures members have direct residency-based connections to the City. Avoids the need for additional ordinances and resolutions to establish qualifications. The cons are, however, it limits flexibility to tailor membership qualifications for specific boards and committees, such as the Downtown Committee, where it might be beneficial to have small business owners as members of that committee who do not live within the City of Mountain View given the duties and responsibilities of that committee. It may also unnecessarily restrict participation for advisory bodies where broader expertise is necessary. It does not reflect the approach used by many peer cities. And when you have Charter-level rigidity, it makes future adjustments difficult because as you know we have to take any amendments to the Charter to the voters.
[03:50:30] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Option 2 is a partial delegation. This is what most of the peer cities are doing. This option would mean members of boards and commissions created by the Charter must be residents and qualified electors of the city, but the Council may by ordinance or resolution establish qualifications for memberships on boards, commissions and committees created by Council. Pros: preserves Charter-level standards for core Charter-created bodies, provides flexibility for Council-created bodies, and aligns with approach of many peer cities. The cons are that it introduces different eligibility rules for different bodies, requires ongoing Council action to establish and maintain qualifications, may create some administration complexity in tracking applicable requirements, and could raise questions about consistency across advisory bodies.
[03:51:50] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Option 3 is full delegation to the Council. The qualifications for memberships on all boards, commissions and committees would be established by the City Council by ordinance or resolution. It maximizes flexibility, allows qualifications to evolve without further Charter amendments, simplifies the Charter by delegating detailed requirements in legislative action. Cons: removes Charter-level residency and elector protections, may be perceived as reducing voter-established standards, greater potential for frequent and inconsistent change over time, and requires careful policy discipline to ensure transparency and consistency.
[03:52:40] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: And this option would also require the most potential conforming edits to the other Charter amendments in Article 9. The affected Charter sections would be sections 904, 905, 906, 909, and 911. They would all need to be adjusted in one form or another if Council does not stay with status quo. For instance, clarifying whether Section 904's presiding officer requirement applies only to the Charter-created bodies or to all appointed bodies, or revising Section 905's vacancy provisions if residency and elector requirements are modified or eliminated because right now a vacancy is immediately created if they are no longer a resident or qualified elector. So we would obviously need to delete that vacancy.
[03:53:35] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: The last recommended update is to the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act. There is a definition in that Act of "relocation assistance," and that definition references Municipal Code provisions that have been repealed or renumbered. So the reference literally refers to nowhere. It creates ambiguity and potential confusion in interpreting the CSFRA. So the recommendation is to amend that section to update the Municipal Code references. I'm also recommending that Council consider whether or not this particular Charter amendment should be a separate ballot question given the controversy surrounding amendments to the CSFRA. Although this amendment is absolutely needed and it is just technical for clarity, I understand the sensitivity of touching the CSFRA and so to the extent that you agree that this amendment should be made, you may want to consider this as a separate ballot question.
[03:54:50] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Next steps would be community outreach and education. I will work with members of the City Manager's office to get information out to the public related to the purpose and the intent of these Charter amendments. And then I would draft Charter amendments and return to the Council with the legislation to put the measure on the ballot.
[03:55:15] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: As you know you have several council questions. There are 12 council questions but I have grouped them. Group 1 are the questions that are basically yes or no questions. There really are no options. It's either yes you want to do it or no you don't. There's kind of no in between, right? Either you want to correct typographical errors or you don't. You want to have gender neutral language or you don't. Group 2 are the questions where there is some flexibility, for instance with regard to extending the deadline to fill a City Council vacancy. You don't have to choose 30 days, you don't have to choose 60 days, you could choose something in between, you could choose something longer, you could choose something different. And so that ends my presentation and we can now take questions.
[03:56:09] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you City Attorney Logue. Because this is a study session, we'll actually go to public comment first before going to Council questions. So would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have three minutes. I see one virtual public comment speaker, Edie Keating.
[03:56:47] Edie Keating: Thank you. So, I massively support a lot of this almost everything that's in this proposal. And I really hope I will be able to advocate for it. However, there is a little bit of a concern that I will become an opposition to this effort. It's around the Rental Housing Committee and the text or the choices you will make around Section 900. I don't see anything in the Charter of which the CSFRA and all these other rules are included that says Section 900 does not talk about the Rental Housing Committee. So if that was clear to me, I wouldn't have this concern. If the Section 900 said this does not apply to the Rental Housing Committee eligibility and Section 1709 is the complete answer for the Rental Housing Committee eligibility, I would be satisfied. What's the difference? Well, 1709 says the Housing Committee comprised of Mountain View residents. You don't have to be an elector. And I think that's about right. I like that. And also depending on your choices around Section 900 and if you leave in ambiguity around does Section 900 apply to the CSFRA, I mean you guys aren't going to do any mischief with that. I'm grateful to have a Council that is largely and majority supportive of the CSFRA. But what if someday we don't? So your decisions around changing the Charter are important. And so please make it... you already have an ambiguity. Does Section 900 apply or not apply to 1709? In all the conversation tonight it sounds like you assume it doesn't, but I'm not sure that's clear in the language of the Charter. So I hope that gets cleaned up. And I have trouble with requiring a voter if it's not clean that the Rental Housing Committee eligibility doesn't stand as it is. A few other comments. And I'm not... I'm not seeing... oh there's the timer. I can barely see it on my screen. You missed some of the sections where your gender neutral cleanup is needed. You got to get rid of the term chairman. Thank you. I really hope I'll end up supporting this. But I hope that you can do something to clean up around Section 900. Oh and I have one other thing. Ask the Housing Committee if they have any other clean up small items in language from Measure D times.
[03:59:59] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Edie. We no longer have... we don't have any more public comment, so we will take it back to Council. Council will now have the opportunity to ask questions and then discuss and provide feedback on the following questions. Does any member of the Council have questions? All right, Councilmember McAlister.
[04:00:23] Councilmember John McAlister: I'm going to take this question away from my neighbor here. What's the cost of doing this election just to do this one ballot measure?
[04:00:37] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: The county estimated that each ballot question would be $100,000.
[04:00:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And if we postponed it and combined it with 28, it'd still be a thousand... hundred thousand dollars?
[04:00:49] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: The estimates for 28 are not something I can talk about right now.
[04:00:53] Councilmember John McAlister: So, okay, so if we postpone it we could save money, okay. The second one, on the downtown committee, since we do one part of the committee is made up of landlords who don't live in the city, how's that being allowed now? Sounds like you can't do that but we're allowing it now.
[04:01:21] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Well we made a slight modification to a Council policy to carve out bodies that are called committees. It is semantics, however, and you're better off changing your Charter. So we did try to create something that allowed for that because we knew that it existed.
[04:01:47] Councilmember John McAlister: So are you going to remove those people that are property owners?
[04:01:52] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I don't have authority to remove anybody.
[04:01:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And last question, if we just... the motion came along to say just postpone this until 28 would that take care of your group one and group two questions? Or would you still want those answered tonight?
[04:02:08] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: No. If you say postpone this to 2028 I think that ends the discussion.
[04:02:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.
[04:02:20] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: I'm seeing no other questions from Council. I actually have a very... dense question. What is the difference between a board commission and a committee?
[04:02:35] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So in reality, nothing. So there... committees, you have things like ad hoc committees. Committees are in theory can be lesser in some ways but you can also have a legislatively created body that is called a committee and is still subject to the Brown Act and is still subject to your Charter which makes it complicated. So it sort of depends on how you're using the context the word committee. And so I think that you should think about it this way: when the Council is creating a body, you are creating the same thing, a board commission, committee, whatever you call it, you have legislatively acted to create this body and that sweeps it under these Charter requirements. When you have other bodies, smaller bodies, temporary bodies, limited jurisdiction bodies, maybe created by the City Manager, those are ad hoc committees, they're not subject to Brown Act rules and they're typically called committees because of their temporary and limited nature. So really there's no difference when you're talking about a Council acting to create a body.
[04:03:40] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Should we think about... I don't know making... using that language essentially to distinguish them or is that a little too extra?
[04:03:53] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I'm not sure I understand the question. So if Council were to vote to pick one of the options with regard to how you want to handle the residence requirement, the qualified elector requirement, I would... my recommendation would be to call out boards commissions and committees. Right? So there would never be any confusion about what you were talking about. And you would create these the requirements you would either make them all be qualified electors, you know Charter-created only and legislative, you know, the Council has the power to establish membership qualifications or full delegation to the Council, but you would just not treat boards commissions and committees differently. That is not something I've seen in any of the other Charters. They do not carve out committees as some special separate thing. Everyone treats them... some say boards commission and committees, some just say boards and commissions with the understanding that that just means legislatively created bodies. But I have never seen committee carved out in a Charter.
[04:05:45] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Okay. That's my questions. Councilmember Ramirez, you have a question or are we going on to...
[04:05:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'm ready for comments.
[04:05:53] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Councilmember McAlister, you ready?
[04:05:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.
[04:05:55] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Oh I'm so sorry Councilmember Kamei. Go ahead.
[04:06:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: It's okay. No problem. So I just had a couple questions if that's okay Mayor?
[04:06:05] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes go right ahead.
[04:06:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So my first question is to the City Attorney for the group two questions. So, for example, for question two, I'd be interested... I feel like should this proceed, one of the next steps was going out into like a community meeting. And so for some of the questions in group two, I might be interested in hearing from the public before kind of putting any type of direction on it. Just thinking about question two as one of those items because it says, you know, do we wish to retain the residency and elector requirement or not? And I'd be interested to hear from our community like how they feel about that. So for some of these, would that be something that we could you know direct to to take a pause on that question and be able to have that be further explored as one of the things that is part of the community outreach meeting? Or do you need a definitive answer tonight?
[04:07:32] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So we can definitely get community feedback. We're running under a time crunch is all I would say. We wouldn't want to come back on another study session. You'd probably want me to come back with legislation that maybe provides the alternative language, right, with with the staff report explaining what the community feedback was with regard to that and then you make a decision, you know on which one you select with that information. And I would have alternatives available to you. You could also, if that just feels too complex for now, we could also postpone that as a more substantive update to 2028. That is something to that could be considered as well.
[04:08:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Well I guess that kind of dovetails into my second question which I'm trying very best at past midnight over here to add to be coherent at all formulate. But it's you know, is is there a true... I feel like we've been discussing or at least, you know at least one council member in particular has been talking about our Charter amendment for a long time. And so does it really behoove us to continue to kind of wait on things? Or do we really is there a... yeah. That's a kind of question to staff. I don't know if there's really that much of a financial... I don't know if staff, any member, whether the Clerk or the City Attorney... I guess that's for Council to debate.
[04:09:05] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Are you asking sort of the pros and cons of waiting generally?
[04:09:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah. Because I think, you know, related to a lot of other things that we've looked at, cost can increase, right? And so I don't know if things would increase because the ROV takes into account like a COLA or I don't... you know what I mean? Like costs every year the cost go up for I'm assuming elections and that with our Registrar of Voters. I don't know or maybe I'm... yeah. So I just wanted to ask if there really is any type of benefit to continuing to not do these amendments that we've talked about for at least seven years.
[04:09:48] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I would just say and then I will I can allow the City Clerk if she has anything to add to it. I would just say that if if you postpone everything to 2028, you know your ballot measure is going to be more expensive than the $100,000 now. I mean the costs are... they go up each year. The other thing you risk is spending whatever that amount of money is and potentially having it fail simply because there's one piece of it that members of the public don't like. And so the whole thing goes away and now the money was for nothing and you didn't even get the minor cleanup that you needed. Now with a Charter Commission or Committee that is definitely going to be more helpful, right? There will be a lot of public outreach. And so that can be very beneficial to Charter amendments. And so maybe postponing things and having you know your your committee take up everything, there's a benefit to that. But I mean I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. I think there's just pros and cons to both both processes.
[04:11:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you.
[04:11:08] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Kamei. We will now move to Council comments which should include feedback on the questions staff proposed in the staff report. We will start off with Councilmember Ramirez.
[04:11:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. And first I want to start by expressing my appreciation to the City Attorney's office and everyone else who collaborated to put together I think a a very strong set of, and this is important, non-controversial potential amendments. I support all of the staff recommendations. So it would I think it would be yes basically to everything. For question nine, I would support option two, which is the partial delegation, which is basically the status quo. That's what we currently do but we we're cheating, right? We're doing something that is unusual and um probably not the best way to do it. So I think a a proper and and clearly defined partial delegation makes sense and that's I think the outcome that we want for now until we have the opportunity to um to talk with with the public um and and consider a Charter Commission which I strongly hope that the next Council proceeds with because I think there is more work to be done. I also support um uh there was a member of the public shared um a concern about potential ambiguity between section 900 and the uh Rental Housing Committee which is defined in a different part of the Charter. I think clarifying that um I don't want to steal your thunder Vice Mayor but basically saying you know if if uh unless otherwise indicated in the Charter, right? So it would basically be acknowledging that the Rental Housing Committee is established in a different part of the Charter and not subject to section uh 900. So I think that's a a good suggestion. Everything else is is solid. I'm particularly enthusiastic about the change to section 514 to remove the requirement that ordinances and resolutions be read. Um I you know we have technology that makes that unnecessary so I'm very glad to see that. It's a waste of time. I do think that we should adopt a policy that the when we when we expire as elected officials we get the nice resolution saying here are the things we've accomplished, that's what I want in my resol in my resolution. Um I want to respond um so I was I was very pleased to agree with Councilmember McAlister at the start of the meeting. I think we disagree on this item. There are many reasons why it's worth pursuing today and not waiting until 2028. One reason is, if the Council does decide to pursue a more uh extensive set of amendments, it's probably not going to be done with one ballot measure. Uh asking the voters to authorize a raise or an increase in Council compensation is very different from asking the voters to approve major changes to contracting and procurement, which is very different from asking voters to consider potentially substantive modifications to the rental to the to the CSFRA, right? Which is different from asking the voters to consider requiring an equity analysis which is what the San Jose Charter Commission asked several years ago, right? You don't want all of that in one measure. You probably want a distinct measure for every single substantive amendment because they're very different things. And as um our our staff was was explaining, you don't want one thing that is not not as popular as the others to tank everything else, right? If the voters say, you know what we're cool with everything but we don't want to give the Council a raise, then everything fails because you've put a poison pill. So you're not actually saving money. Um we sh we should still have even if we did a Charter modernization you know Commission and came back with substantive modifications, the non-substantive things should still be its own ballot measure. Uh so I I don't think we gain anything by waiting. Um I have waited eight years so I'd like to do this before I die. Um I don't think I have anything else to suggest. Um I'm I'm just grateful again for for uh the work that was done. Um and uh I hope that uh my colleagues will support the staff recommendations. Um will support a partial delegation, that's option two for question nine. Um and then al authorize the the City uh Attorney and and um and staff to um consider other non-substantive changes, right? So I think the public speaker also mentioned references to chairman, right? Which is probably not a term we necessarily want to have if we're talking about uh you know gender uh neutral terminology. Uh those are my remarks for now. Thank you.
[04:18:25] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Ramirez. And now to Councilmember McAlister.
[04:18:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. Okay. Um I think I'm going to cut to the chase a little bit here. Um so I'm going to make a motion that we postpone to 28. And my thought process on that was, one, the cost even though we don't know what it's going to be down the road, it's still going to be a cost to do it. Second, we're going to be doing uh double effort on the staff to do public outreach so we're going to do that twice, costs money. And then also potential confusion with the other ballot measure that we're trying to get on the the council uh people vote on. And in fact there's going to be so much... there's going to be tax measures, there's people to vote on. And so uh I don't want ours to be in jeopardy. And I agree that a lot of these things are non-confrontational and we could do them but I make the motion that we postpone this to 1928 and we'll see where it goes. Or 2028.
[04:19:53] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: I see I'm confusing everyone with my 24 hour clock. Um do we have a second?
[04:20:08] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. I'm seeing no second. So so... how how long are we doing the Jeopardy theme or... All right. Do you have any other comments other than that? Okay. All right we're going to move on to Councilmember Showalter.
[04:20:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um yeah, I'm going down to Group 1. I um agree with the um Council I mean the staff recommendations for Group 1. Was going to be a little more specific about the Group 2 ones. I um I think that we should extend the the time to fill a vacancy to 60 days. The reason I think that a well in the while I've been watching Mountain View politics I've observed a couple and they've always been sort of known. So there's been time for people in the community to think about oh I I might like to do that um before the actual vacancy occurred. But if there were to be a really sudden unfortunate death where somebody was just gone then I you know people would be taken by surprise. And um I think the additional time would be valuable. So that would be mine. I'd go for 60. Um uh the uh the one that's the most important to me though is this one. Does the Council wish to retain the residency and elector requirements of all boards and commissions? I I think that we should go with option two which is to um have the ones that are currently in the Charter um that is if I understand it correctly it's the Library Board, the Planning Commission and Parks and Rec, right? Okay. And and Rental Housing to be as described in the Charter. And so that means the the first three are electors and the um Rental Housing is residents, right? Okay. I think that's good. And then I feel like for the other committees or commissions or advisory boards, um I think we should figure out what's appropriate for each of them. Like you mentioned for the Downtown Committee, um uh it is appropriate to have people who are non-residents that are business owners on it. And I can imagine that there's been some times when we've had somebody on the Performing Arts Committee who who um uh had special knowledge and wanted to be involved. So I just I I I think that option two is much better. Um I don't really know what the sections are for three so I'm sure it's fine. Um does the Council support amending section to update the municipal code references? Oh I don't think we should touch the CSFRA. Um I just think it's um I mean I suppose if this if the Rental Housing Committee... no I'll change that. I think we should ask the Rental Housing Committee if they want any changes to be considered. Right now we're not voting on the ballot language, we're just saying these are the things we want to consider. So I I would send that one back to the Rental Housing Committee. I I don't feel um competent to uh to really weigh in on that. And um then do I have additional direction? Yes I do. I think that we should um direct staff to bring back a um a plan to establish a Charter Commission. You know when you backtrack from when we will need this in 2028, it's not really that long. Um we will have to have final language to go on the 2028 um ballot when we recess in 2028. And it will take 12 months to 18 months to have a commission go through the Charter, it's a complex document, do the public outreach, etc, etc, etc. It's time to get on with that. So I think that as part of tonight's meeting I would really like us to add that to to ask staff to come back um I don't know if it would be in you know the next month or so but you know in a reasonable amount of time with a a uh a plan for that. Thank you.
[04:24:38] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Showalter. Councilmember Clark.
[04:24:44] Councilmember Chris Clark: Thank you. Mostly uh very similar comments with a few nuances. So Group 1 um yes um answers yes and staff recommendation to those. For the Group 2 um this is one nuance. The so I do think that we should extend the period um uh beyond 30 days that the Council has to figure out what to do about a vacancy. Um for especially in two scenarios. One is um as Councilmember Showalter pointed out, in a lot of cases we have some sense that something's coming but that hasn't always been true throughout our history. Um you know I could get hit by the 22 tonight and um hopefully not but you know things happen. And um and and I think we we need more than 30 days. And that brings me to I think there are a couple edge case scenarios that we need to consider when we figure out what the right number of days is. So and there's a big difference between calendar days and business days. So I don't know if if we want to pick a a number of calendar days that maybe might be a little bit more than 60 to account for whatever period of the year it might have a number of holidays or if we want to pick a number that makes sense in terms of business days. Um I just think that we should think a little bit harder about that and I don't know what the right number is. But there is one scenario that I was thinking about where uh some of the some vacancies that occur people get elected to a different office. And if you if you look at the calendar um let's say we have a really early date of an election like November 2nd, um if it's a close race for whoever they're whatever they're running for and it isn't certified until the very last minute um or they get really busy with something I don't know, they might end up resigning prior to the certification of election to deal with whatever they have to deal with. And in that case 60 days from that date might not get to the seating of um maybe I'm not thinking about this correctly. I'm thinking about this world where there's 60 days isn't quite enough to cover a gap. And I don't know what exactly that scenario is but I think something closer to if we're talking calendar days something closer to 75 or 90 is probably a safer bet. Um uh there's another world where maybe the Charter says the a a number of days not to exceed a a certain amount. Uh we can always change it by ordinance if we want or through our own procedures. But I I just want to think through those scenarios where maybe 60 days puts us in a weird spot where we're just one or two weeks shy of of someone being seated through an election and we actually have the Charter requires us to take some formal action to appoint or call a special election. I don't maybe I'm maybe I'm just thinking about this incorrectly but I just think we should think more about the right number of days and whether it's calendar days or business days. Um that's my only comment on that. So I I just don't know what the right number of days is. Um the um the residency elector requirements, I think as Councilmember Ramirez pointed out, I think we can just do what San Francisco does and um and this also addresses the public comment from Miss Keating. Um I think San Francisco, I don't have it in front of me, but San Francisco states that you know it's it's whatever it is unless otherwise specified in the Charter. And since the the yeah and the Charter already specifies what the CSFRA um uh membership requirements are. So I think the San Francisco language covers that. So I I would I would say that we we go with that. And um it it sort of is a specific I think it's the second option but it it's slightly modified. It it's basically saying we should use the San Francisco language. It's it's a partial it's the partial option that Councilmember Ramirez and Councilmember Showalter supported. Um that in and of itself answers question three. The um placing the amendment on the ballot is... I don't want to do anything that requires two measures. So I I'm happy to receive input from the RHC but if I'm just previewing if if whatever their input is the cleanup items that they want end up resulting in a separate measure, basically two ballot questions, I I just think if if we want this to be this is technical cleanup, it's very clean and simple. The moment you have more than one ballot question people start to think wh why are you asking me two questions if it's really that simple? So um hopefully we can whatever we want to do and if we get input from them that can fit into with within the the one measure that's fine with me um depending on what it is of course but I just I don't really want to go beyond one I will be very loathe to go beyond one one measure on the ballot. And then um the only other other direction a Charter Commission makes sense I think for the larger um uh you know if we want to move forward with that in 2028. But I I think it's fine to plant the seed with staff but I don't think well I will support it, I don't think this Council should be the one to formally vote to establish the Charter Commission. I think the next Council should decide whether they want that on their work plan. Hopefully they do. But I think it should be their decision and we can plant the seed but I don't think we should start expending resources on the 2028 item yet. I think it should be something that we add to the work plan next year and um get the future Council's input on. So um but but planting the seed I think makes sense because you're absolutely right it's going to take 12 18 months to go through that process. So I think I covered everything.
[04:29:44] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Hicks.
[04:29:46] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. I'll start with what you finished with. Um I agree that the next Council should make that decision. I we can plant the seed but you know when you run for office and there'll be three new people, you run on things and I don't think we should fill you know hand them a bunch of projects. I mean you always hand there's some projects that are in process but people should be able to run on something and accomplish some of those things and if this is not one they want to do or not one the majority wants to do... So yes I agree, next Council, not me. Um and so in addition to that, okay. And then um second thing to start with the end, I have no idea what you were talking about when you said the the um that the Rental Housing Committee should and should not... I thought the only thing that the Rental Housing Committee wa would be talking about was what the public speaker Miss Keating brought up. I think that's super important that um that the uh question number nine does not refer to the RHC. I thought was what she brought up. Question number nine being uh does the City Council want to retain the residency and elector requirement? That does not she said that does not req refer to the RHC. I agree with her on that. You would have to explain to me maybe when when I'm done with the rest of this which is pretty easy what else you think the RHC should be weighing in on or should not be. Um so but basically to sum up what everyone else has said, yes to Group 1, I yes to number two with gender neutral language, yes make sure to uh find all the chairmen and change them to chair. Um and any other gender related...
Segment 7
[04:30:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: language that might be out there that you didn't catch so far. Um, Question number 4, 30 or 60 days. My memory of this was that our current mayor was selected before she was elected, um, over the holidays and that the 30 days was definitely too short. But that the 60 days, since we've done it in 30 days over the holidays, it seems to me that 60 days is probably enough. But I am generally on these things a 'someone else decides' kind of person. So if you want to say something else, I'm more an objective design standards person, which we'll get to soon. But, um, so I'm kind of down with the 60 days, but if you really want to change it to something else, that's fine.
[04:30:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Question 9... oh, it's 9 on one page and has another number on another page. But, um, I would go with the uh... Boards Commission... pursue a partial... whatever everybody else has been choosing. What you said about the San Francisco language, I don't know what that is. I don't know what you were talking about. Um, and so maybe, you know, but a bunch of people spoke before me, they didn't weigh in on that, so I suppose we'll come back for that. So, um, are there any questions that I didn't... residency... I said that one... Oh, that's the one that you're referring to the Rental Housing Agency? I don't know.
[04:32:16] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: 1702.
[04:32:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, you weren't... you didn't want to refer much to them. Um, oh yeah, Question 11. But I thought that was... Okay. So those are my answers for now. And we can get back to the ones that... that I'm leaning on other people for.
[04:32:36] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Okay. So, um, Councilmember Kamei, do you have your answers for the Council questions?
[04:32:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thanks, Mayor. So, um, we're just taking them in the groupings, correct?
[04:32:50] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes. You can either go by the uh presentation here or the... we... some of them listed the questions based on the Council script. So whichever is easier for you.
[04:33:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah. I was trying to track. I think I'm just going to go um with the questions as they are on the screen so I don't have to toggle between, if that's all right with folks. So for Group 1, yes. Let me echo the thanks that um Councilmember Ramirez started off the conversation with. I think um as a Council we've been talking about this for a very long time and as we enter year eight, I think that it's something hopefully that is not new news to our... our community, and to be able to take this um step, um I think will be really great. So um for Group 1, yes to all seven of those questions. For Group 2, I'm comfortable with the 60 days. Um, for Question 2, um the partial is what I think we're currently doing and I... I feel comfortable with that, but I do feel like that's something as I was asking my questions earlier that I'd love for the community to be able to weigh in on um and... and get their input. And then... uh, 3, yes. 4, I agree with the comments of not having something separate, but I also agree with colleagues about the sensitivity on um... on the topic of not confusing our community about if we're, you know, quote-unquote changing something. Um, so I think that kind of dovetails into 5, which is I think that um communication is going to be really critical um for being successful in... in the ballot measure. Um, and it'll be incumbent I think on all of us as Councilmembers and the City on doing robust community outreach, be able to tell the story about how this is a kind of cleanup, something we've been talking about on Council for eight years, um kind of very kind of administrative, um and connect um and say how there's, you know, more to be done, um and that might be something that the... the future Council might want to take. So I think just like the storytelling of what we're doing. I wouldn't want to continue to not move forward with addressing the Charter Amendment issue. I think um... it feels almost, you know, not to draw a total comparison, but it feels kind of like deferred maintenance um on a policy level. Um, and I feel like the... the more that we continue to do it, the more it's going to get more... more difficult um to just even do the minor cleanup aspect. So really want to see that um go forward. So thank you.
[04:35:30] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Kamei. Um, so I will go for my question... Council questions. Um, for all of Group 1, we're just going to go straight down with a yes uh for those 1 through 7 on the screen. Um, so and then now for Group 2, I support shifting it to 60 days. Um, as... as someone who was very familiar with the vacancy and appointment process, uh one thing to... it... it was something that was also kind of interesting. Technically, I got appointed on the 31st day. So that was also really kind of interesting because um it landed on a Sunday, the 30th day. So we... we did the appointment process on Monday. Um, now we didn't go past midnight, so technically it could have almost been 32 days, but uh 60 days I do feel like is... is more than enough time. Um, and it does uh, God forbid, like we... with... with the last um... with... with the last vacancy, we... we had a sense that... that it was going to happen, although there was some wiggle room there that we were wondering about, um that I didn't really know uh because I wasn't there inside the closed sessions or whatever. Um, but uh... uh but having... but we... we knew, we knew that there was like that possibility ahead of time. So um having an... an indic... a... a scenario where we didn't know would provide a different kind of um out... outcome. Um, so 60 days I think is sufficient. Um, it's literally double than what we had before. Um, but I do know that it was really stressful for staff, the... very stressful 30 days. Um, so and 2, the elector requirements. Um, I would like to um keep the... what we have essentially is the option... which is Option 2, which is I think what most other of my colleagues are... are saying. Um, based on the um... uh residency and... oh yes, and I support making corresponding and clarifying amendments for that. Um, for 4 in the Council... for Group 2, um I... I... I understand the um the volatile nature of touching the CSFRA. Um, the last time we... that... that it was attempted, um I was neutral, um but I do recall when I was knocking on doors, it... it was a very volatile topic. Um, I do agree with uh some of my colleagues asking just... just bringing it forth to the RHC. Um, it kind of stunned me when uh... uh when... when the previous attempt to adjust the CSFRA, the RHC wasn't even looped in. Um, and like sometimes it could be like you could just ask them. And so um I... I don't think that these possible changes are controversial, especially if we're going to keep the elector requirements for the Rental Housing Committee and make that clear. Um, and then 17... uh Section 1702 is kind of a dead section anyway, but it allows the public to have a... a direct public comment. Um, it's essentially like another meeting that will allow for public engagement on it. So that it kind of diffuses that volatile nature of adjusting the CSFRA. Um, next... and I don't have any uh additional direction other than what was mentioned by uh colleagues before about... I actually do support taking a look and what it would take for a... a commit... a charter review committee just so that we kind of know. I also support the fact that um... sorry, I... I lost the thought. Um, I... I... I agree with what Councilmember Kamei said about like this is kind of like deferred maintenance. It's like walking through um a... a boiler room and you're seeing a ton of stuff that is being held together by duct tape and prayer. Um, and so like we're just going in and actually making the proper repairs on the structure of our... of our ship. Um, and the goal of that is not to uh add any controversial things. So like if we send this off to the RHC and like the Section 1702 is controversial even though it's like a dead thing, I'm not touching it. So um the... uh so that is... that is generally how I view it. I feel like if we wanted to do additional changes after that, which I do think that there might be an appetite for it. Um, I think uh that is something for uh next year to think through. Um, but in the meantime, let's uh let's get rid of the duct tape. All right, Councilmember Clark.
[04:39:55] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: It's... just to clarify and respond to Councilmember Hicks. So first of all, I... I have no interest in touching the CSFRA. Uh, and uh the San Francisco language was as Councilmember Ramirez can confirm, it's really just... I pointed it out as it's an elegant way to basically leave the HR... or the RHC requirements as is while um addressing this. So it says um the... the residency and elector requirements are basically what the Charter says unless otherw... or for everything excep... for except the RHC which is otherwise provided in the Charter in a different section. So it's basically an elegant way of saying we're not touching the RHC re... uh language.
[04:40:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So if I can respond, the only... I was partially joking, but the only... no, no, but it's good to explain it. I... I just hope it's not too elegant a way and that it confuses people.
[04:40:48] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Oh, right.
[04:40:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: It might be good to say outright what you mean. But you can mull that over.
[04:40:53] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: I think hopefully the City Attorney knows what I mean. But we don't have to use the exact San Francisco language, but you get what we're trying to do. Don't mess with the RHC... RHC language.
[04:41:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: That's basically what I would like.
[04:41:03] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yeah, exactly. And then...
[04:41:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I want that to be clear to people because we just voted on it.
[04:41:06] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: The... the thing with one measure, a few folks mentioned getting the RHC's input about, you know, is there anything in the CSFRA that might need very basic technical cleanup. Um, and if there is, that's fine. Uh, and I'm happy to include it. I guess I just wanted to preview my line in the sand is like, if we can fit it in one measure, I'm more than happy to do it. What I don't want is multiple questions on the ballot because I think that sort of starts to defeat the purpose. But that's probably just me. I... I'm fine... 60 days as a default is perfectly fine for me. It aligns with state law. The... the reason I brought up thinking about it just a little bit more is it is the Charter, it has to cover all eventualities. I remember sitting here at this dais and declaring a public emergency with a pandemic. If heaven forbid one of us had passed away from COVID right before, right after... would 60 days have been enough? Maybe, probably. I don't know. Maybe it's different in the... in an event of a... a declared state of emergency. I just want to make sure we're thinking through all eventualities because the Charter is the Charter and it's uh we it... you know, we just... I just want to make if... if we decide that 60 days is it, then I'm perfectly fine with it. I just want to make sure that we thought about all those um edge case scenarios.
[04:42:45] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Worst case scenarios.
[04:42:46] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yeah. All the edge cases and worst case scenarios. So, um, yeah.
[04:42:51] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Ramirez.
[04:42:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'll be quick. Uh um, first uh Councilmember or Vice Mayor Clark has persuaded me about having one ballot question and not two. Um, I do think that the Muni Code reference is um uh trivial enough that it's safe to include in uh one measure rather than a separate measure. It... I agree, it makes sense that if we if we have it as a second question, it feels like it's a bigger deal than it really is. Um, so that... that makes sense. And then I also wanted to agree, it sounds like with what the majority of the... the Council, but clarifying yes we should um plant the seed and you know uh prepare whatever steps are necessary to uh begin a charter review commission, um but leaving the... the bulk of those decisions to... to the next Council. So I'm... it's not quite letting the next Council put it on their work plan because if they do, that means the soonest they can start that work is September, which means they've lost a lot of time. Um, so uh I... I... you know, uh leaving um uh giving staff flexibility to think through what that plan... plan might look like. Um, totally comfortable with, but I do think it's important to... to, you know, put that plan together. Thank you.
[04:44:15] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, regarding the uh planting the seed for a charter commission, I... um I think that that um is a really good idea and is well established in uh City Attorney Logue's report around that being uh a potentially uh wise practice for any substantive items that might be put on the ballot in 2028. Um, the... the challenge with beginning um that work now is that the... there's both the work to develop a plan even if it's not acted upon by this Council but is acted upon by um the upcoming uh Council, um and then obviously the work to um start and es... and establish and uh support a commission. Um, and uh the um... staff would need to really take a look at where the ability to do that work um fits in with existing um workloads and Council priorities and in, you know, in particular up through um when the revenue measure gets placed on the ballot. I don't see staff having the capacity to... to do much thinking around what a plan would be for developing a charter commission. So I think we'll... we'll need to think about the... the timing both for working on the plan and for providing any kind of update to Council or for Council decision on establishing the commission.
[04:46:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, in response to that, if... if the ballot measure for um this ballot, the '26 ballot will go on the... we'll have to finalize that in June, right? So that would mean you would conceivably have the rest of the year that there might be a little bit of time to do it. So I don't think that's... I don't... I mean that seems like an appropriate timeline. You know, you wouldn't want to... you wouldn't need to start it before then.
[04:46:40] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Well, I gave the revenue measure as one example of things that impact um work capacity, staff capacity in the context of the entire Council work plan. There are very many of those that are led out of the City Manager's Office and also all of them require support from the City Attorney's Office.
[04:47:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No... no, I guess I think what I'm getting at is that this... this isn't something that we need a... a memo about in the next three weeks. You know, there... we're... we're just planning the seed kind of. I think it's... that's how I feel like. It's more we're planning the seed, not... not that we... we feel like it needs to be done um pronto.
[04:47:20] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I guess I would want to define what 'not pronto' is and it... I might have a different um uh perspective of that than... than what you're commenting on as being after June when the revenue measure starts. I don't know that um I'd be prepared to commit staff's work on that following June.
[04:47:38] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: If I may, um City Manager McCarthy has joined as a panelist.
[04:47:46] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: City Manager McCarthy, do you have something to add?
[04:47:50] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor. Can you all hear me?
[04:47:52] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes, we can.
[04:47:53] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Okay, thank you. Um, hello everyone. Just um at a conference so I've been uh watching and just wanted to weigh in on uh the reality of what the workload is and the heavy lifting right now that's involved in the revenue measure alone. So the way that the revenue measure works right now is we have the staff committee working with the ad hoc committee and yes it is accurate to say that um if Council chooses to put it on the ballot, you all would likely vote about that in June. Then what happens after that, staff uh basically bows out but then there is a whole, you know, campaign committee that would work on that that is not necessarily aided by staff. Um, but we also have significant Council transitions that are coming at that time. Um, a lot of other housing element and work plan programs and I don't see a path where we would be able to start the Phase 2 for a Charter Amendment in 2026. Now that doesn't mean that, you know, I... point taken about planting the seed. Um, we know that there was interest in doing a Phase 2 in 2028. But the way timing works for rev... revenue measures and Charter Amendments is you're typically starting, even with the commission, it's typically like a year before. So I just want to kind of caution everyone about the significant workload that we have now and the major, major policy issues that we're bringing to Council this calendar year. I don't see us um fitting it in this year. That doesn't mean we wouldn't start in 2027 and certainly if Council's interested in that we would, but um I don't see a path forward for that um in 2026.
[04:50:19] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, City Manager McCarthy. Um, I see Councilmember Ramirez is still in the queue?
[04:50:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Was I? I uh... uh but but I think one way to think about this is because we're not the ones making the decision, rather than ask the question of the next Council during the like basically the priority setting process, it might be a question in Quarter 1: 'Hey, the previous Council thought it might be a good idea to pursue more substantive amendments to the Charter. Do you want to do that?' And then they could say no, or they could say yes, right? So nothing really has to come back to this Council necessarily, but it... like planting the seed maybe rather than a Councilmember next year saying in February during the priority setting process 'I think we should amend the Charter', it's a question that staff is already primed to ask early on in order to make sure that there's enough time to have a... a thoughtful review of the Charter. Is that... is that a more realistic timeframe?
[04:51:48] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: You're saying Quarter 1 of 2027?
[04:51:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. To like ask the question 'Hey new Council, do you want to do this?'
[04:51:58] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Um, what I'd like to do in that we we do have um updates to the Council um on the work plan and the potential for um Council input on the existing two-year work plan, that we we look at the timing for that in 2027. Um, that might fall within to Quarter 1.
[04:52:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Fair... I'm... I'm not going to be here so I... I mean I don't want to fight too hard for this. I'm... I'm kind of getting a soft impression that this is not going to happen. And that's fine. I won't be here, but I mean like we're thinking more than two years in advance, right? And... and if there isn't capacity to do it then there isn't capacity to do it, but um if we can't do it more than two years in advance, it feels like it will probably never get done. That's my fear.
[04:52:53] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Just remember, when you shuffle off the mortal coil of this Council, you could always respawn in two years. All right, does staff have what they need?
[04:53:06] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes, I have what I need except for I have one clarification with regard to the RHC weighing in on the CSFRA amendments. I heard two things. One I heard, just go to the RHC and ask them about the recommended amendment, which would be correcting the references to the Municipal Code, and just getting their their buy-in to that and keep it in one ballot measure. Then I heard a statement about going to them and asking about other potential amendments to the CSFRA, which I think creates a problem because I've got 75 words for one ballot measure question. And I can't have them list numerous things they want touched in the CSFRA and then I run out of space. So I'm already tight on the words. So I just wanted to get clarification that I will definitely go to the RHC. I'm just getting their buy-in on the one recommended change to the CSFRA.
[04:54:27] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Okay, yeah. So I am okay with making sure that we have this... the... the buy-in from the RHC. Um, if there was any... uh is that okay with everyone on Council? All right, I'm seeing nods. All right.
[04:54:45] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: It's fine. It's... it's not that... not that um... if they would like to opine on that specific question, I'm happy to take their input. Um, whether I'll change my mind or not about what... I mean it's empty, it doesn't belong there, it's very confusing, but um yeah. If... if we want to ask their input on that specific thing, I'm perfectly happy to... to get their input.
[04:55:11] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Sounds... sounds good. Is that clear for you?
[04:55:14] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes, I'm clear.
[04:55:15] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Thank you. Now thank goodness that we can go on to our next item. Yay us. Um, yep. It is a Study Session so we didn't have to take any motions. Um, all right. Uh, we will now move on to Item 7, 7.1, R3 Zoning District Update, Development Standards and Strategies. Given the need for Councilmember recusals due to conflicts of interest, this item will proceed using a modified deliberation process. This item will begin with staff presentation, then the Council will have an opportunity to ask general questions of staff, followed by public comment. After public comment is closed, the Council will then deliberate and ask questions on individual topic areas, first addressing those affected by Councilmember conflicts of interest, and then proceeding to the remaining topics where no conflicts exist. Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson will present the item. If you would like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. Take it away.
[04:56:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Thank you very much, Mayor Ramos, City Council. This item is regarding the R3 Zoning District Update. My name is Eric Anderson and I'm joined by Christian Murdock, the Community Development Director. This project started back in 2020 and since then it's gone through several rounds of outreach and study sessions. In addition, the project has been put on hold several times to address other city priorities such as the Displacement Response Strategy and the Housing Element. Most recently, the Council provided direction on the project's densities in March and June of last year. On January 7th, the EPC provided recommendations to the City Council on the topics presented in this meeting. This slide provides an overview of the topics we're discussing tonight. The first topic is regarding the General Plan designations. The General Plan must be updated to accommodate the new densities in the R3 zone. These changes include updating designation names, removing the previous ranges, and adding allowances for commercial uses where they would be allowed in the R3 zoning district. This slide shows staff's recommended General Plan designations. The EPC agreed with these recommendations. The next topic is the Draft R3 Standards, which were generated based on outreach, Council goals, Housing Element direction, and the need for more clarity and objectivity in standards and design outcomes. Attachment 4 to the report, the Design Handbook, was prepared to communicate and confirm the general approach to the development standards. This document provides a clear visual of the outcomes the standards are intended to achieve. It should be noted that the Handbook illustrates the standards as written, not necessarily the outcome of any project that may use State Density Bonus Law or other statute that supersedes the City's development standards. This slide shows the staff recommended major development standards, illustrating how they would change the existing standards. These standards are updated to improve the feasibility of development, especially by providing the ability to build more habitable floor area on a given area of land. For example, heights and FARs would be increased and setbacks and open area would be decreased. These standards would ensure that development is able to physically accommodate the number of units they are allowed. Note that R3-A is an update to R2 zoned sites, so may not be more permissive than R3 is today. On January 7th, the EPC recommended the staff recommendation for these standards. Staff recommends adopting minimum density standards to help ensure that projects build close to the number of units they are allowed and do not simply build large, low-density units. These recommended standards are based on the intended character of the districts. The percent is higher for the R3-D zone since this percentage would still tend to generate stacked units while allowing for larger units within the construction type building envelope studied in the feasibility analysis. And on January 7th, the EPC recommended the staff recommendation. In addition, various new standards are recommended. These standards implement various Council goals, outreach and other issues that frequently arise in the development review process. The habitable ground floor space standard requires buildings to have units, lobbies or other habitable space facing the street. Parking placement standards limit the location of parking to the rear of the lot. Building footprint standards set the maximum depth and width of buildings. New standards create onsite circulation and open area requirements. Other standards address various aesthetic and other impact issues. The standards also include an exception section which allows developments to reduce standards based on existing conditions such as the presence of heritage trees. And on January 7th, the EPC recommended the staff recommendation. In addition to typical development standards that control the building envelope, the project team has developed design standards that control the shape and variation of building facades. These standards regulate entry types, bay composition, which is the pattern of windows on a facade, base-middle-top design, and massing features like tower elements and recesses. And on January 7th, the EPC recommended the staff recommendation. The next major topic is regarding the approach to including ground floor commercial and live-work units in the R3 district. Live-work is a type of unit that fills a gap between home occupations and dedicated commercial tenant spaces. Typically, they are dwelling units that also contain a flexible area that can be used for various commercial activities, storefront and the opportunity for signage. These factors make them more visible than home occupations. Staff recommends allowing live-work throughout the R3, but limiting dedicated commercial spaces to the R3-D subdistrict only. The other R3 subdistricts are envisioned for more limited change than the R3-D, which may be inconsistent with the additional activity, noise, traffic, odors, deliveries, and so on that may be associated with commercial development. In addition, the R3 standards address various nuisance issues and consider best practices for the dimensions to accommodate successful commercial uses. On January 7th, the EPC recommended the staff recommendation except that more areas than just R3-D, except for R3-A, should allow ground floor commercial spaces. If the Council agrees with the EPC, they may wish to consider allowing commercial on major arterials or larger lots in the R3-B or C subdistricts. One development standard with a major effect on development feasibility is parking. Staff recommends updating the multifamily minimum parking standards to address feasibility, consistency with the State Density Bonus Law which frequently supersedes the City standards, and typical developer provision of parking. If directed by City Council, these standards would not be limited to the R3 zoning district. They would be updated for multifamily development in all standard zoning districts or precise plans that utilize the City Code. The standards would only apply to multifamily, not to rowhouses, single family or other uses, or precise plans with their own parking standards. On January 7th, the EPC recommended the staff recommendation. The next topic is regarding a Council goal for this project, to create an incentive for the consolidation of small lots. The R3-D subdistrict is where lot consolidation is most critical. The higher densities in R3-D are most feasibly developed on larger sites. Staff recommends focusing on parcels less than 20,000 square feet in the R3-D subdistrict and only allowing them to reach their maximum density if they combine with an adjacent site. This incentive has not yet been drafted and if Council agrees with this approach, it'll be integrated into the R3 standards. On January 7th, the EPC did not support this. They were skeptical about how the incentive would function, with some Commissioners seeing it as a punitive measure rather than an encouraging measure. The EPC recommended that other incentives be evaluated. As described in the staff report, staff has not identified other incentives that would withstand State Density Bonus and other state laws. As a result, if the Council does not support this incentive, staff recommends moving forward without an explicit incentive at this time. The Housing Element requires the City to update its nonconforming standards to allow the redevelopment of sites with nonconforming density. In addition, the City's nonconforming ordinance is poorly organized and difficult to understand, and can be updated for consistency with several state laws. This update will focus on existing residential uses and staff recommends it to cover the topics shown on this slide. These recommendations increase the permissiveness of our nonconforming code in several ways beyond the Housing Element. And on January 7th, the EPC recommended the staff recommendation. The last topic is regarding the R4 zone. If the R3 zone is adopted with the current draft densities, it will include densities both below and above the allowed density in the R4 zone. Therefore, staff recommends integrating the R4 zone into the R3 project. On January 7th, the EPC recommended the staff recommendation. After the City Council meeting we will continue to develop other code sections for the R3 zone, state laws, and R2 amendments per the Housing Element. In addition, a Draft EIR will be available for public review shortly. Finally, here is a summary of the staff recommendation. This concludes the presentation. We're happy to answer any questions you may have. Also joining us are Amber Blizinski, the Assistant Community Development Director, Renee Gunn, Senior Civil Engineer, Cecilia Kim with Opticos, and David Bergman with Lisa Wise Consulting. Thank you.
[05:05:37] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Does any member of the Council have general questions related to this item? Questions related to individual recommendations and topic areas must be held later until... um later in the meeting due to conflict of interest. I have a hand from Councilmember Kamei.
[05:05:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Thanks colleagues. So I have good news and I have bad news. I... the bad news is it's uh 1:06 AM and I just... I need to log off. Um, but the good news is, um you won't have to worry about my recusal. And um I agree with the staff recommendation. So I leave it all in your capable hands. There is no one with me um in... in uh the library here. So have a great night. Thank you.
[05:06:27] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. All right. Uh moving on to other Council questions. I... I... I don't see any. Oh. Oh. Councilmember McAlister.
[05:06:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Thanks. So I was reading uh in the Council questions about the the California Street Market at 1595. And you're saying that could not happen again? Or I was... it's... the standards would not be allowed, so this walkable project would not be allowed to be built?
[05:07:09] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. Uh I think what we were trying to point out is um that market is actually uh of a... a scale that differs from the types of commercial uses that would be described in the R3 zoning standards. Um, something comparable conceivably could occur, but it would need to be in the context of a larger project. Um, the site and the scale of the project is too small to be uh relatable to the... the R3 standards was the main point.
[05:07:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Huh. So since that is a perfect example of walkable and convenient, if somebody wanted to open something like that not necessarily uh an existing neighborhood, they couldn't do it. So we're not going to see any more type developments allowed like that if... regardless of the R3, somebody wanted to put something in, would they be allowed to do it?
[05:08:09] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think the issue here is just that that's um a site with a single family residence and I think one unit uh perhaps in the commercial building. Um, the proportion of the commercial area of the site is disproportionately large to the residential proportion of the site. And so the R3 standards as they are proposed and contemplating commercial use require that proportion of commercial use to be much smaller or the residential use to be much larger. And so it's really that latter example where much more of the site would need to be residential use. Uh but a commercial use of that size, um it would be allowable uh under the proposed R3 commercial standards.
[05:08:47] Councilmember John McAlister: As long as somebody built a larger residential complex there.
[05:08:52] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Correct.
[05:08:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Hmm. Okay. Interesting. Um, on page 9, Table 5, it says reduce the minimal open space from 55 to less. Uh how does that co... uh align with how the City is trying to increase open space in park, yet here you're saying we want to make it smaller?
[05:09:18] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh so um the standard affects the provision of uh private open area and landscaping and it doesn't affect the provision of public parks or open space. Uh also I'll just say that this standard is um one of the more critical standards for uh creating feasible development at the allowed densities uh that are already allowed at these sites under the General Plan.
[05:09:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So we're... we're going to have policies that say we want open space, but we're going to also have policies say we're not going to provide that open space. That... that open space doesn't have to be provided.
[05:09:59] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think uh Councilmember what you're hitting on is a... a difficult policy tradeoff to make housing development more feasible in the R3 zoning district by reducing those kinds of standards that take up buildable area and do not allow densities to be achieved as directed in the General Plan and zoning versus the broader public policy interest of providing parkland. Um in this case, uh the Housing Element requirement to look at feasibility of R3 has required us in this R3 zoning update to put the focus on balancing towards housing feasibility. Um other efforts underway by the City including the Nexus Study update and eventual park fee update offer different policy options to resource the acquisition and development of parkland. And so that's something that would need to be tackled in a different policy conversation by the Council.
[05:10:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. How does the um uh the minimum distance requirement being reduced affect how sunlight is being projected on buildings? Is that a consideration? In the past it has, so how will that affect how light comes onto a property?
[05:11:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, well like how um Director Murdock said, uh the focus of this project is on standards that uh improve the feasibility and buildability of uh projects at their allowed density. Uh the previous setbacks were uh large uh especially for taller buildings and so those were another major source of um constraint on being able to build at densities that you're allowed. Um and so yes, reducing these setbacks could increase shadows on adjacent properties and especially for taller buildings uh and uh of course this all could depend on um orientation, time of year.
[05:12:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Um, you had studies that were concerning evaluating opportunities for commercial integration with the R3 zoning. Where's the... so how are your... you're projecting high density as a major criteria for success of putting something in. How has that worked along San Antonio which has some pretty high density?
[05:12:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh sure, yeah. Our... our economic consultant estimated the new population from R3 development and determined if that demand was suffic... sufficient to support retail activity. They did find that with anticipated growth in R3 it was sufficient to support additional retail. Um and uh, you know, there are population and income assumptions that can be used to estimate these demands. Um, so yes there are some vacant commercial spaces on San Antonio Road. Um, it may be difficult to apply that scenario to R3 because San Antonio Road is within a large regional commercial center and these R3 sites are expected to be more um within more predominantly residential neighborhoods. Uh further there are some businesses within these newer developments, even though there may be some vacancies, there are some successful businesses in these developments as well. Uh and those businesses would have fewer location opportunities if the ground floor commercial space weren't there. Um, so um yeah does that answer your question?
[05:13:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, okay, so Prometheus has a building and they have vacancies and that's been there for years. The Greystar in California has vacancies and that's been a year for there. So how much more is it able to prepare, how much more density has to be for those properties have businesses that can the density will support them?
[05:14:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, I... I think another critical difference in the San Antonio area is that those are required ground floor commercial areas. Uh we are not contemplating R3 having any required ground floor commercial areas. So it really is up to the developer to decide if the location is um marketable for ground floor commercial activity. Uh and so it really is the um uh really on the developer to understand their market and understand the opportunities there. Uh and with that kind of flexibility, we hope there could be more um uh knowledge and awareness and... and um and planning for successful retail uses in these... in these developments.
Segment 8
[05:15:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: The downtown environment is very different than the higher density types of R3 environments contemplated with this update. The downtown just doesn't have the same housing densities that would be resultant of the commercial development in this case. So I think it's sort of an apples to oranges comparison.
[05:15:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And then one question on the parking. There was a condominium complex in San Jose, the Fay, that recently went into bankruptcy and one of the things they said was the lack of parking. Have you seen any other indications that the lack of parking for some residentials could cause some economic stress?
Segment 7
[05:15:20] Councilmember John McAlister: So there is no requirement in... in any of these R3 to allo... put in commercial?
[05:15:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's... it's permissive only, it's not uh mandated. Yeah.
[05:15:33] Councilmember John McAlister: So you... so you determined that a critical mass is necessary for a successful small business. If you look at Ava's downtown market, do you consider that success? Is that a... is that a uh true representation of a... res... I mean a business surviving in... in these particular R3 areas?
Segment 8
[05:15:40] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So I looked at the particular project that you cited in San Jose. That project had a parking ratio something along the lines of one space for every three units. We are a long way from that in the R3 parking ratio proposal. And so developments in the R3 scenario would have, you know, two to three times more parking spaces potentially than the cited example. So that development was extremely constrained on off-street parking provision as compared to the R3 standards.
[05:16:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Could a developer use those same numbers? Are they required since parking is not really required, but could a developer say, 'Hey, you know, lot 12 is going to really cut back on the parking.' Could a developer say, 'Hey, you know, for me to make this I gotta cut out parking.' Could that...
[05:16:29] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Conceivably they could, particularly in areas within a half mile of one of the rail stations or in one of the precise plans where the city has eliminated a residential minimum parking requirement. So the potential exists, but ultimately the developers in those cases would have the ability to choose the ratio they think the market would demand.
[05:16:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And so, okay. Those are my questions. Thank you.
[05:16:55] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember McAlister. We will now... okay. So that was Council questions. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide public comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have three minutes. So the first one is Olga Bright, followed by James Kuzmaul, and then Alex Brown, and that's the in-person. So feel free to make your way down so we don't have to wait for you to walk down.
[05:17:34] Olga Bright: Well, hi. I live in Monta Loma and so I'm severely impacted by your proposals all along San Antonio. And the whole idea of the quality of life of existing residents and existing voters, I might add, is something that should be considered here. We live in Mountain View, but I think we no longer see the mountains.
[05:18:15] Olga Bright: If I drive up Rengstorff, I now look at these two huge buildings. It was so nice when they weren't there. And this relates to SB 79 which I'm very, very concerned about because we live in a... I think we have approximately four houses to an acre in Monta Loma. And now we're proposing all these massive apartments and so forth all along San Antonio.
[05:18:50] Olga Bright: I don't know if anybody's actually given any consideration because San Antonio is already a very, very busy road. And if you're going to put all these other houses with all these other cars, I don't know what... it's just going to be like a road jam. I don't know if SB 79 and all these proposed changes in zoning densities is something that's going to come up to the public.
[05:19:20] Olga Bright: I don't think anybody in Monta Loma, except for a handful of people, know about these proposed changes. And I think we should have some city input, I mean community input into this. I don't think that developers really have existing people in mind, existing community members in mind. They're in it for profit.
[05:19:49] Olga Bright: And they're not... have the existing... they're not concerned about voters. And you know, I basically think that they're destroying the quality of life of Mountain View. Whether you're talking about changes in downtown Mountain View... And I don't think that anybody seems to have a sense of history. Any sense of, you know... everything is sort of disposable.
[05:20:25] Olga Bright: And I take John McAlister's point, I had that on my list too, was this idea that the city has this ostensible belief that we need more parking...
[05:20:39] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Thank you Miss Olga, your time is up. All right. James.
[05:20:50] James Kuzmaul: Thank you. I'm James Kuzmaul, I'm a 27 year resident of Mountain View. I live in a rent controlled R3 complex that was built before modern earthquake standards and would, in an ideal world, have already been rebuilt. I see the R3 zoning update as an important piece of making it so that these sorts of redevelopments can be feasible while still providing appropriate displacement protections for those who need it.
[05:21:21] James Kuzmaul: In general I'm supportive of the proposed standards but want to call out a few opportunities for improvement as called out in the Mountain View YIMBY letter that you all received. Firstly, I think it's important to reduce setbacks so that more developments can be feasible while providing a more pedestrian friendly environment.
[05:21:45] James Kuzmaul: A lot of setbacks go pretty much unused and largely unlandscaped, and our most lively and successful retail area in downtown has zero setbacks and makes it nice and easy to get from the sidewalk to the businesses. So we should see more of that. We should remove some of the arbitrary standards around massing breaks.
[05:22:10] James Kuzmaul: These sorts of breaks don't seem to actually result in aesthetic improvement to the buildings, at least in my opinion, and to the extent they might do so, it's not worth the significant cost that corresponds for the new buildings. We should allow ground floor retail everywhere. I don't expect it to be feasible in many of the lower density R3 areas, but there's no reason to not just allow it on all those areas, and if it's feasible, great, a developer will do it.
[05:22:40] James Kuzmaul: And as always, I would like to see reduced parking minimums for both residential and retail areas. Developers can assess whether they think it's appropriate to provide less parking when they need it. I also wanted to comment that from an active transportation perspective, I do appreciate the inclusion of plans and provision for future paseos through areas that need it.
[05:23:05] James Kuzmaul: I do think the setback requirements on those are a bit unnecessary since we're already saying we want 16 foot wide paths and then the setbacks are 15 feet from the center line of the path. And so I'm not sure that we need quite that much space for the paseos, but I appreciate the accommodation of them.
[05:23:15] James Kuzmaul: And I want to also say I appreciate the inclusion of standards around how many driveways there are on developments and encouraging those to be placed on side streets rather than thoroughfares where you'll have higher numbers of cyclists and pedestrians that may be in conflict with the use of those driveways. And in general how driveways interface with our streets is an actually important thing to be having standards for. And thank you to Council and to staff for your time and effort on this matter and I look forward to seeing these standards take effect and welcoming more neighbors and businesses into our city. Thank you.
[05:23:43] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Alex Brown.
[05:23:50] Alex Brown: Hi friends. I also look forward to having more neighbors in our city as a result of this. Maybe like 2050? 55? Yeah, this has been fun. I'm going to continue commenting on R3 because I enjoy it. I like coming to hang out with you guys.
[05:24:15] Alex Brown: We need to account for the lack of housing. We need more housing. That's the goal of this, is to try to fix the harms that were caused with zoning that prohibited growth in areas that otherwise would account for people, that would make the land usable to not just the residents within the denser apartments but also to the businesses and things that would sustain those, that need a critical mass of people to be able to have a vibrant area.
[05:24:40] Alex Brown: You end up getting a lot of blight and... let's just go with blight... when you have not enough people to patron things. You don't have an ecosystem. And I think that this is the opportunity we have as a city to build that ecosystem, to let things develop better. But also I think... okay. I've said this so many times. We need simpler rules.
[05:25:05] Alex Brown: I think that a lot of the R3 standards that have been proposed introduce complexity that is going to be a cost to the city staff and also to developers and to the council members and committee members that it comes before to figure out what is valid, what needs exceptions, what rules have to apply in any given situation. Oh, you made it! I wasn't just stalling for time so that he had an opportunity to come in person. Totally was not my goal.
[05:25:35] Alex Brown: Okay, yeah. No. As I end everything, R3D, all of it. All D. R4 should be R3D. R3B should be R3D. The rest of it. Thank you.
[05:25:55] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Alex. David Watson.
[05:26:00] David Watson: Uh, hello. I was going to continue to reiterate items from our letter that you all received. The other items not mentioned by James... there's I believe at some point during this process, a significant part of this process, part of the goal was form-based zoning.
[05:26:26] David Watson: The idea is to determine the, what's allowed based on the physical shape of the building. And we still have... we've included density limits in the proposed standard for R3 here. And there are significant parts of Mountain View that don't actually use density limits, so it's clear that the city is capable of not having density limits in some areas.
[05:26:46] David Watson: So it doesn't make sense to have density limits as part of a zoning update that has a form-based code as part of the goal. I also was going to mention there's some description of areas with a walkway on the front of buildings in the development standards that I really like.
[05:27:07] David Watson: The only thing that's a little confusing is again with the very large setbacks, it's going to be sort of hard for anyone, members of the public to be able to actually take advantage of that. Whether you actually move the sidewalk back to be within the sort of covered area in front of the building or not. Either way, it would be nice for people to be able to use that.
[05:27:30] David Watson: So that's another reason to reduce front setbacks in situations where the building is providing cover from either rain or sun or either one. And the other item I mentioned was, again James mentioned it a little bit, but an option to have an alternative to massing features, to instead have decorative features.
[05:27:55] David Watson: I think would be really interesting. There are other cities that have done things like that in the Bay Area and throughout the United States, and I think that you can get really beautiful looking buildings from that. And that's it for me. Thank you very much.
[05:28:19] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. We will now move on to our virtual comments. Manuel Salazar.
[05:28:25] Manuel Salazar: Hello. Good evening Mayor Ramos and Councilmembers. My name is Manuel Salazar and I'm going to be speaking tonight on behalf of SV@Home. Also bear with me, I've been listening in for a little while so I might be a little sleepy. I want to start by thanking city staff for their continued work on R3 zoning district update, and for incorporating thoughtful refinements in the most recent iteration of the ordinance.
[05:28:50] Manuel Salazar: You know, this has been a very, very, very long and complex effort and we really appreciate the city's commitment to, you know, getting it right. With that said, I do want to highlight some of the key things that SV@Home really appreciates about this current iteration. First off, the improved feasibility, you know, adjustments to the floor area ratios, height, setback, etc. I understand that it's doing this to ideally, you know, make the projects more viable and make it more likely for the housing to actually get built, and we do appreciate that.
[05:29:15] Manuel Salazar: Clear and flexible standards, you know, objective design standards with a clear process for exceptions helps reduce barriers and delays, which we love. And, you know, unlocking sites. You know, simplified rules for non-conforming parcels opens the door for redevelopment of underutilized sites. So all that gets two thumbs up.
[05:29:30] Manuel Salazar: Where we're kind of concerned, but you know this is just us flagging things, is the parking minimums. You know, requirements of 1 to 1.25 stalls per unit may still be too high in certain areas near transit, which could impact affordability and feasibility. So just being cautious of that. Lot consolidation incentives, I understand that this is to incentivize that, but could unintentionally also penalize smaller infill parcels. So just being cautious.
[05:29:55] Manuel Salazar: And then the minimum density rules could be too rigid for smaller or irregular lots, so just please be careful when you're doing those calibrations. Honestly, so yeah. So in closing, we're really glad to see the continued momentum of this zoning update and remain optimistic about the path forward.
[05:30:10] Manuel Salazar: We also want to uplift and echo many of the thoughtful comments shared by folks from Mountain View YIMBY today. While we may approach things differently or from slightly different angles, we're really aligned in our shared commitment to unlocking more housing opportunities. So please continue listening to them when they come forward. They're wonderful folks.
[05:30:25] Manuel Salazar: And yeah, we encourage council to keep collaborating with the community partners to build consensus around a version of this update that works. And thank you again to staff and council for your work on this item and yeah, let's get it to the finish line. Thank you.
[05:30:40] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Cliff Chambers?
[05:30:45] Cliff Chambers: Hi, this is Cliff Chambers. I've been a resident of Mountain View for 20 years and I live in an R3 zone. I think it's really important that the Council get this right, particularly since there's interest in using these performance and design standards in the SB 79 TOZ zone alternatives.
[05:31:11] Cliff Chambers: I really, overall, I agree with the great majority of the staff recommendations, but like others, I feel there are a few changes that could be made to make the standards better. I agree with what was said earlier about allowing commercial zones in other sub-districts.
[05:31:30] Cliff Chambers: If a developer pencils out that they can make retail work as part of a residential development on the ground floor, we should allow them to do it. It should be permissive. We shouldn't prohibit it. I think the market really is the guiding force here. And I think others have commented on the setbacks.
[05:31:50] Cliff Chambers: Part of the goal of this was to really make walkable neighborhoods where we're really engaging at the commercial ground floor and the residential. I think the setbacks at 15 feet are too large. I'd really like to see something more like 5 to 10 feet. I'm a strong believer in the minimum densities that are being proposed. I do think one of the key goals that we had as part of this process, which I've been involved with since the very beginning, was more diverse unit types.
[05:32:25] Cliff Chambers: And these, the standards that the staff has been proposing, I think really work towards that. I just want a little bit more clarification to 66%, the right figure. I know that comes from another state law, but I think it's really important. I do feel that the pedestrian connections, the two examples that are in the staff report are great.
[05:32:45] Cliff Chambers: I think it's right on. I think we need to do look at the right right of way and somebody else commented on that so I won't repeat it. But it's really important. And if there's other areas in the city that should have that, it should be allowable. I did look at the response to council questions and I hope you really bring that through. I do feel that lot consolidation is going to be very important, but I do agree with the EPC that, I'm not sure that these are the right...
[05:33:19] Cliff Chambers: So if you're not going to go revisit it then I would suggest you do jettison that for right now and let the... I do feel again that the market is really going to guide whether the lot consolidation is going to happen. I'm running out of time, but the newest EPC member had some really great suggestions about design standards including the depth of habitable space and massing, and I hope it didn't get carried forward in the EPC, but I hope you consider it. Thank you very much.
[05:33:48] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Robert Cox.
[05:33:50] Robert Cox: Hey, can you hear me?
[05:33:52] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We can hear you.
[05:33:54] Robert Cox: I'll take that as a yes. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this item. Livable Mountain View supports the staff recommendation. We appreciate the zoning changes and related items are necessary to meet the city's obligations under the current housing element. However, we urge the council not to go beyond what staff has recommended as this will add to our city's already stressed traffic and parking situation.
[05:34:25] Robert Cox: I consider myself personally fortunate that I don't have to go out driving much anymore since I'm in post-COVID retirement. I usually only get out to get groceries twice a week. But I mean I'm distressed by the idea that every time I go out I see double parking violations. To me that's a sign of incorrect planning.
[05:34:50] Robert Cox: And some of that's put on us by the state and some of that's just our own doing, but I don't think making it worse makes a more livable city. And you know, as far as, you know, reducing setbacks and all this kind of thing, you know, I do believe that there's some desirability of being a good neighbor when you're a good builder and not unduly impinging upon your neighboring buildings and the residents there. So in any case, that's why we're only going to support the staff recommendation and not anything else. So thank you very much.
[05:35:34] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Daniel Hols.
[05:35:40] Daniel Hols: Oh yeah, hi. Can you hear me?
[05:35:43] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We can hear you.
[05:35:45] Daniel Hols: All right, great. So my name's Daniel Hols. I live in an R3 area at the end of California. Rent control building. And I, you know, I'm here supporting this effort. I think that it's going to be great for us to build a lot of new housing in our city. You know, I love the view of the buildings that I see on San Antonio and I think we can have more of them in our city and we can have more people in it and more people are going to go to retail and we're going to have a lot more vibrancy.
[05:36:33] Daniel Hols: One thing I wanted to kind of pull out of this is kind of this idea of a setback, which as far as I can tell is just like government mandated waste of like, here's space you can't build. And I think we should kind of do something about this, which is, you know, we have allowable densities or whatever, but maybe we should let this setback area be buildable for pedestrian infrastructure.
[05:37:07] Daniel Hols: So maybe we want a bike path that is far separated from a road. If we could build on the setback area, that would be providing a actually useful thing to us as a city while also, you know, not creating a problem in terms of developability. So that's one thing I think is let's actually use the setback. Let's not just mandate you may not use this area for anything.
[05:37:38] Daniel Hols: Another thing that I kind of brought out in my comment to EPC was we should think a lot more about where we want these cut through areas for pedestrians and actually try to master plan it. And that doesn't have to be done in the R3 process itself. I think we should spin it off to the active transportation plan.
[05:37:58] Daniel Hols: But simply having a process to do that and getting all of those cut throughs specified upfront is going to be a much better condition for a developer than saying I want to build this and then having city staff say, 'Oh, but we want all of this stuff.' If we provide it upfront, that gives clarity to developers and it also lets us master plan what we want our future pedestrian network to look like. So thank you and have a good evening. I hope we all get some sleep tonight.
[05:38:39] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Last speaker, Kevin Ma.
[05:38:43] Kevin Ma: Evening Council, my name is Kevin Ma, speaking in my individual capacity tonight as a resident in the San Antonio Precise Plan right across from the R3 around Latham and Ortega. I am concerned with the design standards as written in the draft, as was mentioned in the last council meeting. There has been concerns about staff workload and I'm concerned that the prescriptive standards in it are bang for buck, not a benefit for the city.
[05:39:21] Kevin Ma: It is adding more complexity on all sides, on the developer and on staff, to make sure that we're fitting these rules that don't really show indication that they address what the community wants from the aesthetics of any new building. The goal of this is to encourage, you know, innovative designs, but in the past DRC style, the biggest criticism was they made giant glass boxes which, you know, just don't make anyone happy.
[05:39:52] Kevin Ma: It also would affect other innovative strategies such as modular housing because inherently as soon as you introduce any breaks, it is not exactly easily constructible offsite. I also like to come back to the purpose of the R3 update is to encourage, you know, more feasible building because for a city that talks about community for all, that means we need to make sure we have places for people to live in. And rents are still high and most people cannot afford a 2 to 3 million dollar single family home in the area.
[05:40:26] Kevin Ma: As such we still need to keep our focus on will this create the housing we desire? Will this create the stacked flats that many on council really like? Will this create, you know, cheaper apartments or more affordable starter homes? You know, whether by state law or whether by our own initiatives, we need to keep that on the focus. Mountain View will continue to change and at the end of the day a community is its people, not the buildings.
[05:40:50] Kevin Ma: We need to make sure we are able to keep our people rather than leading our way into an open air retirement community. As such I thank the Council and the City for continuing to work on R3 and hope that this truly unlocks more housing opportunities with the city.
[05:41:05] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. That is it for public comment. I will now bring the item back for Council questions, deliberation, and action. As a reminder, all votes will be taken by roll call this evening. I'm actually going to move the item where Councilmember Kamei was going to be recused to the end. And then we're going to now... so Council will now ask questions, deliberate and take action relating to general plan land use designation Residential-110. Discussion of this topic requires a council member recusal due to a conflict of interest. Could the council member with the conflict of interest please make your recusal statement now? Councilmember McAlister.
[05:42:02] Councilmember John McAlister: I am recusing myself from the discussion about the general plan land use designation Residential-110 due to the proximity of my personal residence to sites affected by this land use designation.
[05:42:22] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember McAlister. We'll call you back soon. The staff recommendation for the Residential-110 designation is shown on the screen. Do we have any council members... Oh, okay. All right, I see Councilmember Ramirez.
[05:42:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. I move to approve the staff recommendation for the Residential-110 land use designation.
[05:43:09] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Ramirez. The motion has been made and seconded by Councilmember Showalter. Do we still need to do a roll call vote? Yes we do. Okay. Sorry. All right, let's do the roll call vote.
[05:43:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay. Councilmember Ramirez?
[05:43:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.
[05:43:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?
[05:43:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.
[05:43:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?
[05:43:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.
[05:43:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Clark?
[05:43:44] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yes.
[05:43:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos?
[05:43:46] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes.
[05:43:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries.
[05:43:55] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Can someone grab Councilmember McAlister so he can come back for the next item. It looks like... okay, it's both of you. The Council will now ask questions, deliberate and take action related to the general plan land use designations Residential-12 and Residential-20, and draft development standards applicable only to the R3-A and R3-C subdistricts. Discussion of these topics require council member recusals due to conflicts of interest. Could the council members with a conflict of interest please make your recusal statements now?
[05:44:40] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: I am recusing myself from the discussion about general plan land use designation Residential-20 and draft development standards applicable to the R3-A and R3-C subdistricts due to the proximity of my personal residence to sites affected by these designations and standards.
[05:45:01] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Go ahead Councilmember Hicks.
[05:45:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I'm also recusing myself from discussion about GP land use designations Residential-12 and Residential-20 and draft development standards applicable to the R3-A subdistrict due to the proximity of my personal residence to sites affected by these designations and standards.
[05:45:25] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Hopefully we will get you back soon. Staff recommendations for general plan land use designations Residential-12 and Residential-20 and development standards applicable to the R3-A subdistrict are shown on the screen. Councilmember Ramirez.
[05:45:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. Similarly, so first thank you Councilmember Showalter. I also want to share my support for the staff recommendations related to clarifying the general plan land use designation naming. It's confusing when you have things like, you know, high-low residential, you know, or whatever. I appreciate the intent but I think this does clarify what we really mean with these designations.
[05:46:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I'll move to approve the staff recommendations for general plan land use designations Residential-12 and Residential-20 and the staff recommendations for the development standards applicable to the R3-A subdistrict with one exception, and that's... we'll talk more about this... but this is to allow, not require, but allow commercial uses in R3-A with appropriate standards as recommended by staff, including objective live-work design standards to activate streets.
[05:46:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I think the staff report had included the kinds of standards that we might want to consider including frontage on an arterial road or a large lot size. I don't think we have to stipulate what those have to be tonight, but I think staff is on the right track in identifying where it might be appropriate. But I want to share, Councilmember McAlister, I appreciated your questions at the start of the meeting.
[05:47:27] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I grew up near that market and we would walk there all the time. And it's kind of baffling to me that that's not something that you can... that's not legal anymore, right? We're not saying you have to do it, but if you want to, if you're an aspiring small business owner and you've got the space and you've got the ability, you should be able to provide, you know, a small grocery store walking distance from your neighborhood.
[05:47:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I'm looking at the R3 zoning district map that staff had prepared and where we see R3-A, a lot of it is in areas that's... where there's like a commercial desert, right? So there's not a lot of... you have to go somewhere else to go, you know, to like a small grocery or something like that. Or they're on, you know, arterials. So I think this is a potentially valuable addition. And again, it may not happen for a little while, but why prohibit the ability for someone to provide neighborhood serving retail or a neighborhood serving amenity in an area where it's currently not legal. So that's the one change I would recommend in addition to the staff recommendations. Thank you.
[05:48:40] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: I don't see anyone else in the queue. Is the motion in the thing... is that current? That's current? Oh, okay. Councilmember McAlister.
[05:48:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just... I have... I want to have a question there. I want to present... I don't know if it's appropriate at this time, but again from the small business person's perspective and we were talking about this at the last council meeting when we were talking about where we were upgrading potential developments and the developer could come along and say, 'You're out.'
[05:49:15] Councilmember John McAlister: San Jose is developing a commercial anti-displacement strategy and they've been working on it since the first of last year. And I think the City of Mountain View Council says they support small businesses. So is this appropriate time? Can this be something that be incorporated into what you're doing with the R3 or is this totally separate where we want to protect the existing small businesses in the area?
[05:50:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So the R3 zoning district is primarily a residential district. There are some non-conforming, non-residential uses like that market on Mariposa and California. But it is a primarily residential district. You know, this has come up in the past with council discussion around commercial rezonings, you know, rezoning from a commercial district to a mixed-use district for example. And I think that would maybe be a more appropriate venue for that kind of conversation because relatively few existing businesses are in the R3 district.
[05:50:40] Councilmember John McAlister: So the businesses on Calderon, they're not in the R3 district?
[05:50:45] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Which businesses on Calderon?
[05:50:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, well the chicken place, the laundry place, the small restaurant there, the on Calderon and Church.
[05:50:58] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Calderon and Church. Those are... no, those are in the CN zoning district. So the neighborhood commercial zoning district, not R3.
[05:51:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So this might be better applied at a separate time for the whole city to when we were talking about. Okay, I just wanted to get clarity on that. Thank you.
[05:51:20] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember McAlister. We have a motion on the floor by Councilmember Ramirez, seconded by Councilmember Showalter and we are ready for a vote. Oh are we... wait, what? Do we have comment? I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry, yes, feel free to do your comments. Okay, so... this is... recusal topic number three, which is the updated residential 12 and 20 and then R3-A subdistrict. Okay, so is there an overall... so everything that we're voting on is segmented? Is there any one vote for a big picture item?
[05:52:08] Councilmember John McAlister: The last one?
[05:52:10] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Oh, okay. Then I'll say... well I have comments for the overall, but I'll just wait until the last chance to make a general comment. Thanks. Oh, I have a question for Councilmember Ramirez. Was this list part of this from the YIMBY group that you came out with? Was this some of their letters that they sent to you? I'm just curious.
[05:52:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: No. I am capable of independent thought. So I... I'll get to this later in the meeting.
[05:52:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh okay. Just clarifying. Okay, thanks.
[05:52:55] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: You're good? All right. We are now ready for the roll call vote.
[05:53:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?
[05:53:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.
[05:53:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?
[05:53:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.
[05:53:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?
[05:53:06] Councilmember John McAlister: No.
[05:53:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Mayor Ramos.
[05:53:10] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes. So what happens now?
[05:53:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: It's 3-1-2-1. So three yes, one no.
[05:53:20] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: That means... Oh, the motion passes. Okay. I was worried that we might need... okay. All right. Now we can get Councilmember Hicks... Yes, we can have Councilmember Hicks return to the dais.
[05:53:50] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: So now we will... not... not you yet. Not Chris. Yes. Staff recommendation for development standards applicable to R3-C subdistrict is shown on the screen. Councilmember Ramirez.
[05:54:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. And I'll speak more once we get to the last set of actions. But first for this portion of the recusals, I will also move to approve the staff recommendations with two changes. The first is to support the EPC recommendation to allow commercial uses in R3-C with appropriate standards as recommended by staff, including objective live-work design standards to activate streets. So just as we did with R3-A.
[05:54:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then also to direct the staff to evaluate increasing the FAR in the R3-C subdistrict to facilitate development of stacked flats. So I'll just share a little bit. The piece of paper I think hopefully all of you have. I had the opportunity to speak with the Community Development Director earlier today. It was a very helpful, productive conversation. And one of the things that we talked about was how we could signal through development standards our intent to create housing typologies that we don't typically see in R3.
[05:55:29] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Most of the R3 redevelopments that we've seen have been row home or townhome developments. And that's not to say that they're bad, but one of the considerations early on when the council prioritized the R3 update was to see stacked flats and other entry-level ownership opportunities. And as staff had shared in their responses to the council questions, the FARs that we've seen for condo developments, stacked flat developments in Mountain View tend to be a little bit higher than the staff recommendation.
[05:56:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So we're not necessarily saying that you should increase the FAR, but rather evaluate whether it might send a stronger signal to the development community reviewing these standards once we approve them, that our intent really is to facilitate the development of stacked flats. And one way to do that might be through a slightly increased FAR. I think you had shared in our conversation, it might be like 0.25, you know, beyond what the staff recommendation is.
[05:56:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But I don't want to, you know, suggest that we direct a particular number, just that I think, you know, if a developer were to look at the standards they would say, 'Oh, really the intent is stacked flats. Really the intent is condos.' And I think we would welcome your guidance on how to achieve that. So those are the... it's the staff recommendations with allowing, not requiring, but allowing commercial uses in R3-C with appropriate standards as recommended by staff including objective live-work design standards to activate streets and evaluating increasing FAR in R3-C to facilitate development of stacked flats. Thank you.
[05:57:29] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Ramirez. Councilmember Hicks.
[05:57:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I don't know whether the seconder wants to speak, but...
[05:57:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No, I'm fine.
[05:57:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I will be supporting the motion and I just wanted to call out, I think this is the primary place in the among the motions we'll be making that mention live-work. So I just wanted to call that out as something that we haven't done and that I'm, you know, as you said, excited about it. I've seen it in other places as sort of a hybrid between complete commercial and complete residential. Something that's a little of both and is one way to activate the streets, although certainly not the only way.
[05:58:10] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I think that, you know, shade on sidewalks, wider sidewalks, ample green space, those things activate the kinds of places we're talking about which will be largely residential. But yes, I think live-work would be, will be hopefully an important new element in this city. And I like the picture you had on that slide.
[05:58:38] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Hicks. Councilmember Ramirez, is that...
[05:58:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes, thank you Mayor. I'm looking at, uh, it's I guess 2 and 4. I just want to... so referring to the Community Development Director, we talked about possible ways to segment this. And I'm seeing a reference to habitable ground floor space and maybe some other standards that we had talked about. They're not segmented out in according to your recommendation but I just wanted to clarify. One of the things we talked about was eliminating the depth of habitable ground floor space from the front building facade standard. Is that something that we should include in this direction now? Because it appears to be segmented out.
[05:59:29] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right. So I think this reveals a little bit of evolution in thinking and it depends on the Council's direction. So if the intent is for all of the R3 subdistricts to have that modified, then it's permissible for the Council to talk about it in the main item at the end. If it's intended to be singular to the R3-C subdistrict, then it needs to occur now during the segmented discussion.
[05:59:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I see. I think the intent is to apply to all subdistricts.
[06:00:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That was our understanding after further reflection. Yes.
[06:00:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That is very helpful.
Segment 9
[06:00:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?
[06:00:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.
[06:00:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?
[06:00:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.
[06:00:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?
[06:00:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.
[06:00:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?
[06:00:18] Councilmember John McAlister: No.
[06:00:19] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos?
[06:00:20] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes.
[06:00:21] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries 4-1.
[06:00:24] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Councilmember Clark, you can return now.
[06:00:41] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. As he's making his way, I'm going to go off... We will now continue with the discussion of the remaining 10 items relating to the R3 Zoning District update. As the Council considers each item, the corresponding staff recommendations will be displayed on the screen. So, um, do we go by one item at a time or...
[06:01:04] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So we actually have two slides that have all of the remaining discussion points, if we can just briefly preview that second slide. Depends in part on whether any Councilmembers have input on some of these. Um, we don't have to go through them one by one, but um, if Councilmembers want to point out the ones of interest, we can we can go to that slide.
[06:01:27] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. So I'm going to actually carry it on to, uh, City Attorney Jennifer Logue.
[06:01:33] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I just wanted to remind you that you actually have 11 remaining items, because you skipped the one for Councilmember Kamei. So when you read the script, it said 10, but because she didn't recuse, you have 11. Just don't forget that item.
[06:01:46] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Oh, 'cause I thought I would just cross out... so I thought it was all part of item one, and I would just cross out 35.
[06:01:53] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right, through the Mayor. Um, we actually added 35 back into number one where the General Plan land use designation discussion was.
[06:02:00] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yay, I did right. Okay. Um, with that, uh, Councilmember Showalter?
[06:02:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I I'd like to take this opportunity to make some general comments. I, um, you know, when we you near the end of a process like this, I think it's always really valuable to kind of revisit what you why you're doing this and why you're doing it in the first place, and also, are those reasons still valid? And are there more reasons that have been added? And in this case, all of those things are true.
[06:02:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: We started with the goal of adopting form-based zoning in order to get more housing, um, and to be able to, um, make our, um, our make the the designs easier. We want to produce more housing, and not just because of our RHNA numbers, but because we understand that the lack of adequate housing is one of the major issues of our region, and and we want to step up and do our part.
[06:03:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's why we're a pro-housing community, right? I mean, it's part and parcel to it. We also want to promote more ownership housing, as has been mentioned, particularly stacked flats. We haven't had luck with getting them built in the past, and we felt that this was a way, with form-based housing, to make that much more likely. Um, form-based flats, I mean stacked flats, allow a much more dense, um, type of entry-level ownership. So a better use of our land. Um, even though the entry-level ownership houses we have, rowhouses and townhouses, have been very popular.
[06:03:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: But then, over... I think what's changed is over the last few years, restrictions from state laws that have passed to produce more housing throughout the state have provided another important goal for this project. And that's that they all, many of these state laws that we've been talking about for the last two years really, um, have the common feature that, um, they want to apply objective standards.
[06:04:29] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And so that's what we're doing with this process. We're developing objective standards for R3. And and what that essentially means is these are written down in plain language so everybody can understand 'em. That's that's the idea. And we've got this wonderful design handbook that has beautiful pictures and sort of that show demonstrations of it, and I mean, you've put together a whole, you know, a whole set of, um, documents to make this work well. And that's, I mean, that's great. I think, you know, you really should be proud of that.
[06:05:07] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, and then the other thing that's changed with with the state legislation is the time that we have to evaluate process... um, proposals. And that means that, um, there isn't time for as much of the back and forth that there used to be with developers. And so it's really, really important that these objective standards are out front, available so that everybody can use 'em before they design their building, not kind of in the process.
[06:05:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So that's the... those those reasons to me, they they they've made this whole thing much more important than we really thought it was at the beginning in 2019 when we got started. And, um, and then another thing I want to I want to go back and say, and I say this a lot of times when I talk to people in the community, what is it that the city really controls when it comes to building? 'Cause to me, there's two big things.
[06:06:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, we control whether, um, the city is well-designed. Um, we do that with zoning, and, um, this is making it a little more difficult to to to take on that neighborhood view. It's making things a little bit more of a building view. And I hope that maybe there'll be some changes in the future that'll help to that. But but that's what we can do. We can make it well-designed.
[06:06:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And then the second thing we can do is we can make it safe. And we make it safe through our inspection process. And this isn't about that, but we have a very strong inspection process. So I just think that this is a, you know, this is a really fundamental, um, uh, part of our design, um, process going forward. And it's a big deal. And I just want to thank everybody that's been involved in it, and, um, uh, I particularly the staff for your perseverance. Um, I know you you you've probably had nightmares about this more than once, um, but I think that we've really come to a good place. And, um, I just uh, I I I want to thank you for that.
[06:07:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And and, um, just make that context of where does this fit into the big picture. Thank you.
[06:07:39] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Showalter. Councilmember Ramirez.
[06:07:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. And I'll I'll start first by, um, expressing my appreciation for, uh, Councilmember Showalter's remarks. The, um, introducing, uh, uh, the sort of the why behind much of the work that we're doing. Um, and and and a lot of those points I I I think it's it I we can't, um, emphasize enough, right? When we think about, uh, some members of the public brought up SB 79, there are no objective standards, or there are very few, right, within the law, but we do have the ability to impose objective standards, and we've already provided direction earlier to use the R3 development standards as the baseline for SB 79 development.
[06:08:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So it's really important that we spend a lot of time thinking about how not only the R3 areas, but also the areas subject to SB 79, how we want the physical evolution of those neighborhoods to to be guided by local standards and not just relying on height, FAR, and density, which right, the bare minimum that exists in state law. So, important to to have objective standards.
[06:08:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'm I'm grateful to, um, staff for I think perseverance is the right word. Um, we we prioritized this in June 2019, um, after, uh, a series of really challenging redevelopment proposals, uh, involving the, uh, demolition of existing housing, the displacement of hundreds of of community members, many of many of whom were, uh, were lower income, and the replacement with often fewer homes that were generally, um, uh, inaccessible to many in our community.
[06:09:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So no, uh, parks, because parkland can only be required when you have a net increase in units. So we didn't get that benefit, no park fees. And also, this was, um, in a different time with our inclusionary housing ordinance. Most of those developers fee'd out, so there were zero affordable units. And we ended up with like 1555 West Middlefield is probably my favorite boogeyman, five and a half acres of of rowhomes, 115 rowhomes, zero park space, zero affordability.
[06:10:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, that's one of the important reasons for me, uh, that we're that we're doing this work. That happens, redevelopment occurs, and we want to make sure that when redevelopment occurs, it occurs in a way that is guided by community and and council objectives and and vision. Uh, so, uh, it's a long-winded way of saying thank you. Um, I know I I, um, have been somewhat challenging over the past several years, Christian, I more recently, but your predecessors can attest to, um, uh, how much of a a thorn in everyone's side I can be, but, um, uh, like we've come a long way. Uh, after extensive outreach, literally neighborhood by neighborhood outreach, Eric, you you probably remember those days well. Um, uh, but, um, we're landing in a really good place. The staff recommendations I think are, uh, uh, very strong, it's a great foundation. Um, and I think we also should be grateful to Opticos, the the consultant who has worked with the city for for many years on this. So, uh, lots of praise to go around. We're not done yet, but this is a really important, um, milestone in the work that we're doing.
[06:11:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, um, I'm going to go through, uh, the piece of paper, um, uh, and actually just make the motion, you know, there may be other modifications as we come around, but, um, it will start with, uh, approving the staff recommendations. Again, they're very good. There are some modifications, and I'm going to speak to several of these, but before I do, I did want to acknowledge, um, the, uh, incredible thought partnership of two of my colleagues, Councilmembers, uh, Hicks and Showalter. Uh, we have our little, you know, you can talk to, uh, you know, no more than two others, um, and over the years, um, well we've we've talked a lot about R3 and, uh, I've learned a lot from each of you and, uh, I think my opinion is better for your thought partnership and and work, uh, over the years and and helping, you know, get get us to the point where where we are.
[06:12:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, so, uh, I will move to approve the staff recommendations with the following additional direction. The first is, for completing the remaining subdistricts, include the EPC recommendation to allow commercial uses in R3-D and R3-B, uh, with appropriate standards as recommended by staff, including objective live-work design standards to activate streets.
[06:12:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, the second is to, uh, include the EPC recommendation to omit the lot consolidation incentive. Um, instead, and this is where, um, the intent is to provide staff flexibility and and, uh, to to be creative if you decide this is not possible or, you know, if there are other ways of achieving this goal, I think we would welcome your guidance, but, uh, instead of having a lot consolidation incentive, uh, we would, uh, encourage lot consolidation using guidelines as a way to better meet city goals. And that might be as simple as, uh, when a developer looks at the development standards, they might see some guidance saying, we re we acknowledge that, uh, there might be parcels that are, uh, adjacent to your, uh, your property where, um, they're they're oddly shaped, um, but we we really want you to try and incorporate them to help us achieve city goals like adding new parks. Or or, um, adding new, uh, essential infrastructure.
[06:13:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, the third recommendation is, um, and and this this one I I benefited a lot from from guidance from, uh, the community development director. As part of the SB 79 objective standards implementation ordinance, uh, develop objective design standards and guidelines for treatment of and within front setbacks to support neighborhood-serving commercial uses and promote walkable environments. Uh, this should include streetscape standards for wider sidewalks and protected bike lanes, as well as design standards and guidelines for shade, stormwater, landscaping, uh, and or public plazas, and not simply strict front setbacks without pedestrian-oriented design.
[06:14:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, and in the interim, because it will take some time, I think, to think through that and, uh, we want to make sure that staff, uh, has, uh, the opportunity to develop, uh, thoughtful SB 79 objective standards, um, we should at least in the interim have some guidelines using 'should', not 'shall' language, um, to guide the treatment of front setbacks. And I'm going to let, um, other colleagues speak to this a little bit more, but really the intent is the front setback has or should have some utility, right? We It should be a place to help facilitate the pedestrian interface with the building, it should have functional uses like stormwater treatment, it should provide, uh, uh, you know, generous tree canopy. Uh, those are the kinds of things we we expect. But right now, all we have is a number, right? The building has to be 20 setback 20 feet. And we don't actually want sterile vacant space. We want that th that set that front setback to be programmed in some way. Um, so the intent here, and again, right, we were hoping for, um, some creativity from staff, trying to give staff flexibility. The the intent is not just to have the strict setback, but for the de design guidelines, the development standards to help convey to the development community what we really how we expect those setbacks to be used.
[06:15:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The fourth recommendation is to include ornamentation and alternative op options, uh, in section 36.17.25, massing features, and specifically additional treatments such as change in materials, change in ornamentation, change in percentage of windows or percentage of transparency and landscaping. Um, this is one of the recommendations that, uh, Commissioner, uh, Subramanian had suggested, uh, in the EPC discussion, uh, that, um, I I think merits some consideration. Um, and again, you know, I think that's that's one where, uh, uh, we should give staff, um, some some latitude to figure out how best to allow for ornamentation rather than, um, some some of the the standards that may result in, uh, um, uh, funky looking building, uh, uh, sort of aesthetics. Um, that I think of them as as sort of like, uh, you know, blocks that sort of protrude out and it's not necessarily I I think there are different aesthetic preferences here, it's not necessarily beautiful and and also I've learned, uh, makes it harder to use technologies like like modular construction.
[06:17:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, uh, number five, uh, eliminate the depth of habitable ground floor space from, uh, the front building facade standard noted in table 36.10.70A, uh, 36.10.70G, 36.10.70M, and table 36.10.70S. Uh, and instead evaluate alternative standards such as requiring at least 75% of a front facade to have habitable space behind it. Again, this is another recommendation from Commissioner Subramanian that, um, I I think, um, is it provides some flexibility, uh, and, uh, allows for for alternative ways of of thinking about this standard.
[06:17:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Six, uh, allow a height exception if it facilitates the dedication of land for a new public park or preserve preserves heritage trees. I know these are, um, things that are often hard to achieve, uh, you getting dedicated land for a public park or, uh, preserving a a valuable grove of heritage trees. This is an exception that we think could help, um, help facilitate those community goals.
[06:18:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Seven, eliminate stoops from the building entry types in section 36.17.02. Um, I live in the San Antonio Shopping Center area, uh, I've lived almost my entire life around the Crossings. There are a lot of stoops there, and it's a dead zone. I don't think that's what we really intend to create. Um, and, uh, I I would also welcome, uh, colleague feedback on that.
[06:18:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Eight, um, this one I'm going to rely on you, Councilmember Hicks, but evaluate the role of arcades, loggias, and cantilevered, uh, second stories or ground floor clear stories to act as public spaces, specifically on private property, so we're not talking about encroaching on public right-of-way, and develop objectives design standards.
[06:18:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Almost done. Uh, nine, evaluate additional required pedestrian connections, figure 36.10.73.1, based on community input and staff analysis. So we're not saying go out to the community and I, you know, get a lot of input, but we have received input already, uh, with some suggestions for potential required pedestrian connections. Um, and so I think, um, staff can take a quick look and say, these ones have merit, we can incorporate them, or they don't have merit and dispense with them. But really providing staff a lot of, um, uh, latitude in in determining whether the required additional required pedestrian connections are valuable. There were there were only two right now, uh, in the development standards and I think they're wonderful. I'm I'm grateful to you for thinking about this, but, um, facilitating pedestrian connections in areas like, as, um, one public speaker had emailed Cliff Chambers, uh, in the Rock Street area, um, also could be very valuable. Those are very long blocks. Um, and for people who, um, uh, you know, typically get around on foot, that that's a that would be a very valuable connection to facilitate.
[06:20:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: We talked a little bit about this one earlier, evaluate increasing FAR in R3-B to facilitate development of stacked flats.
[06:20:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: 11, uh, explore incorporation of development standards related to riparian corridors, referencing Valley Water guidelines. That one I'll turn to Councilmember Showalter on.
[06:20:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And the final one is evaluate a process for periodically adding and modifying objective standards including review by EPC and City Council with opportunities for public input. Initially focus on section 36.17.25, massing features, and streetwall or base treatment. Oh, the we don't want to get into the habit of waiting 30 years between, uh, zoning code updates. Um, part of the reason we're here is, um, the R3 standards may have worked for a long time, but then they stopped working. And what we've learned is because there was an extended period of time be before between, uh, Council review, community review of the standards, this project became a beast. Um, you know, both of my terms, right, have been sort of oriented around trying to get, um, to make progress on this and and we're here, but we really shouldn't get into that habit. We should get instead try and find a way to periodically evaluate our objective standards because as Councilmember Showalter was alluding to, state law changes, and state law is changing rapidly. And also community needs and goals change. Um, so, uh, again, not not telling staff exactly how to do this. Um, we do have I think in the zoning ordinance something along the lines of, uh, we should update precise plans every five years. Maybe that's a thing we could review and see if it still makes sense to, you know, maintain that cadence or if there's a different way that staff would recommend. But the point is, um, this shouldn't be preserved in amber. This should be a somebody used the term living document. Um, so, those are the changes. Um, the intent is not to be terribly prescriptive. There's a lot of 'evaluates', you know, and, uh, relying on on, um, the professional recommendations of of City staff, but it's more about getting those objective standards, um, you know, as, uh, as close to where we want them to be in time for the SB 79 implementation ordinance. Uh, and making sure that as R3 properties redevelop over the next 10, 20, 30 years, uh, we get the outcomes that that we're we're actually hoping for.
[06:22:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so I think I've spoken for about four hours now. Um, I should probably stop, but, uh, I see Community Development Director Murdock.
[06:22:42] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Go ahead, Community Development Director Murdock.
[06:22:44] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you, Councilmember Ramirez. Um, the one other item, um, that I would ask, uh, you to potentially consider in the motion is to, um, direct staff to pursue these items, um, to the maximum extent practicable, but without jeopardizing adoption of the R3 process in 2026 as currently intended.
[06:23:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I am happy to accept that.
[06:23:05] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you.
[06:23:14] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Hicks.
[06:23:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I've seconded the motion. Um, and I guess the comments I've added, first I want to, first this was a very dry agenda item while we were rotating in and out, um, recusing ourselves, with the exception of your questions and comments, uh, Councilmember McAlister, of course, they were not dry. Um, so I particularly appreciate, uh, Councilmember Showalter and Ramirez's adding some color to this. Um, I was going to make additional remarks, but honestly you guys have added a lot of color and I'm not sure how much else I I have to add. I'll just add a few things.
[06:24:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: You know, I'm particularly support this, uh, going forward, um, because we're beginning on the objective design standards that I put on our Council work plan earlier. I think that those are things that we really need given the changing legislative situation and kind of the loss of the ability to design our city in any way. Um, uh, I also, uh, appreciate the design handbook, which I think is that's from how much of that is from Opticos? That's mostly their work or please clarify for me.
[06:24:49] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, no, that's that's Opticos's work.
[06:24:51] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, you didn't draw it yourself, I don't think. Okay. Yes, I've I've long valued their work. I knew of them before the city hired them and I I think they do a good job and I hope we can continue to work on, uh, standards in the fashion that they do.
[06:25:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, I'll say, you know, I think good design is what makes the difference between, uh, a city as a car-dominated concrete jungle where everyone prefers to stay indoors because outdoors is bad, um, and a welcoming city with hopefully, if we do it right, with wider sidewalks, if we go up green space, shade shade trees, small businesses. Although I do want to say the areas we're talking about are mostly residential. The, um, you know, we may get some live-work here and there and a corner business, maybe if you encourage people to do that, John. Um, but we're mostly talking residential here. Um, and so we do need green space. We don't need I would not want residential buildings to come up next to our current five-foot sidewalks. That is not going to be a vital a a, um, vibrant place for anyone to live.
[06:26:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, so, uh, so I support more what, for example, Mr. Hols said, multiple uses of the setbacks, um, rather than eliminating them. Um, the other things here that maybe I will comment on are eliminating stoops from building entry types. I'm actually very, um, very enthusiastic about this because not only where you live, Lucas, but also where I live, stoops are everywhere. They seem to be have become the the only or at least the predominant entry type to, um, to well to a lot of the apartments and they're completely unused and honestly they look like, uh, they've been kind of forced on the developers and they don't even want to do them. So the design handbook lays out a number of other entry types and I think we should lean into those for a while.
[06:26:59] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, and then, uh, arcades, cantilevered second stories, clear stories. These these are, um, these give you the ability as a developer to widen the sidewalk, doing them only on on private property, not over our current sidewalks. Give the developer the ability to widen the sidewalks, um, while still having a larger buildable space. And I've seen them probably the most common place I've seen them executed well is on in Santana Row, where there's certainly a lot of people walking around. So if if and I wish we would use them actually more on El Camino to widen those sidewalks. Um, and then I'm also enthusiastic about evaluating a process for periodically adding and modifying objective standards. Um, focusing on the, uh, massing and and so forth. I do think that's where we should start.
[06:27:54] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Hicks. Uh, Councilmember Showalter.
[06:27:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, just briefly, I want to, um, talk a little bit about the riparian corridor, um, guidelines. Uh, riparian corridors are basically streams, and the, you know, the streams and the sort of the area around streams. And, um, uh, a number of years ago, the the cities were gotten together, representatives from the cities were gotten together with the water district to put together riparian corridor guidelines.
[06:28:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: These had two primary purposes. And and for and from our point of view, it's probably basically a setback requirement from the top of bank of the creek. One is stability. You know, creeks meander. And so over time, the location of the bank isn't isn't the same, you know, I mean, in 25 years it could move. So the having a setback is protective. You don't want to build a house right on top of the bank, it might fall in the creek. That's a bad idea, right? So that's one of the major ideas.
[06:29:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And then another major idea for these riparian setbacks is is habitat. Riparian corridors are very, very important for, um, uh, for, uh, the environment for for all sorts of species. There's many species who live in riparian corridors, um, and uh, on a regular basis and then sort of visit us outside of them. And a riparian corridors are used, uh, as a transport, um, area for, you know, um, species running up and down them, you know, that it's their kind of their road. And, um, so for those two reasons, the setback is really important to consider. And it's one of those things, you know, once you build into it, it's kind of gone. So, um, bringing it up, that's why I wanted to bring it up now for, um, for us to consider. And again, I think the other thing I wanted to say is I was glad you brought up the, um, the, uh, concept of, you know, you're going to make go as far with these changes as is practicable in the time. That's that's just excellent, excellent advice.
[06:30:17] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Clark.
[06:30:21] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Thanks. Um, so I wasn't in the cool Brown Act group apparently. Um, I I don't really know what's going on at this point. Um, I I came into this meeting expecting to support the staff recommendation and my line in the sand was I'm not going to support anything that extends this beyond the end of this year. So I guess what I and some of these are wonderful things. I I remember long, long ago my first tour on EPC when stoops were like the coolest thing on the planet and we wanted to put them on El Camino and everywhere and, um, now I there you're right, they're all unused and that was probably not the best idea that we ever had.
[06:30:57] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: But, um, my question is to staff or maybe my colleagues, can someone help me understand how this there's a lot of 'evaluates' and do these nebulous things that are all sound lovely but I have if I were staff would think would take like two years. So I I'm just how do I square the how do we it was mentioned that we could probably I think Director Murdock you talked about getting some of this done by the end of the year but I don't know what extends beyond that and what the implication is for the next Council and their um their goals and usage of staff time. So just help me understand what I'm maybe voting on beyond the staff recommendation and how it works.
[06:31:40] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, I agree, um, these recommendations make a lot of policy sense. The challenge, uh, as it often is, is is time and resources. And so, um, you know, receiving this type of input today, we need to look at, um, are there any sort of off-the-shelf examples we can pull from that would be sort of, uh, light effort? We can plug into this process, do a little bit of stress testing and make sure they can fit into the R3 construct, and then they can carry forward in this process. There's some of these that are probably going to be sort of medium level effort that will mostly get done or get several of them but not all of them done and probably can catch up in this process between now and the end of this year. And then some of these will take more time and they won't be able to be completed. And they'll then need to sort of waterfall into another ongoing effort, uh, the next logical opportunity is the SB 79 implementation standards work, which is meant to build off of the R3 standards. So whatever we don't get done that has relevance for that work, um, we would be able to undertake at that time. So beginning in early 2027 and carrying forward until completion. Um, whatever is not done then potentially can waterfall into the objective design standards depending on the nature of the item.
[06:33:04] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, the last thing I'll say is, um, I think as I contemplated it on January 27th, um, the R3 would inform the SB 79 implementation work, but having thought about it more, there's probably some things that will come out of that that also feed back into R3 zoning updates amendments as well at some point. So there's a little bit of an iterative planning process ahead of us for probably the next one to two years as we carry out R3 to conclusion in 2026, carry forward SB 79 in 2027, and objective design standards in 2027 and potentially into 2028, um, as currently envisioned in the work plan.
[06:33:40] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Okay. Do you do you feel confident that you can prioritize some of these there there's some natural prioritization order to some of these without having to go through another however many hours this item was? I I just I don't know. I I'm not opposed to any of this, I just want to make sure we're all staying on track and we're not like one we're going to get a chunk of this done but the most important chunk of this done by the end of the year and two that whatever is left over nicely dovetails with other things and isn't going to overly burden things.
[06:34:11] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right. I think the key thing in my mind again is the completion of the R3 update this year. Um, so much work has been done and so much is to be gained by completing it. Um, and so my job now with my team is to go through these various items and as I mentioned, figure out what's low effort that we can pull other ready-made examples and sort of, uh, polish them off and make them work for our purposes. What's, um, available within the very limited time we have for new work and what's going to push into those other items. And so I don't have the answer for all of these yet. Um, to be fair, some of these will not be able to be done with the R3 update and will push into one or or more of those other processes.
[06:34:50] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Okay. Thanks.
[06:34:55] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember McAlister.
[06:34:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Thanks. Um, you know I I gotta tip my hat off to Councilmember Ramirez. He says 2019. Um, I appreciate his persistence on this and the Charter amendments. Uh, kudos to you. I we don't agree, but I appreciate the effort. I always like people that don't sit on they get things done. Now, they took probably a little a lot longer than you anticipated, but your tombstone will be bare except, you know, I did well. Uh, so uh, you'll get something done. So, uh, I give you credit for it. I I I do appreciate that and that's something you normally don't do. But so you you got it done.
[06:35:46] Councilmember John McAlister: So, but, um, this this what I've seen here is concerning to me from the uh perspective of the quality of life. You know, people were mentioning oh I've been here so many years, da da da. Well, I've been here 68 years. So I sort of trump a lot of these people and been here and I've seen this town through many different, uh, phases of its growth. And the reason people came to Mountain View isn't because they didn't want to go to uh New York City, they didn't want to see all the buildings and so forth, you know. There was a comment about Mike Kasperzak, he said he never saw a building he didn't like or they called him Mr. New York. Um, and people were concerned back then and and people came to Mountain View again for the quality of life they saw. They saw the parks, the great parks, the great public safety that was taken care of, the way we did things. And so what was in the past people said didn't work well actually it did work because people came to Mountain View and they saw what they liked and they started enjoying it.
[06:36:58] Councilmember John McAlister: And now I see this R3 come along and maybe I'm just paranoid that it's changing what Mountain View is. It sounds so when I saw the deal where they're putting in a, you know, the when we did the R3 zoning for like over by El Monte or um Miramonte or over on Calderon, we're putting in uh we're incentivizing developers to take out small business and yet we're saying, well we want to have walkable space to get to small businesses and yet the actions are counterproductive to what you're trying to achieve by saying we'll take out those small businesses. Or you're going to do any of that stuff that will deter the some of the goals that you think you're going to get by building these R3 zones. And I'm still grappling with what it actually is. And so, um, that you're taking away things that made Mountain View great. And are the quality of life, the being able to see things. Um, we've been talking a lot about park I mean open space and yet multiple times I see, well we're going to reduce setbacks. I mean we're going to so you got to be up close, you're going to do buildings closer together, you're going to reduce uh reduce the fees that we collect to build the parks. That we're going to reduce the open space in there. It it's just counterproductive of what a lot of people consider the quality of life.
[06:38:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, so I was writing down a list of things that could will be affected by all these buildings going in and uh the den densification of these cities is well when we go to quality of life, the parking. So where if we're reducing parking restrictions, people are going to park on cars. Uh park their cars on the streets. But yet we're going to be putting in bike lanes and and doing various other things so where are these people going to go? Are we going to say hey these cars are going to, you know, go away at night or something? So, uh, with the cars parking in the streets, we're going to have more tr you know uh potential changing of of what you see when you walk. You want clean air, you want to see nice vistas and yet you're going to see parking, you're going to see traffic.
[06:38:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Um, and all this is because we don't have we don't have the infrastructure of what you're trying to build in public transit and we haven't done a lot of infrastructure stuff and public transit is one of the things that we need to start looking at to get there. Um, we're going to get noise, we're going to get odors. I'm I'm just reading these these negatives coming out of this report here. Increased cost to additional service demanding uh including police, utilities, library and other municipal services. So where are we going to get the money to put in another library? Where are we going to put in another police station? Where are we going to be able to accommodate this thing so that people have open space? And to me, being able to get out and walk and just relax, uh, we're not going to get those. We're going to get all these mini parks where a lot of people aren't really thrilled about.
[06:39:46] Councilmember John McAlister: So, there's too many inconsistencies or contradiction of we're going to do this for housing. And you say, well we need housing and housing and go, okay well right now there's 10% of vacancy in the uh market rate for housing right now. Um, the job market is changing, there people aren't coming over to the North Bayshore like they were. So RHNA numbers are like years behind possibly that need to be readjusted. And and so well we're going to welcome all these people and yet at the same time we're not expanding our infrastructure to accommodate these people and so we're just turning into a big city and we're and you've heard the expression I've used before, we're just building buildings or silos, we're not building communities. And people expect that this is all going to happen, that once we get all these cars off the street you're going to be walking around or riding your bike everywhere. Well, these people have to work somewhere and the jobs aren't where they're right here in Mountain View like they used to be. So, um, I can't support anything that takes away from the things that we want to make which made Mountain View good. And these R3s by their nature takes away the things that make Mountain View great. And I don't understand why people move into Mountain View, liking it and say, well let's change it, let's put all these buildings in, let's welcome more people. They don't realize there going to be an impact on you personally. We already see, you know, Knob Hill is moving out or businesses are moving out. So why are they? The cost of living or cost of rentals or so forth? So it's just uh it's a spiral that I hope doesn't continue. Uh that somewhere along the line we start balancing again and looking at all these projects and weighing the quality of life of what are we really trying to do is make a great place for this city to live. The downtown is struggling, people say it's great but look at all the vacancies. Look at all the vacancies on El Camino businesses. Uh, you know we got that uh Ron's Farm Shack that's been there for 15 years or whatever the hell it is. And it's nothing, we don't do that. So, um, we got to be conscious to try to balance and that's what I'm trying to present to you guys. I mean, yeah you got it done and yeah it's going to be some for some of you that are renters, you'll be maybe renters for the rest of your life because what we're building in this town is more apartments. We're not really getting to the root of our uh situation where we need to get the condos that where low income. Um, I'm proud to say my daughter just put up a uh offer and been accepted for a townhouse in uh San Jose at $1.5 million. She's 32 and we're going, whoa. Well mom and dad are helping her out but never but not everybody has that uh luxury of having some parents help them put some dollars down. So, when you say we want to build all these buildings, why are we what are we building for? We want more people to come in or we trying to take care of the people that we have? And I always like to tend to take care of the people that we have here in the city and take the limited resources we have and try to improve their lives as best as possible. So, if you haven't figured it out, I'm going to vote no on this because somebody's got to stand up and say, hey, quality of life is important. The all in get all housing is not. Thank you.
[06:42:47] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember McAlister. Um, I will um I guess it's my turn to make my comments. Um, I'm thank you to staff, it's been a slog. Um, a a long long winding road as Councilmember like to mention it was 2019, which some of you were here, uh I wasn't, well not here on the dais, sitting in the back with the peanut gallery back there. Um, and I think about um how how massive a project this is. Um, and I appreciate the work that staff has done with the hiatus that we had of a little pandemic. Um, and how we had to move forward. It had to go back into the community, back to council, back to the community again, back to council, with a lot of uh input throughout these uh I'm calculating in my head, seven years. It it it was a significant undertaking. Um, as we move forward on on things like this, I I will say, I don't believe that it is a tradeoff between quality of life and meeting our housing goals. I think you can do both. I think they are interconnected. And I think um building more housing does increase quality of life for many residents.
Segment 10
[06:45:00] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: residents who are suffering from this housing crisis. Um, I have not even lived 64 years at all. Um, and and I think among all of my colleagues here on Council, I am I'm the newest to Mountain View comparatively. Um, I moved to Mountain View because it is a welcoming city. Because when I said I wanted to get involved, people were like, "Yes! We have so much we want to do and um and we would love to get you involved." Is something probably what I view the most beautiful thing about Mountain View is that it's a welcoming community. I I view it on the on the national level, um, not so great people have connected the housing crisis with immigration. And it's interesting because I have always connected that in my head. Um, we cannot welcome new people here and say there's no room, get out. Um, it is the people here in Mountain View that make it great. Um, and so as we try to find different policies to to address our housing crisis, removing the barriers um that have hindered that uh the development that we need, um, I am glad that we are taking this approach. And it's it's it's so crazy because it it's such a huge undertaking. Um, and I we won't see the changes immediately. We will see these changes over time and hopefully, as we made the framework and and this is why we spent so much time in this framework and understanding objective standards that we are building a city and we're creating the right incentives to have the development that we as a city want. I was I I wasn't on the dais when we had, what Councilmember Ramirez mentioned, uh the several demolition projects that came in 2017, 2018, 2019. Um, but I was in the audience sitting and holding hands with the people who were going to get displaced. And once they got displaced, they didn't even know where they were going to go. We had a resident from one of the Rock Street projects. She ended up in a in our LifeMoves project because there was no place for her. So when I think about building more housing, I'm thinking about the improvement of quality of life for people like her. She was a resident here, probably not as long as Councilmember McAlister, that that that that's quite a bit, but she was a beloved resident here and I believe all our residents here are beloved. And should there come a time when somehow they they lose their home for whatever reason, fire, earthquake, um, comet, I I I don't know, um, that we have the standards to redevelop so that they can stay here. So with that, I'm happy we have a motion on the floor by Councilmember Ramirez, I will not have him repeat that because that took a long time, um, and seconded by Councilmember Hicks, and I believe we are ready for a roll call vote.
[06:48:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?
[06:48:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.
[06:48:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?
[06:48:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.
[06:48:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?
[06:48:36] Councilmember John McAlister: No.
[06:48:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?
[06:48:38] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.
[06:48:39] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Clark?
[06:48:40] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yes.
[06:48:41] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos?
[06:48:42] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes.
[06:48:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: That motion carries 5-1.
[06:48:50] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Congratulations staff. Also appreciate that it was a a new business item instead of a study session. I think that makes things a little easier too. Clear direction. All right. So now we have moved on to Item 8. Do we have any Council, Staff or Committee reports? Councilmember Ramirez.
[06:49:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. First, um, I want to express my gratitude to my colleagues whether you supported the motion or not, um, it represents a we talked earlier of a significant milestone in a really challenging um uh policy uh initiative that we've been pursuing for years. So I uh appreciate your your thoughtfulness and consideration and I'm um I I now that we've given that direction, I think the rest of the process will be a lot easier. But but thank you, thank you. I really do appreciate it. Um, I have to disclose uh that I went to the Mayors Innovation Project in Washington D.C., I think it was January 28th through 31st, um, uh and uh I uh benefited from uh public funding uh because it was a um uh a business trip uh and I learned a lot. Um, I think Mayor, you were the only other member of the Council who who uh was able to join but um great focus on the care economy, um child care and and also uh care for um aging adults. Um there was a great session on uh finance and budgeting and I couldn't help but think during that discussion how fortunate we are in Mountain View. Um we don't have to deal with some of the uh intense pressures that many communities across the nation are are facing. Um and uh uh there was one other what was there was one other presentation that I thought was really good. Um not not a not one of the seminar or um panel discussions but there was also um uh a great deal of attention to um uh the uh decreasing civility um in discourse uh which uh has been a focus of the MIP for a few years now um largely from you know federal government and a lot of those um challenges but uh again I couldn't help but think uh there were there were uh mayors and councilmembers who spoke about um intense vitriol and and attacks through social media and I was just thinking I'm so glad we don't have to deal with that. I mean a little bit, you know, there are there are um uh naysayers and uh detractors out there but um the the what we heard was was actually very disheartening and uh and explains why uh we have uh diminishing uh interest I think in in service in local government. Uh so um also a huge thank you to Mountain View residents for participating very uh thoughtfully and um uh and uh and courteously uh even when you disagree with with your with your Council. Thank you.
[06:51:51] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Do we have any other Committee staff reports? Oh, Councilmember Showalter.
[06:51:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um, I uh not nearly as exciting as going to the Mayors Innovation Council but I just wanted to mention that um on the uh Friday uh uh was it? January 29th I think or January 30th. Um, I went to the um uh event that was a joint event that was held by Cal Cities um Peninsula Division and the Cities Association uh uh with our um uh to meet our legislators. I think uh I was joined by um Councilmember um McAlister and Vice Mayor um Clark. And we we um we had a nice dinner. It was at El Camino Hospital in the their basement um uh meeting area which was actually very nice. And um uh we um first Sam Liccardo came and talked to us, Patrick Ahrens came and talked to us, then we had um a panel discussion with uh State Senator Aisha Wahab and Assemblymember um Diane Papan. So it was really a uh a fascinating evening. And then um last weekend um I went down to as a uh Silicon Valley Clean Energy director, I took a tour of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. And that was a fascinating experience and I'd be glad to talk to any of you about it. So thank you.
[06:53:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: We we do get some of our power, um Silicon Valley Clean Energy does buy PG&E clean power and in in our definition of what that is, we include nuclear. It turns out that Diablo Canyon, which is the only nuclear power plant um operating in California, produces about um uh 9% of the power that's used in the state and it uses 17% of our clean power.
[06:54:04] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Showalter. Councilmember McAlister.
[06:54:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, what Pat said about El Camino and the Peninsula League. I was there. So.
[06:54:14] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember McAlister. I'll finish up. I also attended the Mayors Innovation Project for the first time. It was great. I I and and like um Councilmember Ramirez said, I'm so grateful for my colleagues and our residents for being so much more civil than what we have seen in other in other uh cities across the country because it was just it was wow. It was it was yeah. Um, I also before I went to the Mayors Innovation Project, I was already there in DC for the US Conference of Mayors for the first time. So that was really exciting. Um, I I I kind of joked compared to the other mayors that I was kind of like a minute mayor considering that most other mayors were there for like four years and I'm just like, hi, this is my first conference and probably my last conference. Um so but but it was fun regardless. Um and and I got to connect with a lot of mayors. Um it is mostly seems like a California thing to have like this rotational mayor basis. It kind of blew everyone else's mind. Um but but I I I did enjoy those conferences and and learned a lot. Um you know one of the interesting things uh in the Mayors Innovation Proj project, they they they had uh each certain a bunch of mayors do presentations about their projects. What I also found kind of interesting is that a lot of those projects they were initially funded because of ARPA funds. And we we don't have those funds anymore so I think um it was good to see that they were able to make use of of that kind of um resource um and it kind of shows that if we if cities got more resources like that we would we would we would do wonderful things. Um so then I moseyed on my way back to Mountain View. I got to uh cut a ribb my first mayoral ribbon cutting. It was exciting. It was the new uh Moment pop-up shop um right here on Castro um for uh Don't Eat Me, um the that artist collaborative. It it was really quite exciting and and and it happened also in the midst as we were getting ready for FanFest as we had um the Bad Bunny concert located here in Santa Clara um and and there happened to be a football game at the same time. Um so and we had a great uh FanFest um activities in our downtown. Hopefully um our our downtown businesses uh took advantage of the increased population of of tourists uh coming from um New England and Seattle uh to enjoy the Super Bowl. So um with that, Councilmember Clark.
[06:57:05] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Just in case, as was mentioned, I attended the League of California Cities event at El Camino Hospital. I can't remember if there was a registration fee or not but just in case, I have checked my box. Or the requirement box there.
[06:57:15] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Clark. And with that, I call this meeting to be adjourned at 23:57. Also known as 11:57.