March 5, 2019 Joint Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we will call this meeting to order, and the 1st item is a study session, and if the clerk will announce the attendance,

[00:00:11] City Clerk: All council members are present. Thank you.

[00:00:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And the 1st item is a study session, the downtown precise plan, and we have, as our presenters, planning managers, zoning administrators, Stephanie Williams, and business development specialist, Tiffany Chu.

[00:00:28] Unknown Speaker: And excuse me, now, we have to make an announcement.

[00:00:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, okay. Thank you. Vice mayor, I'll be coca. Thank you.

[00:00:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Due to real property that I own in the downtown area, I will be recusing myself from this study session. Thank you.

[00:00:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[00:00:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, the same, due to real property that I have in close, close to the area, I will be recusing myself as well.

[00:00:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And I also have that, is there anybody else? Is Wayne gonna be here? He's on the list. Okay. Okay. So then we will turn it over to Tiffany and Stephanie for the presentation.

[00:01:15] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Okay, thank you. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the council. The purpose of this study session is to receive council feedback and direction on potential amendments to the downtown precise plan. The downtown precise plan was originally adopted in 1988 and amended in parts in 2000, 2001, 2004, 2015 and 2018. The boundaries of the plan stretched generally from Evelyn Avenue down to El Camino Real. And is predominantly surrounded by single family neighborhoods. Through the review of numerous development proposals and downtown parking initiatives, council has expressed that they would like to consider amendments to the downtown precise plan, to address current development trends and assess whether components of the plan should be updated. Topics that have been articulated by council as potential areas for study, and were briefly covered in the staff memo include parking, land use, historic preservation, and design. This study session is meant to be the initial conversation to gauge counsel's desire for whether the plan should be amended, and if so, which topic areas staff should focus on. Steady topics would be brought back to council for further discussion, as well as a work plan. Any future amendments would include public outreach and engagement, as well as review by the environmental planning commission before final council consideration. So depending on counsel's desire to amend the plan, there are 4 general scope options, which are amend targeted subareas or topics of the plan. Holistically review the plan with modifications expected to a majority of the plan. Do not amend it, or at alternative council defined scope or priorities related to studying the plan. If council elects to amend the precise plan, staff will return with the scope and work plan, including budget and staffing implications for consideration and approval. Council will also be considering future work plan items as part of the goal setting process over the next few months, so direction on this will impact capacity for other projects. So tonight, staff is looking for direction on whether council would like to amend the downtown precise plan. And if so, which level of study should be completed from the different scope options and which sub areas or topic areas, such as parking, land use, design, et cetera, should be targeted. And that concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.

[00:03:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Since this is a study session, the next item is public comment, so if there's anyone who would like to provide us with input on this topic, if you could come up to the microphone, be sure at some point to fill out a blue card so that we know who you are. You could do that before or after you speak. Either way works.

[00:04:12] Sarah Astles: In council, Sarah Astles, a board member of the Central Business Association and downtown Business Owner. Thank you for the study session and for looking at our downtown. As you're all aware, a lot of businesses are in great fear because of the rerouting of Castro Street, and we've seen proposals from, um, Lenny Siegel, proposing to turn downtown Castro Street into a pedestrian way. We discussed this as a board a few weeks ago and we're all very favorable with this experiment. We feel like that would be a draw to downtown. If done correctly. And we'd like to research this further. We're going to have a business meeting for all downtown businesses next Wednesday, and albeit a further comment on other businesses. But as far as all the board goes, we're very favorable to the pedestrian way. Thank you.

[00:04:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:05:03] Robert Cox: Honorable Mayor Matachek and city council members, I'm Robert Cox, 24 year Mountain View resident. I'm here tonight with my fellow members of the Livable Mountain View Steering Committee to thank you for putting this item on your agenda and to speak to the questions in the staff report. We support a thorough review of all items mentioned in the staff report, historic preservation, land use parking, and design. We also support restricting the review to Aries H A N G. These are the core areas of our downtown. And many development proposals are being circulated for these areas. We must pause and plan to see that all changes are good changes. Staff should be empowered to engage the services of an experienced urban designer to inform and guide the discussion, a focus, critical project, such as a revision, of historical downtown, and transit center is a perfect application to engage an urban design consultant. Most importantly, restricting the review to areas, H, A, N, G, will allow council members, Hicks, and Abbe Kogo to participate in the discussion. Council member Hicks was elected in no small part so that her passion and expertise as a city planner could inform the decisions our leaders make about the areas as we go forward. Vice Mayor Abbe Koga is one of the most knowledgeable county leaders in the area of public transit and the design of our new transit center is the key element in the future of our downtown. Thank you for your consideration of this most important civic matter.

[00:06:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:06:37] Deb Hennixon: Hello, Council Amvers. My name is Deb Hennixon, and I'm here to represent the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. MBCSP encourages you to pursue the holistic downtown precise plan review option outlined by city staff. We believe it is time for an updated and modernized re-examination of downtown zoning and allowable uses, taking in a perspective that includes the changes to transportation modes prevalent in downtown, such as increased Caltrain frequency with electrification, ride share services, scooters, etcetera, along with the need for higher density housing near transit. Ultimately, we want to see a plan that takes full advantage of our multimodal transit hub and downtown's walkable scale. MVCSP also strongly advocates for increased retail and residential uses in downtown. And we would love to see a plan that expands upon these uses in the various subdistricts. For example, we would like to see the city expand a retail presence into more streets like Hope Street, allow for taller buildings with true mixed use, a retail ground floor with actual retail, office space, mid-tier, and then residential on top or behind. We believe increases in height are appropriate for downtown and can be done with beauty and architectural grace. We also believe that parking should not be what defines our land use planning downtown. The heartbeat of our city is the people and not the cars. Downtown doesn't need to uphold the currently demanded parking ratios to support the retail spaces and residential uses, especially if there's plenty of residential mixed with office to ensure restaurants and shops remain busy outside of lunchtimes, and parking uses can be shared. NBCSP members have heard other residents' concerns that adding height and density in downtown will negatively affect the character of our downtown. But our members look to successes in other neighborhoods around Portland and Vancouver, for example. of increased density, added increased vibrancy while retaining a local sense of place and appearing visually appealing. We have submitted a letter. I'm sorry, it was late. That's my fault. But it does include a link, several links to images that we think are inspiring and would love to see shared with the eventually engaged consultant. So, in summary, we hope that you will direct staff to engage a consultant in this holistic revision of the downtown precise plan, and we encourage bold explorations that plan for Mountain View's future, in addition to celebrating its past. Thank you.

[00:09:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[00:09:06] Louise Katz: Thank you, Louise Katz, Mountain View Resident, Madam Mayor, and Council. On behalf of the Liverpool Mountain View Steering Committee, we wanted to state that, first of all, we do not advocate for a precise plan change for the whole downtown, as stated in our letter to council. The outline of time and money that the staff has provided indicates that this would be extremely long and expensive process, and that we would probably lose most of our most precious buildings while we wait. We don't dispute that we have a great staff, and that, however, does not obviate the need to hire a consultant. or imply that we could do this ourselves. We understand we're down approximately 30 staff positions, obviously not all in planning, but we know it's difficult to fill positions and maintain staff due to the cost of living, and there's the lag time for training, et cetera. All of this would be very detrimental to an entire downtown plan. Our downtown simply can't wait. And if the council wishes to add Terabella, precise plan to an entire downtown precise plan, we are very doubtful this could work and get the best outcome for both. The smaller focus for downtown, a segmented approach, around the 20th, around the transit area, would be the most efficient use of time and money and resources. Hiring a consultant remains our priority. It's an absolute necessity. Doesn't mean our staff is bad, any more than hiring an architect means that you have bad taste. In fact, it means you have excellent taste and judgment to use a professional whose focus on special skills. Assure the perfect building that you envision. I'd like to leave you with the image of the Golden Gate Bridge. The Golden Gate Bridge, an engineering marvel, was done, was created by the engineers. However, the Towers, which are iconic and known the world over, were not done by engineers. They were done by two architects, who not only understood our deco and design and had the talent to implement it, but it is the gift that they gave our cities in the San Francisco and made this area known to the whole world. Thank you.

[00:11:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:11:14] Adina Levin: Good evening, Council members and staff, Dean 11, with friends of Caltrain, and the topics that I'd like to comment on, this evening, are focusing on the transportation and parking aspects of downtown, not to say that the rest of them aren't critically important, and you were getting a lot of great comments on them, but I'm going to be focusing on the transportation and parking elements. And in looking at how cities up and down the peninsula corridor are dealing with similar issues, um, my My observation is that there's a three-legged stool of policies that can help to improve access to a thriving downtown area. And one of them is transportation, demand management. There's a really great example in Palo Alto, where over the last year of providing programs, particularly for lower income workers who don't get the kinds of benefits that large company employees get. They've been able to help over 300 workers not drive due to transit passes and carpool benefits and other transportation benefits. And that has allowed them to defer a parking structure downtown because 330 people not driving and parking allows them to go ahead and defer that type of investment. And the city of Menlo Park is considering that in their priority setting, um, this evening as well. And, um, along with the transportation demand management, helping workers, particularly not drive, um, we see other cities, including Redwood City and Burlingame and San Mateo, um, have priced parking in very thriving downtowns, it doesn't kill their downtown. And what they're able to do there is to be able to have faster turnover in the places that businesses want people to be able to come and go and being able to use further out lots and structures, for people who have to stay there or want to stay there for a longer period of time. And that allows scarce space to be used more efficiently. And at the same time, another component that goes along with that 3rd legged stool is residential parking permit programs. Because if you have priced parking in a downtown area and then unpriced parking in the neighborhoods, the problem of having neighborhood streets being used as a free parking lot for many uses gets worse. And so having that permit parking, prevents the protects the residential streets from being used as a parking lot and, you know, helps to then manage the space and encourage people to come downtown in a variety of ways, including cars, but not only cars. Thank you.

[00:14:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:14:26] Bill Mast: Little Mast and local architect. Here as an advocate of change, but maybe with some containment on it. I'm a personal believer that the existing precise plan has been working quite well. I do agree that we have some obstacles ahead of us because of the unknown of the super train or not having it and so forth and how that's affecting us downtown. But we recently made a significant change downtown, that already affects our precise plan, and that's the approval of the hotel, and the adjoining office buildings that go along with it. So, um, I'd be an advocate of a limited review, and I would love to have participation of the whole council, not just part of it. So if it meant that that review was limited in a way to allow every buddy to participate on the council. I actually think that's a good idea. But knowing the things that have been recently approved downtown, and also knowing that prior, we went through an extensive precise plan update on El Camino, so we kind of have the two pieces of the end of the puzzle already in place, a more limited review rather than a comprehensive review might be in the better interest of the city in the short run. So we can focus on those areas that we think are going to be subject to growth in the short run. Another thing I wanted to discuss, which someone else already brought up was the idea of parking downtown. We have different parking needs on Castro closer to El Camino than we may in the historic district where we also have the parking district. So, um, if there's any adjustments, uh, that address parking that may be worth looking at. But I want to point out that recently when people say that with, you know, the change in how we use cars that we may not need parking at all. And I recently read an article that said cities better start planning how to convert their parking lots and parking garages to office buildings and residential was an interesting article, because it really is pointing out that parking lots may, in fact, no longer be needed with the automation that we're going through now. Anyway, with that being said, do something, it's wonderful. And thank you very much.

[00:16:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Before you leave, council member McAllister has a question for you, Bill.

[00:17:00] Councilmember John McAlister: And in that article, did you read? Did they give you a time frame, when would we have an automation to the point where we would need parking spaces?

[00:17:09] Bill Mast: Well, um, I believe in the article it said within the next 10 years, and from a planning perspective, that's not very far away. Hopefully that answers.

[00:17:20] Councilmember John McAlister: And do that include increase public transit?

[00:17:23] Bill Mast: Specific to us downtown, it probably would include increase in public transportation, increase in density, of housing adjacent to public transportation, and the fact that, with automation, a lot of cars would literally drive themselves back home, rather than being in a parking lot. Thank you.

[00:17:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:17:50] Jim Fong: Good evening, Abra. Can you hear me? Okay, cool. I'm Jim Fong. I have moved to, I've been in Mountain View for 12 years, and, you know, Mountain View downtown is my 1st stop at Bay Area. I drive from Southern California, to, you know, to Bay Area, and I have my 1st dinner at Monteville downtown, and I'm Mountainville downtown, Mountain View. So my, I know it's a company plan. I haven't read out of it. But my general recommendation is when be super classers, when you make major changes, particularly in area of downtown. You know, I used to live in a town with 2000 years history. I do see a lot of changes that move too fast. You know, you allow a lot of things like, you know, a lot of variety histories and it's not revertable. So please, you know, my family also hung out a lot in Mountain View downtown. I would like, you know, when city council or city star make decision, please make sure it's still workable, and let's try to keep the variety of month view downtown. Thanks.

[00:18:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[00:19:02] Bruce Carney: Good evening, mayor and city council, my name is Bruce Carney, a 40 year resident of Mountain View, and a 31 year resident of downtown Mountain View. As you know, but many in the audience don't. I also chaired two different environmental sustainability task forces in 2008 and 2017. So I spent a lot of time thinking about what makes downtown Mountain View, the special, wonderful place that it is and how that can be preserved. Not only preserve, but enhanced. So, the greatest challenge facing Mountain View right now, in terms of planning and zoning, is the mismatch between housing, jobs and retail. And I am a yes in my backyard individual. I've been involved in city council and EPC discussions about downtown since 1992. And there was one stage during the planning where we were going to have a 6 story hotel near where Gateway Park is now. That's 2 blocks from my house. And I was a strong advocate of that location for a hotel. I'm strong advocate of higher density near transit, which will, in fact, change the character of the neighborhood that I live in. But it's really a necessary thing that we all have to do going forward to make this city something that will be sustainable for those who come after us. They will absolutely need to live in a world with better public transportation, better non car options, whether those are autonomous vehicles, electric bikes, scooters, whatever, but the world of the future is going to be dramatically different than the world that we've lived in up until now. It will have to be as we make dramatic changes in the way we use fossil fuels, and the way we, when the changes we need to make, how we use fossil fuels, will impact the kinds of buildings we build, and how we use those buildings, and how we connect between jobs and housing. So I would really ask you, first of all, to look into the future. and to say, what does Mountain View want downtown to be? We have a tremendous transit center, potentially in our midst. We have the core bus line of the city, and we are the hotbed of autonomous vehicle research. So all these things come together. That means that Mountain View has some really wonderful opportunities that were never thought of when the first precise plan changes were envisioned back in the late 1980s. The other thing I wanted to say is that the sustainability task force really believes that paid parking is a critical component of transforming our transportation infrastructure. The revenue from paid parking downtown and on the streets in Mountain View in the core can be used to fund other transportation projects. As a specific example, I recently went to a movie in Redwood City, which has paid parking throughout its downtown. That did not deter me from going to see a movie, and I was happy to find that the theater validated my parking, so it didn't cost me anything. But if I hadn't been patronizing a business, I would have paid, and the city would have gotten the revenue. So, those are my thoughts. Thank you for listening to them.

[00:21:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[00:22:02] Christian Hansen: Good evening, mayor, council members. My name's Christian Hansen. I'm a 10 year resident of Mountain View. I also own and manage commercial properties in downtown. And I just wanted to speak, we also own and manage properties in Palo Alto and Palo Alto's been doing a lot of research on retail and how they want to treat retail in the future. And I am one that appreciates the vibrancy of downtown Mountain View. And as an owner of buildings that are a few blocks off of Castro, I will tell you that there's a big difference in retail on Castro, and as you get a couple blocks off of Castro. And as you look at the changing retail world that we live on, live in with Amazon and closing retail stores, even Tesla announced that they're closing a bunch of retail stores recently, I would just urge council to broaden as much as they can the definition of retail and to try to focus the efforts on Castro and a half a block maybe off Castro. If we can maintain the vibrancy of downtown on that stretch, I think it will benefit our city. And it will also give the owners of the properties that are maybe not right in the retail district, flexibility to lease our buildings. So, um, that's my, that's my recommendation is just to please broaden the retail definition and focus our efforts on on Castro. Thank you.

[00:23:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:23:43] Xiao Yu: Hello, everyone, my name is Xiao Yu. I'm a resident, mountain view residence for 5 years. So I just want to say that while we are developing the downtown, we still need to keep a balance of development and livable and workable areas. So I support the plan to keep the change of the downtown to AGH zones, and while we are implementing these changes, We still need to make sure the streets are residents friendly, workable and also keep the diversity of all the retails. The last thing I want to mention is, um, so I'm going to take a job in the city, in the, in the San Francisco city, so I'm going to take the Calchain in the future, so join the kind of like the parking, um, people in the, um, in the culture station. So I'm still looking for different options about the parking there. I know it's very busy, and I also agree with the lady who commented early that we don't want to interrupt the residents who live there, but we, at the commuters also need to find the balance of life and work. We already spend like nearly one hour in the train and also another like 20 minutes in the city already and here in the mountain view city. How can we make the transit commute easy for all of us? It's something for you to consider. Thank you.

[00:25:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[00:25:26] Lenny Siegel: Good afternoon, I'm Lenny Siegel. I've lived near downtown Mountain View for 47 years. I'm not going to repeat everything that I sent you in my letter. I just want to stress 3 points. First is when the council a few years ago decided that we wanted to reroute Evelyn at the train station. We heard from our downtown businesses that we hadn't adequately consulted with them. So some of us took that to heart. And we're trying to work with our downtown businesses on something that we've heard from many customers and constituents that it'd be nice to have pedestrian zones downtown. So I'm really pleased that the downtown businesses want to look at that. I think it's important for us to work with them, to make sure that whatever we do works for them as well as the rest of us. But it's a great opportunity for Mountain View to do what's been done in Santa Monica and Boulder and many places in Europe. And so again, let's work with our downtown businesses and see if we can make that work. Secondly, in terms of what areas we look at, one of the problems we face downtown is some of the owners of small properties, I can think of the beerhouse property in Bank of the West, which I met with when I was on council. So they wanted to build housing, but they couldn't because of the parking requirements. So they wanted to build offices and pay for the parking. I would like us to consider reducing or eliminating some of the parking requirements downtown. so that we can for residential so we can get residential development and not just offices. Because other than on city owned land, most of the proposals, maybe all the proposals that we're seeing for development downtown are for offices above the ground floor. So, If that means we need to go beyond the limited areas that other people are talking about, then I think we should, because, again, I don't want the city's parking requirements to keep us from building housing downtown. And the 3rd thing is, you know, we have a very vibrant downtown. Some people don't think we do, but it's pretty obvious that we do. And My interest is in recognizing why it's that way. And I believe it's because we have a diverse set of businesses. Some people think all our businesses should open and close at the same time or that we should have, everybody should have a window that you can look in and see the beads or the, the, uh, the, uh, the coffee or whatever. But we have businesses downtown that are bars and nightclubs, we have businesses that are bookstores. Yeah, I'd like a bookstore in every corner, but I don't think the city should get involved too much in deciding what kind of businesses we have downtown. Again, the market has created a diverse situation that serves people from all over, all walks of life, all perspectives and ages. And I don't think the city should try to get involved in deciding what kind of businesses we have downtown. We have a great downtown. We have an opportunity to improve it. Let's consider a wide range of possibilities so that we have, again, a great downtown for a long time. Thank you.

[00:28:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to provide us with input on this topic, which is the downtown precise plan? Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public input portion and bring it to council. And again, since this is a study session, It's just comments on what you'd like to see. Actually, staff ask us a couple questions. So if you can incorporate that into your comments, that'd be great. I'll start calling on people. Council member come A. you.

[00:29:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thanks. The threat of getting called on makes me always makes me raise my hand. Um, so, um, for question one, um, I have, right? Or... Okay. I'm interested in amending the downtown precise plan of the 4 scope options and the staff report that staff listed. Um, I'm most interested in option number one, um, which is targeted subareas and topics of the plan, um, rather than doing the, um, the holistic. And that is, um, we are looking at a precise plan in Terabella or looking at a vision plan in Terabella, a precise plan in, um, East Wisman. Um, And I know that there's discussion about maybe a precise plan in Moffatt. So I think that this might be a way to address some of the issues that we're seeing in a more fastidious manner, for question number two. Um, I am interested in, um, parking, um, as one of the, uh, topics sub areas. And, um, in terms of, let's see, trying to go through, um, in terms of land use, I am interested in, um, how to make, uh, the ground floor, um, kind of more inviting to, uh, walkable. I know that we have had opportunities where we can have dining outside. I think those types of activation sort of interest, interested in the public comment as well in terms of some flexibility in the types of uses, land uses. So interested in learning more about that. Um, for historic preservation. I think that's one of the things that came up in goal setting last week. So look forward to kind of looking at that a little more with goal setting. Um, I think those are a majority of my comments. Thanks.

[00:31:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member McAllister.

[00:31:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I'll jump in. So, um, I did have a question. So in 2015, when we changed the precise play to include Area J, I was under the impression that we were to be looking at everything south of Church Street and reading Staff Reporter. I learned that area I was not included to require retail on the 1st floor. So, and I tried to find that precise that amendment, but it wasn't in the staff report. Did I miss something along the way, then, when we just did J and not included everything, or was there a miscommunication somewhere along the line, and I should have been included for retail?

[00:32:08] City Staff: So, the change to Jay in 2015 was to require a provisional use permit for office on the ground floor. That was the only change.

[00:32:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, there was no discussion of I at the time.

[00:32:21] City Staff: Right.

[00:32:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So that then answers one of my other questions is that I would like the whole all of Castro. I don't want to limit it to any particular area, to slice and dice. It doesn't make sense, because someone mentioned holistic reproach. You have to look at the whole downtown, and you just can't limit yourself to one particular area. And so, therefore, I would like to make I would like to make sure that I is included to require, and maybe amend, J, to require retails. So that's why I like to continue to go amend the particular downtown precise plan. Considering, well, okay, here's another part of my vision, and I don't know if it's part of changing the precise plan, but I would like to swap how we are the downtown now, and take the eating areas, and put them next to the retail, and take this retail, and put it out and move the sidewalk out to the street. It seems sort of disconnected that you're walking down in your food, people are walking by. So I don't know if that's a precise plan, type of an item where we eliminate the parking, or eating out in a parking space, and put it closer to the building, and build the sidewalks further out. Is that part? part of the precise plan, or just how would that fit in if we went down that direction?

[00:33:41] City Staff: Yes, that could be included.

[00:33:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So I would think that would make it a much more pedestrial friendly area, and it would be more actually what I've seen in more cities that do it that way. Ours is sort of different, and that would be interesting. Considering parking, again, I like to, you know, Mr. Matson and I have great respect for him, but he did point out something to me that 10 years from now, and I've actually heard more reports that autonomous vehicles and all that is, we're still going to need parking 10, 15, 20 years out, even though we may be evolving, and so I'm very concerned about parking right now. I know in Palo Alto, people don't go to Palo Alto because it's very successful because there's not much parking, and you heard me say that even town and country, if we eliminate parking. So, I'm very concerned that we continue to do parking. If we do have these office developments, you're still, we just had one, Marwood, and they were saying, well, yeah, we'll have 40, 50% of the people not drive into town. Well, that means the other 50% are doing something and driving into town. And right now they're tough to answer questions about parking. So I would like to continue to look at parking in that regard. Also, something along in the mixed, you know, scope. I would like to see to do it if we can work and determine mixed use. And someone mentioned retail office housing, so that we would get away from this better utilization of the land if we have the retail parking. I mean, the retail office and housing all in one building, because then that would definitely be a true mixed use. So that would be something I would like to see reviewed. And, you know, a lot of people are comparing us to other cities, and I find it hard to comparison with any other cities, because we're unique, because of our limited streets, our compactness, we don't have a lot of room to grow, our public transit isn't as vibrant, and actually it's getting less as we move along. So we need to look at ourselves. unique and apply solutions that are unique from Mountain view. And what else we got??

[00:35:58] Unknown Speaker: Can I ask you a question?

[00:35:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Sure.

[00:36:00] Unknown Speaker: When you said all of Castro? So does that mean the area?

[00:36:04] Councilmember John McAlister: El Camino.

[00:36:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right, but does that mean the areas that don't touch Castro, like B?

[00:36:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh no, I mean. Well, C and F, you would not want to. Oh no, no, no, no.

[00:36:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh. Or did you mean all of the precise plan?

[00:36:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, precise plant. Yeah. Okay. I mean, if they look at something, and we see that it doesn't need it, but I'm still, how can you look on one point and not affect another part of the precise plan? So I think you need to look at everything that we have down there. Someone was mentioning about the side streets of Elon Castro. Those are important too. Because maybe we redesign those, and they become more vibrant, and for the community. So, the question, yes, I wanted the whole plan. And I think we got to look at parking, land use. You know, one thing that we haven't brought up, maybe, on the precise plan. If we continue down the path of densifying it, open space, public parks. I mean, we're supposed to put in, you know, three acres for every thousand people. And so if we keep putting in these housing or development, we can't forget open space, and as everybody knows, there's not a lot of open space in that particular area. Another area, I just talked to a developer last week, and actually, one of the staff here brought my attention, they had a small property, and maybe we can get all these small property owners to work together to figure out a parking solution for all the small properties. This particular property was only 10,000 square feet. And they were very challenged to put in parking. They figured they'd get 130 spaces. No, they have about 130 employees, and they could only park 55 people. And so there was big gap between what could have been required and was there. But if we look at the precise plan and say, okay, try to collect all these small business owners and try to give them some kind of an solution to parking or consolidate their properties, this would be a good time to bring them as stakeholders into our process. Right now, I know 2 projects that are small, that we're being challenged with. And Marwood is one of them. And so they're only on 12,000, and this other one's 10. We got to figure out a solution if we're going to develop downtown, how we're going to do it. And by giving these people direction, they can probably make a better downtown all around. So that is, I think I've answered your questions. Thank you.

[00:38:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. We'll go. Cats, remember, Clark?

[00:38:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, um, so the question about whether to look at the whole plan or a sub area is a little tricky for me because really what that comes down to is what you ultimately want to accomplish. And there are a few things that I'd like to accomplish precise plan wide, but I also want the benefit of having others participate in certain decisions. So I guess, I'm willing to bifurcate some decisions, but just to give you an example. You know, one of the things in Council member McAllister touched on this that I'd like to look at, sort of, maybe not the entire precise plan, but certain elements of the precise plan, especially the, basically the, the businesses, the buildings directly facing Castro Street. I would be open to, you know, making office a conditional use along that whole, the whole area as opposed to just in J or certain areas. So that's one thing, I guess, that would be a narrowly targeted policy question that we could address, but that would be, I think, precise plan wide. And if we needed to bifurgate that decision, then perhaps we could. But anyway, that's one That's one thing that I'd like to look at, precise point, why it, another thing that I'd like to look at, precise, plan wide would be, um, um, land uses. So I'd like to generally find a way to make housing more attractive, because right now office is the most attractive option and just banning office isn't really going to, that doesn't mean that housing's magically going to be the thing that happens because if that doesn't work financially or you can't get financing for it, then nothing's going to happen. So there may be things, you know, whether it's, whether it's parking ratios, whether it's, um, increased intensities in certain areas, um, I think on a precise time wide basis, I'd be interested in looking at how we, um, how we make housing a more attractive option than than office. If folks want to have a more targeted discussion about certain, and I know parking's a big port, that could be tied to, you know, increasing housing. It could be tied to other things. My operating assumption is that we should say parking until we have the downtown parking discussion, it can be wrapped into the precise plan, obviously, but I'd assume that most of our discussions about that would be had it at the future meeting there. But then if folks want to have a targeted discussion, you know, like in the historic district at H about, um, you know, sort of finding ways to better protect those buildings or or having US-pecific architectural requirements or those sorts of things, then I'm happy to have a targeted discussion where everyone can participate at that level because I think, you know, it's always good to have to have those voices here where we can. So I don't know. I guess I don't want to open up the entire precise plan and go through a 2 or 3 year process where we just, like we've done it in the past and spend a lot of time looking at that. But there are a few, I think, um, specific things that we could do precise plan wide to sort of touch upon some of the goals that we have, like limiting the number of retailed office conversions, making that a conditional use Castro Street wide, um, or the businesses facing Castro Street all along Castro. maybe looking at ways to increase housing, not just in, you know, I don't want to knock down a bunch of historic buildings in area H, just to build housing that's not, but so that would be more of a precise plan wide question. But then if there are concerns that people want to specifically look at protecting buildings or having architectural requirements in area H in particular, then I'm open to having that be a separate discussions whether others can participate. So I'm not, um, So anyway, that's a long way of saying, let's not open up the entire precise planning, go through it over a two-year process, but I think there are some tweaks that we can make precise plan wide. The others probably won't be able to participate in that, but I think that's still valuable to do. And then we can have a targeted discussion on some of the other things on, you know, particular areas, if there are topics that people want to cover there.

[00:43:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[00:43:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So, I've also been struggling with the decision between proceeding with a targeted review, versus a more holistic, precise plan, uh, review and potential revision. But I think that what council member Clark is proposing is an elegant solution to that where we identify sort of the immediate term concerns and potential revisions that would address those. And I think, um, some of the ones that I'm hearing a lot about and that resonate strongly with me are looking at historic preservation, and if there are things that we can do in the near term to address those concerns. I asked a question about the residential parking permit, and it looks like we have the opportunity to, as a council, initiate the process to create an RPP zone in the downtown area. And I think that, you know, that's something we should seriously consider. One of the concerns I hear about very frequently is parking intrusion in the neighborhood generated from you know, employees working in the area or folks seeking to patronize the businesses there. And I think that this is a good opportunity to have that conversation. How can we, in the near term, address that concern? Um, I'm also interested in looking at land use. And that's where, so I agree with what Council member Clark suggested about the making housing more attractive or financially feasible, if that's the issue or and also limiting retail to office conversions. But I'm also interested in, you know, in meeting with folks from livable Mountain View, one of the things that resonated very strongly with me is looking at the transit center, the land use implications of the work being done near the transit center in in tandem with the downtown precise plan review and potentially looking at Moffatt also in that context. And that's, it sounds like that would be a great deal of work. So there may not be, you know, if there isn't support for that, I understand, but I think that's also something that's worthy of consideration. So bifurcating the discussion, identifying in the sort of the near term fixes for a lot of the problems that we've been hearing about related to parking and historic preservation, limiting retailed office conversions, and then if there's interest, looking at the whole precise plan area and discerning what are some long, longer term modifications that we may, uh, we may want to make. Thank you.

[00:46:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. One question, would we be able to separate out, like, precise plan wide topics, and, uh, have everyone participate in that. And then when we get to a specific area, we might have to have different council members participate.

[00:46:44] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: I think the answer depends on what is the particular issue that you'd like to look at. For example, parking might be more challenging to do on a sub area basis, but our planning experts are probably better equipped to answer that.

[00:47:01] Unknown Speaker: Yes, I mean, I would agree with what Janie said. Parking is gonna cover all of the subareas, whereas if you were to focus on, say, the design expectations for area H, then you could bifurcate changes.

[00:47:17] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Just to add on. I think what council member Clark and Ramirez were saying is there's certain you could divide this up into separate projects. You could have one project that is looking at ground floor retail for the entirety of the area, which the 2 downtown members would not be able to participate, and then you could have another project that looks at the totality of Area H comprehensively, that they could participate. So, I mean, there are some ways you could bifurcate. Just depends how you want to do that.

[00:47:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So for me, the areas that I'm most concerned about are... A, G, and H. And then I also would like to talk about J, and I. And in H, E, and H, it's, um, since that's sort of the heart, it is definitely historic preservation in the H area. Um, and in those areas, those 3 areas, it's definitely land use. And I would say parking as a precise plan wide topic that I'm interested in. And some of the other ones that have been mentioned, ground floor uses and making the ground floor very inviting and walkable and addressing, if we can, where the restaurants are. I think that makes a lot of sense, what Council member McAllister was suggesting. I thought your comment about open space I also agree with. We do need to make sure we keep that in mind as we go through this. And I should back up when I mean, when I say parking, I also would include the residential parking permit program, um, in overall parking, um, to address that. Let's see. I'd also consider design and massing, and I think that, um, For me, that's throughout the entire precise plan area. so that we have something that fits together and doesn't change the character of the downtown area. And if it's possible to include the design of the transit center. I think that makes sense, but I also can appreciate how that might not work this time. So, um, do council members have any other comments based upon what, excuse me, if you could, we're still running the meeting here. Um, if you have other comments about something somebody else said that you want to add to, um, Counselor McAllister.

[00:50:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, somebody mentioned another about potential precise plan in other areas of town. I think the downtown is something that's a priority to me, and that I think that I would be more concerned about using our resources to make sure that we continue to make Mount View, the great downtown that it is. So, if we have limited resources, my thought it would be go to downtown, you know, we can go from there.

[00:50:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[00:50:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And very, very briefly, I also agree with council member May's suggestion to look at activating ground floor space and making it more pedestrian friendly and inviting. And I had also asked a question about community benefits program, analogous to the kinds of programs that we have another precise plan areas. And I was thinking about that specifically in the context of office development. Like council member Clark, I'm not comfortable right now, you know, prohibiting office development, but I think, you know, if we're going to, if we're going to have it, then there should be, you know, a benefit to the city. And I'm not prepared to suggest what that community benefits program would look like, but I think that's something I'd be interested in exploring.

[00:51:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments?

[00:51:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: I was just going to summarize. So I think from, well, at least a portion of it. I'm going to wait the hard part to you. I think what I heard from a precise point, like topics, since we're going to do a precise plan wide discussions, I think we should sort of focus them more narrowly.

[00:51:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: And the 4 things that I heard that I think would be precise plan wide topics to discuss would be parking, how we treat office uses, especially on the ground floor. So making those conditional for the entire for all of the Castro Street facing businesses. I think both housing, you know, making housing a more attractive sort of option throughout the precise plan area. And I think that dovetails with I think we could have a discussion there about intensities and what's appropriate and what isn't, is the mayor suggested. So, I think that sort of fits in well there. And then the other thing that I heard was maybe a discussion about how, how we incentivize crown for retail. So we talked, I think, at a prior meeting about, you know, there might be ways to either subsidize that or create certain ways to sort of incentivize, because the one problem with, you know, if you if you don't allow any sort of ground floor office along that, you run the risk of just having empty spaces too. And I don't want that either. So there might be some ways of incentivizing ground for retail that we want along Castor Street. It won't work everywhere, but I think there are ways to do that. So those are the topics that I heard that we might want to address on a precise plan wide basis. And then what I heard for, you know, a more narrowly tailored discussion where we might have it to ensure that everyone can participate. you know, looking at, I think, especially the story district and then, um, I didn't hear where others netted out on some of those things, but maybe others did. But I think, um, I think that would, I just wanted to summarize the down, the precise plan why items, and then I'll let others jump in on the other stuff. Thanks.

[00:53:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I know I didn't talk about making housing more attractive, but, um, and I didn't hear, I don't think I heard more than a couple people say that. Is that something we want to look at, precise plan wide?

[00:54:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Wouldn't that be if we took a holistic approach? I mean, we're starting to dice and chop and dice the thing all up, so when a holistic approach sort of include many of these items, Are all of these items?

[00:54:23] Unknown Speaker: Certainly, a holistic approach would address all of these issues. I am a little concerned that you're looking at a lot of big things in small chunks, and holistically. Your direction's not quite clear, and whether it makes sense to bifurcate it too much.

[00:54:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. I'd like to keep it simple and not, you know, divide it all up, but, again, holistic reproach. So the one thing that I think would be divided up is historic preservation. Would you agree with that?

[00:54:59] Unknown Speaker: I was gonna ask, if we take the holistic approach, Could we have, like, the could we have a discussion within that discussion where the others could participate? So we could have, um, we could have a discussion about, you know, a specific sub area as part of that overall discussion that might ultimately be incorporated into the full, precise plan, the holistic approach. I don't know. Maybe that's something we have to figure out.

[00:55:30] Unknown Speaker: I think that gets challenging. If it's going to be how you parse that out when they're going to be regulations that apply throughout the entire precise plan.

[00:55:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, do folks agree, uh, with the four areas? Can I just see, maybe a show of hands? You think those are the precise plan Y? Ones that we want to focus on, or did anyone have any changes to those four? The one that Chris laid out, yeah? Nottingheads? Now, these are precise plan wide.

[00:56:08] Councilmember John McAlister: And it was parking.

[00:56:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: It would include INJ, John. Sorry, it would include, yes. So it's precise plan wide. So then, I guess I would say historic preservation, I heard for Area H. And... A couple folks mentioned wanting to, if possible, make sure we include the transit center in this.

[00:56:34] Unknown Speaker: Were there more than 2 of us? There was a council question about that. I mean, will we get wrapped in? Will the discussions sort of proceed together, I assume, or? I forget the answer to that counsel question. I remember reading it and being reassured that it would all sort of be somewhat discussed together, but.

[00:56:53] Unknown Speaker: So the transit center is not in the downtown precise plant area. So if you wanted to include policies and standards for that in the, you would have to expand the downtown precise plan boundaries. Having said that, and that's a fairly big can of worms in terms of environmental review and expanding the parameters or the shape of the precise plan. Having said that, number one, we have a master plan for the transit center, but number two, it will go through a design process, and when it goes through that process, clearly how it integrates to the rest of downtown, can and will be part of that discussion.

[00:57:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, I don't know that I saw anything else. C remember to me.

[00:57:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: For, um, for historic preservation, would it be possible to also have it be, uh, area H and A? Well, I just know that there are some historic buildings in area, A, so I just wanted to incorporate, A, into it, if we are, uh, if we are talking about historic preservation, um, taking note that from what I can tell of them, a map in what I saw before, that there are some historic buildings there. So, uh, that would be the only amendment I would add.

[00:58:22] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. I'm fine with that. Actually, are there other areas then where, I guess I don't know where all the historic resources are in downtown, there's certainly a lot in age, but are there, if there are other areas I would want to include those? I mean, I don't know. So, for me, I would say I would modify that to say we would look at all historic resources, no matter what area they're in. So I guess that's another precise plan wide.

[00:59:00] Unknown Speaker: I guess maybe I think maybe what I did before, I would be okay with a holistic approach. I, as long as that is different from, you know, a two-year parcel by parcel precise plan. So that's where I don't really have an interest in getting that far into the weeds unless a lot of people do. But if we discover that all the topic areas that we want to talk about are, you know, fit into a holistic approach and, you know, segmenting some of these decisions with respect to H or others, just, um, isn't going to be feasible, then I think maybe the holistic approach is, I think maybe John's right. Maybe the holistic approach is the way to go. I just, that, I don't, part of me doesn't like that because I'd like the other 2 to be able to participate, but, um, I don't know, I don't know if they're, I don't know if we can get any more creative.

[00:59:56] Unknown Speaker: So I think part of this is semantics, but what I've heard is that all of you want to follow scope option number one, which is a men targeted sub areas and topics of the plan. Some of the topics span all of the subareas of the plan, but a holistic approach would basically be a complete overhaul of the entire precise plan. So those are 2 different things. And then within Scope option one, you guys are discussing whether or not certain topics could be just, you know, segregated to certain areas so that other members can participate. But I heard, I think I understand that everybody said they are leaning towards scope option number one, which is not a complete overhaul of the entire precise plan.

[01:00:46] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, it's just looking at specific topic. that probably apply a precise plan wide, but to the extent that we can bifurcate some of those decisions, it would be helpful. And maybe that's something that staff can look at and come back to us and just let us know, you know, can we do that? But I think we are mostly on the same page of like, we'd like to look at this set of topics, precise plan wide. to the extent that we can bifurcate those discussions that would be great.

[01:01:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Councilman McAllister.

[01:01:16] Councilmember John McAlister: We go down the path of looking at select items, and then staff says, You know what? To look at the whole thing was not that much more, or it would be a better approach, do we still have that option?

[01:01:29] Unknown Speaker: Are you saying the difference between one and two?

[01:01:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'm just saying, yeah, once you start going through it, uh, two is the holistic approach with a consultant. Is that what you're referring, or... scope options?

[01:01:43] Unknown Speaker: So it's the degree of which the plan will change.

[01:01:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Right. I'm just saying, let's say you start, one, as you're moaching, a men target, sub areas, topics of plans, and possible consultant engagement. But let's say you start going down that path, and you start saying, Wow, we're starting to, it's starting to bleed into other areas. Is there much of a, other than the cost coming back to council hard transition into the other into two?

[01:02:10] Unknown Speaker: There's a significant cost and time.

[01:02:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I understand that, but once you start looking at it, Do you have the ability to say, well, I'm just saying, I like to keep the option that if you're looking at one, and you get into the nitty gritty, and you say, wow, maybe the 2 would be a better approach. That's all.

[01:02:31] Unknown Speaker: That is always an auction.

[01:02:32] Councilmember John McAlister: So just a suggestion.

[01:02:34] Unknown Speaker: It sounds like there's general consensus to men targeted areas, but on a precise plan wide area. So the next step for us would be to come back to you with a work plan and a budget and a timeline for that, so that you can look at it and see if we've captured what you said. always once we get underway, you know, as we're doing it, and we're working with consultants, if things seem to be bleeding into areas that are inextricably linked, we would certainly come back to you, but that probably would require more time and money to expand beyond that.

[01:03:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Say Nottingheads? Okay, anything else on this one or are we good?

[01:03:27] Unknown Speaker: We're good.

[01:03:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So we will adjourn the study session and we will start the regular session at 6.30. magic words.

[01:04:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We're gonna call this meeting to order just a couple things. There is extra seating in the lobby area, and I believe the monitor is on, and then also in the Plaza conference room. There is seating, and the monitor is on there. So if you want a place to sit, you can see where we are in the meeting, and if you have comments, when we get to that point, then you could come over here and provide them. But there are other options besides standing. Or I don't see anyone sitting on the floor this time. So that's good. So there are other options. You got a seat this time. very good. And if folks can actually move in a little bit, that would also be good so that folks can sneak in on the side. Okay, so the 1st order of business is the pledge of allegiance.

[01:05:03] Unknown Speaker: Allegiance to the Black. Okay. And to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation. Indivisible, the Routine of Justice Girl.

[01:05:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And if our clerk would announce the attendance?

[01:05:21] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[01:05:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. So I'd like to see if my fellow council members would agree that maybe we should change the order of some of these items tonight. since we have so many people in the audience here for items 7.one. Um, I'd like to do 7.one, which is cannabis, and then go back to 6.one, which is the parkland ordinance. And then later in the meeting, I'd like to move 9.one to, which is the Terabella, um, to before the cities association, Housing paper, which is 8.1. So the order would be 7.1 before 6.1. And then later in the meeting, 9.1 before 8.1. And are folks okay with that? Do we have to take a formal vote? We can just nod heads. Does anyone object to that? Okay. It does to me, too. Thank you. I think the audience will appreciate that as well. Okay, so the 1st item, then, or the next item is a proclamation for Teen Week. And, um, do we have a barrage? Guritha run here. There he is. If you could come down to the microphone there. So, read the proclamation, and then, if you two would like to say something, you're more than welcome to. Whereas youth account for 20% of the Mountain View demographic, and whereas the city of Mountain View has pledged to support the 41 developmental assets, which includes an asset entitled community, values youth, and whereas teens who perceive that adults in the community value youth are more likely to grow up in healthy, exhibit leadership, value diversity, and succeed in school. And whereas the youth advisory committee in conjunction with community services staff has developed a week of scheduled events to celebrate teens, including their creativity, intelligence, activism, mental wellness, and the value they provide to the community. Now, therefore, I, Lisa Matachek, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby proclaim March 4th to March 9th, 2019, as teen week, throughout the city of Mountain View, and encourage all of our residents to recognize teens in our community for the significant impact they have made and continue to make by sharing their ideals, unique knowledge, skills, perspectives, and creativity, as they lead awareness, advocacy, and philanthropic activities.

[01:08:51] Youth Advisory Committee Chair Aubaraj: Hello, I'm Aubaraj. I am the chair of the Yth Advisory Committee. I know you're not here for this, so I won't keep you for too long, but this week is the nation's actually, or to our knowledge, the nation's only official teen week, it's a teen dedicated. It a week dedicated for teens. We have a bunch of events going on this week. Just downstairs. Actually, we have a teen art showcase, so maybe on your way out, if you're not too mad. Check out the teen art. There's a bunch of cool stuff down there. This Friday, at the Mountain View Center for performing arts, 2nd stage. We have our team Open Mike Night, where we're going to have a bunch of musicians come and perform. It's gonna be super cool. Entry is free. There's an incentive.

[01:09:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you guys. Okay, the next item is the consent calendar. And these items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council or audience wishes to remove the item for discussion. Are there any items that the council would like to pull? Seeing none? Are there any items that anyone in the audience would like to pull? Saying none. A motion is in order.

[01:10:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: I move the consent calendar.

[01:10:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I have a motion by Council member Clark, a second by Vice Mayor Abbe Koga. And that passes unanimously. The next item is oral communications, and 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 for one 3 minute period during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items. So is there anyone who would like to speak with us on a topic that is not on the agenda?

[01:11:20] Public Speaker: Honorable mayor, Matt Jack, honorable vice mayor, honorable council members, and steam city staff. Uh, you know, thank you for this opportunity before it gets really heated in here. In reviewing a couple of city council meetings that I've attended, I wanted to share with you just a couple of observations, for you to just consider as you go through things. Uh, particularly in mind, was uh, last week's meeting regarding goal setting, which was the gentleman item 4.one, January the 8th, when I was able to uh, speak to you a little bit about uh, a big pothole that I saw in El Camino Real. Um, I have, I've been attending city council meetings a little bit more often, related to last week's meeting. There were a lot of people with stickers regarding apartment demolitions. Um, You know, I actually, uh, what victim is the wrong word, but I was affected by that last year. You know, I lived in a property that had to be moved. And I considered a little bit about what I had seen of city council where we've been, you know, in the 26 years that I've lived here in Mountain View. And one of the things that often happens is unintended consequences. And, you know, when we look at some of the initiatives we have, when you, as you go through this month doing more goal setting, as you hear from, wow, it's a lot of people back there. I would ask and encourage you to consider the unintended consequences of what you're dealing with. And I wanted to express I'm very thankful thus far of your willingness to actually, you know, be careful about these kind of things. Look at at at least what I perceive as your willingness to look at the unintended consequences of the items on the plan. When we can consider all of the things that at least I've heard of or have had the greatest interest of, you Honorable Mayor, you did mention Terabella at 9.one. There is an unintended consequence regarding traffic, right? Something that you consider. That is not explicitly written, you know, into the agenda item, but is nonetheless there. 7.one, which I'm sure you're going to hear a lot about unintended consequences there as well. So my request and my thanks to you thus far, as we go through these agenda items, if we could just really, really, really do it as great a job as we can of looking at the unintended consequences. There's so much passion here. There was passion last week when I was here, I was astounded by it, and I'm seeing it again today. We've spoken a lot about the various communities, about those who were disadvantaged about crime on Stevens Creek, about the massive amounts of diversity. There's a massive amount of diversity in this room. So when you hear from them, my request to you is, you know, to hear both what they say and what they didn't say. So thank you for your time.

[01:14:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak to us on a topic not on the agenda? Okay, seeing none, we will close that portion of the meeting. And again, we are taking this item out of order. So next will be Item 7.one, a discussion of potential future amendments to the adopted cannabis regulations, and our presenters tonight are Clarissa Burke, associate planner and our planning manager, zoning administrator, Stephanie Williams.

[01:14:45] Associate Planner Clarissa Burke: Good evening. Tonight's presentation, we'll discuss the city's process to adoption of comprehensive cannabis regulations and seek council's direction of potential future amendments. After Proposition 64 was approved by 68% of Mountain View voters, council directed staff to develop amendments to the code to permit and regulate commercial cannabis activity. In January 2018, council directed staff to study permitting only retail activities. In spring, the EPCN Council held study sessions to discuss the development of cannabis regulations and provided recommendations on key issues. In October of 2018, the council approved the proposed regulations following a 5 to vote. There have been many opportunities for the community and industry to provide input on this topic. The city has held a total of 8 public meetings, including study sessions, hearings, and a community meeting on cannabis. The community was also asked to provide input through a survey. the results of which are attached in the council report. In general, approximately one third of the respondents in the survey, one and nearly no limitations on businesses. One third wanted varying combinations of limitations on businesses, and one third didn't want cannabis sales in the city at all. In the following slides, key provisions of the proposed cannabis regulations are summarized. The 2 business types permitted in the city are traditional storefront retail and non-storefront retail, which is a warehouse location for a delivery company. The zoning regulations are located in chapter 36 of the city code and 4 precise plans, and address the topics listed here. The adopted ordinance and resolutions are attached to the council report. A significant part of the regulating scheme for cannabis businesses includes safety and enforcement provisions detailed in chapter 9 that will be enforced by the police department. These are similar to San Jose's requirements and details in attachment to the council report. Five new fees were adopted to recover the cost of the permitting and regulation of cannabis businesses. These fees are within the range of comparable fee amounts collected by other agencies. Additionally, in November of 2018, 81% of Mountain View voters approved a cannabis tax. The city has implemented the adopted permitting process. The permitting structure has four phases and is a hybrid between the merit-based and lottery-based system, lottery-based processes, the other communities have utilized. The 1st phase, screens applications for viability through planning division review, and background checks. The phase one application period closed on February 1st of this year. A total of 10 applications were submitted. Applications that pass the screening will be put into a lottery currently scheduled for March 27th. In phase 2, the lottery does not select or approve applications, but rather acts as a gatekeeper to rank the order in which the applications may submit a phase one or phase 3 planning application. In phase three, the applicant will submit a planning application that will be reviewed thoroughly for compliance with the city code. Decisions will be made by the zoning administrator in a public hearing. Applications approved by the ZA will then comply with the conditions of approval, including building permits, PD registration, and state licensing prior to construction and occupancy. Tonight, staff is requesting council direction on if they would like to amend the adopted cannabis regulations, and if so, which specific provisions the council would like studied and amended. The scope of the amendments will determine the process and timeline for studying possible amendments. Should the council desire amendments adopted regulations, staff will return with an interim urgency ordinance to suspend the current regulations and permitting, to allow time to study the amendments, and provide transparency in the permitting process. This concludes staff's presentation, the Planning Division Police Department, and City Attorney's Office are here for questions. Thank you.

[01:19:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we will have council questions, and then I'll open it up for public input, and then the council will do the deliberations. So are there any questions from council members? And it looks like you were going to say something, Jenny.

[01:19:27] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Well, I just wanted, there are, um, depending on what your, how, what your questions are. It may raise some potential issues about conflicts of interest. So I stand ready to kind of guide you through that and, um, figure out how best to handle that. this evening.

[01:19:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any questions from council members? Vice mayor Abi Koga.

[01:19:54] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, there's been some talk about, uh, the legal ramifications of any changes if we decide to make this evening, as hoping city attorney could, um, discuss, or or share, or explain, um, what the situation is. And in particular, I've heard folks say that, um, we're taking away their right to, uh, operate here if we were to, uh, to decrease the number or completely ban. establishments. So could the city attorney clarify that place?

[01:20:30] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Yes, I'd be happy to. First and foremost, the city has not issued any actual permits to operate a storefront or non-storefront retail. So I think the concept, the legal concept is vested rights, and we're in the very beginning, implement implementation, phase of the ordinance, and we haven't even issued notices about whether any of the applications that have been filed comply with our requirements. So, from my perspective, we're not at a point where there are, it's not like a permit's been issued and the right runs with the land. So, incumbent in what you inherent in your ability to legislate anytime you pass an ordinance, you ultimately have the right to amend that ordinance and change that. ordinance. So you are able to do that tonight.

[01:21:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you.

[01:21:24] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Well, actually you're able to provide direction to staff. So that we can come back with an ordinance if that's what the council decides.

[01:21:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[01:21:35] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I also wanted to ask a question of clarification, because I gotten a lot of comments, uh, regarding, um, whether how extra planners or police would be paid for. And I wanted to know the, um, my understanding was that some of the fees at the beginning were directed at cost recovery for those things, but I just wanted, because that was a pretty predominant question I got, I wanted some clarification on that.

[01:22:03] Unknown Speaker: Yes, the 5 fees adopted. We'll go to both the police department and planning division for a full cost recovery of processing the permits, including the additional cost of the one full-time police officer and the halftime clerk that will also be in the police department.

[01:22:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That it? Council member McAllister.

[01:22:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, this is... This is for our police force. Anybody would like to take it? Thank you. So, Is the city implementing or taking any new training to help regulate the marijuana industry when it comes in?

[01:22:58] Police Department Staff: Consider it ongoing training. that we're doing? I don't think there's any new training available to us.

[01:23:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Have you consulted with other cities to how to implement it or to police it, or to maintain it, or watch it that you've learned from other cities?

[01:23:14] Police Department Staff: Yeah, we've talked to numerous cities. We're in touch with the Bureau of Cannabis Control as well, talking to their investigators and making sure that we are as prepared as we can be when this happens.

[01:23:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I just wanted to follow up.

[01:23:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from council members? Council member Kameh.

[01:23:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I have a question for our city attorney. Oh sorry. Um, or staff. So for, um, any action that's taken tonight, um, there's been discussion about an urgency ordinance being necessary, can you clarify how, if there's any action taken by council, kind of, that it will need the, um, 4 fist vote. Is that correct?

[01:24:06] Unknown Speaker: So, our staff suggestion, without really knowing, in advance what the framework's gonna be for any potential amendments that would come out, is to accommodate the council's concern about transparency and having a fair process, that we would put a pause on the existing regulations to allow time for staff to develop any regulations that you might have. And we would do that via an urgency ordinance that would allow that would suspend the continued implementation of the existing regulations or the existing ordinance to allow us to come back and bring you an ordinance for introduction and adoption. And an urgency ordinance is, That's the express purpose of it, to allow you to study and issue and make regulations. So that is, that can be adopted in a single meeting by a four-fifth vote, which would be 6 members of the council.

[01:25:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other council questions? Okay, seeing none. At this point, we will take public comment, but before I open that up. I do want to remind everyone that there will be different perspectives here. And it is my expectation. that everyone will be respectful of these speakers tonight. And by that, I mean, I don't want any booing or applause. We're just going to listen respectfully to the comments of the other folks who are in the room here tonight. If you could fill out a blue card either before or after you speak, I would appreciate it. And when you come up, if you could let us know your name and if you're a resident of Mountain View, that would be very helpful. We are trying to understand, you know, the folks who are here tonight, who are the Mountain View residents, um, or where else you might be from that you're representing. And because of the number of people, I'm estimating, that are going to want to speak tonight. We are going to limit public comment to two minutes per person, and you can see the timer will be up on the 2 screens as well as in front here. And when it gets to yellow. If you could start wrapping up, and when it turns red, that means your time is up. And because of the number of people here tonight, I'm going to be pretty strict about these time limits, because we do want to make sure we hear from everyone before we have our deliberation. So at this point, I will open it up for public comment. we'll have our 1st speaker.

[01:26:52] Public Speaker: Hello again. The one, 2 punch on unintended consequences. I'm honorable council members, I'm holding the text of Proposition 64. In being careful about it, I'm citing this bullet here allows local regulation, taxation, and marijuana. So being careful about it, I think you're just doing your jobs. There has been a contention that reevaluating the ordinance is defying the will of the people. I submit that, no, the measure that we voted for, did not say that we were suddenly gonna open storefronts everywhere. Uh, so, uh, my, my, my ask of you and my encouragement for you is, uh, there's going to be enough people to be heard. If the majority of the city actually is in favor of it, then that's what it is. But what I, what I do have a concern about is that the ends does not justify the means. There are some who say, you know, we legalize it, so let's open stores everywhere. That's not what we legalized. So, um, when we look, when, you know, you hear from the other speakers, my only point here is, you know, let's, you know, the end doesn't testify, the means let's stick to what we're on. I think that you're actually doing your jobs by evaluating this and being careful. So thank you.

[01:28:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place. And if you could let us know your name and if you're a resident, that would be great.

[01:28:11] Chen Xing Liu: Thank you very much for this opportunity. My name is Chen Xing Liu. I lived in Mountainville for more than 24 years. I want to say one thing. Majority favoring the gladiation of cannabis doesn't mean majority favoring cannabis stores in the neighborhood. Please don't take it for granted, that as it's legalized, we can open cannabis stores, and majority will favor it as well. No, that's wrong. Take a look at the Palado, Sandville, Dupiters. People there also favored legalization of cannabis, but they don't want care about the store. Why it's wrong? Because we ask the support for legalization of cannabis, people tend to think, oh, this is okay here in America. If you need it, you can get it. I don't oppose it. As long as my family is not get affected. But right now, opening cannabis store in their neighborhood would definitely affect their lives, especially their children's lives. Legalization of cannabis means we care about those who need cannabis. But to them, no cannabis store in Mountain View would not be a big deal, because they can get somewhere else very easily. But to us, it's very a big deal, because we care about our children. Please care about our children, who need a 0 cannabis store environment, to grow very healthy. Thank you very much.

[01:30:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:30:13] Gary Wesley: Gary Wesley of Mountain View.

[01:30:17] Gary Wesley: So we voted on this general matter of marijuana 3 times. In 1996, medical marijuana, a few years ago, proposition 64. And here in Mountain View, if you're gonna sell it, tax it. none of those measures, raise the issue. Should we sell marijuana here in Mountain View? That's never been voted upon by anybody. Except the city council prior to leaving office. I initially wrote you and suggested that if you're going to change the number of stores or the location of stores or dispensaries that you allow the applicants to reapply and identify new places, and I think that's a matter of fairness that you should follow. But then I got to thinking about something different. If I were on the city council, heaven forbid. Would I vote for this at all? Because the United States Supreme Court in 2005, and a case I gave you, Gonzalez versus Rach, determined that medical marijuana was no right in California, even homegrown marijuana, couldn't be in defiance of federal law. It's against federal law, a felony to be involved in the sale of marijuana. And you might not want to aid and abet, a felony. Good luck.

[01:31:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:32:03] Bruce Humphrey: Good evening, Honorable Mayor and council members. I am Bruce Humphrey, president and CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. Tonight, I am here on behalf of one of our members, an entrepreneur who, in good faith, made a considerable financial investment based on council decision on this topic last October. Applicants in this space, we are told, have spent between $60,000 and $120,000 in the hopes of securing one of four opportunities in this space. I am not here tonight to argue for or against the industry or even the possible tax revenue, but the message council is sending to the business community. We understand the complexity of your position, and that there is a very delicate balance between trying to support your voter base and the business community. However, there is also a matter of trust, which we must have between government and business. As you think through this matter tonight, please keep fairness in mind. Remember, small business is truly the backbone of our community, and don't please don't violate the trust that you've worked so hard to achieve. We are fortunate to live in a city with a diverse business community, and there are rooms for all types of business here in Mountain View. Thank you.

[01:33:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Before you go, I think council member Ramirez has a question for you.

[01:33:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Good question, Bruce. So if the applicant loses the lottery, Do they get their money back?

[01:33:31] Bruce Humphrey: Uh, no.

[01:33:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[01:33:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:33:41] Louise Katz: Thank you, Louise Katz Mountain View residents, speaking on behalf of Livable Mountain View. Id like to make three points. First, the various supporters of the existing ordinance have stated, as we have heard, that they believe that Mountain View voters, in fact, voted not to legalize simply marijuana, but to actually legalize indorse cannabis in many locations in Mountain View. And as has already been said, we know that's simply not true. What our state law did say, and by necessity, was adopted by our council, is that there must be a great distance between schools and where children, where minors congregate and cannabis. The purpose and intent of this is basic public policy and social societal values that we protect children from locations where cannabis is sold. So how do we justify the sale of cannabis on Castro Street? where we know families and minors congregate. Why is it logical to protect children with many 100s of yards from schools, but celebrate putting it on 2 stores very near each other, where we dough children will be within a few feet? I submit this was an ill planned effort to have as many outlets as possible and glosses over this contradiction. I do understand. Many adults wish to have cannabis and via delivery and outlets in areas in mountain view and elsewhere where children don't congregate. They can have it. And the council can also respect the law, which prioritizes children. We further ask to consider the effect on businesses, which, unlike any other, require obscured windows, do not show the product, walk when they walk by, and have guards, and must hide from view what is being sold. We believe this will result in a more dead zones with no interaction, or view of what is happening inside in what is supposed to be a pedestrian friendly and inviting streetscape. We, as we said in October, please do not put cannabis on Castro Street. Thank you.

[01:35:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[01:35:37] Jim Araby: Good afternoon, counsel. My name is Jim Araby. I am the representative of the UFCW Local 5. We represent about 30,000 members throughout the Bay Area, and we're one of the largest unions that represent cannabis workers. And we're here today to speak in support of, you know, continuing to have Mountain View via Space and an opportunity to open up cannabis businesses. Our union has been involved with cannabis since 2005 when we worked with the city of Oakland to open the 1st dispensaries in the state. You know, we worked very diligently in 2015 with the League of Cities, Police Chiefs, and the Cannabis Industries Association to create the regulatory framework, in which Prop 64 fell under. In 2017 and 2018. We worked on the regulations and worked with many cities to figure out how to actually create a highly regulated business structure, an environment that would create legitimate businesses, legitimate storefront, retail, and legitimate jobs and careers and opportunities. We see this as another opportunity for Mountain View and Mountain View residents to have access to good jobs and careers in an industry that in 10 years will be a multi-billion dollar industry with 1000000s of dollars and 100s of 1000000s of dollars in revenue for cities. I think it's time, and I think the council is doing its diligent work to really debate this issue, and we honor that. But we want to be very clear about our position in this, which is this is a legitimate industry with legitimate jobs, and we can't continue to push it on the side and think that people aren't going to demand this product. As many of you know, this product is available. You can go on your phone right now. on weed maps and get it delivered right outside if you wanted to. So it's not whether it's going to be accessible or not. The question becomes, does the city want to regulate it enough to create the types of jobs we want in our communities and the revenues, and we support the efforts of the cannabis industry association and others to make sure that this is a legitimate industry, in the fear of many people, the fear of the unknown? I understand I'm a parent with 2 children. But I also understand and know many that work in this industry that are legitimate business operators that want to bring real jobs, good jobs, and good business to this community. We hope you support the efforts to continue to allow cannabis to be sold in your area. Thank you very much.

[01:37:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:37:44] Jenny Jan: Hi, my name is Jenny Jan, and I'm actually Resident of Mountain View, and I'm actually supporting the cannabis. The reason is because I believe that if it's a regulated business, it will be more safe out community as well as I believe the city council will go ahead and have more regulated, so there will be no more black market that can harm our children. Thank you very much.

[01:38:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:38:07] Hector Moreno: Good evening, mayor, members of the council. I'm Hector Moreno, UFCW as well. Jim kind of already said our position, but I'm going to touch on another situation. I had a good friend of mine about 12 years ago, developed colon cancer. I never smoked marijuana in my life. Neither had he. Respectable man. Um, I had to go to some, had a, um, someone told me he was taking those pills that were making him vomit, were making him nauseous, and, um, were actually not giving him an appetite. Someone told me you should get in some cannabis. I did. And I had to go to somebody's house to get it. That actually helped him. developed a little bit of an appetite, also didn't make them nauseous. It didn't cost them all that, those pills cost a lot of money. Um, So members of the council mayor, um, cannabis is not going away. I feel that, you know, having businesses, you can regulate it and if they misbehave, you have control over it. So it's not going away, it's going to be here, whether it's so from somebody's house or a legitimate business. So I hope that you support this, um, and open up those businesses. Thank you.

[01:39:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:39:21] Valerie Milmann: Hello.

[01:39:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think you could speak into the mic place. You can pull it down again.

[01:39:27] Valerie Milmann: My name is Valerie Milmann. I'm a long time resident of Mountain View, and I have huge concern. about 660 West Dana Street being considered for cannabis businesses. 660 Mountain View, sit in the right on the border between residential and commercial area. My personal house is just few steps away from this building. I was very surprised when I saw this location being on a short list for the cannabis businesses, and I wonder whether the city, given any consideration of consideration, allowing such a business. Few steps from many, uh, private residents. And I don't want to offend anybody, but I can bet that none of you live in that particular area. Thank you.

[01:40:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:40:38] Jim: Hi, my name is Jim. I'm a Mountain View's resident for like four years. Um, I also, I want you guys to know that right now, these anti-cannabis protesters, they're organized by a political group, and if you guys side with them today, you might be identified as the same group as these political members. What's more important is regulated marijuana. They're safe, you know? And there's a lot of black market marhana out there that are poisoning our youth people. If these you, they want to have marijuana, they could get it from the black market, but if we have a safer choice for them, why can't we have regular marijuana for them? As it for you. Thank you.

[01:41:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[01:41:30] Rob Jordanic: Hi, my name's Rob Jordanic. I live in Santa Clara, nearby. And I'm a parent of 3 children, and I'm opposed to any pot shops in Mountain View or any of the nearby cities. For many reasons. The biggest is the impact on our youth. You're very I sure you're familiar with the organization, dare. It's a national organization dedicated to educating the youth of America, about living their lives free of drugs. And dare is against marijuana storefronts, such as this, they deeply understand the impacts of our youth. As you consider this, you have a choice to make. You can listen to the advice of deer and other organizations that really understand the negative impacts this brings to our youth, or you can listen to the marijuana industry. They'll target our youth, the youth are their future lifetime customers. One in 16s who try marijuana will become addicted. I also want to respond to some of the comments about Mountain View residents have somehow voted on this already. Let's look at the city of Half Moon Bay. In Half Moon Bay, They were in favor of Prop 64. But in November 2018, They had the opportunity to vote on, would they allow pot shops in Half Moon Bay? So they had measure SS to allow 2 pot shops in Half Moon Bay, and they rejected it. And they also, they did also authorize a cannabis tax. But when they actually got to vote on whether they wanted pot shops, they rejected it. So that proves that a city can be in favor of Prop 64, they can vote for a tax, but they can also be against hot shops in their own city. So, when you consider this issue, the argument that Mountain View residents somehow voted on this is not a valid argument. Thank you.

[01:43:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:43:32] Terry Lesbie: Sorry, I'm Terry Lesbie. And I've been a Mountain View resident for 38 years. I have been against the sale of marijuana. Ever since this first issue began, and I'm still against it, and I'm against it being sold in downtown, and one of the reasons I'm against it is, I think it's addictive. And also, one of the other considerations, I haven't heard from other people about this also, is secondhand smoke. I'd like to take walks in the park, especially the one right by here. And, um, I go there, I get fresh air. And almost every time I go there, there's somebody smoking marijuana, and I have to breathe it. And I think we have a right to clean air, a basic human right. So, um, that's the way I feel about this, and one other, one, just one other item, and that is, if this whole thing is about collecting taxes. Why not? I mean, um, it seems like the high tech companies are providing plenty of that now. So I don't know why we can't just have a clean city. So that's my opinion. Thank you.

[01:45:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:45:05] Justin Posmani: Hello. My name is Justin Posmani. a 39 year old resident of Mountain View, California, whose families have been here through probably the last 120, 130 years. And the 1st thing I want to say is, I feel like the application process was put out there. And then people started putting in applications, the time, the money, all those things before the structure was like sort of set. So I feel, even though it was put out there, it should kind of be held to that because people have already put their time, their effort, their money into these things, expecting it to be a certain way, and then things are going to sort of be maybe changed, maybe not changed or who really knows. The 2nd thing is, I've lost my father, my grandma to cancer. I know that it's helped them very much through their process of having a better life, eating all those things, having a place here for people that are sick is very good because if they're sick, they're not going to be able to travel to San Jose or to wherever the next club is that is so far. And basically at the end of the day, I just want to say that everybody here that is going to be involved in this process should really look to the people that are sick and that need it, not towards the people that are, you know, doing it illegally or on the black market or whatever, because that's always going to happen. But we need something for the people that are sick, and that's basically a pharmacy. And if you see these dispensaries that are running, they're not a bad place. It's not, it's like people are giving it a bad name, but it's not. It's a peaceful place. There's nice people there. They're not being robbed and it's not like a very bad thing that it's being depicted as. So I just want to let everybody know that there are sick people that need this medication. And having it here would be great for them. Thank you for hearing.

[01:47:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Just want to remind folks to fill out a blue card, so we capture your name for the record. Next, please.

[01:47:13] Jesse Hur: Is that it? Very confusing. Jesse Hur, more than 30 year resident in Mountain View, and happy about it all the way. First of all, if the council is considering changes, I would urge them to go through all of the research surveys, studies of other cities, of other states, that has already been through. And I've, and avoid all the kind of wild, um, uh, bad things that are swirling around. Woo. So, I'm disappointed because I supported the sagacious decisions of the previous council. And I spoke in the meeting, and I'm worried that my voice has no effect, that I'm being drowned out by an orchestrated, anti cannabis movement. Um, I, uh, I'm very strong. I am not a cannabis user. I am a very strong advocate of legal regulated access to it. to avoid having children have access to it. I am against children, having access to cannabis, and I believe that unregulated sellers have no compunctions about selling to children. So, and I'm a little concerned that the organized crime is in favor of stopping regulated sales. Thank you.

[01:49:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[01:49:41] John Bealy: Hi, I'm John Bealy. I'm a Mountain View resident. I voted in favor of the marijuana initiative, and I voted in favor of the marijuana attacks in Mountain View, and I was in favor of the proposal by the council to regulate and have marijuana shops here in Mountain View. I don't see any reason to change that. I think that a vote to restrict access to marijuana by 21 year old and old, is a vote for organized crime. It basically, somebody's gonna fill a vacuum. The marijuana has been available to high school and earlier children for dozens of years. And the only way to do, to prevent that, to stop that from happening, is to regulate it. and provide a legal access to marijuana, and also use that revenue that you're gaining to clamp down on illegal sales. So there is an avenue for legal sales, and there's less of an opportunity for illegal sales to keep them out of the hands of our children. They're gonna use them. If it's available, they're gonna use them, and they're gonna get them through illegal means if they have to. So regulate it, tax it, and allow it to happen. I don't understand the moral and ethical difference between having a liquor store in a corner and having a marijuana store in a corner. They're both regulated, they're both appealed to children. You have children going in and out of liquor stores all day long. Why not? I'm not advocating that for marijuana stores, but there is no moral difference between the two. One's as bad as the other. Thank you.

[01:51:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:51:45] Jane Horton: Hi, I'm Jane Horton, Mountain View resident for more than 40 years. I wish I was as well spoken as the previous gentleman was. People who say their voice was not heard must not have voted because voting was our voice on this issue. If you Google marijuana dispensaries in Santa Cruz, it comes up with 23. Seven are actually in the town. They have a population of 65,000 people. That's one dispensary for every 9,285 people. For the calculations we use in Mountain View, we'll rely on our population plus our daily worker population, which almost doubles our population. So if we had 2 storefronts, That would be one store for every 75,000 residents that doesn't sound like an overwhelming amount of storefronts. According to the CDC in 2017, fatal overdoses for illicit drugs were over 17,000 for prescription drugs were over 26,000. For alcohol over 30,000, and that does not include vehicle deaths. Guns was 40,000. So you have almost 120,000 deaths from those over fatal overdoses from marijuana, zero. No fetal, no, nothing. Reports about increased violent crimes due to marijuana dispensaries are debunked by Snopes. If you see those, check them out on Snopes, don't just take them as facts. Washington State has had 4 years of legal dispensaries, and they show no increase in use by children. Parents can talk to their children that alcohol is illegal until they're 21. Marijuana illegal until they're 21. It's part of the parenting process that we do as parents to train our children. what they should put into their bodies. Our voices said, yes, democracy respects the voice of the voters. Let's respect democracy and our votes. Thank you.

[01:53:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[01:53:45] Public Speaker: Hello. Hi, mountain residents, long time. I'm preschool teachers in the mountain started in 1987. So anyway, long time. So, Mountain Avenue has been a leader in so many ways. I've always been proud of a mountainous record of high standards for environmental sustainability, and I'm very proud owner of electric car. But when we choose to be a leader, it should be for something good. Being the only city in our county, with marijuana store in the downtown, which some people suggest. It's not the kind of leadership, we can be proud of. As a preschool teacher in kindergarten, I also teach piano and a music teacher. I do not think that having Marana stores near our schools, it's good for our children. The children are very observant. They ask questions, so we need to think, what kind of a role model we should be for them, and what are our influences on them. And so, please slow down with this rush to put marijuana on every corner of our city, and keep them for sure of the downtown, because they are, especially from away from schools. Thank you.

[01:55:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Again, if you could refrain from applause or booing, like I said before, different people have different perspectives on this. So I really want to ask you to please refrain from doing that. Next place.

[01:55:23] Peter Chen: Good evening. My name is Peter Chen. I'm a resident of San Jose. I know I'm not a resident here, so I don't really have a voice, but I appreciate. I was invited just to share as a former cannabis user, my experience. So thank you for listening to me. I started using marijuana while I was 14. I was under the impression that I wasn't very harmful or addictive. So I started using with my friends and it was because I started using marijuana that I got exposed to the drug culture and I started using harder drugs and it actually ended up in an 8 year long drug and alcohol addiction. I basically dropped out of college. I got kicked out of my mom's house. I was in a lot of financial debt, and I was homeless for a while, and it wasn't really until I went into a rehab that I was able to sober up. Um, and I think for me, uh, I could definitely say 100% with, with 100% certainty that, um, the start of my drug addiction was when I started using marijuana because it was the gateway drug. And I just want to say that just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's good or right or true. Alcohol and gambling is legal, but most of us know that more often than not, it destroys lives. So thank you.

[01:56:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:56:50] Cal Tong: Hello, my name is Cal Tong, and my little brother's name is Jonathan. We like walking to Cuesta Park together and we smell cannabis 3 times over there. So we left there immediately, so we wished there, we wouldn't open any pot shops in the city. I'm done. Thank you.

[01:57:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[01:57:26] Chad Norris: Sorry, um, yeah.

[01:57:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: When you say you have 5 cards, are there 5 people here who are not going to speak?

[01:57:36] Chad Norris: Correct, they're yielding their time to me.

[01:57:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I'm not sure I see five. I see three.

[01:57:44] Chad Norris: Okay.

[01:57:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: How much time did you need?

[01:57:48] Chad Norris: I'm hoping I could get this done in five, so I have lots to cover, a lot of statistics, so please excuse the fact that I'm gonna read this.

[01:57:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we have five minutes. Contact.

[01:57:58] Chad Norris: Madam Mayor, city council members. My name is Chad Norris. a retired narcotic detective from a local Bay Area Agency, and the Region One training coordinator for the California Narcotic Officers Association. I've been asked to share my knowledge and expertise with you, as you consider the issue surrounding the decision to allow the Salem transportation of marijuana and the city of Mountain View under the provisions of Prop 64. As California has only recently passed the use of recreational marijuana, I look to other states that have had similar laws for longer periods of time. The states with the most data that I could locate is Colorado. Colorado has allowed the sale of recreational marijuana since January 1, 2014. I believe the statistics from Colorado are predictive and would directly impact the quality of life in Mountain View. According to the Rocky Mountain, high intensity drug trafficking area, property crimes in Colorado from 2009 through 2012 increased by 4.1%. And the years following the legalization of recreational marijuana. From 2013 through 2016, Colorado increased... Property crime increased by 8.3%. One of the most staggering increases, I noted, was the increase in violent crime between 2009 and 2012. Colorado reported an increase in violent crime of 1.2%. And the years following the legalization of recreational marijuana between 2013 through 2016, Colorado reported an increase in violent crime of 18.6%. Between 2009 and 2012, Colorado saw an increase in all reported crimes of 3.4%. After the legalization of recreational marijuana, between 2013 through 2016, Colorado reported increases in all reported crimes up 10.8%. In addition to the overall crime increases, the Colorado Department of Public Safety reported the following statistics. 2014, there was a 32% increase in marijuana related traffic deaths up from 2013. Marijuana related traffic deaths accounted for 20% of all traffic deaths in 2014, compared to 10% just five years ago. Marijuana related traffic deaths, increased 92% from 2010 to 2014. In 2014, THC results were primarily driving under the influence, have increased 45% in just one year. 2013, the Rocky Mountain hide intensity drug trafficking area conducted a study on the rise of emergency department admissions between 2006 and 2012, and found there was a 200% increase in emergency department admissions for children under five, 60% increase for kids between 6 and 12, 92% increase for kids between 13 and 14. In 2018, the California high intensity drug trafficking area issued a report titled Marijuana's impact on California. The report concludes that from 2005 through 2016, there's a 481% increase in California emergency department visits and hospitalizations, for any marijuana related Jews, primary or secondary, with a 250% increase from 2009 through 2016. From 2005 through 2016, there was a 703% increase in California emergency department visits with marijuana as the primary reason for being seen. Another compelling statistic in this report is that the number of total drivers involved in a fatal vehicle crash in California decreased by 22% from 2005 to 2015. However, drivers testing positive for marijuana involved in fatal crashes increased by 52.8%. Now, here is kind of what I found local to us. December 2014, 2017, KTV reported police in Concord said two men who robbed a marijuana delivery driver at gunpoint is the latest in a string of similar crimes. The city has since seen. The police lieutenant said the incident is the 7th robbery of a medical marijuana delivery driver in Concord since April. December 6, 2018. Affiliate of CBS, KPIX 5 reported that Oakham police officers have taken five people into custody, following a robbery. at a marijuana house warehouse in Hayward. The Oakland Police Department Operation Cease Fire, said that robberies at cannabis clubs and numerous dispensaries were around the Bay Area. KPX learned that it's not just Alameda and San Joaquin County's involved, the investigation will also lead to dispensary robberies and burglary cases in San Mateo and San Francisco counties as well. December 8th, 2018. An extraordinarily large amount of marijuana products worth half a million were taken from a San Francisco cannabis club, according to police. August 25th, 2018. East Bay Times reported 4 men were arrested, and the takeover robbery of a marijuana cultivation business in East Oakland. These trends are going to continue to increase as we further, as we go further into legalization of marijuana. We have only begun to see the negative effects on our citizens and youth. I strongly encourage you to take a second look at allowing dispensaries in Mountain View and determine if the events are detailed or what you would want for the citizens and community of Mountain View. Thank you for your time and allow me to speak with you. I'm sorry about the rush. If you need the detailed, I have it for you. Thank you very much.

[02:03:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[02:03:10] Public Speaker: I think I have two cards. if that's okay.

[02:03:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, no, um, if you have to have at least five people who agree not to speak to get extra time.

[02:03:20] Public Speaker: Okay, okay, fine. So I used to live in Mountain View when my son was very young, and we used to stroll him down the street. Now I live in Los Altos. And, you know, when I was strolling my son down the street when he was a little baby, I never thought that my son would have a problem with marijuana when he got older. I voted for the medical marijuana proposition, thinking that it was for people that were very, very ill. And I found out that one of my students, because I teach at a community college, told me that it was being diverted to high school students. And then I found out that my son was getting the medical marijuana diverted from two older kids that were giving it to him when he was really young. He was diagnosed with an addiction when he was 17. And every negative effect that was noted in the National of Sciences Academy of Sciences report that came out in 2017, my son experienced, he became addicted to marijuana, he would use marijuana when he went to school. He went to school stoned. He did not do well as well in school as he could have, but he ended up going to college because I put a really strict noose over him. But then when he went to college, he got into other drugs, and he had an overdose, which he survived. But he saw some of his former classmates die, and they've been dying in the Bay Area since he left to go down to rehab. But so we've had nothing but negative effects of marijuana, and a lot of our friends as well. So I really think that you ought to think about it. not a benign drug that you have been led to believe. It's got a lot of negative effects, especially on young people, and it affects their ability to do well later in life. I'm still paying for him to, you know, try to try to get back to where he was. So, I hope you kick that into consideration. Thank you.

[02:05:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And don't forget to fill out blue cards and leave them with our city clerk here. Next place.

[02:05:31] Yugan: Hi. My name is Yugan, and I live in Mountain View, in Dale Avenue, and I'm in Mountain Residence. So this is actually the 1st time that I make public speaking like this. So I'm a little bit nervous, but I think it's I have to have to speak out. First, I think Monte View is our home. You don't like someone open a, you know, a business like that around your home, in your home. And we have kids. We have families living here. They are our future. And I want them to have a safe and good place, a good environment, that they can grow up healthy, and they can grow up both physically and mentally healthy. And so, I against, to have those business in our city. Second, is about the usage of marijuana as a medical needed. If that is the case, they can get it from hospital, then get it from the place that, during this type of treatment, right? It's not from the retail store, kind of like a retail store. And the 3rd is about the voting. Yeah, I'm an engineer. I'm not, I actually, I never did anything about politics. I didn't vote before, and I didn't, because I think, you know, it doesn't change too much. But for our city, I think I will vote in the future. If any council members, not against this margana thing, I would promise, I would remember his or her name, and we will vote for him and vote for her. Not only me, but all the friends that I know of. I will push them, and I will persuade them, and I will tell them that they are people that actually cares about a community and cares about their children. Thank you.

[02:07:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next please. Be sure to speak into the microphone so we can hear you.

[02:07:42] Public Speaker: Good evening. Mayor Nisa and the council members. I'm a residence in Bonit Avenue, Mountain View, have two kids. And, uh, I remember I am the knots of the residents, I know we voted for proper regime 64, It's really to allow it to net the real sick people and really in need people can get it to decriminal it. But we are not mean to endorse it, to encourage it. to have a part shop in our tongue, in our backyard. So, we really don't. I suppose the major cue, I said I'm not of debate, because not of people feel, it's just a trap. No matter your vote, yes or no, it can be twisted as you are saying yes to pot shop open in Mountain View. If you say, no, then you mean, welcome to the business. If you say, yes, all you want money. It's raining not about money. It's our tongue, our, our community, our kids, our future, is not for sale. That's my really want to say. So people can be trapped, be cheated once. But the people, the real winning, the voters, real intention. We trusted the system. That's why we have 3rd night meeting. Yeah, we very appreciate and cherish it, this opportunity. So, yeah, please considering we really don't like the major kill. Thank you.

[02:09:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Have some assumption there. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Next, please.

[02:09:59] Public Speaker: Yep, thank you. Several cards, so I, if I can have people who's, in the room, stand up for me who are willing to donate or speak time to me, because I think I have, I have a need for more than, more than 1.5 minutes. Thank you. So, I... I need at least two more people. Thank you. People who agree not to speak. So that you have... Can you stand up for me? Okay. All right. So I think five minutes will be good. Thank you. All right. So first of all, I want to say, thank you very much to the new city council for bringing this very important topic back for reconsideration. It definitely shows great leadership and care towards the residents and voters and, um, you know, for the monthly view city. So we really appreciate it. I'm actually here today to read a letter from my neighbor, Sherry Emlin, who cannot make to the hearing tonight, due to physical difficulty. And so here below is a letter from her. Dear council, you, as the Mountain View council, are representing the citizen of the city. As you well know, that's the very definition of representative government. Now, it is vital that you represent the majority in this very unfortunate situation, the last council got us into. The majority of Californians voted to decriminalize Mariana use. The past council majority chose to falsely interpret that, to me, Montreal citizens will find with being the local Mariana distributors for the entire peninsula. All other peninsula cities wisely refused this burden. Their vote was later followed by measure cue, a vote to impose attacks on Mariana dealerships. Yet again, the pro pot crowd, a number of whom were out of town commercial dealers twisted that to mean their dealerships were welcomed in mountain view. It is not like Mariana is unavailable. It is even easily home delivered by dealers in San Jose. 30 minute delivery in San Francisco. The truth is that as the past council forced us to allow these out of town commercial dealers into our city, voters wanted to tax them to at least partially cover the expense they will certainly impose on mountain view taxpayers. There will be greatly increased police presence, documentation, and fiscal details, all at an undefined cost to us. There is clearly no way to know if the tax will even cover these costs and the others yet to be discovered. The pro pot crowd and commercial dealers falsely claim this tax vote could be used for benefits in Monteview such as schools, parks, et cetera. If this claim was so outrageous, wasn't so outrageously inaccurate and deceitful, it would be laughable. Now the Procart group claims this would set a dangerous precedence if this previous council's vote is revised and this allows Mariana dealerships. Ken Rosenberg, a past council member who voted for the dealerships, was lamenting in this last week's month revoice that these pull out of town dealers would have their hopes dashed if their plans are revised and taken away. Spare me the crocodile tears. Lenny Sigel. Also, a past council member who voted for the dealerships tried to get Monteville citizens to sign his online and online petition. to keep Mountain View as a dealer of the peninsula, and it failed badly. Desperate for support, they put up a Facebook post that used the same false flag argument. I wrote my opinion on their post, pointing out their deceit and they immediately deleted what I said. The few signatures on the petition and posts were mostly from out of towners. So they then deleted the home city of the signers. They found no one. Not even the few signers, they were able to get. Again, I state, we believe in representative government in this country. You, as a council, represent the citizens of Mountain View, not the commercial out of town Mariana dealers. Cedo and Rosenberg are flagrantly trying to claim support that they never had. This was equally clear when Sijo was crushingly defeated in the last select election. I cannot be at this Tuesday council meeting, but I hope you will not only ask the name of the public speakers at the podium, but also their city. I trust you will vote to represent the actual citizens of Mountain View. And not commercial out of town dealers. The majority of true monthly residents urge a resounding no to Mariana distributors in our city. Sincerely, Sherry Emling, 111 for Sussex Square, Mountain View. Thank you.

[02:15:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:15:42] Kareem: Hello, I'd like to get additional minutes. If it's okay. Are there 5 people who were going to speak, who are not going to speak? And if you raised your hand before, you can't raise it again.

[02:16:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think it got six. How much time did you need?

[02:16:09] Kareem: Six minutes if I can.

[02:16:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: How about five?

[02:16:13] Kareem: Five minutes. Thank you. Oh, thank you, Lisa. I better repeat. Be good. It's been a while since I've been here. Last time was about 4 years ago. Good to be here again. So good evening and thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak. My name is Kareem. I live on Sonia Way in a quiet neighborhood, just a few blocks away from several potential dispensary locations. Let's take a step back from the results of the vote and the new law. How many of you drank before you were old enough to buy booze? Why would you think it be any different now for pot? And with so many people, including Lenny, effectively saying it's safer than booze. Isn't that one less moral hurdle for a teenager to jump? as we've heard before, have you heard before? You do know, you will have to live with the fact that you will be helping contribute to delinquencies of minors, right? All for what? Money. In the form of taxes, all for good of the town, right? There's so many businesses waiting to rent those spaces. Why not rent to them, even though the rent would be 2 to 3 times lower? Will 4 dispensaries make any sort of impact on the city's bottom line, I think not. Then why and why in literally the backyards of 1000s of homeowners renders restaurants, farmers markets, arts and wine festivals, et cetera. Do any of you honorable council members, your relatives or your donors, stand to benefit? Here are the facts. Marijuana is a gateway drug, no explanation needed. Illegal reselling by adults will be commonplace, effectively eliminating any barrier for youth to acquire legal, so-called safe and cheap drugs. From the NIH, NIDA, drug abuse.gov. One study, for example, compared people involved with Kurds and former long-term heavy use of marijuana with a control group who reported smoking marijuana at least once in their lives, but not more than 50 times. All participant participants had similar education differences were found in their educational attainment. Fewer of those who engaged in heavy cannabis use completed college. And more had yearly household incomes of less than $30,000 when asked how marijuana affected their cognitive abilities, career achievements, social lives, and physical and mental health, the majority of those who used heavily reported that marijuana had negative effects in all of those areas and of their lives. So it's not so great. So long story short, you are all responsible for the safety of our citizens and our children. Do your job, please. Don't make it even easier for people to screw up their lives. What if you council members live within 2 blocks of a dispensary or two? Would you like to live so close? Would that change your attitude towards them? Assuming you have kids? What is that saying to them knowing you are one that allowed it to happen? Is that effectively telling them that it's perfectly okay? Think about what you're telling the Mountain View youth. The high schoolers, a junior high schoolers, a elementary school. Children, the good kindergartners. They all know exactly what your actions mean. Choose wisely. You only get one shot, don't blow it. Don't make decisions in a bubble. It never ends well. How about the edibles? Have you seen them? Some look like gummy bears? Some look like gummy worms. They're flavors so they taste good. Brownies are one thing. But gummy worms. Even high school parties will have beer and gummy worms. Why do you think they make them taste so good? How is that any different than the flavored cigarettes that the FDA is now planning on banning since November of 2018? Where does this all end? How about sensible regulation first, action section, second, rather than the other way around. It's always one step forward, 2 steps back. This is all the way, this is all too soon and we prefer not to be rats subject to a big experiment in a small town. Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Menlo Park, and others have spoken, and they've said. Lastly, the citizens voted to decriminalize marijuana, not to place a bunch of pot dealers smack in the middle of the city. There's progressive and then there's progressive, progressive for the sake of being progressive. Please, please, please, no dispensaries in mound view, if you can. If the city becomes a hotspot right near where I live, I was seriously considered selling my house and taking my wife and baby daughter to more family friendly city. Thank you.

[02:21:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:21:18] Public Speaker: Good evening, city officials. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the topic tonight and listening to all residents. I fully support the ordinance that were passed by the end of at the end of last year by 81% in favor of Measure Q. Everyone had their opportunity to voice their concerns. And in the end, 81% voted in favor. If you all decided to reverse what the community voted for, it will establish a negative president, everything I'm going to say tonight has already been said. I simply want the council members and mayor to understand what is at stake. All city topics will have an opposition. But those who have spoken through the power of voting have spoken clearly. This has simply become an emotional argument, as data does not support the claim that cannabis is a gateway drug or some of the other claims. I agree that cannabis should be, uh, should not be used by minors, uh, are near establishments, uh, such as schools. This is why the city ordinances were passed, and they were established to prevent this. There are a number of measurements established to mitigate these safety concerns. Nobody under the age of 21, one of them be allowed to enter these establishments, allowing adults to make their own decisions, and listening to the 81% that voted favorably, should be the only option. Thank you for your time.

[02:22:33] Public Speaker: Good evening.

[02:22:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is that your blue card? Are you a McNefee resident? Thank you. Next, please. I thought that was his card on the side.

[02:22:46] Public Speaker: Hi, thank you for having me. I am born and raised Mountain View resident, and I just want to voice my concern. The council has already approved legal cannabis storefronts and dispensaries to serve the Mountain View residents. As it stands, residents who consume recreationally and medically have to go to nearby cities or resort to the black market. The decision to roll back this approval will hurt the city of Mountain View in many different ways. Residents have voted in favor. The council knows this. Yet they are willing to break the trust of the residents and lose out on tax revenue, but most importantly, safe and legal access to cannabis. Please do not roll back this approval. It is time to move forward, and end the bogus war on drugs, which has imprisoned millions of nonviolent drug offenders with cannabis related charges, and has torn apart families, communities, and taxpayer dollars. It's time to educate on the use and benefits of cannabis. Thank you.

[02:23:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[02:23:50] Ryan: Hello, my name is Ryan, thank you for having me. I'm a Mountain View resident. Please don't roll back against the boat as it goes against what the voters want on pro cannabis. Thank you.

[02:24:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:24:09] Public Speaker: Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the representatives and also the citizen of Mountain View. I was born and raised in Mountain View. One of the still orchards. My dad, as an immigrant, was actually stationed in Malfi Field, and spent many weekends and weekdays at the commissary in Mountain View. In wasting years, my 2 year old and one year old were actually also born in Mountain View. I'm also an undergrad at USF and have my master's at SFSU. And also have had a successful career in Silicon Valley, including working at Apple. I've been featuring Forbes, Fortune, Wired Entrepreneur Magazine, and I'm also one of the 10 applicants for the permits in Mountain View. As a parent, as part of the Asian community. I highly respect the feedback of everyone here. I respectfully, I've seen the benefits of cannabis, but I understand the concerns of secondhand smoke that everyone has voice tonight. As a business, we've adopted our business plan to not sell smokables on Castle Street. We're only looking to sell edibles at the 275 Castro Street location. We're a part of the community and will continue to be part of the community and will adapt as citizens and the city and devolve, and we want to be responsible operator. As an advocate for the vast majority of voters that aren't here. I want to make sure that those voices are heard. We're listening to council and citizens to provide an adult, high-end solution operating in article of city. We hope our, we hope you respect the vote of the majority. Thank you.

[02:25:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:25:54] Public Speaker: I don't pretty much ever do this. But there's something I felt strongly about. I've been a resident Mountain View nearly my whole life, and at this point, I noticed that it was about 68%, I believe, passed Prop 64, Mountain View residents that wanted to decriminalize marijuana shortly after, passed the tax bill, and it was over 80% that was voting to have the 9% tax on that. And then just last year, the council itself or the city did a survey of about 1,600 people, and 68% of those were in favor of at least one dispensary within Mountain View City limits, if not more. I believe 29% said, don't even count them. Who cares? Just let them in. And as far as that, I just wanted you as city council members to respect what we're saying, and there's a silent majority of us that I believe don't show up to these meetings, but we want you to know we vote for it, and we would like to see what we vote come to fruition. And I get a lot of people are going to be loud in here, and they're going to say some things and pull some heartstrings, but if the majority of people are voting, that's what you're here for to respect the majority of our vote. With regards to, of course, it being decriminalized, it still is over 21. We need regulations. We need to make sure it's away from schools. It's 100% seen as something that is available, but not to children, not even to people that are adults yet, because you have to be at least 21 to go into shop. And if you haven't been to a shop yet, I advise just to go even if you don't buy anything. You really can't even do anything outside of it. They're going to like a bartender. They going to check your badge at the door and that's it. You really won't be able to see any products. The main thing that's happening now that people are worried about. It's a lot of black market dealings that once we get regulation going and availability that seems to go down. You'll see a lot of really benefits of people getting to talk about it openly and say, oh, no, don't touch that till you're 21, just like you do with alcohol. It's like if you can't purchase it, You really, makes it a lot harder. But if people just have black market going on, then are going to do that every day. Well, thank you.

[02:27:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:27:57] Ben: Hi, my name is Ben. Mountain View resident, and I ask that you please respect the vote of the people, because you don't have to be a resident of Mountain View to speak in here, but you did have to be a resident of Mountain View to vote on those issues, and when they did vote on the issues, they pass it overwhelmingly. Thank you.

[02:28:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:28:17] Justin Campbell: Hey, everybody. Yeah, thanks for letting me talk. My name's Justin Campbell. I'm a resident of Mountain View. been here my whole life. I just wanted to give a quick statement express that I am for retail storefronts in Mountain View. Um, I'm also, the reason, reasoning is also, because without giving these businesses an opportunity to, um, to have these retail stores, you're giving more, um, prominence to the black, black market activity. And to me, that actually gives the youth, it gives the youth more of an avenue to actually be more involved in marijuana. If you give businesses, um, If you give businesses an opportunity to do in a professional way, and they go about it the right way, I believe that'll actually take it out of the hands of the youth, and put it in the right place, um, that it needs to be going for it. So that's basically all I want to say. Thank you.

[02:29:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:29:22] Fang Sho: Hi, my name is Fang Sho. I was born and raised in China, Beijing. I came here 10 years ago. What I was educated and told was marijuana is as same as cocaine, heroin, and smas. That's what I was known. But after I studied, I know more things about what I can do to us, he helps, helps the medical, to deal with the cancer, things like that, and also for the retail, I think is much needed in here instead of the black market, because in retail, what you buy is, There's standards. There's regulations, how they sell it. But for black market, they just sell it on the street, and whoever, even the kids can buy it if you have money. And you don't know what is inside of what you buy in the black market. But in the retail store, you do know. And I think there is, and people to say about thinking about the children's getting, getting by influenced by the marijuana. But if we just, but for the, sorry, for retail, they need to check IDs for that under 21, you can't buy anything. And the more tax that we get from marijuana, the retail store, we can put it in police department and help much more for control, the whole black market. Yep, that's it. Thank you.

[02:31:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[02:31:17] Mindy: Hey, this is Mindy. I'm not agreed to open Canapi store.

[02:31:25] Pen Ken Fork: My name... My name is Pen Ken Fork. I am a resident of Mountain View. I was attracted to US and also mountain view because of that high tech and especially in mountain view. So my resident is in Mountainville, and I'm working also in Mountainville, too. This is the city that used high tech to attract talent and good citizens from throughout the world, and I hope we can do things to enhance this instead of doing something that's harm the city. There are something that some decisions that we make. It is hard to come back, but it is easy to hurt many things also. I think my runner shop in this city is also one of the important things that we have to consider very carefully before we move forward. I agree that if we don't have this marijuana shop, there are some people, they have some little inconvenience, but I don't think it is that big an inconvenience because they still can get those marijuana if they want in a very short time. However, if we allow this, we can not only do we have city in this city, people can get this marijuana, people around this city, that they cannot get it from other cities. They are coming to this city. Instead of attracting good people here. We actually are attracting some people who are more likely to do harm to the city than to help the city. So in this sense, I hope the city, the councils would consider this more carefully, instead of just opening all the shops what they want, instead of doing that, they consider more thoroughly to help the city. I know that the council, all of them, they are interested in helping the city to develop well, to attract more better people, better business. But in this aspect, I hope they consider thoroughly before they make the decision. Thank you.

[02:33:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[02:33:33] Yu Chen: Hi, my name is Yu Chen, and I'm resident of city of Mountain View. I joined the October discussion as well in the last council meeting. We heard many cannibal supporters telling stories about how marijuana saves the lives of their family and it's unsafe to go to San Jose's cannabis shop. So I'm totally supportive in terms of medical usage of marijuana. If, like, the patient can go to CVS or Walgreen to pick them up. But let's put some thoughts on the cannabis shop in San Jose. It's not a black market, but is it unsafe because the good neighborhood didn't want to open shops over there, or why is that? Is that the same concern as we address here today? Or is the neighborhood was saved previously and then deteriorated over the time. In October, council member John said, he heard a lot of beliefs and concern in that meeting, but not too much facts. But one of the fact is it was full house of protesters, but 5 months ago, like we got neglected. And John also said the measure 64 had 20,000 yes in City of Mountain View and the 10,000th of no, incident of Mountain View, but also 60% of the people actually didn't vote. So those boys are actually not heard. And more importantly, yes, in measure 64 doesn't mean we want to open a cannabis shop in Mountain View. That's not the same. yes. Ex mayor, Lenny also said marijuana is ubiquitous in Mountain View, so we need to legalize it. But we also see gambling issue because in adulthood, but I don't see a issue or argument in Mountain View for that. Prostitution is ubiquitous in, I mean, Amsterdam, but we won't allow it here. wise that because I think it doesn't reflect the value of Mountain View families in the residents. Thank you.

[02:35:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:35:48] Diane Heckman: Hi, my name is Diane Heckman. I live and work here in Mountain View and I have for about 8 years, but I started hanging out in Mountain View in the 80s, so I've seen a lot of change. My children went to Mountain View High School. They're both adults now, both in college. And I am in favor of the marijuana shops. I have no problem with them opening in the neighborhoods at all. I educated my children. They got the Dare program at school, which I thought was a bit overblown, but I educated them. My 20 year old son, who is a classic target to be a doper. He plays video games all the time and doesn't do his studies as much as you should. Audrey, you remember my kid. Yeah. He's okay, but he doesn't do it because I explained to him the effects on his brain until he turns 21. So he's waiting because he's smart enough to do that. I educated my kids. And believe me, your kids will get offered drugs in high school. Okay, regardless of whether or not they're legal. So I have no problem with the shops opening up. I am happy for the quality control that they bring, that there's no mold or pesticide on the product, which is a concern in the black market. But my overall concern is the black market itself funds the Mexican cartels, and these are not nice people. They're not nice to their citizens. It brings blood into what is a plant, right? I don't want that blood on the hands of anyone. So if we have marijuana shops and make it more legal, there's less reason for the Mexican cartels to get money out of it. So that's one of my main concerns. So I don't have prepared remarks. I'm not part of a group. I came here because I'm a citizen and I care about the topics. So, thank you for listening and for there are lots of people out there and thanks for listening to all of them. They're waiting very patiently. Thank you.

[02:37:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[02:37:36] Public Speaker: All right, the 76 year old lady, I was in line with, told me to show this song. She couldn't wait that long.

[02:37:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[02:37:48] Robert Holbrook: My name is Robert Holbrook. 2 blocks away. I'd like to caution tonight against the promotion of cannabis downtown. Some supporters claim a mandate based on poll results in the ballot propositions. I find some of these claims over broad. Like many people, I was conflicted. I wanted to clean up the supply chain and decriminalize its use. But I opposed its promotion, and prop 64 clear state law for billboards, and TV commercials. Marijuana will be big business with big marketing budgets. Supporters are not united on how much promotion is appropriate. And this question of promotion is important tonight. As every marketer knows, placement is central to marketing, and allowing a shop in the family oriented downtown area is a kind of promotion. I would not like to see a billboard on 101 directing people to a marijuana shop in our downtown area. Is that the brand we really want? I was in Denver last week, and the people I spoke with there, not very many, obviously, we're not happy with the marijuana with what marijuana was doing to their town. Incidentally, many of them asked, where's all the money that our schools were promised? Which brings up another consideration. Without access to the banking system, hordes of cash can make marijuana shops, targets for burglary. If 660 West Dana Street were to be robbed, even that Evelyn Avenue and the 85 on ramp would provide an easy getaway. Last year, we saw a spate of burglaries just east of there. Perhaps for that reason. For safety, it's not the best location. Finally, let's have some perspective on revisiting the previous council's decision. Voters also spoke when they elected you as our representatives. The previous council didn't name any winners and didn't promise any odds. Your decision will cast a long shadow and we're still in the early days. Thank you for your consideration.

[02:39:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. If you could speak into the microphone, you can pull it down. Thank you.

[02:40:01] Sujan: My name is Sujan, resident of the mount of view. Problems brought about by cannabis, uh, shop, basically, cash, transactions in cannabis, shops, which inevitably need to an increase in robbery against a cash laden people. Ordering, attractor, peniciner, and sales Bay, addicts all kinds of the wanderers. Besides, the impact on small businesses around them, assuming that there is a restaurant, or after school next to them, family, with children, will avoid going there and small business around them, will suffer heavy noses. At present, the cannabis store application area is concentrated in downtown El Camino and the teenager gather nearby, the impact on teenager is to regionalize or normalize cannabis, which is something like a candy that can be tried. The decrease of the Property value of houses around the cannabis shops, according to National Association of the realtors. There is um, 12 to 14% decrease in residential property menace near cannabis shops. Two. Cannabis store tax does not consider other hidden costs. Five cannabis shops were originally expect to have the tax of one billion, but now for 800,000, and in 2 cups to remove about 500,000, plus B, hospitalation. Thank you.

[02:42:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you very much. Next please.

[02:42:15] Hu Wing: Good evening. My name is Hu Wing. I'm from the city of Fremont. I want to come tonight and share some thoughts sometimes as people outside of your city. And what the experience has been. Fremont actually has a ban against all pot shops within Fremont. The police officer association, the police officer union, of Fremont, supports the band. Not not the pot shops. Last year, we actually had some people dying from the issue of driving under the influence in Fremont. The city of Milpeters, for example, has recently changed its direction. It goes from considering pot shops to voting against them and finally pass a ban. That was in January. The police officer association of Mil Peters also supported. The band, not the pots ups, not the pots ups. These cities. Basically saying, you know, we don't really want any additional revenues from this sort of thing, and the revenues is not even enough to offset the potential costs for hiring increased number of police officers to enforce the law. And they deal with all the rest of the other problems. I like I like mountain view. You know, I really, whether this city stays popped shop free and not have to deal with all the potential social problems and everything, I would like come along with it. Medical marijuana is a different issue, right? That's a different issue. Entertainment, please don't do it. Thank you very much.

[02:44:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:44:22] Andrew Gasparini: Hello. My name is Andrew Gasparini. I'm a resident of Mountain View. I am here to speak against the consideration of additional or reconsidering of the marijuana shop ordinances. I think that it is a complete waste of the council's time, and it is the waste of our taxpayers' time to be reconsidering all these issues, which have been discussed at length for multiple sessions and at multiple meetings as the city clerk spoke to earlier. I also think that, um, given the fact that marijuana has gannered almost twice as many votes as every single one of you city council members, every time it was on the ballot, I seriously think you should reconsider your course of action. I also would like to further point out that every many jurisdictions that have implemented the legalization of marijuana, have seen a significant decrease in the consumption of marijuana amongst adolescents and teenagers. So the further restriction and banning of pot shops is actually against the youth, and being that it is team week, I would strongly urge the council to consider that. If we want to keep our children safe, we should be introducing, we should be moving forward with current legislation. And I would also argue that the downtown is not as family friendly as we might have been spoken to earlier, given the large number of establishments that dispense alcohol and cigarettes and other such sinful items or other items that would be considered a negative health or a negative health consequence of its consumption. So I think we should move forward with the existing regulations that have been put forward by the council already, and that you should consider revisiting these things at your political peril. Thank you.

[02:46:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:46:20] Andy Longcore: And Longcore, former Mountain View resident. There is quite a stigma, a social stigma against cannabis, which is largely unfounded. There's really no known major health risks to cannabis. There could be a risk to developing brain, but if you go to a current cannabis dispenser, you'll find great physical security in place, if you go to somewhere, say, like airfield supply, corporation, you'll find that your ID is bar coded and scanned once before you're inside once before you enter the line. And a 3rd time before you purchase any kind of cannabis. So frankly, saying that a child would have a chance of entering that establishment and making a purchase is incredibly disingenuous. I feel the regulations past here, Mount View, are very fair, very comprehensive. And I would urge the city to just move forward with them. Like I said, marijuana doesn't pose an issue to our children, if it's in a cannabis dispensary, I would urge the council to please consider facts and not fears. Thank you.

[02:47:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. If I could remind folks to fill out a blue card and leave it with our city clerk. Next place. You can pull it down more so we can hear you.

[02:47:35] Public Speaker: Hi, um, I'm living in Milpitas, but I'm here to support the city for marijuana dispensary. The reason is the 1st is the government have more control of the black market. So it's not easy for you to get into that and get in trouble. And another reason is probably I vote for cancer patients that who need some marijuana for pain control, because they have less side effects than out of pain medication like oxycodone or that a lot than anything else that they have. So that's 2 reasons that I vote for that. That's all. Thank you.

[02:48:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[02:48:21] Public Speaker: I'm here. I'm here to supporting opening up the cabinist dispensary in Monte View on because of as a health provider, I, some of my patients, they are suffering from pain and the marijuana really shows the, uh, very good, um, benefits for controlling the pain and uh, less side effect than any other pain control. Thank you so much.

[02:48:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry, didn't catch your name or the city you live in?

[02:48:57] Public Speaker: Sorry?

[02:48:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name or the city you live in.

[02:49:00] Public Speaker: Oh, Sunnyvale.

[02:49:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. That was the one before. Next, please. Next, please. Or is that it?

[02:49:26] Shelley: Hi, my name's Shelley. And I live at the corner of Mountain View in Sunnyvale. And I'm standing here today to appeal to you to allow cannabis retail stores in Mountain View to honor the oath you took to represent the people. 68% of the people have voted for cannabis, and if you turn that around, I think that would be a disservice. I understand that the city attorney said that you do have the right to do that, but I think it would be very unfair to all the people who have already have hopes in having stores in Mountain View versus Sunnyvale or Palo Alto. They are so happy to have it right here in this town. The people protesting here today are a minority of the 32%. They may make mono noise, but you need to put your personal feelings aside as council members, and please listen to the people that are voted, voted you in, and also voted for having cannabis made legal, and be sold in the city of Mountain View. The city would further be benefited by not having retail operators chosen by lottery, but by merit. I understand that there is a fear, that there would be shops everywhere, but if you were to pick people by merit, you would be able to have very fine, maybe even flatship stores, that would make mountain view on the eye of the global industry, whereas people in New York, in Paris, would want to come visit Mount Venue, not just for Google, but maybe for a flagship store on Castro. And it may seem absurd, but San Francisco has that. And why can't Mountain View have that? And Castro, I understand, people are afraid that there are kids gonna be walking there. So the kids, when they ask and say, what is this person standing here? There's a guard there. Then maybe at that point, the parents can educate and say, okay, then this is cannabis. Thank you. thicker.

[02:51:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:51:45] Tim King: Hi, my name is Tim King. I'm here today and I need to open as well.

[02:51:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry, if you could speak a little bit louder or closer to the mic. Sorry. A little bit hard to hear you.

[02:51:55] Tim King: Yeah, I'm here today. I need open the store for a... get more tech for Sunday view. That's it.

[02:52:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:52:17] Shawya: Hello? My name is Shawya. I live in Mountain View. I have been living here for 12 years. So, actually, I want to show you something, a bracelet here. This is made by a friend of me. in college and she came from, like, Singapore. It's very nice necklace. But what happened, bracelet, sorry. But what happened to her is, like, she, before she transferred to California, she is a star student. But after she moved to California, she got addicted to marijuana in the college. Some kids give it to her. And then, she actually had to drop college after two years using Marana. She's addicted to it, and after she's using Barana, She's, like, driving on the highway. She broke her neck. And she has to like send back to Singapore afterwards. And I think it's a very sad story, but I think if we are allowed more marijuana shops in Mountain View. Definitely give our kids, no matter how hard the regulation is. It are going to give the kids more opportunity to get morana. And I know that, um, that it's a liberal, um, state for California, but also like hope that as an democracy society, please respect the minority as well. And also, like, I want to say that although we are going to, like, have very hard regulations. And please notice, like, we don't have any exit plans or a reverting process involved, if there's any bad impact happens too, if we notice, in the future. Actually, we don't even have a good measurement. What is the long-term, short-term impact, are going to have our kids and the society, even the economy of our city. So all those things. Please consider it. And thank you very much.

[02:54:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:54:18] Serena Tru: Good evening, council members, my name is Serena Tru. I am a homeowner as well as Sanya Resident in Mountain View. And I really appreciate tonight, the part you need to speak up tonight because I missed the last hearing. I have quite a few concerns about recreational pot dispensaries in Mountain View, and I'm just going to say a few because of the time limit. First of all, there are many adverse health effects from using pots, and this information can be readily found on government websites such as CDC.gov, as well as from many reputable health professionals and organizations. Secondly, it has been reported that there will be increased number of people using parts in the same city after parts dispensaries are opened. Also, hospital emergency related. The past usage will increase. Reasons for the increase include easy access and local promotion by the dispensaries. However, people who allow recreational parts dispensaries in the city as crowded as mountain view will be responsible for the suffering of these increased number of people and their families. Thirdly, as for residents who will not use parts regardless of nearby dispensaries, there will be consequences forced upon them also. There will be an increase chance of involuntary exposure to parts related DUI violence related products, such as cookies and candies with parts as one of the ingredients and secondhand marijuana smoke. Some people I know have recently encountered multiple times. Smell of spot, smell of pots, smoke, while walking on a quiet street where people usually walk their dog daily with little children. The encounters like these are expected to increase if recreational particpensaries are allowed in mountain view. In conclusion, people in mountain view who want to enjoy parts can have easy access by ordering online or go to San Jose. It is not necessary to open any post dispensaries in a crowded city like Mountain View with many, many schools on grade school and high school. And, um, we don't want to include unnecessary suffering for people like what I have described above. Thank you very much.

[02:56:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[02:56:31] Chang Yang: Good evening, city consos. Sorry. My name's Chang Yang, I'm a resident of Mountain View for more than 9 years, and my friend is Yong Yang. We are here to ask you to not allow cannabis store in mountain view, to save our city, community, and families since January 2019 this January. California allows statewide marijuana delivery. Marijuana users could get it easily from either can be in store or online or delivery to home. And even if you are using it for medical purpose, you could also get it from Walgreens. So that's not a problem. So the current flight for opening cannabing store in Mountain View is not about freedance. But it's about big business making big money at our expense. I am considering opening storing mountain view as a massive shift that will result in more access to a substance we know a little about in its current form. We must not allow the conversation to be defined just by those who stand to profit. To allowing marijuana stores in Mountain View, we are allowing stores that clearly markets to kids with their gummy bears cause us more than we will ever get back as communities in tax. Add to this, the fact that the level of THC in today's marijuana is definitely not as the same as the past. Back in the day, wheat was about 4 percentage HC. The part of the plan that gets you high. Today, the national average is about 12%. And Colorado is seeing already concentration of anywhere from 40 to 95%. This increasingly potent strings hit inexperienced users heart. Data analyzed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment found that emergency room visits from marijuana related incidents increased 29% from the years just before commercial. Sorry. Okay. Sorry.

[02:58:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[02:58:51] Chian Jiang: Hi, good evening. Honorable mayors and city council members. My name's Chian Jiang. I live in Mountain View for 10 years already. Today, I'm here to strongly express my opinion to be to against the pastor. So I just leave a couple of facts in many, like in Colorado. There is a fact that every 3 days someone dies in a marijuana related traffic death in Colorado, and then Marijuana is illegal, addictive and harmful to the body, especially for the developing brains. Also, marijuana is not harmless, is harmful. It's a very dangerous drug. I also want to give you an example. A nonprofit drug-free. Idaho is monitoring other states that have illegalized marijuana. And they found that, in those states, child poison center calls increase 5 times after marijuana illegalized, legalized. So, so if you really or someone really support marijuana, which I'm against too, please don't put on our our community, put, don't put in our neighborhood, put in your neighborhood. My next question would, whoever support the park store, where do you live? Which street is your? Put the store on that street, let your neighbor, let yourself enjoy the store. and see how it goes. Let your kids enjoy it and see how it goes. Then you will realize you would regret your decision. Thank you very much for your time.

[03:00:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:00:38] Asi: Good evening, city council members. My name is Asi. I'm a resident on Mountain View, and I'm also a mom of 2 years old, baby girl, and I'm strongly against any marijuana store in Mountain View, especially in my community. I'm in the crossings community, right next to the San Antonio shopping center. My kids go there to play every day, and there are 100 kids in my community go to play there every day, and I can't imagine if there is a marijuana store there. They will think that's something very cool. They would like to check it out. I don't want her grow in this kind of environment. And especially in my community, we are right next to the couch, and people that way attract more people coming from the couch, and walking by my community and go to the marijuana store, and that will involve a lot of cash, and that will raise the crime rate. So, again, I want to reiterate. I want no marijuana store in my community, no marijuana store in Mountain View. Thank you.

[03:01:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:01:45] Public Speaker: Hello, thank you for helping me here. I'm here too, again, in Mountainfield. I'm a resident of the mountain field, and also I just become a mother of my 2nd baby 5 years ago. And I'm with Fickling, have the fuel. I'm having a few like 112 degree. My husband thinks I'm crazy to be in here instead of going to emergency. But I want to be here. I want to at least do something for my children in the future. We all know that as I once has been a teenager. Like some teenager is uncontrollable, they want to challenge something that is not allowed. Why? I believe there was so many people have represented the best side of having a marijuana shop in mountain view and why, why do I, why do we want to test and challenge the trend for our children to getting addictive to the marijuana. And repeatedly have fever, and I'm happy, I'm like feel like my organs is burning inside out. I'm hurting like every possible way, but I want to be here because I don't want to request in the future of my life that I have never done something for my kid. Please stand up the resident of the mountain field as a mother as a resident. Please stop the post shop in mountain field. Thank you so much.

[03:03:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:03:22] Roya: Hi. My name is Roya. I'm a resident of Mountain View. Some of the concerns that I've heard today from the people are having a club will make it easier for the youth to start smoking, and it promotes it. But with all due respect, it's 2019, and I believe that regardless of there being a club or not, marijuana is everywhere, especially in the music that most people listen to or even in movies or TV. So I understand people's concerns, but people get curious. And from my experience, whatever we as adults say to our children, they'll do what they like. With that being said, my niece had such a terrible experience that she was about to call 911 on herself. She got the weed from some random person in the garage. But for the sake of the use of this generation and the next, I wish there would be a reliable, safe, and educational place that they can get marijuana from, so they can ask questions and find their answers other than find whatever they can on the streets that could possibly be dangerous. Thank you.

[03:04:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:04:19] Diana Zamora Marokin: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Diana Zamora Marokin. I am the communications director for the South Bay Labor Council. We represent about 101 unions and more than 100,000 union members and their families. If the council considers potential amendments to the previously adopted cannabis regulations, perhaps addressing the manner in which licenses for retailers in the industry are issued could also be revisited. Instead of the current lottery system, The creation of a point or merit-based system that other folks have talked about, in which businesses are rated on their treatment of their workers, for example, things such as pay, benefits, the ability to unionize, and lowering risks for employees, would enable the city of Mountain View to be more discerning, ensuring that the retailers who open their doors here are good for the community, the workers, and the city. Additionally, focusing on storefront operations, which can deliver goods as part of their services will allow for better control of public safety, higher rates of employment, a safer environment for workers, and higher revenue for the city. If the council revisits the issue, we encourage you to move towards a point or merit-based system and prioritize storefront property. sorry, storefront operations, both of which better protect the workers of the industry and allow for a more effective regulation of the dispensaries. Thank you.

[03:05:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:05:49] Rick Waltchik: Hello, honorable city council. I am Rick Waltchik. I know some of you. I'm a former mayor and city council member from Half Moon Bay. I'm here to speak to you tonight about voter rights and resident rights. I've tackled this issue. As you know, in Half Moon Bay. And, you know, sometimes you guys have a really hard job. Except tonight. And they'll tell you why. I think it's this is really about residents, rights, and voters' rights. Clearly, there is a large part of your community that hasn't been heard. I've been active in San Mateo County and in the state on voters' rights. I think it's important that you allow your whole community be heard. A lot of people are saying, respect our vote. That's great. We would support that. Those support voters' rights would support that. This topic of retail establishments hasn't been voted on in Mount View, and what a great thing it would be if the citizens had a chance to speak up on that specific topic and a vote. So I wanted to share that with you. A couple points I wanted to make that support bringing this back and agendizing this and discussing this further. There's not much downside to discussing it further, ensuring that everybody is heard is pretty important. I know there was the residents don't feel heard. I know that, yeah, yeah, yeah, here, they definitely don't feel hurt and given them a little bit more time to be heard is important, there was a survey, I looked at the survey. I'm pretty sure it was done in English, right? Yeah, well, survey is not a vote. And I really think it's important that the voters of your community are heard on this topic, and I just want to share that with you. That aside, photos right, I do have an opinion on this. I don't think cannabis makes you a better cannabis retail does not make you a better city. It's already available. We get that. A lot of issues that come up in topics, a lot of, you know all the data. So I think we just enthusiastically support the voters and your residents, and hope you'll give them their chance to listen. And thank you for letting me be on this side of the mic. Have a good night.

[03:07:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. Is there anyone else? I think did you want to speak? Yeah, if you could just, um... Yeah, you can fill out the card after.

[03:08:10] Cheryl: Yes. Okay. Well, hi. It's good to be here. Thank you. My name is Cheryl and I'm a Mountain View resident of 14 years. I'm a neuropharmacologist, and I studied the cannabinoid receptor, so marijuana is what I did in graduate school. And I just want people to know that there is a natural marijuana in their brain, and it's called a nondomide. There's also another, more technical term for it. And it's just like endorphins. Endorphins are natural opioids. Opioids can abuse. That's why. It's in your brain, and that's why it affects you that way. So, I just wanted to make that very brief, and to say, don't do, undo what the voters did, what the majority had decided, and maintain the possibility here of retail storefronts in Mountain View. Thank you.

[03:09:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:09:15] Jason: Good evening. My name is Jason, and I'm here to share my personal stories to everybody. My mother just passed away with brain cancer because of depressions. And later on, I found out cannabis help. And that's something the question lies, and it's not whether or not people should use it or not, is how much that we should be using for us. And I believe opening dispensaries in cities, not only creating jobs and bring more taxes, but also help for people to understand what it is, and later on how they should be using it. And cannabis is also capable for bringing a lot of medical advantages to our current medicines, especially with painkillers. People no longer require oxycodon is that they can use cannabis infused medicines, which can help them with use their pain. and increase their hapetite. And this is something a lot of patience, especially cancer or trimmer patients we need because 75% of this patient, they pass away because of lack of nutrients because they don't eat by taking the normal medications and cannabis help. And I really hope that the city would allow these friends to really open, they actually have someplace, a learning center, for instance, to educate people to know what they are intaking, and to avoid overusing, and by all means, people under age of 21, they are not allowing to dispensary. That a fact. Thank you very much.

[03:10:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else?

[03:10:58] James: So, my name is James. I'm the Chinese community. I'm here to support opening a cannabis dispensary. So a lot of parents they so they are so worried about their kids will purchase, I mean, they will touch cannabis, but I want to tell off the parents, they don't have to worry about that because the kids cannot go into the dispensary until 21. So we shouldn't just stop cannabis dispensary because we better control not to stop. The best way to control the cannabis is legalize. We cannot just, oh, I don't want cannabis, but still the black market, a lot of people, a lot of kids, they can still purchase the cannabis from the bread market. But so the best option to control the cannabis is open the legal cannabis dispensary. Thank you.

[03:11:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry, were you a Mountain View resident? James. Are you a Mountain View resident?

[03:12:00] James: Yes.

[03:12:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:12:07] Sicily: Hi. My name is Sicily, and I'm not a resident of Mountain View, but I'm planning to move in, hopefully in the next couple months. I'm a daughter of a mom that who've been suffering for comic pain for more than 20 years. As a Chinese, we do not believe cannabis. But 5 years ago, my mom started to take in the cannabis products and finally, my mom's able to sleep at nights that what she wasn't being able to. So I'm a 2 years old mom, my son is 2 years old as well. I would like to introduce him while he was young that make him understand what is cannabis and I want to have an organized business around in the neighborhood that make him understand what is the real deals in cannabis. And I do not want people were buying black market stuff like someone trying to sell my mom's like products from black markets and my mom want to buy it because they're nowhere, then she can find a nearby neighborhood. So I really want the dispensary opens and people understand what is that about and help people really in a medical wise. Thank you so much.

[03:13:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:13:17] Bruce: I'm Bruce. I live in Mountain View. So I support the Mountain View City of Mountain View too, start open cannabis, what's that? stores. So, um, I think that's um, we should make this under country, we should make this be legal. The cannabis won't disappear. even if we stop these stores. So I have many friends that they like parties, they can easily buy these cannabis, and I don't know where they bought it. They say that they bought from some strangers. I feel that says not good. So I support that's where we make this legal and we make this be good thing. Thank you. Thank you.

[03:14:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:14:16] Patrick: Hi, my name is Patrick, and I'm from Mountain View, and I do support the, uh, Mountain View allowing the cannabis dispensaries for multiple reasons. Mainly, the reasons are for education of the community, and allowing people to, who are interested in using cannabis to, you know, get medical advice and actual information to educate them rather than just buying it from the street or the black market. And I believe that having the dispensaries would actually decrease the activity for these black market type sales for cannabis. And I think overall, it would be a benefit to the community. Thanks.

[03:14:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:15:02] Carrie: Hi, good evening. My name's Carrie, I was born and raised in Mountain View. I'm part of the Asian community that supports opening up cannabis dispensaries in Mountain View because the tax generated by the stores will get back to the community. just one of the reasons that I have. Thank you.

[03:15:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:15:25] Sandy: Good evening. My name is Sandy. I am supporting the dispensary opening in Mountain View, because I think, have it the legal way, regulated, is better than have it out of control. Thank you.

[03:15:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:15:48] Lawrence: Hello, everyone. My name's Lawrence. I live in Mont view 7 years. I support the open store here because I think it's more safety and no more blood market and everything is under government control. Thank you.

[03:16:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:16:16] Vivianne: Good evening, Vivianne. Um, I'm part of Chinese community, and I support opening up, Cannabis, this pen series in mental view, because the governments will have more control of the market. So the black market will not have to change chances to get to the helps. Thank you.

[03:16:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:16:52] Public Speaker: Hi, good evening. This is I'm a Mountain View resident. So, um, I want to come here to voice my opinion, my strong objection of having part of cannibal stores in Mountain View. First of all, to have marijuana, to have marijuana for medical use and to establish carnival stores in Monty View, 2 different issues. Please don't confuse the two. And back to my question, what signal, just let's think about it. What signal I was sending to the youth when we have the marijuana stores available at their doorstep? Basically, it says, no big deal, it's cool. This is the glorious decoration of the stores, and with the disgust of the look in the catty bear, basically it's creates temptation and makes it super easy for the use and for the people with no need of marijuana use to try it out of the fashion. But is it really no big deal? But really, does it know negative effects on marijuana use? No, that's not really true. So based on Lopez green toast, study on probability and predictors of transition from 1st use to dependence on nicotine, alcohol, cannabis, and cocoa in, and based on Dr. Hall's paper on adverse health effects of non-medical carnivance use, and numerous other studies, Show that about one intern marijuana users will become addicted. And for people who begin using the before the age of 18. This number rises to one to six. And there are also other studies talking about the run I use directly affects the brain, specifically the parts of brain responsible for memory, learning, attention, decision making, and other things, especially they are the developing brains, will be especially susceptible to the adverse effects of iguana for the young children and developing babies. So to sum up, having my commercial marijuana shops in Mountain View send around signal to use, and to their strong correlation, marijuana use and activ effects of brain development and social functioning. With this is all, as a multi resident, I strongly object to commercial marijuana in the city, and 0 port shops in the city. Thank you.

[03:19:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[03:19:12] Chin Wen: Good evening, everyone. My name is Chin Wen. I'm a residency of the Mountain View. And I'm here to support no pot shop in Mountain View. I heard a couple of people talking about the medical usage, but I think here we are talking about the recreation usage of the marijuana, and so please do not change the topic and misleading the people here. And I think open the high end of the pot shop just will be poisoned our children's and deliver the toxic message to them. And also, it will, um, also, it will hurt the safety of our communities, because I have the home here, and I want to maintain the value of the home values. And if the open of the shops just will drive people away, and I'm actually still thinking about to move away if move from the mountain, even though I really like it, and it is really the hometown of ours for almost 10 years. And also will drive away the business. Ultimately, it will really hurt the renew income of the city of the mountain views because people are living and house value dropped and business don't want to be here because really the safety. That's it. Thank you.

[03:20:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:20:36] Public Speaker: Hello, officers, thank you for this chance for letting me talk here, and thank you for your time and effort. I am a mom of 2 and I also am a teacher of many students and I love the kids. So we already know that the marijuana is not very good for the kids. And even like if there's smoke in the air, maybe they have to smoke it. So my student and my sons cannot come here because they, it's there, um, they need to sleep. So I here represent all of them, the kids, and also the teachers in school to ask your help to make the marijuana away as far as far as possible from us. Thank you very much. you. Thank you for all the aunties and uncles here. Thank you for I represent to thank you.

[03:21:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:21:35] Sergemont: Good evening. My name is Sergemont. I'm a Mountain View resident, since you wanted to know. Um, so, um, I, um, I, I, I fully support the existing ordinance it is, and there was a lot of 2nd guessing about why people, the intent of people when they voted. I can't read in people's minds. I can't read in the ballots. I'll tell you why I voted for these things. Not all the way through because I started to vote in this country kind of later in life and most. But for me, it was really to get rid of a stigma that exists with cannabis. I think too many people have been armed by, you know, the fact it was you know, criminalized. And to me, I've seen people, you know, use it. I never used it myself. I've seen people use it pretty much all my life. I've seen people drink all my life. And quite frankly, I think the alcohol has much more, you know, negative impact on people in social settings. And it's just my view on this. In terms of removing the stigma. It means that we should be treating cannabis just like we're treating alcohol or tobacco. I don't want, you know, and so there are some rules that exist for alcohol. You cannot sell alcohol within a certain distance from a score. I see no reasons that some role could not apply to cannabis. Furthermore, as part of Castro. I think that's a bit ironic that we are all up in arms, but cannabis stores in Castro, because that's a place where there are dozens of alcohol dispensaries. But not only you can purchase alcohol, you can also consume it in place, not only in place, you can consume it on a public sidewalk, and not only on the public side, but you can also consume it, consume alcohol freely on any event that's sponsored by the city. Thank you.

[03:23:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:23:40] Daniel Montero: Good evening. My name is Daniel Montero. I serve as chair for the San Jose Cannabis Equity Working Group. I have 22 years of hands-on experience in the cannabis industry, and am one of 4 recipients of the Gangie Award. I would like to commend the show of strength by our Asian community. They have survived. we as kind of cannabis operators are experiencing today. Chinese Americans have always been honest, hardworking people. Yet during California's gold rush in the mid 19th century, they were stereotyped as degraded, dangerous and perpetual foreigners. Today, the cannabis industry is being incorrectly stereotyped as degraded, dangerous, that we are perpetual foreigners. Prejudicial judgment was not acceptable over 250 years ago, and it is not acceptable today. 81% of the residents in Mountain View voted to tax cannabis after 68% voted for Prop 64. Your duty is to follow the will of the people, and not give in to the reactionary false propaganda of the few. Respect the vote. Thank you.

[03:24:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:24:48] Tee Harder: Hello, counsel and staff and fellow citizens. My name is Tee and Harder. I've lived in Mountain View off and on since 1984. I'm pro cannabis. I was standing out in the hall talking to people. I have no idea what half the speakers before me said. But the conversations in the hall were really fun, and I want to thank you for giving us this opportunity to get on the same page. I'm pro weed. I've used it medicinally, and I've used it recreationally, and I would hope we could have a dispensary in Mountain View sooner rather than later. Thank you.

[03:25:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:25:43] Greg Stephanic: Hi, my name's Greg Stephanic, and I'm a long time decades in Mountain View. I have a lot of family in the area, and I have a child in grade school. And, um, I know that facts don't always, uh, stop people's fears, but it's been shown that, uh, more marijuana in a community tends to, um, tamp down use of cocaine, heroin, alcohol, um, things that are far more destructive. So, um, I'm just hoping that, um, that we can do what we thought we were doing and get some, get some shops here. So, um, I'm very pro and also for delivery. Thank you very much.

[03:26:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:26:40] Public Speaker: Jimmy. And, uh, Mountain View resident. I'm 90 years old. I'm against the marijuana shop in mountain view. Because marijuana will do harm to our next generation, and next generation is the future of our country. , it's kind of learn I'll try my best. And thankful to the council members, against the marijuana shop. I'm a doctor in China, in China. If you saw marijuana. It will get executed. But here is American. It's a free country. But I urge you to consider for our next generation no marijuana. Well, whoever opened a cannabis shop, think about the other kind of business, do not make money from marijuana and from our next generation. Thank you.

[03:28:30] Public Speaker: So next, I will represent myself. I was translating for the grandma over there. I'm a Mont View resident and registered voter in Mountain View. I live in Mountain View, work in Mountain View. I love Mountain View. And a few years ago, I moved from Midwest to Mountain View, is because it's in such a nice residential area. And I have 3 kids. Mountain View is my top choice when I moved to California to raise my children. But now with opening the marijuana shop. I'm really, really worried. It's not like other people said, you know, we have the fear about this. I want to make it clear. I'm not against, you know, the medical use for marijuana. I know people who has health issues. They need marijuana to choose their health problem. So that's a need. But as for the recreational and opening the marijuana shop, it's a want, right? Do we want to support this world and in the risk of our kids? And when I was talking to a team who was a supporter from marijuana shop when we stay in line, what he told me was he started using marijuana when he was a teenager. Now he's still using it. He shared that his mom, when he was a teenager, have the same kind of a consent, have about, you know, a teenager using marijuana. And also, I did some research from the American pediatrician research. It said, you know, when kids, when they reach to, like, 20, some years old, when they become adults, is they exposed to marijuana, they will have a damage to their brain, and they will subsidiary reduce the IQ and also later on, it will hinder their capability at work as well. So with all these concepts, I'm against opening marijuana shop in Mountain View. Thank you council members for consider my opinion this evening. Thank you.

[03:30:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: X, please.

[03:30:48] Bo: Actually, um, hang on one second. There. Now the microphone's on. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and all the city council members. My name is Bo. I moved to Mountainville about 7 years ago because we have such good, great school and great laborhood. We also have a great city government over here. But like since the end of almost the end of the last year, I started to worry about as a mother of 2 teenager boys. I have 2 boys, one is in Mountain Mill High. The other is in the black at as an 8th grader. And since last year, they start talking about marijuana. And then my oldest son told me in mountain high, there is like such a corner, a bunch of keys, like a marijuana, very often, and even there are some people, like selling the drugs to them. As, like a few days ago, my black kids told me, like he has a, has a classmates who just ate marijuana, and without, like a, because someone just gave them to them. So all these start to concern me, like, as a teenagers, they bike around the city a lot with the, like, for hangout of a social. Like, I don't want the be around of the any marijuana shops. And I asked my son why they want this because they said those those boys, those teenagers, marijuana, because they think they are cool. I don't want my kids in being such an environment and being such a city like this. So I told I struggling against any part shop here. Thank you.

[03:32:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:33:04] Steve Nelson: My name is Steve Nelson. Sometimes I wish it was Frank. I get no kick from champagne. Mir alcohol. It doesn't move me at all. So tell me, oh, why it should be true That I get a kick out of you. Recreational drugs, give us a kick. That's why we use them. Mere alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, cannabis. All legal drugs in various ways. Caffeine? I have seen 2 of our councilwomen. Margaret and Lisa at Pete's imbibing of that, well, who knows? Maybe like Bill, they weren't inhaling. They were just drinking decaf. Coffee, good for a buzz. Tobacco. Here, since the 1st people, best in peace pipes. Mirror alcohol addictive. My mother had to go to AA to escape its effects. Corrosive to livers, pre-prohibition, it was corrosive saloons were all male and corrosive to family life, speakeasies, like in John's neighborhood, made alcohol into a social coed recreation. So, reefer madness? Cannabis is not going to destroy us. It's a recreational drug. Let's treat it as such. We don't ban alcohol, tobacco or caffeine sales. Soki rounds, anyone? What about Turkey? Strong Turkish coffee. Those are recreational drugs. Thank you.

[03:35:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:35:16] Tony: Hey, thank you. This is Tony from Sunnyvale. I don't have songs to entertain you guys. My home is only 10 minutes away from downtown Monte View. I'm here just to experience my deepest concerts about the port store plan in Monteville. As you may know that Sunnyvale bears any form of forms of drug dispensaries. So, and our mayor, Larry Clan, and vice mayor, Russell Melton, reaffirmed that we will not approve any plan to open drugstores inside of you. So, I see that is a permits to the residents, and I see that's a responsible one. And, uh, Right now, um, I'm really starting to worry about a Monteville situation because 10 minutes away, right? So anytime. So I always, I work, when I work, I go past Montview. And I have a lot of friends in Montview. So I just traded as my backyard. Right now, it seems that there's a plan to open a drugstore in my backyard and I don't like that. And also, um, That will make all the efforts, pass the efforts from a Sunnyvale console and from our Sunnyvale residence to fight against that kind of a bad entertainment life lifestyle, go waste in the event. So I don't like to see that. So as you see tonight, Some of our people are very for the drugstore and a lot of some people speak really slowly and they tell you, I don't know what you are talking about. Hey, that's an example. how it can damage your your neuron system, your brain. That's it. If you'd like to be that way. Good.

[03:37:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:37:30] Public Speaker: Hi, I'm a resident of Mountville. I moved to Mountainville 2 years ago from Fremont. I move here not only because Mountain View Nuts play to live, but only, but also because my neighbor plants the marivana inside inside her house. I don't like it. So I move here. So I just expressed some personal opinions on other speakers ideas. First, people argue that we have some per neighbors or per relatives, per friends who suffer cancer. But let's consider the percentage of people who suffer cancer. That's a small amount of people suffering cancer. So the home runner industry, not only targeting the people who suffer cancer or suffer something, so they are targeting the general audience, that is a problem. It will harm our young groups and have young people. And people also argue that marivana business is a multi-billion business, which will do it. But there are many, many other better things about meeting, uh, mouth beating business, like illegal drugs, or even illegal firearms, uh, they are mouth beating, uh, bandits, but we should not do it, right? And also even consider, even from the financial and economic perspective, we should consider some negative impacts of marijuana business. And also people argue that regulation will help on illegal marijuana. But we all know that black markets will not go even with regulations. Finally people say that we already spend money and spend time on applications. But I think even you spend the money on applicants, it's not everyone will get approved. So you are still wasting your time and the money. Oh, that's it. Thank you.

[03:39:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:39:27] Guang: To your council member, my name is Guang, and I've been in Mountain View for the past 20 years. I've never seen any issue that is so divisive to our community as this cannabis shop issue. From all the data, the last voter result, the survey result, the questionnaires that we send out, all pointing to the fact that although people have been voting for recreational use to make it legal due to respect to other people's rights. But the community as a whole is not ready to accept the fact that we are setting up multiple paw shops within the city limit. This is not unique to Mountainville. If you look at the around us, with the exception of the huge metropolitan of San Jose, all the smaller communities, they rejected idea of opening pot shops in their city. I see no reason Mountainville has to be the leader and has to be different. If you look at the election last November, the voters of Mountain View send a clear message on this issue. We are not in the position of leading by example for other cities in the Silicon Valley on this issue. So I believe it's only the right thing to do to overturn the proposal of setting up 4 pot shops in the city. Listen, I'm not saying never, ever, but for now, I think we should definitely take a wait and see attitude. Thank you.

[03:40:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:41:06] Ellen Comp: Hi, my name is Ellen Comp. I live in San Francisco. I don't live in Mountain View, but I've been to a lot of Grateful Dead concerts here. Beautiful, peaceful events. I represent California normal, the state chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. We're a nonprofit membership organization founded in 1972, dedicated to education and activism around cannabis. I brought some information packets I wrote to you yesterday about some of the issues that have come up here, a couple of things I wanted to note from what I heard tonight. As far as federal law, the call memo answers that, as long as we're following that, and we are in California. We're fine. The new attorney general has said he would honor that. It's already illegal under state law to smoke marijuana in public. Did I say illegal? That's what I meant. entire two. The Dare program ended, actually, because it was increasing drug use among young people, results of the biennial state California Healthy Kids survey from 2018, or consistent with data from other states that have legalized marijuana, where students have also reported declining, or flat cannabis use rates following the end of prohibition for adults. Lifetime marijuana use declined 4 points in 7th grade and 6 points in both ninth and 11th grades, the survey's authors found. The Rocky Mountain High Intensity drug trafficking area data has been shown to be mostly propaganda called out by Washington Governor J. Insley and Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

[03:42:36] Unknown Speaker: 30 seconds.

[03:42:37] Ellen Comp: Oh my gosh. Marijuana actually decreases crime because of proper Sorry, safety that's come in. People ask me, how could we have legalized it in this state and I have to drive 45 minutes away to get access to it. It's hard for me to believe that 68% of Mountain View residents voted to legalize, but wanted it somewhere else. And the survey also showed that two thirds of them wanted it in Mountain View. The 600 square feet comes from liquor stores. Our office is always available for consultation on these matters. Thank you.

[03:43:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:43:14] Yubesuarez: My name is Yubesuarez. I live in Mountain View for over 10 years, and I am speaking today as an experience in, especially the CBD part of it, and also as an advocate now. Um, Several years ago, I was, um, I suffered some crimes and I was a victim and I had several very hard PTSD in which I went to doctors and they shoved medication on me. They gave me everything that I never even thought about. I couldn't function, I couldn't work, couldn't do anything. And to a friend of mine introduced me to CBD years ago. And it changed my life, changed my life so much that I became an advocate. After that, I helped friends like I have a good friend of mine that has Chron's disease in which he would have flared up for like 8 months every year. Every year for 8 months, he would be incapable of doing anything. And he used to take about 6 or 7 oxycodone per day to be able to even leave with the pain. I was able to help him with that. I hear several things here today, people saying that at medical is okay and uh, no recreational and all that, but where do you guys think we're going to get the medication? I have to travel in traffic after work for over almost 2 hours to be able to get a medication in San Jose. There are days that I spend over 2 hours in traffic to get my medication. Other way I have to, otherwise I have to go to San Francisco. And a lot of times here when you talk about deliveries, they don't have it. They have THC, but they don't have TCBD a lot of times. And we need that. It's for paying. It's for anxiety. It's for so many things And if you're not aware of it, please get informed. There's so many information on internet. Please, I would like to get informed. Other thing I heard, people that would buy the dispensaries and sell it. We pay over 23% in taxes. Sometimes my medication, um, the taxes are more expensive than the medication. Thank you. I'd have so much more, but thank you so much for the time.

[03:45:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:45:24] Mary: City Council. My name is Mary. I live in Sunnyvale, bordering the Mountain View and Sunnyvale. It has been statistically proven that marijuana usage is linked to higher crime rate, higher traffic accidents, and higher law enforcement costs as a result, which is also shown by Denver's example we have heard before. And we all know that marijuana store will not do good for the city. Therefore, let's keep Mountain View a leader of technology company, not a marijuana store, or marijuana usage. I strongly, therefore, strong the council members to all know for the marijuana store in the city. Thank you.

[03:46:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Can I see a show of hands of how many more folks want to speak? Does the line go out the door? Do you know about how many people hang on 12nd about how many people are outside?

[03:46:16] Unknown Speaker: Would you like me to go like, come here?

[03:46:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, let's just do a quick check to see. Okay. Thank you.

[03:46:31] Public Speaker: Good evening. Oh, my gosh. So I see a lot of people here, against the pop shop, and I'm also one of those people. So I don't think our city is ready for a pot shop at the moment. So the tax revenue. It's a minimum and there's also medical delivery already here in the city. So because of this controversial. I don't see why we need to rush to open a store now, so we can wait for 5 years to see how San Jose is doing and how our Sunnyvale and Palato are acting on this topic. So we have good location in the Bay Area. So even if we fall behind of opening a store, we can still catch up for the tax revenue very quickly. But if we open the store, that's the 1st one in the Sales Bay, in this good location, and it becomes so out of control, then it's our small city who will take all of the consequences. So the businessman wants to make profit throughout our small city with good location, and I hope the county could judge if it's the mountain view residence or the businessman who really need a store here. But for the comments to open a store to reduce the black market, I don't think it's logical because this illegal transaction in black market are really driven by the need, not by the black market itself. So this need will never go away with the legalization and interest in contrast. It will be interpreted as a acceptable or normal if we open the store in such a nice city here. And also for the medical use. It's totally fine. I don't think it's today's topic. Today we are talking about the recreational use. So I hope people can judge not to get confused by all the cancer patients today. Thank you. Thank you.

[03:48:45] Sharon: Good evening, I'm Sharon. I'm from Sunnyvale and the neighbor, and they used to live in Mountain View. The medical use of marijuana, I totally agree for patients is important, is good. But for setting up the pop shop here, that means easier access for the general public and especially in the neighborhood in downtown. So, um, kids has, I'm so concerned that kids might get the wrong signal and kids are curious, right? Even think about today, even the use of iPad e-gadget, is already an issue for so many parents to educate, lead, net alone to say, the drug. So the drug is easier access to overuse or lead to addiction and or problems. I have seen kids in the neighborhood who have used more and really suffered in school and lots of energy, lots of interest in education, lost interest in work too. So I see the potential danger of impacting the kids, the youth. Think about us as adults and we actually think we can control, but sometimes even adults can overdose, get overdose, even by accident. I've seen those many times a lot of friends actually use. see, use marinas, edibles. They had very bad experience with edibles. So, yeah, no rush. Think. Deeply and make a wise decision for the general public. And hearing tonight, I learned that a lot of people haven't vote, right? Or not vote on a specific issue. So think wisely. Use your power to make right decisions for people here.

[03:50:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:51:07] Joan: My name is Luan.

[03:51:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could speak into the mic.

[03:51:13] Joan: My name is Joan, and I have... I am, and I have been a manamu resident for 20 years, and I'm raising my family and two children. I'm proud to be a citizen, a resident here. I'm here tonight to express my strong opposition towards the hot shop. And the reason for that is that, um, Mountain View, the city of Mountain View does not need a hot shop, does not. And so what I hear the most from the other side of the issue, um, There are 2 things once the, you know, this is what we voted for. Well, this is not what we're voting for. is not. And second, what we, what I saw, the sign, most of the sign says, respect our boat. Well, The boat is not for the, you know, this 10 shops. in mountain city of mountain view. This is not our boat. That was not. And so um, I want to say that, The initiative or whatever, what was it called, has been abused battery, and the voters have been taking advantage of, you know, because of those business, you know, people in the business. So one of the arguments for the pot shop was the tax revenue. which I think is, it doesn't make any sense. you know, Thank you. Thank you.

[03:53:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:53:20] Siamo: Hello, everyone. I'm Siamo, I support opening of a cannabis store, uh, in the city because uh, this store, only on law, outdoor age 21 or older, to get in. And the kids, uh, will have last chance to evolve, emolve the, emolve it with the cannabis. So I suppose. Thank you.

[03:53:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[03:53:52] Jason: Hi, this is Jason. So I support open a cannabis retail store. So, uh, because you, no matter uh, you open store or not, you cannot stop people to buy the ware month to, the people who want the, the marijuana to gather marijuana. So why if like that, why don't give them a legal place to buy the marijuanas? And also the kids also have no chance to buy the marijuana from a legal store and I think the government will have more controllable for the marijuana. Thank you.

[03:54:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:54:29] Martin: Oh, my name is Martin. As far to open, cannabis store in the city, because I think sighting, uh, retail store is better than people buy cannabis in other place, uh, like a black market. And also that can reduce crime rate, I think, thank you.

[03:54:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:54:53] Claire Alexander: Hi, thank you. My name is Claire Alexander, and I am a Mountain View resident. I'm a 58 year old trauma survivor, with a lot of body injuries. I have been using marijuana as a medical and recreational for most of my adult life. I count myself as an intelligent, contributing member of my the culture and the society that I live in. I do meditation work. I work with trauma survivors. I see the benefits of this, even on a recreational level. I have attended, or I've purchased from medical dispensaries or marijuana dispensaries in San Jose, I find them to be safe, secure, well, regulated. I don't fear them being in mountain view. I think it's kind of asinine to put anything else on anything with this kind of traffic on Castro Street, so I would definitely vote against that. But otherwise, have it in Mountain View. We are a progressive city. We did vote for this. I want my vote, and the votes of the other intelligent, um, thoughtful, well informed people to be considered as valid in this argument, and the argument doesn't, for me, hold water, that it wasn't a vote for marijuana shops if we voted to tax the revenue. What were we going to tax if we weren't going to put marijuana dispensaries in the city of Mountain View. That just baffles me. I hear a lot of fear. I hear a lot of rhetoric that is based in a lot of old information about marijuana. It's not actually based in science or fact, and I hope that when you consider this decision, that you'll look at the facts and not the emotionality and the historical misinformation that people have given in our government about marijuana. Thank you.

[03:56:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:56:50] Ben: Good evening. My name is Ben. I've lived here for about 15 years. Thank you for listening to us. I was actually here in October as well. Glad to see the new council member, considering this particular issue. My personal, I've been here for about an hour, um, what I can tell is that from the 4 my around the retail shop side, I can hear 2 different arguments. One would be the voter has spoken. We voted 81% of Proposition Q. In fact, that's not for establishing retail shops. I think many people mentioned this before me. So I hope that comes from where you take note of that. The actual vote for retail shops is what we're doing right now by you listening to the member of the public. A 2nd sort of group for the 4 retail shop for marijuana was, oh, it's just more convenient. You know, it's too long to go to San Jose. Perhaps there'd be issues for delivery. But I think those are the sort of the benefit of having retail shops. I think they're outweighed by the passionate, really plead from the group of people that are actually really concerned about having marijuana shops without enough data. By the way, people have mentioned various different sets of data. I used to work in the clinical research field. I've worked data. What I can tell you is for the data, they supports that marijuana is okay, beneficial. I do not see that. If anything, there are empirical data for safety reasons for empirical evidence that it might impair driving. So, there's really, in my opinion, there's really not a rush to be the 1st in establishing the marijuana retail shops in the immediate area. I really, really commend this council to think about this carefully. Wait for more time, gathers more evidence, be comfortable with the actual effect of marijuana in our city. For example, if you're really serious about health of children of school, focusing on that. If you do have marijuana shops established with the state law, you may not be able to establish new schools. And I think that's our priority. And also housing, apartment housing, the lady that was talking to before me, that's a very difficult issue for someone who has very, a lot of more issues in housing, so I hope that's something you would spend your effort on. Thank you very much.

[03:58:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please. Sorry. Next, please.

[03:59:17] Public Speaker: Oh, she's got someone, uh, the police. I think she's taking someone else's place. Can I translate for her?

[03:59:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think she already spoke. Okay, bye. No, she already did, right? I think... Sorry. Yes, yes. So, um, somebody said she raised her hand, she said she wouldn't speak because she gave her time to somebody else. Is that right? Okay. So, sorry, we're gonna have to move on to the next person.

[03:59:51] Public Speaker: Sorry, I thought she has another person gave me. her time for her.

[03:59:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No, she donated her time.

[03:59:58] Public Speaker: Oh, okay, let me explain to her.

[04:00:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. If we could... Have you stepped to the side so we can let the next person go? Thank you.

[04:00:16] Erin Zian: Dear honorable, city council members. And my name is Erin Zian, and I'm a resident and voters here in Mountain View. So I'm here today to deliver my trust, my appreciation and my request to you. As city council representative, you carry unique responsibility and a trust from citizens here in Mountain View, including me. I appreciate your passion, your effort, and your sacrifice, to make our mountain view better and better. Today, I'm here, ask you to recall your passion, and ask yourself a question. We are opening up marijuana store, in Mountain View, create a better future. Your decision has significance that will impact generations, including my kids and yours. Here is a picture of a 14 years old girl who is the victim of a marijuana related car accident happened last year. As a mom of 13 years old, I am here asking you to stand with me. Stand with 100s of people here saying no. Stand with your passion for a better mountain view. Thank you.

[04:01:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:02:00] Wei Jian: My name is Wei Jian, a Mountain View residence, and I live here for 10 years. I love a mountain view so much. I'm proud of you. Everybody is here. I vote you, everybody. Okay? So today, this shop, opening Mountain View, definitely, no, no, no. No shop in Mountain View. everybody. Okay? So 1st of all, I think the air pollution, okay? We don't want to smock 2nd the middle model, whatever smock. So I'm living 10 minutes walking here, downtown Mountain View. So no mountain view have this shop. No costume, no 99 range 99 shop, whatever. Okay. The 2nd thing is I have 3 cute grandkids. They are so smart and so challenging and working for school, working for volunteer and do some Monday, not eating beef, all kinds of things, good things. I don't want to get damaged by this kind of cannabis. Okay? Or Chinese is a tama. Okay? So not only me. All my friends have a cute grandkids. Grandkids is our future. I'm going to die, definitely, right? But the kids, my daughter, my son in law, all everybody's son, daughter, Frank, okay? So try not damage our kids. That's why I'm a future. That's second. Thirdest thing is society. Oh my gosh. Society safety. The China, San Francisco, Oakland, those people, grab it, this one, wants money, to buy those drugs. So stealing your stuff, go your home, open your window, when you go, oh my gosh, my house is all moved. People take away stuff away because they want some money, sell for money. So no, no, no shop because get more people come here. okay. Thank you. The 4th one. Oh, sorry. Can I say one thing?

[04:04:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No, I'm sorry, your time's up. Thank you, though. Next, please.

[04:04:13] Tutu Thompson: Good evening, city councils. Thank you for letting us speak our mind. My name's Tutu Thompson. I am a mountain resident, a registered voter, and I have 3 cute little kids. Um, I have the 1st point is about the, the, you know, some people say the voter has spoken, you're going to order our votes. From what I understand is when California voted to legalize marijuana is because our prison, we're spending more money in prison than in healthcare and a school, and we want to cut a budget on the prison, so therefore people voted to decriminalize marijuana, therefore we can use the money. Instead of building the prison, we're going to put in the healthcare and the school. So that was my understanding why majority of California decided to voted to legalize it. It's not like we agreed marijuana is a good thing. We want to promote it. That was not what I understandable they're meant. Then some people argue we already have all these accessibility to the kids already have all these accessibility to marijuana anyway. There are even people riding bike to sell marijuana to the school kids anyway. What's the damage you're gonna do if you have one or 2 pot shops? So my understanding is it's the message we're sending. So if as a city, we approved to have shops, that's a message to telling the kids, that's okay. The city approved it. It's nothing wrong with it. Whereas ideally, I think the kids should stay away from marijuana, because the growing brain are more prune to damage, scientifically. I understand it's being researched. There's no, there's, you know, their argument on both sides, but it's controversial. In the very bottom, it's controversial. So before we get to the very bottom of it, before we know, finally have some conclusion, we should be conservative about it. So, um, and lastly, I think a lot of, let us speak with accents coming from a different country, but we're educated. So please don't discount our ideas. Thank you.

[04:06:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:06:25] Fang: Good evening, everyone. I'm Fang, a resident of Mountain View. For 5 years of my life, I spent in a cute, foreign country in Europe called the Netherlands, where where Mona is, has been legalized for a long time and where Mona's shop has been all over the country and every single city, downtown area. So probably not everyone here kind of like have the similar experience, so would like to share with you how I lived and enjoy that experience. So at the beginning, actually friends, you know, encouraged me to do things, visit the red light district, I tried a very monashop. So always convince me, but except, you know, I find that the red light district is not as sexy as I thought. I thought the marijuana shop is not fun as I fought because the 1st time I approached there, the smell was just like so compelling. It's like 2 streaks away, I got the strong smell, just, you know, floating across the street was like, oh, I can't stand this. And also, there seems to be kind of like fishy people wandering around and maybe some of them are overdosed, so they're not reacting normally. It's just not a fun experience. And also my friends who choose to live in downtown area decided to move out because of similar reasons. So, today I was actually quite surprised to learn that, like say, if we are to open pop shop in downtown area, the similar experience is going to happen to the residents there. So I'm here to express my strong opinion that I don't want to see this happen to this lovely little city. So thanks for your consideration.

[04:08:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:08:22] Julia Tam: Good evening. My name is Julia Tam, and I'm a registered photo about my view for last 26 years, I think. So I'm here to kind of state my personal statements in 3 regards. One is that I have a personal agenda, why I would like not to see any pot shop in open Mountain View, just like all those who propose against or propose for it, we all have personal reasons, right? Well, my personal reason is that I don't want it in my backyard. In fact, I don't want them to be in my own yard. My own yard is the city of Mountain View. a nice bedroom community. There are reasons why the suburbans of the Bay Area from San Francisco to San Jose did not vote for it. Why us? We're not ready. I'm not ready. And secondly, the incentive behind this proposal is strictly business. I don't care what people say, you know, for medicino use, for recreational use, the backbone of this is business. I don't want that to be the reason to open shops in my city, not right now. To have them open in Mountain View downtown is even a, um, not a good thing because I want my downtown to have more family oriented restaurants. How many times you go to downtown and every restaurant is filled with lions. There's not enough family oriented restaurants. I don't want to invite any more traffic from out of town to come to downtown, take our parking spaces, take our traffic streets, to come and go. I do not want that. And thirdly, If we have this great turnout tonight, explaining why they're not ready for it. Maybe the volt on that ballot wasn't too representational of this community. So I asked account counselor to reconsider this decision. We have time. There's no urgency. Thank you.

[04:10:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:10:23] Ting Ting: Good evening, my name is Ting Ting. I am a resident in Mountain View, and also, I'm a mother of 2 young kids. I'm here against open pot shops in Mountain View. First of all, I really appreciate the city council, bring back the cannabis ACEL because the current ordinance has 2 obvious floor. The 1st one is Antonio Center. There will soon be a new school, so there should not be any post allowed there. The 2nd floor is, we now have no buffers for after school. Kids, a lot of kids go to after school every week or every day. So, we should have a sufficient buffer for them. Actually, mountain view is too small that we cannot find a sufficient buffer to protect our kids, so I'm against open any pot shops in Mountainville. Today, being apparent is not easy. So please don't make it harder for the parents to educate their kids to be drug free. Thank you.

[04:11:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:11:42] Public Speaker: Honorable council members. I'm resident of Colorado. And, uh, We used to live in Mountain View. And now we still have our sport business in here. And when we talk about the Cannabis business around, and do you guys thinking? Think about what the other business could lost. Because of the cannabis shop around. And also we are thinking Mountain View, I like it very much since I, the place I used to call it home. And that's a family place. Are we setting a good example to open all kind of pot shop around, to set up our family environment. Please think about it. Thank you.

[04:12:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Excuse me. Is your business on Castro?

[04:12:51] Public Speaker: Uh, no.

[04:12:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Next please.

[04:13:05] Wei Li: Hello, my name is Wei Li. I'm a resident, a homeowner and a father in Mountain Ville. So, Nowadays, when my kids want to play in the front yard. The only thing I need to watch out is cars. And I envisioned for the next 10s of years, he will just grow up in this mountain view area, enjoy the city parks, walking along the city streets, enjoying the downtown area without worry about anything rather than traffic. So, but I recently read a disturbing story that a father in Colorado shot his wife after consuming marijuana. And I don't want my kids to be worried about that, and I don't want to be worried about that. When walking down Castro Street, I'm maybe attacked by people who got high on marijuana. And yeah, that's really dangerous for us. And remember, our country is now in the middle of an opio crisis. And even opio is such a well-controlled prescription only drug can become a crisis. I'm afraid that I don't want a mountain wheel, to be remembered as the starting point of maybe after a few years, I call it a marijuana crisis. So thank you for giving me the opportunities to speak here and I hope you can reconsider opening up these mariner shops in month of week. Thank you.

[04:14:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:15:02] Brian Taylor: Hi, good evening. My name is Brian Taylor. I'm a resident. I have been here for 17 years. I have a child in this community. I'm here to counterbalance what I see as a very vocal, perhaps misinformed minority of people in the community. You know, there was a mention of like 100s of people here like who are against this, you know, and as far as I can tell, 10s of 1000s of people voted for this kind of thing, which is a little bigger by my math. Um, You know, there was a comment by one person that, uh, the only reason that people want this is for money. I reject that out of hand. It's the documented benefits of this from a medicinal perspective are huge. textiles and things like that. There's lots of reasons why marijuana makes sense to regulate and to do in a controlled fashion. Yeah, it's bad for kids. Kids shouldn't have it. It's documentedly very well understood. It's terrible for people with developing brains. Fine. There's lots of things in society that we don't let kids have access to, like alcohol, right? Are we suggesting that maybe we should close all the bars on Castro Street, right? The fact that we let adults do things that we don't let children do, doesn't mean that we think children should do them and it doesn't make it so that you don't have a responsibility as a parent to parent. Okay? So, you know, there's been decades of misinformation around marijuana that has been used to like prop up big pharma who are simultaneously trying to block this at the same time that they're pushing synthetic versions of it. We are, it's well documented, understood, how, uh, enforcement has been disproportionately directed against communities of color. It is time to bring this into the light. It's time for us to regulate it and deal with this in a responsible way. And does it belong on Castro Street? I don't know. And honestly, I don't actually care about Castro Street, but we need to make it accessible in a not kind of shady back alley on, you know, in some industrial area. It's time for us to treat this like adults. Thank you.

[04:17:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:17:14] Public Speaker: Good evening, Mayor, and also Kansas City members. I don't agree with the pyarbs because according to the news, in Colorado, 20s in general, 26% of youth, they have been like 26% of youth increase in consumption. of the marijuana and also 20% of adults, they consume marijuana. So that is how legalization happens in another state. And, um, I live in a mountain view, and I'm a mountain view residence, and I notice that every corner, we do have teenagers here now. So it gives the teenager a wrong message that if we open the porkshops in Mountain View, It is perfectly fine. Keep in mind, a teenager, they don't nowadays, you know, they have so much peer influence and, you know, they were no longer, just like before, like, you know, 10 or 20 years ago. They will be out of curiosity, they will try it because I still remember 20 or 30 years ago, I try my 1st cigarette and I'm glad that I don't like it. So it is just a natural curiosity, so you cannot prevent that. And I'm talking about the course. So the 1st point is like, you know, it really would increase the youth consumption. The 2nd point is that, you know, the course, adding one one. FTE does not, cannot cover, you know, the increase in crime rates. Usually, you know, when you have a, you know, incident happen. You at least pull 2 people, you know, go to the scene. And also emergency room visit due to marijuana and also hospitalization and rehab course are unmeasurable to the city and also the residents here. And um, Research shows that the black market in Colorado, it does not decrease. It blooms because the high demand. And then, um, I cannot like emphasize enough that, so that's why that, you know, the black market issue cannot be resolved. I cannot emphasize enough that legalization. Thank you.

[04:19:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I'm sorry, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

[04:19:28] Ivy: Hi, mayor and council members. My name's Ivy, and I'm a mountain view resident, a parent, and a homeowner. First of all, I would like to applaud the city council for its decision to revisit the cannabis ordinance. You're doing the right thing and not just do things right. The previous ordinance was based on the wrong assumption that the support for legalizing marijuana equals the support for opening cannabis outlets. The survey only counted 594 Mountain View residents in less than one% of the total population. If the foundation is so rocky, what can we expect of the building that's on top of it? Now, let's talk about what the cannabis dispensary can bring in from mountain view. Tax revenue of roughly 80 K per 4 stores. Any high-tech business can bring in similar or higher revenue, without a hidden cost, like police headcount, rehab cost of heavy users, impact to small businesses nearby and property value marked down. Can you look at me in the eyes? And tell me, you truly believe Mountain Mule need that extra fuel tax dollars from the cannabis business. So much that we are willing to sacrifice the family friendly downtown and the city that we're so proud of. As for the cultural aspect, exploration is one thing, promoting drug use is a totally different issue. If you want to vision Mountain View as a cannabis heaven for buyers, including addicts from all over the country, Just like the RB campers already did and are willing to pay the high price we're gonna pay, then be it.

[04:21:12] Public Speaker: If we want to cultivate a culture that focuses on being responsible, being healthy and making the right choice for our next generation. We should definitely say no to cannabis dispensaries in our neighborhood and our city. Thank you.

[04:21:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[04:21:36] Julie: Good evening. I'm Julie, a Mountain View High Parent. Any of us who have teenage children now, peer influence is more powerful than their parents, for some kids. Not long ago. I met with a longtime Cooper Park area resident. He told me why he, his daughter, went to Mountain Mill High. She was introduced to marijuana by her friend, and then become addictive. No matter how hard the parents tried to pour her away from drug. She didn't listen, and her friend even told her that her parents were not nice to her, and encouraged her to run away. Only until their daughter was sent to rehab center. Something worked her up, and she decided to receive the full rehab, and was able to create the drug. To have canopy stores in condensity like mountain view is to put the easy access temptation, misconception, right in front of them. Things will be confused. They feel like marijuana is no different from other restaurants or candy stores on the same street. They can get from their cousins or old friends. To make it harder to, is to say, canopies is still classified as a schedule one drug, like harrowing SD, cocaine, and ecstasy. Parents have a lot to educate their kids, including drug abuse. War against drug started from the 70s in the state. It's not any particular ethnicity groups worry, concern, or prerogative. It's all about value, belief, standard, integrity, and responsibility. It takes a whole village to raise a child. Much of the city's success depends on the success of the schools and the children. Please consider 0 pot shop. Thank you.

[04:23:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[04:23:39] Public Speaker: Hello, council. Hello. Hello. Been a long time. 2009, I believe I was up here talking with y'all. We tried to bring medical cannabis here to Mountain View, and we failed after a year's study session. Council voted against it. And, um, I really don't understand why they revisited adult use cannabis, but we're here now. I appreciate that we did vote the tax in, although I did vote no because I'm against taxing medicine. That's wrong. So I've been a resident here since 1966. I was born at El Camino Hospital. I've been a lifetime resident. I've been here, um, all but 10 years of that where I lived in Lake Tahoe. I'm currently in the firearms business. So that's a huge, huge contradictory of terms. What that happens is as a gun owner, I cannot use marijuana, period. It's federally illegal. We knew that back in 2009. That was one of the reasons why Mount View said no at that time. We said yes. So we need to get past that saying yes is okay. Bringing medicine to the people that need it here in Mountain View, that have to drive up all the way to San Jose or have unknown delivery services bring their product to them. I like them. I want them here in Mountain View. But I have to say again, it's federally illegal, and I think our city attorney understands that, and I think she needs to press that issue more with the council, for them to make an educated decision on whether they want to go ahead and break federal law, or they want to bring medicine here to our residents here in Mountain View. It's a horrible thing. I know. I hope you choose wisely. I really can't give you one way or the other. I've been fighting with it all my life. Have a great night. Thank you for letting me speak.

[04:25:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:25:43] Amy Ju: Hi, my name is Amy Ju. So, uh, I urge you to, well, no Pasaw in Mountain View. Most of the surrounding city of Mountain View, already permanently bend, Port Saud. For example, like new Petas, Cupertino, um, uh, meal bread, or most are surrounding city, a permanently band box, so, so I'm hoping you do the same. And, uh, uh, mountain view is capital of the high tech industry, uh, if you have poster here, you will drive away all high tech companies, you will make more car accidents happen in mountain view, and you will make more homeless on the streets of mountain view. Some crazy people, from surrounding cities, some homelands, from surrounding city, may flood to mountain view. So, and also federal may make it illegal later. So I urge you to will know for posture. Thank you. Thank you. So where should I submit?

[04:26:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[04:26:51] Wei Ming Shu: Mayor, council members, and fellow citizens, my name is Wei Ming Shu, and I want to say that according to the statistics of U.S. Center for Disease Control, Mariano, marijuana directly affect the brain, specifically the parts of the brain, um, that's responsible for memory, learning, attention, emotion, and reaction time. And long term or frequent marijuana use has been linked to increased risk of psychosis or skills, schizophrenia in some users. Okay, it's not my words, it's what's reported. Okay, Mountain View has great schools, and many parents purchase expensive homes here, and pay high property taxes in Mountain View, so their children can attend these good schools. And do they want their young people's mind be poisoned by normalized marijuana products. Sometimes disguised as candy. Marijuana is considered by many addiction treatment specialists as a gateway drug, leading to more serious drug dependency or addiction. Young people are the most valuable assets of the families in mountain view. With the CD, allow businesses to introduce even more addictive substances in addition to alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, et cetera, to hijack our young people's away from healthy and productive lifestyles. As a teacher and a mom. No, no recreational pot shops in Mountain View. Thank you.

[04:28:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: X, please.

[04:29:03] Phil Shu: Hi, my name is Phil Shu. Mayor, Councilman. Thank you for your time. I want to look at the whole thing from another perspective. First of all, but I'd like to clarify, I do support medical use of my moment, but I hope that the city, the council has a hard calling. I think authorizing cannabis stores is recovering to colluding with the Wall Street spirit of insatiable greed for more money at any cost. I don't like that Authorizing cannabis stores is equivalent to endorsing the carnal indulgence of one more. We already have a lot of choices for pleasure. One more will not make us freer, nor make us, well, make a secret, actually, okay? Authorizing Canada stores is equivalent to endorsing a lifestyle escapist. Hey, you know, you don't want to deal with a problem. Just get high. I think that kind of irresponsible lifestyle is not something the city wants to endorse. So that's what I want to say. Thank you very much.

[04:30:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:30:08] Matthew Mahaffey: Hello, my name is Matthew Mahaffey. Last been said today, I'm just going to speak from my own experience. I entered this lottery process. I've done the application. I am one of the 2 non-storefront retail businesses in the lottery. Um, which was cause for celebration for about a day until the vote came back to readdress the issue. And I just want to say it's painful. Um, for this kind of regressive politics to affect my business, my life, my employees' lives, money that I've invested, time that I've invested. I think it's been about 5 years. I been working with the city to try and get this item on the agenda, push through, work through. We finally got it. And then I've invested money into getting the application done. I've invested money into locking a business down based on the council's recommendation to do so. And I, you know, not everyone's in the same position, but I've got a lease that I can pull out of based on your timeline. So if we push that timeline further back, I'm stuck in this lease, hopefully I can pry myself out of it in the worst case scenario. But it's terrifying for me. And I'm a little guy, you know, as far as the industry goes as far as most industries go. I'm not, I wouldn't consider myself big business. I'm mom and pop. I've got employees with families. I've got of course, all my employees have bills, I have bills, I'm trying to start a family. I'm trying to move ahead and progress my career. And I'm not the devil. Marijuana is not the devil. Um, We don't want to hurt anybody. A lot of us are... whether or not we're from Mountain View or not. We respect Mountain View. We see this as a city. I see this as a home. This is where I moved when I came here from Southern California as a child. And I would just urge you not to change. Not to change your position that you originally voted on. Thank you.

[04:32:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:32:15] Translator: Wait, uh... sorry. By the way, I just checked with her. She said she didn't raise her hands. were her friends. They're all white haired people. Okay. I'm the translator.

[04:32:29] Unknown Speaker: Can I speak? Shut up. Don't stay full of...

[04:32:32] Unknown Speaker: Hey, hey, excuse me. The vote was not from her. It was somebody else.

[04:32:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Stay dirty. Go ahead. Okay, let's...

[04:33:08] Public Speaker: I also lived here for 15 years. I'm very happy to be participating in this process for the first time in my life. I like to say that marijuana is actually banned by the federal laws. And it should be used, in my opinion, for medical use, not for recreational use. From my medical experience, marijuana is only good for curing the symptoms of pain. It does not cure diseases, so it should be used for alleviating pain, but not for recreational use, because of the side effects of a recreational use. , she was a doctor. In my past experience, those who have actually had marijuana before, and then was in need of medical marijuana, the threshold was much higher compared to those who had never used recreational marijuana. And then when those individuals that were in pain, needing marijuana, the doses should be a lot smaller. That shows to me, that shows that marijuana is actually addictive. I think we should look for a long term effect of having marijuana use, not for the short-term business or economic gain. I think that the use of marijuana is only detrimental to the health and to the brain of individual that's using it, and for the future of this country. I think we should really limit the medical use of marijuana to medical use.

[04:36:28] Public Speaker: Uh, I heard that the lady in green jacket, she's, she said she needed medical marijuana. I agree with that because that's for medical use. Thank you.

[04:36:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[04:37:10] Public Speaker: I'm a resident of Monteville. I live in the senior center, we've collected 91 signatures of residents who are against the opening of the retail shop in Mountain View. I have them here.

[04:38:50] Translator: That's too long for me. I'm not a professional translator. So, 1st of all, I commend you taking this matter into your hands, but in my view, you should be very busy with other matters as well. And in fact, if the marijuana shops are opening, You're even busier with police enforcement, with checking IDs. So I think your energy is better spent. You as in the city, energy should be a better spend on other matters instead of dealing with retail shops. The 2nd point that she's making is that I am in favor of medical use of marijuana. And I think there are available in many different places without the retail shops presents. So I think the retail shop of marijuana is not necessary, and I am strongly against the opening of the radio shop of marijuana. For the safety of the children, for the safety of our city, and also for not increasing your workload, we are strongly against the retail shop opening, in marijuana, mountain view. Thank you.

[04:40:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And if you wanted to hand that to our city clerk, the signatures? If you could just hand that to the

[04:40:13] Translator: Yeah, yeah, she does want to bring this over to you.

[04:40:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:40:20] Ken Rosenberg: Ken Rosenberg, 22 year resident of Mountain View. Having fun yet? I don't think when I was on council, I don't think we've ever gone this long, just public testimony. This is the most coordinated effort I've ever seen in my experience for an opposition group. And I doubt the sincerity that everybody here lives in Mountain View. It seems to be an important question. You live in Mountain View, you live in Mountain View. I doubt sincerely that the majority or vast number of people that have been testifying tonight live here. So I'm kind of curious as to what the underlying motivation is for people to come from all over to speak to Mountain View. I was proud to represent Mountain View in a very progressive way. And it seems to me that that progressiveness, the brakes are on it immediately after the new council takes. That's fine. The voter spoke. It's in your hands now. It is very possible right now to walk down Castro Street and buy herbs. There's at least 3 different Chinese herbal stores that are open to anybody who wants to walk in the door. They are contraindicated with many Western medicines. This argument of medicines and this and that and the other thing, it gets lost on me. I'm up here tonight to talk to ask you a favor. When you are deliberating, and when you are going to come down on what side of yes or no on whatever you're going to decide tonight, I'm really unclear as to what you're trying to decide. I just ask that you be extraordinarily clear as to what you think what's going to happen. What is the bad thing that is going to happen if cannabis dispensaries open on Castro or anywhere else? The process that we laid out just a few months ago has been hailed by people in the industry as we could, it's replicable. So we should be we should be proud of that and we should uphold it and we should not send a confusing message to the business community. And by the way, our city hall is being vandalized.

[04:42:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: The vice mayor has a question for you, Ken.

[04:42:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I have a question. So, you made a comment that you don't think a lot of these folks who are in opposition are Mountain View residents, even though they've said they are, we've had other groups come in, other issues where we've had a lot of folks, and you've never questioned whether they were or not. What makes you think that these folks are not residents?

[04:42:44] Ken Rosenberg: Well, I'll take them under word if they say they're from Mountain View. What I'm saying?

[04:42:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: They've all been saying where they're from.

[04:42:48] Ken Rosenberg: Yeah, what I'm saying here is, personally, I don't care if they're from Mount Deer or someone else. I think if somebody wants to...

[04:42:54] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: It was that you don't think they are, so I'm asking you, why don't you think they are from Mountain View?

[04:42:59] Ken Rosenberg: Just a feeling.

[04:43:00] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, thank you.

[04:43:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:43:11] Jackie McGowan: Good evening, counsel, mayor, staff. My name is Jackie McGowan and I am with K Street Consulting out of Sacramento, representing the Silicon Valley Cannabis Alliance. I'm here today to let you know that all eyes of the state are on Mountain View right now, and that this is a serious policy issue for our regulators and legislators. We are united in our desire to see the city finish what it started by allowing a compromised number of 4 retail operations in a city that has overwhelmingly voted twice now in support of safe access to cannabis. Cannabis was legalized in 482 cities and 58 counties in this state nearly 27 months ago, and yet it is still prohibited from being purchased in 80% of them. I track each of those municipalities in regards to cannabis regulations or lack thereof, and find it very concerning that a vocal minority continues to persuade local elected officials to thwart the will of the voters in many of these jurisdictions. What transpired in Milpitas, which resulted in the city moving backwards, resulted in an anti cannabis protester being arrested at that meaning for pepper spraying a police officer in his face. Yet, this behavior was never chastised, and that class of people won their elected officials over in halting the approval of a cannabis ordinance. And this type of behavior is never seen from the cannabis industry. I've spent the last three years working with several jurisdictions helping them create sensible regulations that represent what the voters voted for. I often recommend that they begin with a survey to find out exactly what that yes vote meant. And now you've done that. This is exactly how decisions should be determined because your survey says it all. It reiterates that your constituents want safe access. Respect the vote. Thank you.

[04:44:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:45:11] Sean Kelly Rye: Evening, Sean Kelly Rye, Silicon Valley Cannabis Alliance. I have a number of clients that have applied in Mountain View. First of all, I want to say that I have always been treated respectfully by the council, and even though I may have disagreed with some of the council members or the mayor or anyone else, I have not dealt with a more civil city council than Mountain View, and I've dealt with a lot of cities. So I want to thank you, regardless of whether we've agreed or disagreed on the issue that you've always responded back to me, and that you, in some cases, met with me, and even knowing that you're on the other side. So I personally thank you for always having a dialogue with me regarding the issue. There's always a question that comes up around San Jose, and San Jose licenses, and people bring up this issue, about 16 licenses, and population and so forth. San Jose has 16 vertically integrated licenses. That's 5 licenses times 16. That's 80. Today, city council moved forward, right around 530 or 6 o'clock was the vote to move forward with another at 16 and potentially 30 more delivery. San Jose, has a per capita police officer per 1000 rate lower than Mountain View. You have more police officers per capita than San Jose. If San Jose can do this, mountain view absolutely can do this. And I'd like to just make sure that if you're going to look at San Jose as the model, then you ought to be looking at 7.5 dispensaries or 7.5 licenses here in Mountain View, and not look, you know, this 3 or 4 or 5 number that you've been talking about. So let's have an apples to Apple's comparison if you really want to look to how that's going. Second of all, What the prior speaker said, Jackie had said is the industry really is looking at this as a bellwether. And if, depending on how the vote this evening goes, the industry will look at this as the potential for a referendum, the industry has never received help from politicians, we've always gotten it from the voters and we'll go back to the voters. Thank you.

[04:47:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:47:20] Public Speaker: Uh, good evening, city council members. First off, for, uh, thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss, um, the issue about opening Moana shop, um, issue in Mountain View again. I am 11 years Mountain View resident, and I'm a legal voter, and I just need Veranda, which is very close to Castro. And I'm raising my 2 young kids here. I'm strongly against opening any pot shops in Mountain View. I believe you already have heard too many reasons why we are against it tonight. Here I want I only want to emphasize 2 points. First, a lot of people came up and they say the pork shop will be high-end, stynish, and they have very strict rule about admitting kids insight, but nobody don't like cool stuff. Anyone not? Right? So especially new kids. The stylish decoration, the high-end out nook, and the special admission mechanism at the door can only trigger the curiosity of our kids. And instead of suppressing it, even worse, it hides the truth that Moana is bad for our kids' growth and the human's health. So it actually, in contrast, it conveys the message that this is normal. It is okay to use. And this is a very misleading symbol for anyone who doesn't have much information and the knowledge about Moana and its effect. So I think it's unfair to people who are against it. Disclaimer. I'm not against using Moana for any medical use, um, but I'm against opening any part shops in Mountain View. These are 2 completely different things. There are already online ordering and a delivery available. So thank you.

[04:49:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, please.

[04:49:37] Yuimintan: Hi, dear council members. My name is Yuimintan. I'm a Sunnyvale resident, but I live in Mountain View before, and I also work in Mountain View. I love month view. I love the city. So I came I came here. I want to express my appealing. So it's really my honor. So first, yeah, I really hope like Mountainville can still stand by like Sunnyville and other cities like Miapitas or Palato, like to ban this, uh, the pot stores, retail stores forever. So, yes, there is San Jose city, there are like, it allows pot stores, but there are many more cities that this a lot that. We should really consider that for first. So second, I want, I'm a father of two, 2 daughters, so I want to express my concerns, but, uh, uh, the pots, uh, pots to get next generation. Yes. It's possible, right? So it's always, um, other people already said it's possible, uh, there is a way to keep the kids away the pot store, but yes, theoretically, it is possible of Emma and Lear, I'm thinking engineering way, but the probability. So considering a probability. So it always is much, much higher for the kids to have access to the pod, to the pod, if there are some details. 3rd one is like people also say there are some black market and people can always buy those things, again, considered probability. Probability is not the same, even it's possible in theory. And the last thing I want to see is the cost. So, yes, you may get more revenue, but considering a safety concern, regulations, there will be lots of things you need to consider. Thank you very much.

[04:51:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:51:43] Abei: Hi, my name is Abei. I'm Mountainville resident, and also Regist Voter. I wasn't planning to speak tonight because I think both sides of opinion should be already expressed, but after the hearing whole night, what I, this here's what I think, the 2 the points of the people, I forgot to express. I was, I'm against the opening, I need pork shop in Montreville. That's my position. So for the people on the side of a lot of the shops open, they said they already vote. So the 2 vote they refer to is wise in 2016 wise in 2018. Uh, the, uh, California pop 64 and the mountain view, Mayo Q. But none of those 2 mode is allowed to open shop. The pulp 64 is for a lot of recreation very wrong, I use for a barbecue. It's for put the tax on the mariana business. But none of those 2 world is to in favor of open shop in Mountain View. Um, Second is uh, my concern is for the safety of the kids. People, people for the on the side of marijuana shop to to support the opening. They said with the regulation, you will have the low risk of having keep access to the mariana easily. But for what I hear from my friends who grew up here, I asked them, so are you able to drink alcohol before 21? They say, yes. how you get it? Well, the people outside of 711, just give them 5 bucks. So, so that's a risk. And 3rd is, um, uh, for the city of Mountain View, uh, when I traveled to Europe, in Paris, when I actually purchased stuff in a messed up, I write down my address, they recognize this plate. I said, oh, Mountain View asks, how do you know? Oh, because of Google, I don't want to couple years later. Why do that? They said, oh, I know you guys can get marijuana easily. That's so I appreciate your time. Thank you.

[04:53:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:53:48] Deb Hennigson: Hi there. My name is Deb Hennigson, and I'm a 20 year resident of Mountain View, and a parent of a 1st grader at Mr. All Elementary. This comment is actually on behalf of my husband, who is a software developer, a stay at home dad, and a volunteer with Mr. Alls PTA. He also gets debilitating migraines, and he has found only one medicine that helps after years of trying, and that is cannabis. He is an intense introvert. And public speaking makes him extremely uncomfortable. But he fought his inhibitions and came to the previous meeting on this topic to represent for other medical cannabis users who were unable to attend. He couldn't bring himself to do this again, to turn a very private topic into a very public statement. So on behalf of residents like him who used medical marijuana as an effective treatment for various ailments, including seizures, chemotherapy symptoms, and painful migraines. I encourage you to retain the existing decisions made after extensive public workshops, polls, and staff work. I think it would be much better for Mountain View residents to have a few local dispensary options without having to own a car or take a bus or a train down to Santa Clara or San Jose. I encourage you to allow the phased permit process to proceed as outlined in the existing ordinance, allowing 2 shops and 2 delivery services in appropriately regulated locations as previously decided, allows for appropriate competition. In a competitive environment, dispensaries that offer a comprehensive suite of products will survive. This greatly benefits medical users who often need a specific strain to best manage their conditions. Competition will also ensure that our dispensaries live up to our community standards. Shops that offer a respectful and law abiding presence will fit into the fabric of our community as easily as the liquor store that is one block from my home in Old Mountain View. I would happily have a professional cannabis dispensary in that same neighborhood shopping center on Calron Avenue. So, please retain the compassionate choice for Mountain View residents to allow multiple dispensaries to operate and compete fairly in our city. Thank you.

[04:55:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:56:10] Iladios Aldiva: Hello, my name is Iladios Aldiva, and I come from the church. Oh. Church of Jesus Christ. And I came to ask you as a favor that please close the road to drugs, Because drugs are destroying the people in many ways. Porque sinosotros permitimos, us tedes como lidres permiten que aiga drugas, estamper mitiendo que aiga violencia, en en esta ciudad, que remos una ciudad, sana Olympia. Because if you are leaders are allowing drugs to be available, you are allowing crime to be available, and we want to live in a healthy city. I have a team of people where we actually share the word of the Lord, to those people who are in need, because they have destroyed their lives, because, and they claim to us crying because they are addicted to drugs. Some jousters have young people have quit school, and some of them, they have even killed their parents. If you, as leaders, put your part on this, and we as a church contribute to help this, we can make this a healthier city. and cleaner city. Los niños. Children are afraid when they're walking on the streets and they see people who are under the influence. So do you understand what I'm trying to say? That's all. Thank you, and God bless each of you your hearts.

[04:59:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:59:32] Public Speaker: Bueno, noches, gondolas, and... Good night. What I want to say is that right now, I should be at home with my children, because I have to take them to school tomorrow morning. Because, um, but I'm here because I feel that it's very important for me to be here, because I have a 13 year old daughter, who the others, she was in the car, and she saw someone smoking it. I understand that marijuana has already been legalized, but I'm asking you not to open stores because the children out of curiosity, they kind of start in the path of drugs. Ibeo escuchodra personas que dicing, que estan que binen de turlados, aquerre motivaro, eso por la salute. Okay, lo pueden hacer por internet, o, o, o, o, o, o. What I've seen for people who have come to talk in front of you, stating that it's because of their health, I'm sure they can get this in a different way, getting delivered or in a different way. But I have the feeling that they come here because of other issues, because they will benefit them in monetary way. The rent in Mountain View is very expensive. Even though we have decided to live here in Montain View because of the quality of life that Montain View has, however, I believe if they open this stores, the quality of the life in Montain View is going to be different and we might decide to move. You les pido, por favor, como madre, que que cada uno estes, niños, oh, adolescentes, que puedentenera, eso, no, no, no, no, no, porque ellos, porque personas malas, que es pueden darayos, eso, no, as a mother, I'm asking you, just, if you may also have children, or adolescence or children. And I understand that children are not allowed in the stores. However, there are people who can buy them for them. por favor, que aora, no pensemos, en cuanto de nero, la gente pondendo sustiendas bajenerar. Pensemos en a calidad de montebuque siempre tenido con nuestrosijos. Thank you. Please, don't think about the money this is going to generate for Montebu. Just think about the quality of life of Monteville. Thank you.

[05:03:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[05:03:56] Public Speaker: Madam Mayor, city council members, you heard statistics. You heard all the numbers that you've heard tonight. I am here to speak to you of my experience. I lived in Oakland when I was from when I was 5 years old, till I was 14 years old. To this day, whenever I go back to Oakland and visit my friends, the people and my friends who smoke marijuana. Today, either they're dead, or they are trying, if they are alive, They are trying to kick the hard drugs that they are suffering from now. So I'm not saying that marijuana will lead you or is a gateway drug. That's not my point. My point is that's my experience. That's what I saw, that's what I see today.

[05:04:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Remember what I said before when we started this meeting that we are going to respect everyone's perspective and not comment on it, okay?

[05:04:59] Public Speaker: So, I am here tonight because I love Mountain View, and I do not want to see Mountain View to turn into an Oakland. I came from that. I loved Oakland as well, but I saw how much I suffered. I saw my friends die. Because one day they decided to try the marijuana. I didn't, because I was very afraid of it. And I don't wanna be afraid anymore. Thank you.

[05:05:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[05:05:33] Sandra: Hi. Good evening, everyone. So, my name is Sandra, and I'm here to speak about also about my experience. So, unfortunately, whether or not, I am a, I concern myself respectful person. I am being working with the community, and I'm being instructor assistant of preschool. But like I say, unfortunately, my nephew, who is 17 years old. who was in high school Los Altos High School. I don't know who gave to him drugs. I still looking for who's given to him until today. So I don't know why. But he is sick, really sick. He had depression. He doesn't want to go to the school. And he all the time wants to kill himself. Do you want this happened to my nephew now, and this mom into every single child, which is the future our community, thinking about? It is not my nephew. It's not about background faminies. It's the people who have access to buy drugs and give you to the innocent people. Which is one is my nephew. And it's not okay, if you guys open those stars, you would kill all community. serious. Please, consider this. And I have 48 kids on my preschool and my classroom number three. And you have to see their faces. How can you tell those little ones and say, hey, it is okay. You can buy drugs here in downtown Castro. No, please consider this. We really want our community. I really love Mountain View. I been living here for 20 years, and I still want to live here forever. Thank you very much.

[05:07:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please. Is there anyone else in line?

[05:07:49] John Scarborough: Good evening. I'm John Scarborough. As most of you know, I'm not for any pot shops in Mountain View. I am one of the people who did vote to deep criminalize marijuana. I don't think people's lives should be ruined if they choose to use it, just like I don't think they should have their lives ruined if they choose to use alcohol. or cigarettes, although the public health effects are significant for all 3 of those drugs. And since we're bringing Well, I guess voting on whether to continue to bring in marijuana shops into Mountain View, I would like you guys to consider the public health effects. From what I was looking up, it seems that the availability of black market drugs go up and the concentrations of THC go up with the bringing in of more professional pot shops and emergency room admissions increase as well. So, the gentleman who lobbies for the pot shops in the area. He and I had a conversation after the last council vote on this, and he had a, what I thought was a really good idea that I had not thought of at the time. And if we do bring pot shops in, that we should have a public education campaign. And perhaps we should anyway, because we're going to have more marijuana around now that it is legalized. And it would be good to have all the kids in our all the people in our town have good knowledge about that rather than advertising or rather than hearsay, but scientifically based evidence based knowledge about what marijuana does and how they can manage it well. So, I would urge you to not have any, but if you do have due diligence for folks who can get some education about it. Thank you.

[05:09:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. X please. I will say, I think when we're finished with public comment, I think we're going to need a break.

[05:09:50] Public Speaker: I want to view residents for 20 years, I'm come here for against the idea to open shop in Mountain View. I wish, uh, city councils do the same thing like nearby city members, to ban the, cannabis shop, like, we appear this, Sunnyville, they all do the right smart thing. I wish you guys do the same thing, to keep the clean, safe environment for our children. Thank you.

[05:10:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[05:10:32] Charles: Hello, I'm Charles. I'm 22 years of residence of Mountain View, and I'm here, look for your leadership. Like previous gentleman just said, all eyes are on manual because all other cities already made their decision. Also, according to the data, the other gentlemen shared that in San Jose, there's a percentage of population, a percentage of, and then there's so many pop shop opened up, and then every city should follow, according to that logic. And um, Apparently, I don't I don't agree. And the other 2 things I want to share is that 77% of Sosalito residents supported proposition 64, They voted no. So is Albany. The other thing I want to clear up is that I voted that yes on the 82%, they say, hey, is it? When I voted, yes, the sauce are if, because I wouldn't sure if we're going to open that pot shop, I would like to text them. That's why I voted yes. But that really doesn't mean I support Poshop at all. This sort of thing is that I want to share with the guys that people are overconfidence on their ability to control their family over the drug uses. Just like people in the stock market. Everybody will think they can beat the market. everybody. But how many of you are making money in stock market? Thank you.

[05:12:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next please.

[05:12:27] Alex Brown: Hey, Alex Brown, Santago Villa, North Bay Shore Mountain View. Speaking only for myself as a resident of North Bay Shore, I'd be perfectly fine sharing our new and growing community with either storefront or delivery cannabis businesses. I'd much rather have a business that sells a non-addictive and relatively safe recreational substance than something like a candy store that targets children with a substance known to be harmful and addictive. Opioids were involved in 47.6,000 overdose in 2017, a sixfold increase from 1999. And when it comes to decontextualized statistics and vague illusions to studies here tonight, I'd urge you to either find the primary sources yourself or direct staff to compile the information for your perusal, though I know they have a lot on the plates. Thank you.

[05:13:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[05:13:11] Luke Brunner: Well, their honorable mayor, council members. My name is Luke Brunner from San Francisco. I am affiliated with an application today. I hope towards the end of this evening in public comment section. I can bring a little bit of good humor and good cheer to what at times has been perhaps contentious. I promise I won't sing a song. But I would like to address the issue that I haven't heard address, but on occasion, the actual agenda item this evening, which doesn't come up on public hearings all the time, but I think in Mountain View, you like agenda items and dressing them. This is a discussion item. talk about your next steps to talk about further plans. I've heard a lot tonight. I would never say that people are willfully misreading science, but I think people could confuse it of saying, wow, what's up with the science here? I hear a lot of fear. I hear a lot of fear and people that are trying to explain fear in reasonable terms and society is changing and that's scary and cannabis can be scary and all these things can be scary, but scary is under reason not to proceed with the will of the voters. And scary isn't a reason for you not to provide excellent leadership tonight. Of course, the voters have put you here to provide that leadership. Isn't that funny? They'll vote on something, and then they'll send you here to vote on it again, right? The voters have a way of doing that. So what are your options tonight? I mean, there's so many ways we could spend another 4 hours talking about cannabis from so many ways. I'd like to ask you to do something very simple tonight. I'd like you to engage in your deliberation. And then not take a vote to take further action, a process is already underway. Staff has explain that a bit. The process has a bit more to play out. And then in the due course of process, This will come back to your council, one for the approval of permits, CUP, and then to the council and so forth. And then 2 for you to look at the work when it's been done and to revisit it. There can be no new applications, and I so I ask you to proceed thus tonight. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[05:15:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[05:15:23] Hawaii: Hi, everyone, my name is Hawaii. I am Montreal City, then for 3 years. I just moved from Chicago. been there for 6 years, but I've been in U.S. for 10 years. Rhythm, I want to be here today is because I'm worried about the future of our next generation, our our city, even our whole states. Our state is actually still a Chinese city. I want to point out some statistical issues here because I work with data every day. I'm actually holding on PhD in computer science. The data science, the data stats shilled by the previous gentleman who is a party of marijuana actually shows in San Jose, there are more shops per capital than Monteville if we agree to open shops. But in fact, it intentionally did not show data from other cities, even, um, the countrywide. I want to bring another statistics in China, there are 14000000 people, but there's no, there's 0 shops. Okay. So that's my 1st point. The 2nd point I want to make is they are always like. Don't trust people talk. Trust your heart. Why? Because every people speak here represent different interest group. So I speak because I worry about my kids. The city, the future. And there are people who are supportive of Marina, they are probably representing a subset of the group of people from the industrial wide interests. So I ask every one of you to consider what interests and the representative of each representative ideas that everyone speak here. A certain is, there are probably alternatives to open shops over marijuana, probably having some like people who need marijuana to hospital to use it, even not for, even only for rational purpose. Mostly, open more Starbucks, not, thank you.

[05:17:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

[05:17:34] Lenny Siegel: Lenny Siegel, 47 year Mount View resident. We've heard a lot of horrible things about marijuana tonight. And if the voters had believed all those things, they would not have approved. Prop 64 by two thirds vote. I know a lot of people in Mountain View who smoke marijuana, who use marijuana in other forms. They are productive members of our community. They are moral members of our community. No one is forcing me or you, or the people in the audience, to buy or use marijuana. But there are people who are saying the people who've been using it safely, maybe not as safe as it would be if we had it tested, somehow shouldn't be using it. The voters made this a legal product. People should be able to buy it legally in a way that doesn't encourage the black market and crime throughout the state. The opponents of marijuana had an opportunity last October to referend the council's action. The candidates had an opportunity to raise this as an issue. But at any of the candidate forums, interviews, flyers that I saw during the campaign, no one said, let's take a 2nd look at marijuana. It only happened privately in a foreign language flyer. So I don't smirk at me, please. Go ahead, go ahead. Go ahead. I will be perfectly frank. I will tell you that I don't have a hidden agenda. If the council rolls back the process that we set up last year in a systematic way to make it possible for people who legally use marijuana to legally buy marijuana in Mountain View. I will do my damnedest to make sure that it's reversed by the voters, because the voters don't agree with the people who want to roll things back. Thank you.

[05:19:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please. Again? Next please. If you could use the microphone, please. Thank you.

[05:19:54] Diane: Hi, my name's Diane. Dear my neighbors, and, uh, male and council members. I found some problem in your screen. Someone suggests compare with Mountain View and San Jose. That's a totally wrong comparison. Why we couldn't compare Mountain View with Sunnyvale, with Cupertino, with Palo Alto, with new Peters. So I disagree with that comparison. Secondly, the people are still arguing in use of marijuana and open store in mountain view. All subject is open, mountain view store in, no, open, paw shop in Mountain View, that we disagree. That's our subject. Why we disagree because it caused a lot of problem and people say more traffic, more DUI, more accent, and also more exposure to young and kids. And also more criminals, more crimes. So, um, Why are we against it? Because marijuana is special merchandise. So it's not a normal stuff, like a desk or something, you know, bread you buy. It's much severe than alcohol and cigarettes. So that's why we need to consider the majority of public health and care of public, especially residency in mountain view. I suspicious, some speakers, you didn't check ID. They are not mountain view residency. That's my big concern. You waste lots of time today. Listen to some merchants for some money, not for our interest residency. Thank you very much.

[05:21:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[05:21:57] Edessa Bitbadel: Good evening, and hopefully, I'm your last speaker for tonight, for your benefit. My name is Edessa Bitbadel. I'm a former planning commissioner in San Jose, not a resident of Mount Mieu, but definitely have worked for someone who served your district, which was assembly member, Elaine Alquist. I'm very familiar with your wonderful city, and I was member of your chamber for several years. I'm here to speak with you about my experience as a planning commissioner in San Jose. I know that the previous speaker and some other ones have said that maybe there's not a good comparison, but it is. When you're comparing policy and impact to residents. When you're comparing impact to businesses. When you're impact, when you're comparing impacts to public safety, it really resonates and you really need to look at all statistics. And looking into another state is not the best comparison, the best way to do it is to look at Silicon Valley. What is going on in this area? And in city of San Jose, as a planning commissioner, when I was reviewing the cannabis policy, actually at that time was medical marijuana, it was not cannabis with Title 20. It was really neat to us. I mean, just like you are right now, we were nervous about what we're going to do with the policy, but we really thoroughly looked into it and looked into the impacts and put in policies forward that worked for not only our police department, but residents. And in all honesty, when the cannabis policy came back after prop 64 was passed. We had no complaints from residents. nobody came forward. When I asked the questions from our police department and public meetings, what has been the impact has been negative? It's been zero. There's been no negative for economic development in the city. As you know, most of our industrial areas are where our cannabis businesses are located. So there's no impact to high-tech companies as you overheard tonight. There has been no impact to crime, no increase in crime, and no impact to the police department. And I believe that looking into San Jose is a good comparison. Thank you so much for your time.

[05:24:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think, did you have a question? Council member Ramirez has a question.

[05:24:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Very briefly. When you were deliberating a cap on the number of dispensaries in the city, what information or criteria did you use to divide a particular number?

[05:24:26] Public Speaker: At that point, as a planning commissioner, I was not looking to caps. What I was doing is looking to tell 20, how it was impacting residents. So what I we looked at is protection of residence and such. So, the numbers that the city council had come forward was absolutely helpful to our residents.

[05:24:46] Unknown Speaker: The planning commission did not weigh in on the number of dispensaries in San Jose.

[05:24:52] Public Speaker: Yes, we did, actually.

[05:24:53] Unknown Speaker: You did. Yeah. Okay. Sorry about that.

[05:24:56] Public Speaker: No, no problem. It's been a few years since. But we did look into, because we had 150 when the cannabis, actually it was medical marijuana, we had 150 dispensaries in our city at that time. So we had to look into the cap that worked for everyone. But also just to let you know, there's one in my district where I live and I live in predominantly more conservative district and it's worked really well. Thank you.

[05:25:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? It's a little bit hard to tell who's in line. Anyone else?

[05:25:30] Public Speaker: It's very late, so I make my conversation.

[05:25:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Could you make sure you use the microphone?

[05:25:34] Public Speaker: As short as possible. So I didn't prepare my conversation. Basically, I listen to all the people's conversation, particularly the when people support to open kind of store in Mountain Wheel. I try to re bottle. So I think one strong argument say, because of the black market. So let's open legal store and put them away. I think that's very quite strange argument. So there are many other things in black market coming, actually, like a hearing. Can we actually go do the same way to to put them out of business. So my understanding is that the competition may make the other side even stronger. So they become even more poisonous, more addictive, seeing to our people, to attract people. That's one point. Another point is that people try and keep saying that pork shop is safe. It's very, very regulated and it has a God. We also have the police to patrol it. So I'm really wondering if it's a good thing, why we need those things in the 1st place. If it's a library, it's a childcare. We never even need a security guard. We never needed the policeman. So we do have the concern so why then we need those things. So basically the mountain we rest in high do have the valid concern. Why we need to be the city in this whole South Bay to be the 1st one to experiment this and put our city in the risk? So that's my short rebuttal to all those people who argue these 2 points. Thank you.

[05:27:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, one more.

[05:27:14] Sally Liber: Thank you, counsel. I'm Sally Liber. I've now become a long term resident of Mountain View. And I was actually at home watching on TV and just really felt called to come down here as I was watching what really equates to kind of a reefer madness, sort of a feeling in the hearing here tonight. And for me, this issue is really about keeping faith with the voters who showed up for the proposition, which passed by, I think it was 68% of the voters in Mountain View, and it was the logical conclusion of the proposition that there would be outlets to make this available to the community. And I think that, generally, the way that we do things is people vote, and the vote is carried out, and is respected. And I know that, you know, it's a situation where, maybe if someone didn't vote, then they have regret about the outcome of the vote, I should have voted. There are situations in which someone can't vote, um, for various reasons, and so they're excluded from that. Many people can work on campaigns to see something get passed or not. But I feel like the voters have spoken. And it's by over a two thirds majority, which few votes actually are these days. And so I'm hoping the council can move ahead with things. I personally would much rather see regulation of the proliferation of gun shops in Mountain View. I would love to see council standing up when there are proposals like serving beer and wine in the Starbucks on Castro Street, when there's a proliferation of massage outlets that are unregulated or underregulated. So I think there's many, many things to do, but this isn't one that's going to ruin society. Thank you.

[05:29:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Looks like there's one more. Maybe 2 more.

[05:29:31] Vincent: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and my name is Vincent. Tonight, I heard somebody talking about education and learning center. Actually, myself is the owner of Civil Learning Center and Mountain View for the past 5 years, and we have served community for almost 20 years, and I want to share my opinion. about education and business. Okay, so if you have some knowledge about history, you will know like many great civilizations disappeared because people lost their face and indulge their desires, okay? So, um, this is what I'm going to teach my children and my students, you should never rely on drugs to recreate yourself is not going to work. It will only make you weak and lose the true purpose of your life. Okay. So I also heard about respecting voters, I totally support that because opening pop shops cannot be just based on like some survey, most people don't know about it. I think it's really fair for the all the mountain view residents to have a fair vote about this. And if there are some votes. I think last time some of you, I was here last council meeting about the marijuana shop and some of you, like, no longer sitting in that seat, I think that's probably a fair vote, reflect what Mountain View residents think about. Okay? I think that's, and also people mention about kids won't be allowed to getting to the pot shop. Just think about alcohol. I just Google it quickly. In 2013, 119,000 people, emergency room, visit by age 12 to 21 injured. you.

[05:31:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you.

[05:31:45] Gentong: Okay, I'm not a vast person. My name is Gentong. I have been in Mountain View for 12 years, and I make it straight. I propose 0 post shop in Mountain View. And a lot of people already gave a lot of reasons, but I don't want to repeat them. What happened in the past, about half year, I've been asking myself, what's the motivation of Mountain View opening porshop? Why do we need it? Recreational cannabis has been legalized in California. Mountain View cannot re legalize it. And then I ask one customer, previous council member, was it for money, and I was told that's a $1000000 revenue, and then I return in a 2nd email, I said, no, that's not about money. So I got confused. I think Mountain View is don't need that money. And then what comes? Why we still need it? Right now, delivery is already available. Everyone can get it easily, easily. You can order online or make a phone call, order delivery, can deliver most likely in 30 to 35 minutes. I think it's more convenient, then you stop by Castro Street. You cannot use it there. You have to go home. That's also 30 minutes, and increase traffic. What? Why do we still need it? Why? I think whoever use it, you can get asset to it already. Then I think, what happened here? I think there was a nuance that was not called clearly. You know, legalization, no problem that's done already. But when Mountain was trying to bind, you know, Porsche was realization, that's not right. I've caught a terminite, no. Opening part sharp is promoting cannabis. That's not your duty. That's not your responsibility. Thank you. Thank you.

[05:33:51] James: Hi, my name is James, and...

[05:33:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You can speak a little bit closer.

[05:33:55] James: I've been a longtime resident of both Mountain V Los Altos. And today I want to start my comment by saying that I fully sympathize with the people who have need for cannabis to address their medical needs, completely sympathize with that, and completely support that. But I think the ordinance, if I understand correctly, is trying to address the convenience factor of their need. right? Basically allowing them to get cannabis more conveniently. However, if we really look at the market trend today, brick and motor store are not doing well. Things are actually moving onto the e-commerce, right? You know, people start buying, you know, their groceries, et cetera. That's why Amazon is one of the biggest company in the world. Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the world, right? So I haven't really questioned their cause. Is it really addressing a convenience, right? Because I think, you know, by buying online and compare 1000s of stores, you can do price compares, et cetera. And I'm pretty sure there will be a startup that basically come up and start, you know, doing these type of comparison for to help the customers. Okay. The 2nd factor I want to kind of address is that I kind of question, you know, some of the earlier speaker about associating, you know, passing of this ordinance with being progressive and being a good thing, right? I question that. If this is such a good thing and such good thing and, you know, very progressive, why don't we do that? Why don't we start promoting to our kids saying, hey, this is a good thing, right? Let's do it. And the 3rd thing I think the council man needs to think about is also the economic factor. I'm a parent of 2 children, and we often go down to downtown Mountain View to eat dinner, et cetera. We really enjoy the atmosphere. However, if we actually start, you know, smelling pot, et cetera, while we walk down, you know, downtown Mountain View, you know, we probably will not come here anymore to spend our money. We'll probably go somewhere else. And I'm really surprised that there's not more small merchants from downtown mountains you've been coming to support this because

[05:35:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[05:35:56] James: You are their business.

[05:35:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else? that wants to speak?

[05:36:12] Public Speaker: I'm a starting year resident of Mountain View. I just live in old Mountain, the downtown Ira. I am against part shop in Mountain View. Because this federal, illegalize it. Why we allow it mountainly? You see the problem counts, so many people are not disappointed. Overs, there are some problems. There's some concerns. Yeah. We should bring in the business, meaningful business, like a mountain view date in year 60s. We bring in the 1st semiconductor comedy. in the Santonio Avenue. That's what we should do. Rather than we just bring in this so controversial topic here. Yeah. We, I think we should think about the future. So when we live for Manuel City. Yeah, thank you. That my point. Thank you.

[05:37:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this topic? Okay, then I will close the public input portion of this, and, um, hang on. Um. We are gonna take a break, but before we do that, I do wanna get the council's input on the agenda, since we still have... Yeah, some major items to come. Um, and I was wondering, um, You know, I know some people, I see at least one person here for Terabella. Uh, there's another. Uh, oh. Oh, no. Are there? Um, we also, I know we have to do item 8.1. We have the other one, the Parkland dedication, that's item 6.1. Is anyone here for that one? Except for JP? Sorry.

[05:38:31] Unknown Speaker: You should double check, yeah. Or were you thinking that we might...?

[05:38:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, I was hoping we could continue one of the... not this, I think... No, no, not this one, but the park... Either to another date.

[05:38:42] Unknown Speaker: Terabella or Parkland?

[05:38:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I was thinking we could continue to another date. Terabella. Are folks okay with, like, continued terabella? I don't see everybody here. I know some folks are watching at home.

[05:38:55] Unknown Speaker: Oh. We would do it on another date.

[05:39:04] Unknown Speaker: Just to clarify, it certainly counsels prerogative to continue any of the other items. You would still need to ask for public comments tonight, if anyone is here to speak on them, since they are on the agenda, but you don't have to take action or have a staff report or any of those sorts of things. But it would be. The agenda for another item.

[05:39:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, is the preference to continue one or both?

[05:39:35] Unknown Speaker: I feel like I'm okay with continuing one. I could go with Terabella, and then, and then 82 and continue the Parklands until another time.

[05:39:43] Unknown Speaker: Sure. That's fine.

[05:39:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Noddingheads. Okay, so we will take a break, maybe till 1115, and then we will come back and finish this topic. And then, um, we do have item 6.1 that we're gonna do, and then we'll take public input. Is that the order we go in?

[05:40:06] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we're gonna do Parkland. Continue, Parkland.

[05:40:10] Unknown Speaker: I thought you said continue tarabella.

[05:40:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No, continue. No. Do Terabella continue the park ordinance. Okay. So we'll take public input on parkland, then to Tarabella, then... casa. Okay, so we'll be back at 11:15.

[05:40:32] Unknown Speaker: I'm just going to ask you if there's any urgency. Our city, Terry, my class is ready to retire now. Oh, my God.

[05:40:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: But before we get into deliberation on this, we've had a little bit of discussion about maybe we want to talk about what we want to continue, we're going to potentially change that one. Uh, so, there's been a suggestion that we continue Terabella to a different date, or we continue both of the topics, both Parkland and Terabella to a another date.

[05:41:25] Unknown Speaker: But, yeah. I don't want it to go too far out. Either one of them. I could support extending, continuing with Terabella, if the people that came here feel comfortable with continuing it. Is there a sense of when we could do it? Do we have an idea of when we might be able to, if we continue tarabella?

[05:41:50] Unknown Speaker: Probably the earliest would be mid April, but we would certainly get it done sometime in the month of April.

[05:41:59] Unknown Speaker: That's okay. That's okay. Yep. So we would still take public input on it.

[05:42:09] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we have to. Wait a minute. Right?

[05:42:14] Unknown Speaker: You will take public input this evening, but when you actually consider the item, you will also take public input, and that might be fresher in your mind at that time. I just might point out.

[05:42:24] Unknown Speaker: Right. Right. I question on that. Do we still have to vote on it as a 10 o'clock rule? And if we were to vote no, then would that just continue it or...

[05:42:40] Unknown Speaker: Well, to me, it's about the same thing.

[05:42:42] Unknown Speaker: Well, and just the, you know, public input. I don't want folks to have to come back twice, and...

[05:42:49] Unknown Speaker: Oh, I see what you're saying. Like, speak tonight, and then think they have to speak again.

[05:42:56] Unknown Speaker: So if we just say, you know, 10 o'clock rule...

[05:42:59] Unknown Speaker: The 10 o'clock rule change, if we take public input or not?

[05:43:02] Unknown Speaker: But if they vote not to continue not to. We might not get to decide. So does the 10 o'clock rule change anything? Like if we said we don't want to start that item because it's past 10 o'clock, do we still take public input on it?

[05:43:32] Unknown Speaker: I think the 10 o'clock rule is a council policy, so we can probably do whatever we want with it.

[05:43:44] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I mean, I think it's more a courtesy when something's on the agenda. And somebody shows up and they're not able to come at the reschedule time, you provide the courtesy to get their comments tonight. If they are okay to being postponed, that's probably a preferable time to get the public comments, but generally, you ask for anyone who wants to speak tonight because they're not going to be able to in the future.

[05:44:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So is there a general agreement that we would continue Terabella to another date? And the... Okay. But so then the question of, are we also continuing the Parkland?

[05:44:21] Unknown Speaker: Parkland? Yes, I'd support those both continuing.

[05:44:25] Unknown Speaker: I'm sure you would.

[05:44:26] Unknown Speaker: Yes, I would.

[05:44:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: What about other folks? Is there any urgency in taking that item on?

[05:44:33] Unknown Speaker: I worry a little bit about, I know we have packed agendas, so...

[05:44:38] Unknown Speaker: Well, we definitely have packed agendas. We have not prepared the April to June schedule yet, so we're still working on that. But we're definitely packed through March. Terabella, I'm sorry, Parkland is not time sensitive, other than it needs to be done before Sobrado gets a building permit. for their project, but we don't anticipate that unless Stephanie says otherwise in the near future.

[05:45:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um... Now look this way. Yeah, so I think would you like to continue both?

[05:45:14] Unknown Speaker: I'm okay with it.

[05:45:15] Unknown Speaker: I think what we should do is just set the expectation, because we'll continue it when we get to them, but just set the expectation that, you know, based on the nodding heads, we're gonna continue both those items, people who are here tonight, if they want to speak on those items, they can, but they'll also have an opportunity at the future date to speak on them.

[05:45:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Exactly. Okay, so, um, that's the plan. So, um, I'll apologize that the first item took so long, um, that we're having this discussion, um, that sometimes that happens. Okay, so we will get back to... Do we have to... Never mind.

[05:45:56] Unknown Speaker: We don't have to vote the time.

[05:45:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We don't have to, what?

[05:45:59] Unknown Speaker: The 10 o'clock. That's just procedural for us. The 10 o'clock is if we want to start a new item after 10, and we're still on the other item.

[05:46:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we're getting back to item. I can't remember the number of it.

[05:46:15] Unknown Speaker: 7.1.

[05:46:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, so what we're gonna do is we're gonna finish talking about items 7.1. Then if you want to have any, provide us with any input on 6.one or 9.one, which is Parkland or Terabella, you're welcome to do that, but those 2 items are going to be heard at a later date, where you will also have the opportunity to provide input. So, don't feel like you have to do it both times. Uh, you can do it one or the other, or wait until we're actually discussing the item. And then we will do item 8.one because that's a time sensitive one. So if folks want to leave your for 6.1 or 9.one Parkland or Tellerabella, you are welcome to do that. But nobody's leaving. So it makes me feel like you want to stay and do this. and watch. Yeah, you're welcome to stay and listen to this. Okay, so back to item 7.1, which is the discussion now on cannabis. Did any council members have any questions before we get into the discussion? No, you're welcome to start the discussion. Vice mayor, Abi Koga.

[05:47:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, I just had one question, regarding the survey. There was a mention or question. Was that survey provided in other languages, or was it just in English?

[05:47:58] Unknown Speaker: It was just in English.

[05:47:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, thank you.

[05:48:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kamei.

[05:48:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, I'm ready to get into the discussion unless colleagues have questions that they wanted to ask.

[05:48:11] Unknown Speaker: No.

[05:48:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So, I'd like to thank this to have, for the comprehensive report and overview, I want to thank the public for their input. This is an important issue, and I appreciate the opportunity to have tonight's dialogue in public. Um, I, too, voted for Proposition 64 and Measure Q, which is the tax from November in 2018. And I support decriminalizing the use of cannabis. To be clear, I made the motion on retail cannabis to have a further discussion. Since the ordinance was adopted in October, we've received new information, which is we have a school coming into one zone, and shops proposed for the same block in another zone. The prior council had decided not to discuss that issue when it had come forward in October. I wanted to see if council had any thoughts on that. The other is that the current ordinance has a buffer that goes up to 600 feet, according to what I saw in the survey. There was interest in an increased buffer. I wasn't sure how colleagues felt about that. And it's those 2 issues, and, you know, those 2 alone that I brought back the topic for discussion, our staff report says to provide direction on potential amendments, which is what I take to heart when I was thinking about this item. So for me, my interest in discussion is on storefront and geographical location, buffers, it's not on delivery, as it is legal at the state level. My issue is not with delivery. It's in discussing, um, location. So, um, I'm not asking at this point for further outreach to the public as we received a lot today. And so the purpose is just to have the conversation and have that in an open and public way for any ideas and thoughts. I'm just open to having the discussion. So that's kind of, I just wanted to put that out there. Thank you.

[05:50:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[05:50:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, thank you, council member committee, for sort of summarizing that. So I thought a lot about this over the course of the last week. And I'd like to, sort of following on your line of thought. Um, you know, I think, um, I'd like to propose something that I'm, um, that I'd really hope that I honestly think if, if not, um, a unanimous vote, we could get pretty close without having to go down the road of urgency ordinances and having to have council members recuse themselves for certain items. I sort of strategized a way to, like, address some of the concerns that you had raised. also allowing as many people as possible to participate in the decision and not having to get into urgency ordinances and then questions about downtown and all sorts of things where certain people can't participate. So what I would suggest, and just to sort of summarize my thinking here, I think it's really important, take cannabis out of this. It's really important for us as a body to recognize sort of our tradition over for at least as long as I've been around. We've had, I've seen 3 different councils. They've all had different preferences, some went in completely different directions from prior councils. But every time that we did that, And especially on like for the really big items like North Bay Shore housing, When we changed course, we did so in a deliberate way that didn't just, that respected the respected what had occurred before. So when we voted to start going down the path of adding housing in North Bay Shore, we didn't rip up the precise plan that the prior council had just passed. We didn't institute moratoriums, we didn't pull permits from people who had already sort of started investing in the process. We looked at it as we're going to build upon this start a public process and we're going to, you know, amend things as they go. And so I think, regardless of how one feels about cannabis or votes that occurred in the past, I think what we should focus on here is new information that we've received. Um, and so whether it's new information, um, or, or things, for contexts that have changed, that aren't just political changes, that are, you know, really, I think, substantive changes, and I think that we can um, change the ordinance based on, based on that. And I'm comfortable doing that. So one of the new pieces of information that we have, is the San Antonio school site, we can't discuss that specifically yet. So I will suggest in a moment that we sort of bifurcate this decision because there are certain decisions that we just can't make as a full counsel. And the other thing that I would suggest that we address that I think is new information to me, and I probably, I'll be perfectly frank, I think I should have seen it coming, and I sort of regret that I didn't before, but the issue of clustering. And so instead of talking, about, you know, whether or not something should or shouldn't be in downtown and having to, you know, move us into a situation where there's a subset of us making those decisions, what I would be comfortable with is saying, you know, citywide, let's not have more than one retail shop within like half a mile or whatever it happens to be so that we don't end up with, because if we start talking about specific areas, whether it's El Camino, then, um, You know, folks folks have suggested tonight that none of us live anywhere near when any of this might happen. Actually, two, 3 of us do, 2 of us in downtown area, and one of us on El Camino, which be within 500 feet. So this is happening in and around us. So, um, those are the things that I think, um, Where I'm not willing to go is, so the one thing I want to focus on new information. The other thing that I'm just not willing to do, because I don't think it's fair, is get into a situation where we're, if we're talking about buffers, I don't want to do anything that sort of excludes anyone who's already applied. So I'm happy to look at buffers and, and, you know, if you want to change the lottery process to a merit-based system at some point in the future, I'm happy to consider that down the line. I just don't want to get into a situation tonight where people who really invested time and money based on a prior decision that's made, whether we as a current council feel that was a good decision or not, are sort of being punitive. So what I would suggest is, I would suggest the following path forward. I would suggest that we separate out a decision on San Antonio so that we can have members who need to recuse themselves on that, recuse themselves. And then I would just suggest that we then consider the issue of clustering within the entire city so that everyone sitting at the dais now can participate in that discussion. And as long as, as long as I think we're all sort of generally on board with that, like I'm, those are the pieces of new information I have, and I think those are the most reasonable paths forward, and I'm fully supportive of those things. And I think that avoids a really long night of, you know, do we do urgency ordinances or not? And do we, you know, do people have to recuse themselves on certain areas? I think that, to me, is the best pass forward. And the other sort of new thing would be, if I felt, I feel based on staff's answers to some questions that I had, I feel confident that should anything, should we get in a situation where things aren't working out with one or more dispensaries, whether it be storefront or non-storefront? I feel pretty confident that we can pull those permits. We can have the zoning administrator can hold the hearing, can hold the permit, and I think I think we'll be in a, I think we're at any risk of really, really terrible things happening that we can't very quickly address. So that's where I'm at. I'm happy to, if folks want to do that, then I think the next step is we need to separate out the San Antonio question, because hopefully I think most of us would be supportive of that, and then we can discuss the clustering issue, and then if there are other issues, but those are the things that I feel comfortable sort of supporting it, and I'm hoping a large majority of us can.

[05:57:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Nice mayor, Abby Koga.

[05:57:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, question for city attorney, do we need to do an urgency ordinance if we want to make any of these changes or is it specific ones?

[05:57:39] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: If you were, I'm looking over at planning, and I think they're having the same kind of thinking through the same thing. whether or not if that were the level of changes that were going to be made, how disruptive that would be to the process.

[05:57:56] Unknown Speaker: Well, the 1st thing is we don't have any applications in San Antonio within any buffer of where the proposed future public school would be. So that's not going to impact any of the current applications. The 2nd thing is we were just thinking through how we can maintain the same permitting system with the same lottery and just prioritize, um, the applications pooled and ranked based on the zoning districts in which they're located. So that way we can maintain the same process while not causing clustering.

[05:58:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: It was, what my suggestion would be, and maybe this is, maybe your approach is better, but the approach that I had thought through in my mind was, you know, you'd still have the lottery as his. And if you happen to have more than one, um, more than one application, more than one applicant who's ranked, you know, one, two, and they're both, you know, within half a mile on El Camino, for example, um, or or I should pick something other than El Camino.

[05:58:58] Unknown Speaker: Yes, pick something other than help.

[05:59:00] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, that would be good. You should have two applicants that are ranked, you know, one, two, in within half a mile, one another. You'd maintain the ranking, but in case the 1st one dropped out or didn't fully meet all the compliance. And then the next one would have the opportunity, but you wouldn't, um, you wouldn't count that for the purposes of the, the, I guess the 1st round would still consider others allow others to proceed who weren't sort of within that. I don't know what the best way would be, but it allows you to still do the lottery process and still have a sort of a number two and number 3 in case someone bumps out, but you ultimately the rule would just be you wouldn't end up with more than ultimately end up with more than one within a half mile radius or whatever.

[05:59:44] Unknown Speaker: I think we're thinking along the same lines of what that process would look like, and I think we could implement those procedurally within the existing ordinance when it comes to the permitting process.

[05:59:54] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think that would be probably the least disruptive option. And then, like we said, no one's applied in San Antonio, so I'm always, um, we won't get into that, but there's there's no rush, um, basically there.

[06:00:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think the vice mayor was, I'm not sure if you're done. Council member Hicks.

[06:00:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, so I was thinking pretty much along the same lines. I have to say after the 10 applicants, you know, were announced. I was approached by an of people. That was the new information that I got that people were very concerned about the clustering that they hadn't expected in, you know, like a major retail and restaurant area, which I think when I've looked around the Bay Area stretching from Santa Cruz to San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, that area, there's no other cluster like that in a major retail and restaurant area. So that was a concern of some of some of the people that I spoke to. And then I would agree with the school in the San Antonio Centers as well. But we went. talk.

[06:01:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, we've mentioned it a couple of times. Nice mayor, Vicoga.

[06:01:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, as you, most of you know, how I voted in October, um, I wanted to start small, if we were gonna do this. And so I supported a one or 2 number, not four. Um, I just wanted to clear some things up that I heard from the public. Um, you know, Cannabis is accessible now. I don't know if you don't know that, or you don't think we know that, but you can get online right now and order it and it can get delivered to you. So let's just, yeah, we're not talking about, well, if we don't open it here, it's going to be a black market item. It's already available. And so I just, yeah, I just want to clarify any miss or misstatements that have been made. Um, My concern has just been that it's an untested, um, issues, establishment. And I think it's good when we have that. We do a lot of pilot projects when we start something new. And so why not start small? Um, this issue and um, council member Clark mentioned it. Um, you know, elections happen every 2 years. And this issue about, well, the past council passed this, so let it be, um, you know, as Council member Clark mentioned, North Bayshore was completely changed after I left in 2014. And that's just the nature and the beauty of democracy. The voters vote. We get new members, and we always have an opportunity to revisit anything. So that's not a valid argument either. That's basically what has happened. You know, my concern, I want to be respectful of what I've heard. I think we have learned new information. Um, I, you know, chosen to read more about the issue, you know, what's going on in other cities. Um, frankly, you know, we talk about being a leader. I know we pride ourselves in being a leader in housing. And when we, you know, when I supported housing in North Bay Shore, it was partially to take that leadership position in a statement, and I expected other cities to follow. So, in this situation too, I thought, well, you know, we're one of the first to decide this, and if we're gonna move forward, perhaps other cities will follow. You know, the only city I see right now is Redwood City, and they've actually only approved delivery. Milpitas overturned their original decision and they banned it. And so the question is, like, why, and this was the same discussion we had with medicinal marijuana, way back when is, do we really want to be the only city that allows this type of business to happen? And, um, you know, I, I, like with housing, I don't see other cities following us. I just don't, I question the need, you know, to take that position. And that's what it is. You know, I don't really want to debate, whether cannabis is good or bad. I think it's all, frankly, subjective. But for me, it was a question of, you know, is it needed? Is it a value ad? And is it available otherwise? And, you know, I didn't realize how easy it is to get it delivered to you. But so it's readily available now. Is it needed in our community? I don't think so. Is it a value ad and that's questionable. So, given that, um, you know, and I just want to say, thank you to the public, take you to the members of the public who came out and who've written in and, um, spoken this evening, um, for a lot of you. It was your 1st time, I've heard, and I appreciate that. You know, there's something that has been bothering me in this whole discussion and debate. And it's this question of, well, is it the vocal minority, or is it the majority who's speaking? And I want to be clear, when I voted for prop 64, I voted to decriminalize marijuana, but I did not vote to, you know, vote to support having stores in my neighborhood. And essentially, that's what's gonna happen. I can't talk about Castro Street, but I live 2 blocks away. And do I really am I comfortable with that? No, I'm not. So, you know, we have not voted as a city on whether to allow cannabis shops here. So let's be clear about the 68% and all these numbers. We have not in the taxing. It was if we were to allow shops, would we tax it? So let's just be clear on what we voted on. Um, And that's what we voted on. So, um, and the other thing that's really been bothering me is this issue of, you know, the vocal minority. Um, There's been, I don't, I have not thought of cannabis as a race issue, but some people have chosen to make it that. And that is very disturbing to me. As an Asian American, I feel very strongly about speaking out when I hear stereotypes or racist comments. And when a former council member asked me, well, why do Asian people oppose pot? Um, I don't know how to, I didn't know how to answer that to be honest. And then when I hear that same council member out of public forum saying, Asian people are against pot because of the opium wars, that's a real problem to me because 1st of all, I didn't even know what the opium wars were. I'd ask my daughter is studying it in high school right now. And these blankets, stereotypical comments that also have been, like, you know, have been, have permeated into this question of whether it's a vocal minority or not. I mean, we've had similar numbers of people come out to talk about housing or less than what we've had tonight. And no one ever questions, you know, where they live, if they say they live in Mountain View. We believe them. We don't question, you know, um, if they're really speaking for the majority or minority. We just look at who shows up. And, um, you know, if I'm just gonna be, you know, very blunt and say this, if 50 white people show up to talk about housing, You know, we say, oh, that was a lot of people, and we listen to them. But if we have 300 Asian people show up, why is there this question about whether they live here or they're a minority or not? I just have... I'm just really take offense to that. So I wasn't smirking. I was glaring because I'm very upset about this. This is not a racial issue, and somehow it's been made to be. The Asian folks who came and spoke, they should not have to say, Well, I'm part of the Chinese American community, but I support it or I'm against it. We don't expect the white people to come up and say that. I've never asked, right? But why do we have to justify ourselves in that way? And so I'm really just very disturbed by this whole conversation. And, you know, it is, I'm trying to separate that out from the decision we have to make, but just as I spoke out, when we had an anti Semitic person or person on one of our advisory councils many years ago, I was the only person who spoke, even though we had to, you know, 2 Jewish council members, I spoke out on behalf of them. I feel the same way right now that I need to speak out for the Asian American community, especially one that I represent. So I just need to put that out there and I, you know, I'm going to take some time to try to bifurcate this. But at this point in time, I just don't see the necessity of this, if you want it, you can get it. Redwood City is even closer than San Jose. So it's gonna, you can get it delivered to you much more quickly. So maybe we just need to rethink this whole thing.

[06:09:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[06:09:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Shh. Yep. Um, no, I, uh, I'm gonna struggle to be coherent. It's been a long day. But I want to speak to a couple of things. First, you know, I have a record on this issue on the planning commission. I supported the council's direction last year. And having said that, I also share many of the concerns that the vice mayor just articulated about a lot of the rhetoric surrounding this issue. which I also find highly problematic. The assertions of, you know, conspiracy theory that have been circulating. It's not helpful. It's not, it's counterproductive, and I think it unnecessarily antagonizes individuals on the dais here and in communities within within our city. And I, you know, I don't like the fact that that's happened. My apologies. I need to collect my thoughts. So I think it's the discussion that we're going to have yours is oriented towards the policy matter here. So I don't want to belabor that point, but I do agree that a lot of the rhetoric that we've heard is hostile and really counterproductive. The only thing I'd like to speak to before we have, I think before we delve deeper into the discussion of whether we want to remove commercial cannabis activity as a conditional land use from certain areas of the city is what I, if we regard cannabis as a land use problem, what I don't want to have happen is for the burden to be borne by a particular neighborhood, that we say, I understand where I think the direction of the council appears to be going, but what I don't want, sort of the natural conclusion is, you know, to be, we want to protect these areas. And that means the dispensaries go in these areas, which is, I think, difficult for me to justify to the community. Like, well, you know, you're not in these special areas, so you have to bear the burden of that problematic land use. It may not come to that, but I did want to articulate that point, you know, in the event that we do have a discussion of whether we want to pull it from particular precise plan areas. Thank you.

[06:12:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I'm gonna, before we do a 2nd round, say a few things. I want to thank council member, Kamei, for raising this issue. I know it's not easy to do something like that. And I certainly appreciate you doing that because I do think a lot of things have changed, and it is worth another discussion. We have different council members. We certainly have a lot more folks in the community that were active than before. So I absolutely want to say thank you for bringing this forward. For me, the most relevant information that I use to make a decision is what the residents are saying to us. And, I put a lot of credibility into, uh, them coming to meetings and talking with us, them stopping me when I'm, you know, walking down the street or at a coffee shop. And, um, I've reached out to folks, um, and asked them their thoughts on this. I take every opportunity. If somebody's talking to me about, oh, a development proposal, I'll ask them what they think about cannabis, because I really want to make sure I'm getting information directly from residents. I had concerns about the survey, and, um, I still have concerns about that because we can't separate out the residents from the people who work here. And the residents are the ones that are the most important from my perspective. I want to know their input. So, well, some people have said, well, the survey overwhelmingly says, you know, people want this. I can't say that because I can't separate out the residence input from that survey. Um, I totally agree about the vote and the, um, council member from Half Moon Bay. I so appreciated him saying that because I totally agree. We have not allowed, or we haven't had the opportunity for residents to vote on this. So, I think most people, based upon the folks I've talked to, and the folks that came here tonight said 64 was about decriminalizing marijuana. It wasn't, I want, businesses in the city. And a lot of people have said, and the reason they voted to tax it is because, gosh, if we're going to have these, um, yes, let's tax it because we want to make it in some ways less attractive for people. Um, So, you know, I have a problem with people saying respect the vote. We are respecting the vote. We're not changing prop 64, and we're not changing the tax. So we are respecting that vote. Um, I want to recognize that I heard a lot about there is a very valid reason to for people who need it for medical purposes, and, you know, you still can get it, as the vice mayor said. There's delivery services, if you're not willing to drive. And, um, and I think that's a very valid use, and it's not like we're trying to stop that. So for me, and I think most people know how I voted. I was fine with not having any businesses in the city. And I, in trying to find a compromise that the previous council could live with, suggested too, but that didn't pass. So, you know, a lot of people said they wanted to start slow, and that, to me, is slow, for businesses is not slow. So I would prefer, not. And that hasn't changed. Um, yet. Sorry, I had to keep on doing that. Okay. Council member Clark.

[06:16:19] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, um, I was gonna suggest a path forward. So, I think first we can talk about, I think the clustering issue is really important, and I think it's, I think if we talk about it citywide, it allows all of us to participate. So, I think we're, I think what I would do at this point is, we can sort of take these one by one. But the 1st thing that I would suggest is that we, I would move that we direct staff to bring back an amendment to the ordinance that addresses the issue of equestrian. And specifically, what I would say as a starting point is we just don't want any more than, we don't want any more than, We don't want the 2 retail shops to be within half a mile, one another. So, um, and if half a mile isn't the right, you know, I'm open to sort of what that nets out to. But when I when I the way that I landed at that is it wouldn't necessarily, um, It was, it was looking at the applications that are applied, and so it wouldn't, it would still, it wouldn't, um, it wouldn't, that was the number that sort of waste interfere with everything, because if you, um, if you make it shorter, then you might get too many in one area. So, I would suggest have a mile, and then, and when you bring that back, you know, I don't know if, you know, I don't know if we need an urgency ordinance necessarily to sort of institute that change or if that can be instituted administerially. But I think it probably ultimately needs to be codified in the ordinance. So, um, I think that's something that staff can research and bring back to us when they bring it back. But that's, um, that would be sort of my, um, That would be my 1st motion. So to address to address the clustering issue, and I'd use a starting point with no more than one retail space within half a mile of one another. Just to clarify, that's only the retail, so there would be no clustering provision relative to the non-storefronts. That is less the concern to me, just because, um, yeah, based on what I've seen from it. the applications. I'm less concerned about that.

[06:18:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So that's the entire motion?

[06:19:00] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I just want to address the question. Just to address the clustering, and then we can talk about an area that some people might be conflicted out of in a minute. Council member Kame might want to make a motion to that when we get to it.

[06:19:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion and a second, a motion by council member, Samirez. So before we vote, is there any discussion on that?

[06:19:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Council member, can I? I had hoped I would sneak in before council member Clark, so that I could address things, 'cause, like always, I dived right in a policy, but I did have some comments. So I don't know if now is the appropriate time, if I may, thank you. So, thank you, Mayor, for your comments. I think that, um, in terms of bringing an issue back, that to me. Um, the questions of good public policy. To me, good public policy happens when you're able to have an open public discussion that's respectful. Um, I really appreciate the comments of Vice Mayor Abbe Koga and council member Ramirez. The thing about Mountain View that I've always, um, loved is the ability to um, embrace our diversity and have a difference of opinions. But and not let that lead to a place where we act just like our federal administration, which to me is a place that's really negative, very toxic. And doesn't lead to productive conversation. Um, There were a lot of assumptions made on why this item was brought back, but we're unable to have any type of open public discussion unless it's brought back to council. And I think rather than making assumptions about one another, we really need to talk to each other. So I'm grateful that they're residents and also members of the industry worked with me, talked with me during this process because that's what it's all about. It's, it's, uh, and that's what I hope that we can, a lesson that we can learn from this discussion. Because I think what's happening right now is a very productive conversation where there are some things that need to be discussed and ironed out. So I just wanted to have the opportunity to state that before we got into the motions. Thank you, council member Clark, for letting me say that.

[06:21:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be Koga.

[06:21:31] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, I was actually going to offer a substitute motion, um, after thinking this through and and hearing everyone. I just don't think we're actually ready to move forward on this. So I would like to make emotion that we ban completely cannabis establishments.

[06:21:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'll second that. So we have, um, a substitute motion to ban all commercial cannabis businesses, um, by the vice mayor, and, uh, a 2nd by me. Oh, sorry. So we vote on the substitute motion first. Is there any discussion about that before we vote? Is anyone voted?

[06:22:43] Unknown Speaker: Not yet. Not yet.

[06:22:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So that motion fails. Um, two, two, five. With, uh, yeah. Okay. So we go back to, then, the original motion, about clustering. Is everyone clear on that motion? Any discussion on it?

[06:23:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'm I'm suggesting half a mile. I'm open, like, if staff looks at that, and they feel like that's really what I'm trying to get at is, you know, we don't want a couple of businesses side by side in whatever area. And so whether half miles the right radius, I'm open to what you suggest. And the other thing that I'm open to a suggestion on is, I'm hoping that doesn't require an urgency or else, but if it does, I'm willing to, I'm willing to consider that. I'll leave that to this. Oh, basically, I'll leave it to the city attorney to tell us in order to effectuate that, what we need to do. So when they come back to us. Did you have something you wanted to say?

[06:24:09] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Well, I was gonna say, I mean, mechanically, that would be pretty simple to do, assuming you don't want any more public outreach or process. It does have to go to the EPC, I believe, but it could all be done relatively quickly.

[06:24:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I think if we were, I think if we all felt that this would be bad for the general public, then it would be good to do more public outreach, but I think, I think this is a very reasonable thing to do, and I don't think we need to do a bunch of public outreach on that.

[06:24:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, Council member McAllister.

[06:24:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Would a half a mile allow 2 stores in downtown Mountain View?

[06:24:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you want to talk about downtown Mountain View, then we should probably excuse two of the council members.

[06:25:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I guess I don't want to, but I'd like to have that question.

[06:25:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Pick another part. town.

[06:25:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I can't talk about it then, can we? What my concerns are. Well, can we talk can we have the two council members leave, and we'll talk about it, but then we come back to do the vote, right?

[06:25:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. Yeah. So they just can't hear that part of it, right? Or participate in that part of it. Yeah. And everybody understands that council members, Hicks and Abby Koga have left the dais because they both live within close proximity of the downtown precise plan area.

[06:25:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. I'll ask my question again.

[06:25:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You can ask your question again.

[06:25:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, John, when I, when I did some cursory research on the half mile thing, so what you're preventing is, you know, the, you saw multiple applications for the downtown precise plan, especially on Castro. So a half mile would prevent more than one sort of a long Castro and the one on Dana. It would only allow one of those. If they were select, even if we haven't gotten the lottery. If they were even made it through the lottery, it would only allow one of those to proceed, sort of qualify. Half a mile doesn't quite extend to. I think there was an application at Moffatt and Middlefield, for example, that one falls just outside the half mile radius, I think, and most of the others fall outside a half mile radius. But I think my concern was I just didn't want, I just didn't want both storefront retails being that close together because I think they create they probably create parking and other impacts that would be pretty significant.

[06:26:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, that's going to be recognized. What? You recognize me?

[06:26:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister's.

[06:26:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. I was just concerned about having to potentially in the downtown quarter.

[06:27:07] Councilmember Chris Clark: That's, that's my concern. That's why I selected half a mile, because it doesn't implicate, it doesn't get into the ones outside the downtown precise plant area, but it does preclude more than more than one from being in the downtown precise player, when you look at that radius. So, if we, uh, the city manager would like to jump in on this, but...

[06:27:27] City Manager Dan Rich: I would just refer to my highly scientific Google Maps, which shows the distance from 100 Castro to 800 Castro, which is not exactly downtown, but pretty darn close to the length of it, is showing as 0.6 miles. So technically, you could, with a half mile, have one at one end of Castro, and another at the other end of Castro.

[06:27:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I guess that's true. I misspoke. It wouldn't preclude the entire precise plan, but it gets pretty close. And I figured half a mile was better than 0.6 or whatever.

[06:28:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Would you? How about 3 quarters?

[06:28:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: When you get to three quarters, then I actually measured that, then you start precluding several others. And I'm not, like, on the other side of freeways. So I don't want to go there. That's all I cook.

[06:28:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Chris, could you? Okay. When you say, let's say we went 0.7 points, just what areas, from 0.7 from one store to another store? And so that you're saying if somebody was on North Castro, that it would preclude somebody that was over right across the way on the other side of Central Expressway or Moffatt?

[06:28:41] Councilmember Chris Clark: Well, it could. But you could also have it subject to the rule that we had before. It says, if there are specific...

[06:28:51] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, there are specific... I think it's... natural physical barriers. Divisions.

[06:28:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. You still doing calculations over there?

[06:29:09] Unknown Speaker: Well, the current ordinance does have a different buffer, if there is a kind of major barrier, and it's defined as 101, 85, 237, or Central Expressway. And if the distance includes that, I believe it goes down to 250 feet.

[06:29:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes, but in that, we're discussing buffer distances from schools, not between businesses. But could you make it apply to businesses as well?

[06:29:40] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. The council could. Yeah.

[06:29:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, we could do that. The other thing that we could do, um, the other thing that we could do with the two folks here, I was hoping to address it citywide, but if you just want to, you know, while they're gone, if you just want to preclude two from being in the downtown precise plan itself, we could do that. They wouldn't be able to, I don't know if they'd be able to vote on the final thing. That's why I was trying to pick a radius citywide, but if you don't, if we're not worried about whether or not they can participate and just want to exclude more than one from being downtown. I'm okay with that too.

[06:30:21] Unknown Speaker: About none downtown.

[06:30:23] Councilmember Chris Clark: No. No, no. As I said, my line in the sand is not taking away, um, something that people have already made a lot of assumptions in investments in time in. So that's my that's my line in the sand.

[06:30:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, One downtown? Just to be clear, so are we doing two things? Because I support the, I guess, the buffer between businesses half a mile or whatever we decide, are we doing that and also limit it to one in downtown?

[06:30:58] Councilmember Chris Clark: We could. I mean, I still I personally feel like it's not good to have clustering of retail, whether it's downtown or anywhere else. So, I would be open to, if you want to say, no more than one in the downtown precise planet area, and no more than within half a mile of another one. Um, as long as, um, but in that case, I would say we need to, um, um, respect the freeway boundaries, but I'd be willing to those those 2 sort of restrictions if folks feel strongly about it.

[06:31:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So basically what that would say is no more than one in the downtown precise plane area, and citywide, not having one within less than half a mile of another. I support both of those, but maybe if we break it up into 2 separate amendments to allow the other 2 council members.

[06:31:54] Councilmember Chris Clark: I agree. Okay. I'm comfortable with that. Thank you.

[06:31:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. So with respect to the half mile and I'm looking at Stephanie and Clarissa. So it'd be within a half a mile of each other unless separated by one of the major boundary. Or not, just a straight half mile.

[06:32:16] Unknown Speaker: Do you want us to look at that?

[06:32:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Why don't you... why don't you bring back what that... Obviously, we need to respect the other buffers that are in place, too. Um, but why don't, why don't you, why don't you just give us a map that sort of shows the two scenarios when you bring it back and we can decide it? We can.

[06:32:31] Unknown Speaker: Because that question will be voted on by the full council and I I'm perfectly fine with that question being voted on by the full council. So then maybe the Friendly Amendment would be to direct staff to...

[06:32:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, you'll get there. We'll get there. So the motion, though, that's on the table is about the half mile. So, do we want to withdraw that one and vote on the one in downtown and then come back to that and the other council members can join us? I... Or did you have more?

[06:33:07] Councilmember Chris Clark: I guess we could. If we want to just be more expeditious, I would say. I would just amend my motion. As long as the second door is okay with it, to just say we're going to limit it to one storefront retail within the downtown Verscise Plan area. and direct staff to look at, um, to explore 2 things. One would be a straight half mile, no more, basically one retail store not being within a straight half mile of another retail store, and then also include a map of if we wanted to respect the freeway boundaries, what those maps would look like. And then those two, the other two will be able to sort of vote on that too. And they would be able to change the distance or all those things at that time, I would assume. because they'd have all that information back. But I mean, if you really, really want them.

[06:34:01] Unknown Speaker: Oh, I'm indifferent. I thought I'm not trying to have them come back to do the clustering, so...

[06:34:07] Councilmember Chris Clark: I do. They'll be able to when we bring back the amount of ordinance, and they can make a message. That's right. So that's my amended motion if the 2nd or is okay with it.

[06:34:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Does anyone have strong feelings about allowing the other 2 council members to participate in the clustering component of this? Well, I thought it would be nice if they could.

[06:34:29] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so, you know, I agree with the mayor. Let's just do the downtown stuff, and then we'll come back.

[06:34:36] Unknown Speaker: It's the same in my mind. Yeah, they'll get a participate in the way, so I'm happy to have them participate now. I think they may want to provide some preliminary input on the distance.

[06:34:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay, so let's vote on limiting it to one storefront retail in the downtown precise plane area. Okay. And if you're okay with that, then we'll start with that motion.

[06:34:52] Unknown Speaker: I comfortable with that.

[06:34:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we have a new motion. By council member Clark segmented by council member Ramirez to limit it to one and it's retail storefront business in the downtown. Is it the precise plan area? Is that the exact word? Downtown precise?

[06:35:11] Councilmember Chris Clark: The downtown precise Plan area. Basically saying no more than one storefront retail establishment within the downtown precise point area at any given time.

[06:35:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are you ready to vote? I just want to make sure. Sorry, you. I thought you was typing over there. So that passes. Um, 502. Five, yes, zero, no, two recuse. Okay, and now we can get Margaret and Allison, right?

[06:36:25] Unknown Speaker: Mm hmm.

[06:36:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, you...

[06:36:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, great. Sorry. I didn't hear you call on me. So, um, I wanted to put emotion forward, um, to, uh, have the item come back in a year. So we can, the council would be able to hear how things are going. I think we've heard a lot of concern from residents today, and I want to be responsive to what they've said. Um, and one of the things, uh, the vice mayor mentioned was how this hasn't, it's an untested market. I think there are a lot of question marks that I think it would be really helpful to get that information and come back so that we can, you know, have that, uh, So I don't know if anyone has a 2nd thing.

[06:37:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yep, so there's a Motion by council member, a 2nd by council member Ramirez, to have this come back to council after one year to talk about how it's going.

[06:37:30] Unknown Speaker: So if I could just ask clarity on the motion. Is that one year from today, one year from the lottery, one year from one permits are issued, which we don't expect to be for about 6 months or so? So if your goal is to see something operational for a year, I would suggest that it'd be a year from when permits are issued.

[06:37:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm comfortable with that.

[06:37:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay.

[06:37:52] Unknown Speaker: Sorry, just to further clarify, I would recommend it be the police permit, and not the conditional or provisional use permit.

[06:38:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Yes, the land use permit would come before the operational permit issued by the police.

[06:38:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You okay with that? Okay, we can vote on that.

[06:38:20] Unknown Speaker: I was just gonna comment... I mean, just for the benefit of staff. Um, just sort of, just sort of setting expectations for, because I think we talked about doing this before, but I think it's good to have sort of it tied to a specific timeline. So the police permit, but then, you know, it would just be good to get a sense from, I don't know if it's the police department or staff or whoever of, you know, how are things going? Have we had any complaints, if you could do it all over again, you know, how would you tweak the process? Um, And, um, it would just be good to have all. I mean, no one's going to remember this in a year, but those are the sorts of things that would be really good information to have.

[06:38:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other comments on that? Okay, saying then we can vote. That passes unanimously. Okay, um, Vice Mayor Abbe Koka.

[06:39:16] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I'd like to make a motion on buffers for other areas. Our buffer from schools, uh, childcare, daycare centers, um, 600 feet for schools, I believe in 250 from daycare. San Jose is a 1000 feet, as is Redwood City. And so I would like to make a motion that we make it 1,000 feet and be in unison with the other cities allowing this. Also, actually, with San Jose, is 500 feet from substance abuse rehab centers or emergency residential shelters and 150 feet from religious assembly, adult daycare centers, and residential uses. So I would actually include all of that.

[06:40:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark?

[06:40:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: I was gonna speak on the motion, but do you want to make the motion? Um, I'll just say, as I said earlier, sort of, I'm not, I think those are valid arguments to make. I just don't, um, I just don't think that, um, my life. in the sand is sort of changing the rules on people midstream, and we aren't San Jose in terms of land area, and those buffers work in San Jose, because they have a really large land area, and in Mountain View with 12 square miles, it basically precludes, if you look at the maps, it basically precludes. It's just another way of banning everything. So I can't support that.

[06:40:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by... Vice Mayor Abikoga, and a 2nd by me. Any other discussion on that? Sorry. Council member McAllister.

[06:41:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, this is for staff. So how would those buffers affect?

[06:41:12] City Staff: So I've actually prepared a land use map for you that has the 1000 foot buffer. Some of you saw this last year. It gives you a general idea of the areas that would and would no longer be, um, available to cannabis businesses. All the things are like in the little... So the red line is through the 1000 foot buffer from childcare facilities, school and schools. So it would be anything outside those lines. That is. It was a little restricted. That is restricted.

[06:41:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other discussion on that?

[06:41:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, question to the maker? Okay, uh... I could see going to schools. Some of the others. I don't know. I mean, I know with daycare, kids aren't wandering around. They picked up immediately and dropped off, so, um, and I don't, the other items that you have, I'm not sure if we have those in this town. So, is there any flexibility in your motion, or you're pretty set on, as I say, public schools and private schools, I could see, I'm just concerned about some of the others that you put in. What about parks, libraries, community centers?

[06:42:33] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hmm.

[06:42:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. I'm asking you a question.

[06:42:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, you're asking me?

[06:42:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah.

[06:42:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: what was the question I'm sorry?

[06:42:43] Councilmember John McAlister: If you want to propose something else, I'm open to it, but my question was, what about parks, libraries, and recreation centers?...? I would like to see the map, though. But that map changed much.

[06:43:01] City Staff: It would change substantially. If we establish a 1,000 foot buffer from parks and the library and community centers, it would change substantially.

[06:43:12] Unknown Speaker: More or less?

[06:43:14] City Staff: I don't think there'd be any areas in the city where cannabis businesses could go, except maybe North Bayshore.

[06:43:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. But there's a park up there. Do you want to offer something else? around schools? Just schools at a thousand? What about the other areas? You want to keep it at 250 or 600? Do you want to keep it at 250 or 600 fiend for the other daycares, community centers, parks, libraries?

[06:43:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah. Yeah, it has to be more flexibility allowed. So it's 600 now. It's not her now.

[06:43:56] Councilmember John McAlister: If you, it sounds like you're open to doing a 1000 for the schools and then do you want to keep everything else at 600?

[06:44:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah.

[06:44:04] Unknown Speaker: Chris, how would that look on your...?

[06:44:07] City Staff: If I may. The current regulation is 600 feet from schools, that's public or private schools, 250 feet from childcare centers and facilities. And the school buffer is decreased to 250 feet if it's separated by one of the major highways.

[06:44:25] Unknown Speaker: When you say major highways, how about, isn't it not major highways, but major, no?

[06:44:31] City Staff: Yeah, but what central Expressway is not a major highway. It's included in that as well.

[06:44:35] Unknown Speaker: Okay, that's why no clarity on that. Is El Camino included in that, too?

[06:44:38] City Staff: No. It was 85, 101, and central.

[06:44:43] Unknown Speaker: Central. Wasn't there a fourth? And 237? 237? Yep, in five. '85. So the question... So, 1,000 feet for schools and everything else, keep it as is. Is that what you're...

[06:44:55] Unknown Speaker: Council member, if you change it to that buffer zone, you've precluded a lot of the people who've already applied. You're basically taking them out of the running. Um, and I would...

[06:45:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. I just wanted to get clarification. Thank you. Okay, any other discussion on this? And GYR, well, let's see. After that discussion, it's a thousand for schools. And... The San Jose or... I would just stick with the San Jose model then... Council member Ramirez?

[06:45:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The only thing I would request is if this motion passes that we, it would come back to us with the map so we can see what areas are being precluded. Thank you.

[06:45:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, are you ready to vote? Any comments on that? Okay, let's vote. So that passes. Four to three. Council member Clark.

[06:46:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, so, um... Hey. This is... That was just so everyone understands that was a vote to bring back information about that to just to consider at a future meeting, when we might consider amending the ordinance. It's...

[06:46:31] Unknown Speaker: No, that was actually a motion to change the buffer.

[06:46:34] City Staff: You can't change the buffer tonight. You need to... Hang on. I just want to make sure everyone understands, we're not changing anything tonight. All changes need to come back with an amendment to the ordinance, which has to go to the EPC and then be brought back to the council. So, yes, we're not physically making any actual changes tonight. You're providing direction on what the changes will be brought back to you. Yeah. So they'll bring back maps and everything associated with that.

[06:47:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: Well, the 2 of you were away. One of the things that we wanted you all to be able to participate in the issue of clustering. And so, like you were probably seeing. So we limited, we wanted to know more than one retail establishment in the downtown precise point area at any given time. And I still think it's reasonable to proceed with, you know, a half mile buffer or a half basically no more than one business within half a mile of, you know, regardless of where it's at in the city. And since we're talking about where it's at anywhere in the city, you can both participate. So, I'll make that motion that we bring that back as part of the package of amendments to consider. Okay, we have a motion by council member Clark, a 2nd by council member Ramirez. Any discussion on that? Is everyone clear on what that motion is? No, can you actually repeat it?

[06:48:03] Councilmember Chris Clark: So it would be to, in when they come back with the package of amendments to consider? One of the amendments would be basically saying that we don't want more than one retail establishment within half a mile of another, so that we don't end up with, you know, let's say none make it through the lottery for a particular area, like they don't get all clustered in another area. They're sort of still spread out.

[06:48:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other discussion or questions on that? Okay, let me vote on that. That passes unanimously. I think we had one more, but in order to do that.

[06:48:49] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Yeah, so I would suggest we discuss an item that may preclude the participation of council member Ramirez, and yes, you need to disclose why, if we talk about San Antonio, why you can't be here.

[06:48:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I, uh, I hold a lease to an apartment. I don't actually know the distance, but I assume it's within 500 feet of the San Antonio precise plan.

[06:49:09] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: And because of that, you have a financial interest, which precludes your participation in this interest in this item.

[06:49:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Dave. Okay. Councilman Perkume.

[06:49:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, I'm sorry, I was trying to... Oh.

[06:49:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Why don't you make the motion?

[06:49:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, so, uh, I moved to, I would assume to remove San Antonio from the, uh, as a zone, precise plan, precise plan as a zone. So we can amend the precise plan to remove the, it was added as a use, correct?

[06:49:57] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: And now we'll remove it.

[06:49:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Jane. So we have a motion by Council member Kumei, a 2nd by Vice Mayor Abi Koga. So we're ready to... Oh, is there any discussion on that? Questions? Okay, we're ready to vote on that. 12:30. That passes unanimously, six, uh, with council member Ramirez recusing. And now he can come back, right? Okay, is there any other discussion on this topic? Wait till he gets back.

[06:50:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other discussion on this topic?

[06:51:03] City Staff: No, I will, um, I will just state for the record that, um, if, um, so I understand counsel's desire to have the information back about the, and to consider the, the increased school buffer, um, my assumption is that the implementation of that, um, my assumption is that, along with that, the staff will likely recommend that we institute a moratorium, um, in order to, I guess, I guess you can study that between now and then. But, um...

[06:51:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. We'll see what you bring back then. It might be because of the late hour, but if you could summarize your motions, that would be very helpful.

[06:51:51] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes, all three of them. I can't... I can't summarize the school one, but I can summarize the... There was one to... There was one to limit the number of retail establishments in the downtown precise plan at any given time to one. There was a motion to... There was a motion to on clustering to... have... basically no more than, basically, not having the retail establishments less than half a mile from one another within the city. There was, um, there was the, um, basically the removal of this is allowed use from the San Antonio precise point area. That's three. To bring it back within a year from the. Oh, yes, and then council member Kamehs, to bring it back from a year from, I believe, when the police permit was issued, so roughly a year from then. And then, um, the school one, you'll have to summarize.

[06:53:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Can I just give you my paper? Do you want me to read it? I wanted to clarify that, it's basically this map. It's a thousand feet buffer from schools and childcare centers, and it did not include the churches and libraries and other things. So it's 500 feet from substance abuse rehabilitation centers or emergency residential shelters, and 150 feet of places of religious assembly, adult daycare centers or residential uses. It's the San Jose model.

[06:53:37] City Staff: But the motion was based on the San Jose model, which is, as the vice mayor, described. That's what we will bring back to council when we bring back, and council will decide at that point, whether or not that's what they want the final ordinance to say.

[06:53:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right. Thank you. Thank you. So, I think that ends item 7.1.

[06:54:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: No. So If I could, mayor. So this question of whether or not there's an urgency ordinance, the real issue is the lottery, which has been set for March 27th. The ordinance actually gives staff, I believe, 60 days from when the application period screening is complete. Is that right? Which technically has not yet happened. So technically, we do not have to have the lottery on March 27th. Is that a fair statement?

[06:54:38] City Staff: Uh, yes, but any ordinance enactments would have to second reading, it wouldn't take an effect for 30 days after the second reading, so that would far exceed the 60 days for the lottery. Yeah, anyway, we'll come back to you on whether or not we think an urgency is necessary, but the timing gap may not be huge.

[06:55:04] Unknown Speaker: When do you think you would come back? Like, would it be before the end of the month?

[06:55:11] City Staff: It's definitely not gonna be before the end of March, no?

[06:55:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I personally feel like it would be... The lottery doesn't grant any vested rights or anything like that. I personally feel like I would have a lot more information and be able to on some of these amendments if the lottery proceeds, and then we sort of know who's in the running or not, and we can make a decision about what things are urgent and what things aren't. So, you know, I would I would actually allow the lottery to proceed so that we have more information. There's no vested rights being given. And then, and then we have sort of the total package, the total set of information available to us, to make decisions about each of these, um, each of these things. That would be Because otherwise we're still sort of flying blind. And I don't think there's any harm in that because we aren't giving out any vested rights just with the lottery, but I could be, I could be wrong.

[06:56:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be coga.

[06:56:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I would actually prefer to iron out all these issues and try not to pick and choose from the applicants who have come in.

[06:56:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else, Council member McAllister?

[06:56:28] Councilmember John McAlister: I think, I don't, from what I've heard, I don't think going forward is going to, going with a lottery is giving anybody, sort of like a gatekeeper, they're just sort of, we're qualifying each one, and that, uh, we're not giving any entitlement. So I, I sort of, I agree with Councilman Clark, that if we do move forward, it would just get us more information, within a lot of those distances between the various sites could be also be determined at that time. And it would just actually give us a full clarity of what's going on, and even it would not harm anyone, and I still think it would still give us opportunity to review all sides.

[06:57:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so I'll just see where it goes. I'll just move that we direct staff to, you know, all the things we already previously moved, but just that we also perceive with the lottery is scheduled, and then we'll have that information. And then let's just see how many folks we have, because I think I'd actually base my, I might, you know, it might inform my vote on some of the amendments that have been proposed.

[06:57:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by Council member Clark and a 2nd by Council member Ramirez. Is there any discussion on this?

[06:57:41] Unknown Speaker: I feel like we discussed this last time? And we decided to, um, Hold, hold off.

[06:57:49] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I did just want to make it clear that once the lottery is complete that gives people the green light to actually submit planning applications, and, um, pay the application filing fee as well as start the process with the background checks. So those would be additional financial investments by the applicants. Once the lottery is complete.

[06:58:12] Unknown Speaker: Do they have a timeline?

[06:58:16] Unknown Speaker: Applicants are required to submit within 60 days of the lottery. So there is a pretty strict sunset date.

[06:58:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[06:58:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I just want to see if I understand what the implications are. So we're going to explore, you know, the motions that we passed, how that affects locations. And then the lottery is going to happen, and some some of the applicants will be eliminated. And then we come back and some of the ones that are eliminated, might be in okay places, and some of the ones that are, you know, selected by the lottery might not be. It seems like it might be better to postpone the lottery until after the amendments are go through the process.

[06:59:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. So, um, we have a motion on the table. I lost It's taken. Well, that failed. One to six. Okay, now are we done with this topic? Maybe not.

[06:59:51] Unknown Speaker: Well, I think, given the lateness of the hour, I do think that the planning staff, and my office, would like some, we're gonna look at this tomorrow and figure out whether or not the wisest course of action would be to do some sort of urgency ordinance that would suspend the, the existing ordinance while we study the amendments that you, um, you directed us to include. And so I just want to prepare you that we might be bringing back an urgency ordinance.

[07:00:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[07:00:24] Councilmember John McAlister: And the emergency ordinance would need 6 votes?

[07:00:29] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Correct.

[07:00:30] Councilmember John McAlister: And if it didn't get six votes, then what happens?

[07:00:32] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Status quo prevails.

[07:00:34] Councilmember John McAlister: And what does that mean by status quo?

[07:00:36] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: It means the current ordinance would remain in effect. And I think, really, our goal as staff is to provide the greatest clarity that we can, and to the community that's watching what happens with the amendments that are under discussion, and also allow us time to be able to study them, to bring you back the amendments that you requested. It would be a very short period of time. You know, an urgency ordinance you can only do for 45 days. So our hope would be if we did that, we don't need to renew it, but after 45, 35 days in, we need to bring you a report on how we're doing on our efforts, and I would hope that maybe we could do it that quickly. But we'll have to look at the calendars, and the fact that we need to take it to the EPC there, next meeting is the 20th, and I don't know if that's quite doable. I'm looking at Clarissa's face. That's probably not quite doable. So, so those are the things that once we get a good night's rest, we're going to figure out how fast we can move and whether or not it would be in our best interest to recommend to you an urgency ordinance.

[07:01:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member from Callister.

[07:01:47] Councilmember John McAlister: So if you came back to us with an emergency ordinance, is there a discussion to modify any of the motions at that time?

[07:01:59] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Staff wouldn't initiate any discussion, no?

[07:02:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, I'm sorry, but can counsel, though.

[07:02:07] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: It would have to be agendized.

[07:02:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, isn't the emergency ordinance gonna be agendaes?

[07:02:12] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Yes, but just the... The urgency ordinance would be the agenda item.

[07:02:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, and so there would be no further discussion on the amendments.

[07:02:22] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Yeah, just remember, the urgency is simply to stop the current ordinance temporarily, so it's not about what the changes are. That will be the subsequent discussion. So if there weren't six votes for an urgency, the current ordinance would stay in effect. If there is an urgency vote, if we suggested, and you approve it with six votes, then the current ordinance would be suspended until we come back with the proposed changes.

[07:02:50] Councilmember John McAlister: And the current ordinance would not include any of our amendments tonight.

[07:02:54] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Correct. Correct.

[07:02:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[07:03:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I don't know. Any other comments? Every time I say that, somebody has one. Okay, looks like we are done with item 6.. sorry, 7.1. And we do have a couple other things. So if folks wouldn't, if you want to leave, if you could do so quietly, that'd be great, so we can continue the meeting. Um, we are going to move to item 6.1. And again, we are continuing this topic to, this is, um, the amendment to the Parkland dedication ordinance for the North Bay Shore area, and we are going to continue this topic to another date, but we will take public input on it if anyone is here, who would like to provide us with input on that. So on this one, do we not have to do a date certain?

[07:04:03] Unknown Speaker: You do not need to do a date certain? Okay. You could do a date certain, but you do not have to, and I would recommend you not doing a date certain.

[07:04:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. Okay, so it looks like there's no one here to provide us with public input on that topic, so we'll move to item 9.one. which is Terabella visioning and guiding principles, plan for land use and the land use alternatives. And again, this one, we are going to continue to another date.

[07:04:38] Unknown Speaker: Yes. And I was just gonna let you know that a representative from some of the folks that we're gonna speak on Terrebell, let me know that they have left, so they will plan to speak at the next opportunity.

[07:04:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, great. Thank you. So if there's anybody else who's here that wants to speak to us on the Terabella area. It doesn't look like it, so we'll close that topic, and we'll move on to the next one, which is item 8.1. And this is the city's association of Santa Clara County Draft Position Paper on Housing, and the presenter is Vice Mayor Abikoba.

[07:05:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I don't want to go too long on this, as you all know, there is this casa compact that was created by a committee that was commissioned by the NTC. Um, I think most of you have heard about it, read it, read it, read it, read it, and I know, um, council member Clark is on A-Bag and voted on it. Um, as a response, or, um, to the compact, the city's association, uh, chose to draft this position paper, and it's, uh, in your attachment. Um, and, um, our approach to this was to, um, not just respond to casa, but to have a document that lists, or states what our position is on housing, and, um, the thought is that we will use this when we go out to talk with our legislators, um, or if we want to write all beds. This would be the foundation of whatever comments we decide to make. Um, I think, as I've, um, listen, we, uh, presented this draft, and the draft was written, um, with collaboration, um, with the city managers, and I wanted to thank our city manager, Dan Rich, who's been very instrumental in helping to draft this. Them, the executive committee of the city's association took a stab at it. We presented it to the Cities Association Legislative Action Committee, that which I chair, and then the board. So we've already received quite a few comments. And as lacked share, I was given the role job of trying to revise this paper. And so this is the second draft that you are seeing here. What we are asking is, um, if there are any other comments, and we've distributed this out to all of the city reps, and some of them are discussing it as a council. I know Cupertino, I believe, did it last night. We're asking for any final comments, changes, revisions, and we will try to take that in, finalize it by Friday, and then present it at our next cities association meeting next Thursday, the 14th. So what I wanted to ask from you this evening, is if you have any comments or revisions you would like to make to this paper, I would welcome them. Thank you.

[07:07:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[07:07:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I do have two comments. Uh... What else is it? Should we do public coming first?

[07:08:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: This is an action item.

[07:08:07] Councilmember John McAlister: So, if it's an action item, we don't... question... We'll do public comment, though, right?

[07:08:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. So, questions?

[07:08:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, I got one question. Okay. So, uh, down there, an attachment to the bottom of the page, uh, the governor calls for private sex to invest, significant contributions into housing. Has there been any talk about, instead of saying investment significant contributions that private sector would build housing? Was there any discussion that said employers should start building workforce houses?

[07:08:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Mm hmm, absolutely. We didn't have that specific of a discussion. It was for taking governor, Newsom's state of the state address, and what he mentioned or said in that address. And he's specifically talked about investments from the private sector. And so we were, we were trying to, we were attempting to support what the governor is advocating.

[07:09:13] Councilmember John McAlister: And was there any talk about, there was talk about incentivizing with transportation dollars? And are there anything in here that would say that they would take transportation dollars away from SP1, too?

[07:09:27] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No, um, we were actually going the other way. If you look at page two, there are two new bullets. And, um, well, the first one, we strongly support significant increases in transportation investment that provide real transit solutions at 10 to 15 minute headways, and communities where increased housing is being planned for and built, and to connect those communities with job growth centers. So, we were actually trying. The cost of combat doesn't really talk about transportation investments. And so the cities, the members of the cities association felt it was important to put that in our position paper because there is a very strong, I think, consensus that transportation is, it goes hand in hand with housing. And we put the one about connecting job growth centers and to where housing is being built. That was specifically keeping in mind, the highway 85 corridor, which I know you were a member of that. advisory board. So, we were actually putting it in.

[07:10:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I'll wait for comment, I'll comment on that after we do our public or Alison.

[07:10:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks, did you have questions?

[07:10:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So are we taking public comments? I was gonna make comments, not question.

[07:10:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, then why don't we open it up for public comment at this point. So if you have anything on... this item.

[07:11:08] Joan MacDonald: Joan MacDonald for AAH advocates for affordable housing. Um, we, uh, by the way, aside from this, we really support including transportation. It is nonsensical for housing to be created a long commute distance away from jobs, and then not have public transportation, that cuts the time and the congestion. We wonder if you could include, and this may be very controversial, with some cities, but if you could include some exemption or a change in requirements relative to cities, such as mountain view, that has actually created significant housing, and has significant housing in the pipeline, as opposed to those communities who have resisted creating housing. Do you think that's... a possibility?

[07:12:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I don't think we... Yeah. Thank you. Anything else? Anyone else want to talk to us on this topic? Okay, we'll close the public comment period, and bring it back to the council. Council member Hicks.

[07:12:47] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, well, I have several comments. I hope this doesn't turn into too long a letter. Um, one of the things that I like best about, I like best when I read Casa was that it identifies, um, it identifies sensitive communities, and I hope I'm getting the wording right. Communities vulnerable to displacement. So, with the we supports, I would suggest adding, we support identification of sensitive communities and communities vulnerable to displacement and policy planning to protect these communities. Also, when we were at the cities, so no, the League of California Cities Conference, all the cities, mostly kind of small cities, voted on what their biggest problem in the city was, and to my surprise, because it wasn't like LA and San Francisco and so forth, voting, homelessness was the biggest problem that people voted for. So I was surprised that Casa had nothing specifically, at least, unless I read it too quickly, nothing specifically on that. So I would also like to add, we urge the addition of policy planning for emergency measures to address houselessness and homelessness. And I say emergency measures because I know if, theoretically, if you build a lot of housing, homeless people can live in some of it, but what we're experiencing here in Mountain View, and I think in a lot of other cities, is that we can't build it quickly enough, and that I'm not going to go into details at this time of night, but that, um, emergency measures are really what we need. Let's see. Then, I wanted, okay, this I don't have wording for, but I wanted something about the job's housing balance because Do I have anything about the, okay, I don't have a whole sentence on that, so I'll just leave it that way. Um, and another thing I don't have a full sentence on, but I, um, sometimes my fear about casa is that it's heading towards regressive rather than progressive taxation. So that's another thing, if I had a full sentence, I would add. And so, I fear regressive taxation and unfunded mandates, as a, are some of the things I would like to avoid, as, as bills related to casa, go through the, go through Sacramento. And then my last thing was, actually, I was going to say something related to what Jones said. I've heard people, something about when cities are doing a lot. I've heard people talk about it in terms of cap and trade policies. I don't know if that's an appropriate way to talk about it, but something about, you know, once you've, once you've built a lot of housing, you should be able to have, you should be able to have cap and trade. You should be able to say, We build it here, so don't make us build it there. So those are my comments.

[07:16:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Council member McAllister.

[07:16:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, going back to the transportation, again, sort of at the California League of Cities, the language there needs to include something that is independent of incentivizing, because the governor says, and other people were saying, well, we will, if you don't build, we'll give you an incentive for transportation dollars. If you don't, then you can't get it. And so transportation is much more broader than just housing. So the idea that it has to be, I would strongly put in wording there that it's independent of the housing. If you get it, it's a bonus, or, you know, that's the thing, too, that they were concerned about giving it as a bonus, because we needed all over the region. But I would just be concerned that it's not used as an incentive, and it would not take money away from SB1. That was one of my concerns. And the other comment, as I made earlier, is, uh, more effort since the private sector would build their own workforce housing. Because they're doing all these solutions. And the private sector was left off of the solutions. So those are my two suggestions, please.

[07:17:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[07:17:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, just very briefly. So I agree with the suggestions that Council member Hicks made. But sort of more fundamentally, I appreciate the draft that the vice mayor has brought to us and agree with its tone and content. I like the fact that it states, here's what we support. Here's what's good about the compact here. you know, where there's room for improvement. And, you know, I don't think it needs to be overly long, but I think that the direction is very good right now. Thank you.

[07:17:56] Unknown Speaker: So I had a couple convents. Uh, when it says we support the calls for action 2, and I thought the word investments was a little bit, um, well, it could be more clearer, and I would change that too. revenue measures, because I think what we're saying is instead of the two-thirds, it's 55% needed to pass any sort of revenue measure. And I also thought that, I would like to see it more strongly worded about, We're not interested in a loss of local control as it pertains to land use. is kind of in here, but I just feel like, to me, that's a really important one. And I was looking at it in where it says, let's see, this is the 1st page, before the line, the one size fits on approach, housing densities and land use decision making. And I felt like I would make that whole statement much stronger.

[07:19:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Very light heater. Yep.

[07:19:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And that was it for me.

[07:19:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments on this? Okay, it doesn't look like it. So, we will close that item. And next, we have item 10, the council staff committee reports. Council member McAllister.

[07:19:32] Councilmember John McAlister: That's not really It's more of a question for staff. For the items that we continued, would the staff reports still be the same and that therefore we should save our existing information? Okay. Thanks.

[07:19:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[07:19:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: Jenny. Um, please don't throw things. So, um, and I promise, uh, I want the full council to know that I, um, so this is, uh, suggest or a notice about a future meeting. So I want everyone to know I'm not doing this to be a stick in the mud or to cause problems, but I, given the vote on the buffers, which I don't have an issue with bringing back. I do worry that if a moratorium were to come before us, that it might fail if the buffers are included, and I don't want to be in, I think it would be really bad for all of us if we were in a situation where, um, a moratorium failed, and the rest of the amendments didn't proceed. And so to ensure that we have just to preserve all of our options at that meeting and make sure that we don't get into that sort of a quagmire. I think the best thing for to do would be for me to give notice that at the next meeting or the meeting where you, um, if you were to, if you were to bring us a moratorium at, um, at the next meeting or a subsequent meeting that I intend, this is sort of me giving public notice that I may make a motion to rescind the action on the specific action of the buffer zones, Um, uh, and, you know, that's just, that's just so that it's noticed, it's publicly noticed, and we can talk about it if we need to, and I'll send you, um, I'll send you the precedent for this, but it's less me saying that, um, that we should do that and more just ensuring that we have the option to do that should we get into a quagmire where, um, we don't have 6 votes for whatever reason. And I don't want to put everything else, all the other sort of amendments that we discuss tonight in jeopardy, because of that. So, basically, it's just, it's just, it's just me giving previous notice that, um, I plan to make a motion to rescind that action. so that we can so this serves as the public notice under the Brown Act that we can discuss that item, I believe. Or at least that in motion, in particular. So I'll send Jenny that information. But I just really don't want to, it's less me saying, I don't, I won't support that because I don't know what it will show, but I also don't want to be in a situation where the moratorium doesn't pass and it puts everything else in jeopardy, all the other ones. So.

[07:22:30] Unknown Speaker: 45

[07:22:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: Right, but you might not have 6 votes of that is what I'm worried about.

[07:22:35] Unknown Speaker: Sure, but it's, I guess, my argument. My argument, it's 45 days.

[07:22:40] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, yeah, I mean, we can't really discuss that. I'm just preserving options at this point. is really what this is about.

[07:22:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Can swim for McAllister.

[07:22:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so does that change my earlier question about discussing or modifying the motions when you come back for the... I'm really not familiar with emotion to rescind. I look forward to learning about this, and so I don't know if that.

[07:23:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: My understanding of it, John, is that it may, if Janny agrees, then it may allow us to talk about that if, as like a last resort, if we get really, really stuck.

[07:23:16] Councilmember John McAlister: The nuclear option?

[07:23:17] Councilmember Chris Clark: It's not a nuclear option. It's just, I really want to avoid a quagmire.

[07:23:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other items? I have a couple. We had a meeting of the Santa Clara, Santa Cruz County Round Table, which is the new round table to address airplane noise. And the next one is scheduled for March, I think it's 27th. And at some point, we will have a kind of like a recap on or a tutorial on airplanes, an airplane noise, and said, be very interesting if anyone wants to learn anything about that. You come to that meeting. And we had a meeting of the airport land use commission where we talked about the building heights in San Jose, at both downtown and at Gerardon Station, and the increase in heights are already in their general plan for the downtown area. So they have to amend the general plan for Derodon Station. that will, then EIR will be done, and they'll have to come back to the airport, then used commission to say whether or not that is consistent with the airport's plans. And there was a meeting of the Santa Clara County Emergency Operational Area council that I attended. Oh, at. And I don't think I have anything to report about that one. But those were the three regional boards. Nobody else had any? I had those three, believe it or not, between the last meeting, last Tuesday's meeting and last Thursday's meeting. That was brutal. Council member Commé.

[07:25:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Uh, we had our Avenidas border treat, uh, last Wednesday after our last council meeting, um, and for, uh, I was trying to look up where we had our board meeting last week as well, and the breakfast annual breakfast, of course, it's not loading. The changing lives together breakfast is March 27th at LinkedIn, um, if people are interested in coming about check.

[07:25:35] Unknown Speaker: Don't understand.

[07:25:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, I know. I'm super excited The keynote speaker is Ronnie Lott. Go Niners.

[07:25:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. No. All right. Any other items? Okay, then, is there a closed session report?

[07:25:57] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: There is no closed session report this evening.

[07:26:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Then we will adjourn this meeting to the next city council meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 19th, 2019 at 5 p.m. in the council chambers, 500 Castro Street, at 107 a.m.

• ← Previous
• Next →