March 26, 2019 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Call this meeting to order, and we will start with our clerk announcing attendance.

[00:00:06] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[00:00:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. The 1st item tonight is item 3.one preliminary review of the fiscal year 201920 through fiscal year 2024 Capital Improvement Program. And tonight, our presenters are public works director, Mike Fuller, and Assistant Public Works director, Jacqueline Solomon. And since this is a study session, we'll have the staff presentation, then we'll open it up for public input, and then we will bring it back to the council for discussion. So thank you.

[00:00:40] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Good evening, honorable mayor, members of the council. This is the full five-year Capital Improvement Program, 201920 through 2023,24. The last 3 years of the plan adopted 2 years ago will form the basis for the 1st 3 years of the new plan. So we're interested tonight in any thoughts council has about these roll forward projects, and I will get to that again in a minute. And one of the other goals for this evening is to hear any thoughts council has about some major projects. Staff has identified, and any projects council would like to include in the plan, with the input we received tonight. We'll return at a 2nd study station with a proposed capital improvement program and maybe asking counsel to make some decisions about prioritization and funding. Now, just for background, in an extraordinary time, in terms of capital projects in the city. The recent high level of development activity has generated many projects, including parks, transportation projects, and utility projects. And we also have a number of new funding sources, including transportation and utility impact fees adopted by council. SB1 gas tax funding, measure B, and a number of others. And with all that, we currently have 138 active discretionary projects, 43 discretionary projects scheduled to roll forward, and a pretty long list of nondiscretionary projects, some of which are pretty straightforward, and some of which are not. What we have done to deal with this workload the last few years, particularly in public works, has kind of spread the work around. We have a capital project section that used to really focus on the CIP, they still do, but transportation division is now implementing projects, the utility group out in public services is as well, and the traffic engineers are handling quite a few other own CIPs. It's always fun to look at some of the things we've done. This big hole in the ground is now a trash capture device that pulls trash out of a significant portion of the city's storm water out in North Bay Shore. You're all familiar with the recently completed community center edition in renovation. We are in the process of designing a new aquatic center, and the community garden is under construction. We're wrapping up some remodeling on the 4th floor of city hall to add room for additional staff. And another hole on the ground. This is a water main project out near actually in Rankstorf Park. So back to the roll forward projects. Again, the last five-year plan we adopted was 2017, 18 through 2122, the years, 3 through 5 of that project form the basis for the 1st 3 years of the next plan. And I have the 3 years of roll forward project on some slides here. They were in the staff report. I don't plan to go through all of them individually. But if council has any desire to discuss any of these projects to talk about deferring or removing or moving any of them up in the CIP, that is some of the information we're interested in this evening. As you can see, there's a range of facilities projects, parks, traffic and transportation and utilities projects. There's, um, 1920, 2021, and 21, 22. The out years tend to get a little lighter. Years 4 and 5 of the plan are generally a little thin. We figure as they roll forward additional funding and projects. will come available. That has been our experience in the past. So our 1st question this evening will be, are there any of those roll forward projects in the 1st 3 years that the city would like to eliminate, defer, move up, or discuss? And I'll get back to the questions at the end if that's if that's okay with counsel. Okay, thank you. Um, We have some new projects that staff has proposed, um, part of our CIP preparation process is for public works to put out a call for projects, um, to our own department and others. These are some of the main ones that came forward. I've highlighted 2 in yellow. I think we're going to have some segmenting of the discussion for certain council members later this evening. So I've highlighted 2 of those, and we'll get back to the end that at the end when we have the council questions. I'll go through each of them very briefly. City Hall and the CPA were constructed in 1991 and the library in 1997. We've done a number of projects over the years at these buildings, but we hadn't really done a comprehensive look at the whole complex. Some things were kind of done piecemeal for various reasons or not done at all. And so we put together a great big list of things. Some of them are pretty high priority, like some roof lakes and mechanical equipment, um, and Americans with disabilities act accessibility improvements. Some of them are lower priority, just kind of updating spaces, um, for more modern work practices. The total potential cost is about $11 million. We do not plan to propose this as one big project. We're going to divide it up into some reasonable projects and kind of spread it out over the five-year plan, and we'll give you more information about that at the next study session. Some of it may not, I'll actually be in the five-year plan. But we wanted kind of a roadmap to work with going forward. And again, if you have any thoughts about this, We'd be interested this evening. Another project that was highlighted in the staff report was the Charleston Corridor Improvements. It was identified as a priority transportation improvement in the North Bay Shore Precise Plan. Google has designed and is constructing a portion of it. I'm going to jump forward to a map I have here. This is the Charleston East development. Currently under construction. This blue line is the frontage that Google had to construct as part of their frontage improvements, just as part of their cost of doing the project. These purple lines here are another segment that they voluntarily designed and are building on their own. They weren't required to do so and aren't seeking reimbursement. And it was basically to make a meaningful chunk of those improvements so that, um, the cycle tracks would end at a traffic signal and they would have a full um, bus stuck out for their for their shuttles and so on. So that's where we are today. And we're calling that phase one. What Google has proposed doing is continuing with design of phases 2 and 3, which will complete it all the way to the east. Um, They're going to seek reimbursement to do that. We have a model for doing that. We have a developer reimbursement process where a developer will build some city improvements that they're not responsible for and we reimburse them. So we can work out those details. And we do recommend going ahead with this for a number of reasons. These improvements, which generally include transportation improvements for transit for shuttles, um, both Googles and the, the TMA shuttles, other private shuttles, the ETA, um, they also include cycle tracks, two-way cycle track on the north side in one way on the south side. So good active transportation piece, particularly to get the bicycles off the road. Um, and those would be beneficial, frankly, today, and will be more so as development occurs. It's going to be a long project. We'll probably break it up into a couple phases to build it. And staff thinks not losing momentum and continuing to design it where Google is leaving off is probably a good idea. We have not identified the funding fully for it yet in the CIP, but we can do that. And so, um, if counsel does not object to this, we will return with a reimbursement agreement, um, with Google to do that. And we would, we have some funding for a feasibility study that and design that we were going to do, Google wound up doing it as part of Charleston East, and then we would add some money to that to fully fund that. It's from a workload standpoint, it's a little easier for us to, um, we still have to do all the plan checking and everything, but all the consultant management would be done by their staff, and they're not actually seeking reimbursement for their own staff time, just for their out of parking costs for consultants. So if you have any questions about that, we'd be more than happy to answer. The El Camino, real bike improvements. We're doing an El Camino streetscape study that'll identify some bike improvements on El Camino Real. We'd like to get, and we'll bring that to council later, but we'd like to get a project in the 1st year to try and get ahead of a Caltrans overlay project on El Camino Real. It seems like the right time to do any striping changes. So again, we'll have more detail about the El Camino streetscape improvements as kind of a standalone item later. And then we put in some precise plan updates, realizing that council plans to talk about this during major goals. but recognizing it was probably coming. We put in some placeholder projects. If we don't get a lot of direction on that tonight. It's probably okay, that can happen as part of goal setting. Um, but the precise plan efforts are, they're fairly costly and they do compete for some, um, construction conveyance tax and CIP reserve dollars. They can be used for anything and therefore tend to be competitive. So we did kind of want to highlight those. Again, if you don't make a final decision. It's okay, but we didn't want to just ignore that, recognizing that there's likely going to be something coming out of goal setting on that. So question 2 will be comments or direction on those new projects. We will have some other new projects, but those are kind of the big ones we wanted to highlight this evening. Couple council initiated projects that have been discussed over the course of the year that I'll go through very briefly. One was the Villa Street bicycle pedestrian tunnel in February. There was a study session on the Prometheus project on Villa, and whether they should go ahead and design their building around it. The answer was yes, they should. And then council wanted to discuss, maybe going ahead with the city's portion of that project, which would be extension of a tunnel under the tracks and under Central Expressway. So we wanted to bring that up for discussion this evening. That is a significant project, both in terms of workload and construction funding. We don't have funding identified. So if council does wish to move ahead with that, in the near term, we will likely have to move something off the plate. One of the possibilities. We do have design of the Mayfield tunnel funded in the current fiscal year. We have not yet begun that design. But it is a very similar project. And could we could likely accommodate at least the design of the Villa Street tunnel, if you wish us to investigate other choices for you. We can do that in return at the next study session. There was a feasibility done, as you know, with Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and Cupertino, on the Stevens Creek Trail Extension, which would go down to Mountain View, and Remington, and Sunnyvale. We have been unsuccessful in securing financial support for the design so far from Sunnyvale, or Los Altos. We're figuring about a $6000000 total design cost for that 1st project. This project may be competitive for measure B funds. It would require a 10% match, or we could, for competitive funding, a higher match is even better. So we can have that discussion. But we do recommend pursuing some VTA measure B funds in the upcoming year. So those were some of the our thoughts on projects the council be interested in. If you have any others, that is one of the big purposes of this evening, is to see, is there anything we missed? Is there anything we didn't think of? We can investigate more and tell you some of the trade-off? for including any other projects in the plan? Turns to the next steps. We have your input this evening. We're going to the BPAC in March tomorrow. I was going to say we're running out of March. The Parks and Rec commission next month. We will return April 25th with a study session to review a proposed CIP. At that point, we'll kind of lay out the full 5 years, um, look at our funding constraints or workload constraints and probably give you some uh, some tough choices to make about continuing or not with certain projects. And then, um, we will adopt the CIP along with the budget in June. So I do have some questions for you this evening. This one does not involve any segmenting, so I proposed starting with that, and then questions, question 2 will have a little bit of segmenting, and we can we can get to that next, if that's okay with the mayor.

[00:14:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, it looks like you're suggesting we do count questions one and three, and then we'll start the segmentation, right?

[00:14:17] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: That's what I'm suggesting.

[00:14:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, great. So at this point, we will open this up for public input. So if you have anything you want to share with us. Please be sure to fill out a blue card and leave it with a city clerk either before or after you speak. And is there anyone else besides the folks who stood up who wants to speak? Okay, then wait, you can have 3 minutes.

[00:14:44] Valerie Fennick: I, thank you very much. My name's Valerie Fennick, Bonnie Street, Mountain View resident. I would like to really thank you for all of your efforts in reviewing all of this work today, but I would like to please ask you not to put the brakes on a lot of these projects that have been in flight for some of them up to 10 years for a lot of work going forward. In particular. I'm thinking about the closure of Castro Bridge and also the tunnel under Mayfield Mall, specifically the intersection of Castro Moffatt and Central is very dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists at this time. terrifying to cross and lots of cars going through jaywalking pedestrians and even if the pedestrians aren't jaywalking, the cars want to make their right hand turns. It's incredibly dangerous. And I please ask you to go forward with that project. Also, very curious about the tunnel talking about Villa Street going into Rex Manor. It's just called the villa tunnel there, but it would be going into Rex Manor, and none of the, about 2 doors down from my house, and none of us were notified. There's this even being a possibility. Um, and uh, there'd be a lot of questions around that and also probably significant uh, pushback from the neighbors, which would delay the start of that project. Um, Similarly, uh, talking about dangerous intersections, the Almonte Corridor. something we as a city promised to the survivors of the woman who died there a few years ago. And we should really make sure that gets pushed forward in our upcoming plans just to really make sure we get safety for pedestrians in that neighborhood and not lose any more lives. All of these projects took many years to get to where they are today, and I really am asking you to help the city staff move forward on these priorities and the other ones that are listed there as well. They're well thought out. They have already talked to all the neighbors. They've gotten many alternatives reviewed and previewed and to start moving tunnels and all of that at this point in the game is, I'm really concerned about that. And I ask you, please, to consider that. I'm also speaking as myself and not as a representative of any city committees tonight. Thank you very much for your time.

[00:16:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[00:17:01] Nora Ruden: Hi, good evening. Nora Ruden, I live across the street from Valerie on Bonnie Street, and my questions have mainly to do with the tunnel, that, again, is called Villa, but really ends on Meridian and Rex Manor, at least that's the proposed thing. And my 1st concern is like some other things, we were not given any notice, and that's a pretty big project for the neighborhood not to have some input. And I do have some questions. So the 1st is neat. I'm not sure who proposed this, whether it comes from requests by the neighbors or from the planning committee. I mean, we walk to downtown all the time. Yes, it would be shorter. So my 1st question is about need and what would be the utility of it. The 2nd actually is a public safety concern. Tunnels are nice places to hang out in and hide. And when you have a tunnel with both ends in residential communities, not just a train station, for example, and commercial, the risks are a little bit different, that would bring other people into our very quiet, almost cul-de-sac neighborhood. Another question that came up, and I have no idea whether it's been considered, would that, uh, consider, would you, do you plan to close that street to vehicular traffic, or would, yes, and so there would be a tunnel and no vehicles. So those kind of details, I think, we're looking for. Um, and then sort of related, but not exactly. When I moved here 12 years ago, there was talk of a sound wall, and that's, and I don't know if that's a county project, but that seems to have been dropped. And so we're talking about a tunnel, but we never got the sound ball. So that's exactly on that same street. Thank you very much.

[00:18:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:18:48] Richard Mellinger: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Honorable Council members. My name is Richard Mellinger. I am a member of Sunnyvale's Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee, although I'm here tonight on my own behalf. There are a couple of things happening in Sunnyvale right now that I thought I would like to make you aware of because it does have some bearing on what you're discussing tonight. My understanding is that currently one of the improvements being considered is a two-way cycle trail from Castro Street to the Stevens Creek Trailhead on the north side of Evelyn. The Sunnyvale B-Pack, last week, approved for consideration, a study issue, on what we're calling the Edwina Benner bikeway that would include a segment, a two-way contraflow bike lane, on the north side of Evelyn running to the border at Bernardo Avenue. If we were to build that, then the goal, the idea would be that hopefully this would link up to a similar contraflow bike way in Mountain View that would then directly connect downtown Sunnyvale, Murphy Avenue, to downtown Mountain View at Castro Street. This would be excellent for the businesses in our downtowns. It would be great for commuters. It would take cars off the road. Obviously, this is very early phases now. We're just beginning to consider it and advocate for it in Sunnyvale, but hopefully, as you consider these projects going forward, I hope that you'll consider extending the two-way cycle trail that you're considering all the way to the border at Bernardo Avenue. Speaking as someone who commutes on Evelyn by bicycle fairly frequently, It is a joy coming here on the north side from Sunnyvale, and it is a nightmare going home. Because on the north side, there are no intersections between Mary and Castro, essentially. On the south side, there are a number of red lights. And at the Bernardo crossing, you actually have to jog across traffic, the bike lane cuts across the right turn lane, which is very, very scary. One other thing, the bicycle. I know that Sunnyvale has not responded to you regarding the Los Altos funding, a member of the public brought this to our attention at Sunnyvale BPAC last week. Um, and we are hoping to have the B pack put an item on our agenda to recommend whether or not, uh, to send a recommendation to our council about funding that. Again, this is just me speaking on my own behalf. I'm not, I can't commit to anything on the part of our BPAC, but these are things that, uh, may be of interest and maybe of relevance to the discussions you're having tonight. Anyway, thank you very much for your time.

[00:21:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:21:26] Louise Katz: Louise Katz Mountain View Resident, speaking on behalf of livable Mountain View. I wanted to bring up the subject of our transit center development, and it's not clear to me exactly how much discussion has gone on since I came here a few minutes late. I wanted to point out that the master plan for our transit center, both the master plan, the final master plan, executive summary, all the versions I could find on pages 14 and 15, very specifically say that Centennial Plaza, which is our train station area, is considered by the community as an attractive place, but significantly underutilized despite its location. And then it goes on to explain how it does not currently provide a lively landmark that adds to the vitality of downtown and the transit center. These reports then go on to list almost half a page of ideas and options. that we can use this space for. However, the plan is very specific. It says the ultimate configuration of Centennial Plaza will need to reflect extensive community input and an in-depth design process beyond that, conducted for the transit center master plan. And so my point is, is that there's been a lot of miscommunication, that the information we've provided you on what would be the various steps for a competitive process for a distinctive design for this area, is somehow going to delay our process. In fact, it's what the master plan calls for. And not to do it, would actually impede the progress of our overall project. I also wanted to point out that the proximate 18 month process that we identified for this kind of planning fits within the 2 year cycle of this um, process now of considering um, funding and studies and also within the consultants 2 year projection of when we should have our designs ready. I would also like to comment that there's so many design issues that must be decided. It's not simply a question of saying, where do we put the lights and where do we put the buses? I would also like to comment. that being a steward of the public funds. I can't think of a better deal for our community. than to be able to put out a website, or request for qualifications, and have the best and the brightest and the most creative people come to our city and present their ideas for our master plan, and to do it for free. Thank you.

[00:24:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So anyone else who would like to provide input on this topic? Okay, seeing none, we will close the public input portion. And before we jump into council questions and discussions, Um, could you just give a quick uh, overview of the villa tunnel? So everyone's on the same page on that one?

[00:24:33] City Staff: Yes, that, that, um, is the tunnel that connects from villa to the rail tracks through the Prometheus development. The address is 1696, I believe. Um, I don't have an exhibit of it, unfortunately, then would pass under the tracks and under Central Expressway to Meridian.

[00:25:01] City Staff: Um, The speaker is correct. There has not been a lot of public communication about concepts for that tunnel. We are just not there yet. I think one of the things that council may consider is doing that, some of that advanced work so that we could hear from the neighborhood and so on before we decide to proceed, before we decide to do Mayfield or not. it is one of the choices. We're an odd place because the project came up because of a private development project, not because of the tunnel. And so it's not how we normally do projects. Normally, the projects kind of come out on their own, and there's a public process, from which they are born, and this one didn't happen that way. So I can understand the neighbors, um, wondering what's what's going on with the project. And so there are some things we can do to get some public outreach, to talk about the need, to talk about the impacts on the street itself and so on. And that would probably be beneficial to counsel in moving ahead with the project.

[00:26:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, because really nothing's been decided about the design or anything.

[00:26:09] City Staff: Not at all. It's just we said, this sounds like it might be a good idea. Yeah, the decision was, does the developer plan for this? was all it was. And then the whole question of, you know, the what and the win of the tunnel is something we wanted to talk about tonight. So there are a couple options going forward. One is to not work on it at all. One is to do a little bit of advanced work. And the other is to kind of charge ahead a little more aggressively about it.

[00:26:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Okay, um, questions from council members? Council member McAllister.

[00:26:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, um... So there were having some, let's talk about the CPA, because you brought that up first. And this might also tie in with Park and Rex, but was there any discussion of getting funds from a potential sponsorship of the CPA?

[00:27:05] City Staff: No, I don't believe so.

[00:27:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay, okay. That's what takes that one off. On the Charleston Corridor, phase one that Google's doing, is any part of it, we're going to do our, we're doing a multimodal program up there, transportation deal, and we're also talking with Google to come up, give them with a transit hub, is there any coordination of what we, I mean, they're maybe moving forward sooner than we are, but is there any discussion about their transit hub, what we're going to put into that area so that it's coordinated to there. And is there any, um, concern about their huff plan and their Joaquin area that would also be forward thinking.

[00:27:49] City Staff: Yeah, the, the, um, The corridor plan doesn't really include a transit hub, a transit station. What it is, is it's, um, Charleston is envisioned as um, being designed to prefer transit vehicles rather than single occupant vehicles. And so, um, in addition to cycle tracks to get, um, active transportation off the roadway. And so what it was intended to do, originally, in the precise plan was to provide the freedom for buses, to travel the roadway unimpeded by other vehicles, and to make whatever stops they needed to make. The original plan was actually in one of the traffic lanes. Google had another idea to just build several strategically placed duckouts that could hold 5 or 6 buses. And we did bring that to council. And it was a change from the precise plan. was a detail, but it was a change, and we brought that in council council approved the, approved the change. And so really, that's all the corridor is. It's to it's to make the roadway more attractive to the transit and to get the active transportation off the road. It doesn't, it isn't for any kind of centralized hub or anything, um, that that could be done as part of another development, depending on how development progresses out there. But it's not part of the corridor project itself.

[00:29:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, well, I was just trying to think proactively because they were, they, in their discussions, about a month ago, they were talking about the potential hub over on the corner of Charleston and North Shoreline, and then another bus hub somewhere along in the Garcia Avenue area. And if we're moving along and they're willing to pay for some of that stuff, I just put it in the back of the mind consideration as we go forward.

[00:29:40] City Staff: Okay.

[00:29:41] Councilmember John McAlister: I know you're down Charleston, but they were also talking about developing Huff and Joaquin.

[00:29:45] City Staff: Okay.

[00:29:47] Councilmember John McAlister: The I had a question on the Stevens Creek, and this is where I 1st met young Michael Fuller over at Mountain View High. Big discussion there and the original plan, let's go back to our original plans, that was supposed to go to Mountain View high. And I was trying to figure out is that based on looking at the map, It appears that Mountain View could proceed on its own to get to Mountain View High.

[00:30:18] City Staff: is that we could. And that was actually the original plan. We did a feasibility study back in 2002, um, and that extended all the way. I think that began at Yuba and went all the way to the high school. We've built part of that. But no, that was the original plan. At that time, the city of Sunnyvale, I believe, had an official position, official city position in opposition to the trail. And so we just did not figure on any participation from Sunnyvale or, frankly, trying to serve Sunnyvale. That has changed. Sunnyvale is more interested in the trail now. And so, I think what we're looking at is the next segment serving both Mountain View at the high school and Sunnyvale at Remington. But we could go just to the high school, yes. We could do that. And we could go get our funding from the water district and et cetera, et cetera. We could get funding where we can get funding. I mean, there's a variety of sources we've used over the years for the trail. Measure B didn't exist then, but there are others that still exist. So, yes, we could proceed on our own.

[00:31:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And then, um, Let's see. Okay, those are my only questions. I can go into comments later. Thank you.

[00:31:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[00:31:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, let's see, I'll start off with the Mayfield tunnel. So, um, that is moving along is, is, it's design being designed.

[00:31:51] City Staff: No, the design is funded in the current fiscal year, and we haven't yet begun. We're getting to it. We could get going, if we got the green light, it's been moving up on the work plan and it would get going before the end of the fiscal year.

[00:32:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And, um, so the question, what is whether to move that funding over to the villa?

[00:32:12] City Staff: It's a possibility. It's something for you to consider.

[00:32:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And so is the Mayfield Tunnel, then is that the expectation that the city will find funding for it through grants and so forth or are there developments that would be contributing?

[00:32:30] City Staff: We don't have funding. We would need to find funding.

[00:32:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[00:32:33] City Staff: I think some of the design funding we have is developer contribution and some of it is city funding, but we haven't identified all the construction funding yet.

[00:32:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Right. So Mayfield could get bumped out of the five-year plan if the... If you don't have the fund, find the funding for it. Okay, so then, next one. The North Bay Shore project in particular, the um, 101 interchange, um, How is, That so I guess it's not just that one. Several of the North Bay Shore projects are were projects that we went out to bond for.

[00:33:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So is are we expecting to use that bond funding and then get reimbursed by developments that occur, or is the expectation that the transportation fee is going to fund all of those.

[00:33:44] Unknown Speaker: I wouldn't expect to get reimbursed for that bond funding, the transportation impact fee that was adopted for North Bay Shore was to pay for a percentage of the transportation projects out there, but not all of them. And so we are, as that money comes in, we are planning to fully program it and use it as it comes in. Um, and then whatever we need to backfill, um, for that, we've been using North Bay Shore money, and the, um, the, the bonding was to, um, allow some projects to proceed that wouldn't have otherwise, we had several very expensive projects kind of moving along together. And so what that did was allow us to proceed rather than, um, wait for the North Bay Shore fund to be able to afford it or, um, or developer fees. And some of those projects are not transportation projects, so they're not eligible, but the ones that are, they're eligible for either one, but the expectation was always that North Bay Shore would pay for some of those.

[00:34:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I actually wanted to go to the bridge, the 101 or the Shoreline Bridge, Bike Pet Bridge, um, if I recall, um, like, for, and there's just examples, but I, I think in the Psi West, um, development proposal, they put that up as a community benefit item. And then I've actually had other developers on the other side of 101, you know, asking for what kind of community benefit projects they could support. And if we move forward with Terabella, for instance, that could be one of them. So how does that, how would all of that come together?

[00:35:24] Unknown Speaker: Actually, that you bring up an exception to what I just told you previously. Honestly, I forgot about that. When LinkedIn came in and had got the bonus FAR for the commons, they did as part of their package, say they'd build that bridge. And our expectation is that whatever gets approved there, one choice for counsel is to require whatever development that occurs there to fulfill that obligation in that case. We could replenish the Shoreline Regional Park community fund with those with that developer contribution.

[00:36:03] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, if our developers in the Terabella area who are looking to, for community benefit projects, they could do the same and contribute to that.

[00:36:15] Unknown Speaker: They could. But again, if the if the commons development is going to fully cover it, Yes, that would be ideal. There are probably other things that we could come up with, yes.

[00:36:26] Unknown Speaker: And I just wanted to add that there is a shoreline community benefit fund, and there is, we did use some of that funding to pay for the improvements to the library, for example. We used it outside of the area because we didn't have as much funding at the time. There is a balance in that fund. We haven't tried programming it yet. We were saving it. I want to say for something special, and not necessarily one of the transportation projects, so that is funding that is available. And I would expect maybe more of that to come as some of the other projects. And again, those are community benefit funds that are unrestricted to the North Bay Shore area or any particular type of project, which is why they were used for the library. A lot of different funding sources right now.

[00:37:10] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I'm sorry, going back to the bridge then. So if the commons project move forward, then and it includes the bridge, then like timing wise, how do we just keep going? And then when that project is ready, it'll come in and cover the rest of the cost or reimburse us or yeah, how are we going to deal with?

[00:37:33] City Manager Dan Rich: My recollection is a council explicit, once that LinkedIn project essentially died, council said we wanted to move forward with the bridge and we were going to essentially front the money and start the project on our own. So that's what we're doing. We can either take, we can ask for community benefits and repay ourselves, or we can take the equal amount of money and put it towards another equally valuable project that's a priority.

[00:38:00] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Right. Thank you. Uh, the community shuttle expansion, project, is that considered a CIP or is that some other category?

[00:38:14] Unknown Speaker: That is part of our comprehensive modal plan, I believe. I looking at Don Cameron, Assistant Public Works director.

[00:38:25] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you, Don Cameron, Assistant Public Works director. The council did fun into the CIP as a mid-year adjustment to do a shuttle study that could look at the potential for expanding the community shuttle as well as MVGo shuttle and other services in general in the city. kind of look at it comprehensively. So that's moving forward.

[00:38:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So is that considered a CIP or is it in a different category?

[00:38:51] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: It is currently funded through ACIP. It's an active CIP. It's an active CIP. see it in the list. The study portion.

[00:38:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, yes. Okay. Great. And thank you. And then the last question is, I saw in the report, Bonnie Beatrice Open Space. So I know I think it might be in the outer years, but have we gotten clearance from the SFPUC on our open space spaces that they?

[00:39:21] Unknown Speaker: No. We're getting close.

[00:39:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I've heard that for 4 years now?

[00:39:28] Unknown Speaker: It's not for the lack of the... It's not for lack of the city manager asking me about it.

[00:39:34] Unknown Speaker: I understand that. Yeah, no, we've been still struggling a little bit with the SFPUC. holding up Fayette and Bonnie Beatrice. We're getting very close, small bits of progress continue to be made. Um, which um, and um, I, we were actually trying to make a, uh, a commission date here pretty soon, and I don't know if we're going to make it or not. We're getting pretty close, we believe, to approval.

[00:39:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you.

[00:40:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[00:40:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, 1st to formality, I assume that the council questions right now are on roll forward projects and on new projects.

[00:40:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We're doing both at once. No, we're doing, if you have any questions. about the material, and then we'll get into the council questions. So do you have any questions?

[00:40:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, I'll ask my general question. And you tell me whether I'm, whether I'm, in the wrong category. So my 1st question is, um, the, uh, civic center, as you've described it, does that include the changes to activate the plaza or is it just the sort of infrastructural changes that I heard described?

[00:40:46] Unknown Speaker: I believe activating the plaza is already funded through the community services department.

[00:40:52] Unknown Speaker: Yes, activating the plaza is already funded. It is separate from that list.

[00:40:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. And then this is the one you can tell me whether I'm asking in the wrong place, but I want to clarify where we're at with the alternative study of the transit center underpass that we talked about at the last council meeting. Should I ask about that here or at some other right now? Okay, I'll ask about it now. Yeah. Some people referred to as the Hicks alternative, but I'll just call it the alternative. Is this is would that be a CIP or a work plan? Is it already on your list? How are you considering that?

[00:41:36] Unknown Speaker: I consider it already on our list? Um, we were going to... It is on, it's because it just came up. Don is working on a scope, and we're trying to get an idea of the funding, and then that would be something that we would try and include in April when we bring you the proposed program. It's not in any of these materials right now. So you don't have to give us any additional direction on that this evening unless you we're planning to come back with a work plan and a scope for you on that. But it would be a CIP project.

[00:42:10] Unknown Speaker: Oh, go on. Basically what exactly what they said. We would come in as a potential new CIP project. But since we just received the direction last week, we need more time to develop scope, cost, and so on. So, it would come back to you as part of your April study session to look at the entire 5 years CIP.

[00:42:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so being new here, just to clarify. So, the time we have input on it is when you bring it back after you've worked on it a little more. If I were to make any comments on it, would I do it now later this evening or when you bring it back?

[00:42:48] Unknown Speaker: Honestly, if you have any comments this evening, we'd be welcome to hear them.

[00:42:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Now, or...? Okay. Or during comments, either one? I can do it during comments. Okay. So I had a couple of questions. I think before you said there was a CIP for regrading and repaving lot 11 and then the Castle Farms lot downtown. Where is that?

[00:43:19] Unknown Speaker: That's one of the new projects that we'll bring back to you in April. We didn't highlight all of the new projects.

[00:43:24] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. And then I also recall us talking about Fire Station 3. But I can't remember what we decided about that. I thought we decided that we needed to redo that one. Didn't we have that discussion?

[00:43:40] Unknown Speaker: It's an unfunded project.

[00:43:41] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I believe that's currently on the unfunded list. Uh, but it's on a list.

[00:43:47] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay.

[00:43:48] Unknown Speaker: I haven't moved it into the five-year plan yet.

[00:43:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. And then could you share what specifically is meant by the changes on El Camino that you want to do before or in conjunction with that road being repaved?

[00:44:12] Unknown Speaker: So we are currently developing the El Communerary, our streetscape plan, which is based upon the El Camino Real precise plan previously adopted by the council. And in that precise plan, which is the basis for the streetscape plan. It also said one of the goals was to create a bike facility along El Camino Real. So we're in the middle of doing that right now and, um, considering where it might be possible to put in either class 2 bike lanes or class 4 protected bike ways. And we are hoping that in the next couple months, we will be ready to bring some cross-section concepts forward to we're looking at going to the council transportation committee 1st on its way to the council by next fall, and we're doing additional public outreach over the next month with the businesses and property owners along El Camino Real to show them what this would look like.

[00:45:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Would it remove any parking from El Camino?

[00:45:09] Unknown Speaker: It will require removing on street parking, which is why we're doing this now, this extra concentrated effort of outreach among the businesses and property owners, long alchemia reality, show them what that would look like. And we've done a very in-depth parking analysis over the last 69 months to show what that would really look like.

[00:45:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Do you happen to remember how many spaces would be removed?

[00:45:33] Unknown Speaker: Sorry, I should have sent that one in.

[00:45:35] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Is it like 10 or 100 or?

[00:45:38] Unknown Speaker: I wouldn't be able to tell you that off the top of my mind. I will tell you that part of what's been going on with all the redevelopment along El Camino Real is as new projects go in, we've been saying to declare that no parking, to preserve that space, you must provide for all your parking on site. So our focus has been on the older businesses and developments out there, who are dependent upon on street parking. And we've had some interesting results with our accounts where we see parking on the street, yet there's still plenty of parking available on site. That's the kind of comparison we've done. So we've really got it down to just a few locations. where it could be a bit difficult. And that's part of our analysis, and some of those areas might be due to redevelop anyhow in the short term. So, We're going to come back and propose this be done in phases. It's not all of El Camino. And we're trying to find a segment that will have the least impact on parking that we could get in place that could really make a difference for bicycling on El Camino Real.

[00:46:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you.

[00:46:43] Unknown Speaker: May I? I just wanted to go back. We have started laying out a draft 5 year, and the fire station we actually were planning in the 5th year.

[00:46:51] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, okay.

[00:46:52] Unknown Speaker: It's not, we're still sorting everything, but it had moved up.

[00:46:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay, cute. Um, let's see. And then the Evelyn bike trail that was mentioned. Is that something that's in our plans? From Stevens Creek Trail to Sunnyvale now.

[00:47:14] Unknown Speaker: We haven't we haven't done any studying on that yet. The portion that was mentioned was part of the transit center master plan and it is just from the transit center of the trail.

[00:47:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. And the CIP for the transit center that is in plan. That's on page 9 of the staff report. What is included in that? Or maybe the question is, what's excluded from that? Oops. dump that over on you.

[00:47:50] Unknown Speaker: I think it's, um, 1641 and 1865. Cool. That 1641 is the master plan itself, which you've adopted, and 1865 is the effort to design the grade separation and the ramp up to Evelyn. That is funding the effort we brought to you just a week or two ago.

[00:48:14] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you. I think that is all my questions.

[00:48:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[00:48:23] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on what, Council member Abakoga was talking about on the pedestrian bridge and the interchange. Because I remember, I know it was initially when we came up, it was, I was very adamant about trying to make sure the interchange was done in concurrence with Charleston East, and it was told that they would not, if that interchange wasn't, or the off ramp wasn't taken care of, they would not get occupancy. And so why are we now in a, and there was also a lot of community benefits based on the table that they were willing to do something. So, And I had the question, the council questions about, are we going to get reimbursed? And we're saying it sounds like the bridge, maybe, but the interchange were not. So could somebody give me a backstop so everybody on the council understands that when Charleston and East was designed, and there was also the pair... Plymouth. Yeah. And I said, those should go concurrently, and you guys said, oh, no, we can wait 2 years down the path and now it's I'm concerned about what's happening. So why are we paying for something that is, and why are we paying a 2nd? Is it's, is Charlestonese occupancy still um, conditional on the interchange being built?

[00:49:44] Unknown Speaker: Yes and no. That's a Dan thing.

[00:49:47] City Manager Dan Rich: The Charleston East Traffic Review revealed that without the Plymouth Space Park realignment, and the offer amp realignment, that the gateway, the Shoreline gateway was over capacity. And so with those improvements. They are under capacity. And those including some other anticipated developments, such as broaderage. And so what we did was we included Condition 161, um, in the Charleston East 12, we all remember that one. Infamous 161. And basically we anticipated that Charleston East would likely seek occupancy prior to completion of the off-ramp. And also, Google occupies 2 office buildings that are in the way of the Plymouth Space Park realignment, which was going to affect the timing of that improvement. And so what that condition did was it said that Google cannot exceed their employee headcount out in North Bay Shore. And we set a time frame that was in advance of the Charlestonese entitlement. So that's a snapshot in time. It's a fixed number. And what we're doing with them with a 3rd party reviewer is monitoring their head count, and until those improvements are done, they cannot increase their head count, even if they occupy Charleston East. They basically have to move people from other places within North Bay Shore to Charleston East. So with that, we got started. We'd already begun the offer-amp realignment. We were already in preliminary design. It's taking just as long as we thought it would, unfortunately, and we're actually in design on Plymouth Space Park. So there is going to be a gap between Charleston East occupancy and the completion of the off ramp. We always figured there would be. We didn't know exactly how long it would be, but we are monitoring the employee count out in North Bay Shore for Charleston East, or for Google because of Charleston East.

[00:51:58] Unknown Speaker: What about the Space Parkway? Plymouth Space Park realignment?

[00:52:03] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: We are currently in design on that.

[00:52:05] Unknown Speaker: Okay, but we're still paying for those.

[00:52:08] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: We, yes, Google was not directly responsible to completely fund those because they were needed because of the overall gateway volume. The overall gateway volume was exceeded, they were just the straw that broke the camel's back. They were the they were the one that put us over the edge. And because of that, we couldn't, we couldn't require them to do the entire project, though.

[00:52:37] Unknown Speaker: Any part of these projects, part of mitigation versus...

[00:52:43] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: No, okay. Council adopted overriding considerations with the North patial precise plan on the traffic impacts. And so we were directly, there were a few mitigation projects that came out of the North Bay Shore, but these were not them.

[00:52:58] Unknown Speaker: Was this the last counselor or the prior council council?

[00:53:01] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: The council that adopted the North Basial precise plan in 2015?

[00:53:06] Unknown Speaker: 15. Yeah. Okay. That's where. Okay. Thank you.

[00:53:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[00:53:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: I know. That was the first. Yeah. I asked this in the council questions, but I think the answer or the, I think the question I was asking, I thought I'm sure worded differently. So, um, I'd asked about a long time ago, um, you might remember this. We talked about California Street, you know, a road diet all the way from San Antonio to Shoreline and new bike lanes, and we had Mr. Ware had died, I think, or been killed around that time, and we discussed it, and it just sort of disappeared. And so I was wondering if that's still anywhere. I know there's like the showers to Ortega portion, but I didn't know about the full length of, you know,

[00:54:00] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: we did a study. There was a preferred alternative that came out of that study for each of Escuela Shoreline in California Street. We brought that forward as part of the next capital improvement program and other projects were selected. So therefore, it is on the unfunded list. If it's council's preference. We can refresh your memory about all that for your consideration.

[00:54:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. So, because I remember looking at the, you know, the study, the preferred alternative, and then I guess we just moved other things up and it just been sitting on the unfunded list for another week.

[00:54:39] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Basically, that's the case, but it is still there and we would be more than happy to bring you back some information about that.

[00:54:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. Well, I can talk about that in comics.

[00:54:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay, are there any other questions, general questions? for council members. Okay, then let's move into the questions that staff posed. And I'd like to do questions one and three, and we can do those at the same time, I think, and then go back to question two. Okay, anybody want to go first? Council member Ramirez.

[00:55:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. Sure, no problem. I'll be pretty quick. So I, um, I support, uh, what I suppose is the recommendation from staff on the roll forward projects. I couldn't easily discern whether one particular project had greater merit than another. So I'd be, you know, interested in hearing the feedback from the other members of the council, but I'm pretty comfortable with this schedule. And then for question three. I would be interested in, I don't know what the timing of the Sunnyvale cycle track project to Evelyn to, you know, connecting to Bernardo. I don't know what the schedule would be, but if it makes sense to include a placeholder project a few years out to connect the cycle track that we're anticipating on Evelyn to Sunnyvale. I think that makes a lot of sense. Let's sort of track that project and see if we can if we can time a similar project to establish that connection. And the only other feedback I'd provide is I don't really want to push out the Mayfield tunnel. I know there's some funding allocated to that project that I think came out of community benefit funding from one of the development proposals. And it's been in the works for a very long time. So my preference would be to keep that, keep that moving to the greatest extent possible. I also support the Villa Street tunnel concept. But I just wouldn't be prepared to knock out Mayfield to advance that. I think the Villa Street tunnel can wait a few years just because that project hasn't been approved and there's still, I think, a lot more work that needs to be done to advance that. Thank you.

[00:57:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Council member McAllister.

[00:57:23] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, the ones... If I wanted to eliminate one, I brought this up before as the Castro Moffatt Central intersection, near term improvements, and the reason I wanted to defer, or eliminate it is a couple of points. One, I think we have an alternative... ...that will be beneficial to the city, because it will reduce 1.7, and we have the alternative can accomplish the same goal without having to build it. This particular project. First came to the CTC for review and the CTC, did not approve going forward with this particular project, and this is where the elimination of the left turn lanes onto Central Expressway. So that is one consideration that I have. The 2nd consideration is that there was no traffic impact to see what would happen to Villa and other surrounding streets that if you eliminated the left turn lane would occur. The other consideration, and somebody was talking about jaywalking, is my idea was to have a staff come back with the alternative is to reduce the northwest or the west side crosswalk and make people go east and then go east to the corner of the northeast corner of Moffat Boulevard and Central Expressway. I think we can accomplish the same deal and still have safety concern if that was one of the concerns on safety. And still, hopefully, then put a sign up there to prevent people from jaywalking because they are jaywalking now with a crosswalk. If we eliminate the crosswalk, then hopefully we can eliminate people jaywalking. And this would be something that as we move down to the develop of the master, the transit center, we can accommodation to that. So I would like to see that removed from.

[00:59:18] Unknown Speaker: Can I ask you a question?

[00:59:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, ma'am.

[00:59:20] Unknown Speaker: So on that project, would you go forward with the other improvements that are on the east side?

[00:59:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[00:59:28] Unknown Speaker: Okay. So it's just the...

[00:59:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Basically, I would say take the sidewalk off on the west side, put a sign, no crossing. And so everything else would continue. Again, I think we have, as we move forward in, you know, everything, yes, money is good, but we need to start looking at ways to find solutions that are still safe, practical, save us money, and we don't always need, and sometimes we need to change human behavior. And I know right now they're crossing it all different corners. But if we want to make things efficient, as we continue to grow with population, and traffic, We still need to find ways that we can efficiently move people around. And here's the photo. And you can see that there's still that particular one, there would still be an island out there. But again, if I had a pointer, you would say it's the one on the top, the north, on this particular, it's the west thing. So I would like to see that eliminated. And then use maybe the $1700000 for elevators for the transit center. Or it could be used for other improvements. I would also, so that's one. I'd also like to see that as we move forward with the Stevens Creek extension to Mountain View High School as it was originally proposed. If we've been waiting 2 or 3 years for other cities to come on board, and if we were able to accommodate and fund it, I think we should move forward that particular thing. So as it is an asset, we Mr. Fuller, do we have a preliminary design from 2002 on that already, correct?

[01:01:10] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: No, we have a EIR.

[01:01:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, so we do have an IR already.

[01:01:15] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Yeah, we honestly, because it's old enough, we would revisit it, probably freshen it up, we wouldn't have to completely redo it, but we don't have anything I would consider a preliminary, but it is a concept that was...

[01:01:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, we have a nice map. Cleared it. We have a nice map. Give me a bone, would you? Okay. And someone mentioned Mayfield, I think that is a priority. I mean, we've been talking about it. We've been trying to get that funny, so I would definitely, that was part of three. I don't know, but I've heard council member of Lucas Ramirez brought it up, but I would think, yeah, that is priority because that's going to a transit hub. And at San Antonio. And I think that we've been talking about that for years. And I think that would be a better, higher priority and better use of money because of all the new development that's going into that particular area. So that would be great. And, of course, I'm in favor of 19.51, because that will get us into the new era, but that is the traffic operations center feasibility study, and we need to start planning for the future, and from what I can understand, it's under budgeted already.

[01:02:22] Unknown Speaker: So, we, that's uh, we can kick... in the plan, though.

[01:02:26] Councilmember John McAlister: I know, it's in the plan, but I just want to highlight it because that's one of my smart city initiatives that I'm trying to push forward. And that's it for me.

[01:02:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[01:02:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So again, tell me if I'm speaking to the right points, but I agreed that we should generally go forward with the projects on the list. Um, in terms of Charleston. I agree with letting Google do it so that it's contiguous and reimbursing them. The El Camino bike improvements. I want to make sure that they coordinate with the Grand Boulevard initiative in general. Actually, am I talking about it in the wrong order?

[01:03:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, we were gonna do... Yeah, that's...

[01:03:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I thought I was. So we're going to get council questions, one and three. I thought I was doing that, but tell me when I'm not. I agree that Mayfield is a priority over the Villa Street, underpass, um, And the Stevens Creek Trail. Um, Actually, that's not a top priority for me because the high school students that I've spoken to say that that last little element, um, is in through neighborhood streets, so they feel comfortable going through neighborhood streets, I would, um, I would wait until, uh, Sunnyvale and Los Altos participate and do the whole thing at that point. Um, Unless somebody tells me there's a bad reason, you know, that that's not a good direction. Um, and then, um, then, in terms of, am I to talk about council initiated new projects here, like the Alternative Transit Center? Okay. Um, I would, for the transit underpass and transit center alternative study, I would like it to include an interface with the surrounding blocks, particularly the 100 block of Castro and Centennial Plaza, if Centennial Plaza is being moved or changed, I don't know if it's still called Centennial Plaza. And also, there were a number, the urban land institute recently consulted with the city for, I don't know, maybe two-day consultation. And a lot of what they did were the kind of early input on design that I think we should be looking at when we're doing an alternative look at the underpass. I think the important part of it is how it interfaces with what's one of the most important parts of our city. It's really the heart of our city, the historic 100 block. And I would say the other side on Moffatt also. So, I mean, for many people, when they come to our city, that's what they'll think of our city of that as that side of Moffatt and the 100 block of Castro. So I would like, as some of people in livable Mountain View have been advocating some kind of look at how it interface with those blocks and also with design in general, a direction for that for really making sure we have a striking design for the heart of our city. Thank you.

[01:05:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, before we go on, what I would like to do is, um, we might have, might circle back to everybody, because if you heard something that you say, oh yeah, I want to weigh in on that. We'll probably do 2nd round here. Council member Clark.

[01:06:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, I'm fine with the, um, there aren't any role for forward projects that I would, um, eliminate for a move up. I think I just have some comments under three. I would say, I, like others have said, I would prioritize the Mayfield tunnel project over the villa tunnel. The only thing that I would say there is if because they are fairly similar projects, if there are design elements or overlap there where, you know, just doing a very cursory design of villa, if there would be synergies between the 2 designs, then I'm open to spending some resources there. But I think in general, we should prioritize the Mayfield tunnel. And then I do think, I do think there is value in staff suggestion to, you know, I think, although it's been frustrated in the past, the Stevens Creek Trail, moving that forward, to the extent, you know, if we can apply for major B funds, a 10% or 20% match, I think, is well worth the price to do that as long as the other 2 cities are on board with moving forward. And, um, those major B funds aren't going to be there forever. And I think it's, I think it would just be worth seeing if we could obtain those funds as opposed to having to pay out of our own pocket long term or trying to figure out some sort of funding agreement with the other 2 cities. But, um, I think I think I think staff suggestion there would be worth it. So those are my comments on one and 3 for now.

[01:07:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, come in.

[01:07:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So in regards to the roll forward projects, I'm comfortable with the list that staff is prepared. I think one of the items on the project list that's of interest to me is the bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Um, I mean, that's kind of a large catchall, but I think that uh, that's we're seeing the importance of that. Um, and then another staff recommendation to accept Google's offer for the Charleston, um, improvements. I support staff's recommendation. Um, in regard to question three. Um, I agree what's been said about Stevens Creek Trail in terms of, um, pursuing, um, funding, uh, sources, whether that be through, um, you know, state funding through measure B. I think that that's really important to continue. In terms for the Villa Street tunnel. You know, I think it's a good thing to have it kind of top of mind and as a placeholder. But I think as was mentioned, even in public comment, there's community outreach that's necessary. So, um, I don't, I feel that if we had to move forward with a project, I would prefer moving forward with the Mayfield tunnel, um, since the funding is secured for that. Um, I'm interested in what, um, council member McAllister mentioned. I know that that conversation predates me. Um, but, um, I know, but I also know that we have about, I think it was discussed at last week's meeting, maybe about 5 years before we're seeing any type of, um, in kind of concrete improvements related to the transit center site. So kind of general interest in following that conversation, um, and hearing more about that.

[01:09:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[01:09:37] Unknown Speaker: Sorry, which topic was that? Was that the Castro and

[01:09:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:09:39] Unknown Speaker: Central?

[01:09:40] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[01:09:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Vice mayor, Abbe Coco.

[01:09:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. In general, I do support the rollover projects. I... Let's see. I would just comment on what I've heard from other council members. Yes, I support the Mayfield tunnel as a priority, and we can work on Villa after that, or later on. Um, I guess, oh, I had a question about, well, I know the AGT is coming back to us this spring, so it's at the time when we can discuss whether or how we're gonna move forward or not.

[01:10:25] Unknown Speaker: Yes, that would be a good time to do that. We'll be talking about the scope.

[01:10:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Um, El Monte, are we done with everything at El Monte?

[01:10:36] Unknown Speaker: We finished the actual intersection improvements, but there's a look at the corridor that is currently funded and is now currently underway.

[01:10:45] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[01:10:45] Unknown Speaker: So we'll be coming back to you with some findings about that. So that's moving. It's a priority.

[01:10:49] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Um, and then I, let's see, the other, oh, students Creek Trail. So I guess having been a part of that trail development over the last 12 or so years, um, you know, my my feeling has always been that we've pretty much completed our segment and it was time for the next other next city to take its, um, take the next part of it. I know we tried to do the 4 cities collaborative and so forth, but I agree with council member Hicks, for the students. Um, you know, my daughter, I mean, one of them. The kids seem to be fine going up the neighborhood streets. So. Well, they're bicyclists. I think that's a good thing, not cars. Um, so I'm not, I don't look at it as a priority. And if I recall the project, they had to, like, you go over and then you come back and I guess my question would be, like, the distance and, you know, what's faster, just going up the neighborhood streets or having a crossover and come back. So, you know, if folks want to look at it again, I think it's fine, but at this point, I would prefer, the whole idea of the trail was to connect it to the 25 mile loop throughout the various cities, Cupertinos into Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and back to Mountain View. So I would prefer to work on that project. And just because it's taken 20, 30 years to get to where we are now and understanding how funding takes a long time to acquire. I don't really want to, you know, to separate or to have 2 projects moving forward. I think we just have to like stick to one and just prioritize and push that forward. My question would be, though, since the next segment is Sunnyvale, if we're having trouble with Los Altos and getting them to participate in the funding, could we just work with Sunnyvale at this point, partner with them and look at going after measure V funds?

[01:13:02] Unknown Speaker: I think we could. I think we're working with both of them. I think if Sunnyvale came forward and said, yeah, we're in. This is how much we're in for, then that starts a discussion.

[01:13:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. And then the last piece was, I guess I'm still would like some clarity on the North Bay Shore project. The funding, kind of just similar to council member McAllister's comments or questions earlier. Um, I understand like the, the interchange and Google not being, being the tipping point. But in light of the changeover in landowners ownership out there. frankly, you know, if you look at all those bonus FAR projects, they're all either controlled, they're all controlled by Google at this point. So since we're working with one, you know, extremely large entity, maybe we need to be negotiating funding from that source too. Thanks.

[01:14:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, I'm going to go through real quick and then we'll circle back to everyone. So on question one. I actually was looking at these and thought maybe we could push out the pedestrian master plan. It isn't that old. And when you look at the yearly updates of things that they might consider incorporating into the new plan. They didn't seem like they were ones that were very urgent. And so nobody else mentioned that, but if we're looking for, if we need to, uh, reconsider a project, to me, that one would be on the list. But I do agree with what some of the other folks have said about the Castro and Moffatt intersection doing the improvements on the east side and Council member McAllister's suggestion for the west side would be high priority for me. In terms of question three. I agree that the Mayfield tunnel should have a higher priority over the Villa Street tunnel. And I would add that I'd also like to do more road repairs as just a general category. I get a lot of emails about state of our roads, and granted, not all of them are ones that the city owns. But, um, I get a lot of emails about that. And the Stevens Creek Trail, I think it would be nice to extend it at least to Mountain View High, but I would like to see if we could get some additional funding for that. Because I do think, you know, folks have an alternative, so I'm not sure I'm ready to commit a lot of city resources to that. But if there was other funding available, I think we should pursue it. And then I do have another one, but I think we're going to have to section that off along with some of the other ones that I wanted to add. So I think we were going to address those under question two, which we haven't gotten to yet, where we have to do the segmentation. Okay, so Council member McAllister, or was that your question?

[01:16:30] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I just want to back circle back to council member Hicks. If we rate for Los Altos, which has pretty much said they didn't want to do anything because it was going to go down city streets, this project won't be moving forward. And Sunnyvale has been sort of, uh, delayed on, to give you a little background, I think, uh, former mayor, show Walter was in charge of a 4 city collaboration or task force to figure out how they can move forward with this. And they really didn't come up to many conclusions. So this segment that I'm asking us to do is all within the scope of Mountain View, and we won't need to worry about other cities because that was the original plan. But if we wait for other cities, as we say, we are in a good position, financially, staff wise, we can get it moving forward, and hopefully people will see the benefit. Once they see that we've gone this far, they might want to tag into it. But that's why I think we should move forward with it. And not rely on other cities to wait for them to come on board.

[01:17:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[01:17:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Just really quickly responding to some of the other ideas that came up. So I do support the Stevens Creek extension, and I asked a question in the questions asked in advance in the meeting about SB one, and I personally, I'm a little bit more optimistic that there may be some funding opportunities there, just based on some work I've done wearing my other hat. There appears to be a program specifically for active transportation. And I, based on my very quick reading of the guidelines, I think Stevens Creek Trail may qualify. So just one other venue to explore. I support council member Kamee's suggestion to prioritize the bicycle pedestrian improvements. I think it's a good idea. And in particular, focusing on opportunities to create protected bike lanes or cycle tracks. I think that would be my higher priority. I support the existing plan for the central Moffatt Castro near-term improvements, just to the extent we're Italian votes on that. I'm pretty comfortable with the existing plan. And that's all. Thank you.

[01:18:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[01:18:59] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So just very short, I wanted to support what council member Kameh said about bike pedestrian improvements and also and council member rammers, and also stress that I'd like them to include not just safety but also walk and bike appeal, like tree canopy and other things that encourage people, to walk and bike, um, not just because it's safe, although certainly safety is important, but also because it's a pleasant thing to because I've seen that in my neighborhood, those are the routes that people take.

[01:19:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark?

[01:19:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: And just on the Castro Mavez. I just, I really want to point out that that is, that was identified by our traffic engineers, our public works department, as a key bike and pedestrian safety improvement that would occur between now and when, um, when the tunnel would be built. And so, you know, we spent an enormous amount of effort and money to create a nice bicycle, cycle track, and pedestrian area at the corner where 100 Moffatt is, and now we're saying that we should prioritize vehicles over people on who are walking and biking, and we should inconvenience them and make them walk across and wait an extra light cycle to get across central because they won't be able to cross when trains are going down. Whereas if you leave it the way that we have it set up, we're creating, we're eliminating a conflict between cars and pedestrians that exist now, and we're allowing them an easier and safer way to cross on both sides and utilizing the 100 Moffat. pedestrian area instead of forcing people to cross over to market and moff it and further inconveniencing them. I just, that doesn't make any sense to me if you care about bike and pedestrian safety. So I, and it's also not something that we should just reverse course on after we've already clearly made a decision. I get that councils change and priorities change, but I've never known this council to go back and undo public works projects that have already been approved just because they want to make it more convenient for cars to have conflicts with bicycles and pedestrians in particular. So I feel pretty strongly about that.

[01:21:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be Koga.

[01:21:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I guess I have to weigh in on this project. I voted against it originally. My concern was, um, We had eliminated that, um, slip road between, like, Sterling onto Central. And, um, I just felt like we were doing we were eliminating too many things. Had we known that we were going to do this? I probably would have kept that slip road. So that was my concern. And then I remember the studies and I don't think we had any incidents. And so there was just a question of the real need for this. You know, I would be open to just maybe revisiting this and if there are other alternatives that we can come up with, um, that if we can find it like a, you know, happy medium, I don't know if there is, but I did have concerns about just the necessity of it in light of the cost and that it would be temporary. So, um, I don't know if counseling, I can't really say counseling. I can't right now agree to council member McAllister's suggestions, so I don't know what the best thing would be do is just bring this back or not, but I would be open to revisiting.

[01:22:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Like the city manager.

[01:22:48] City Manager Dan Rich: So as the public works director stated, a week ago, this project is about to go out to bid. We have spent a considerable amount of time and money on it and debated it numerous times. I think we just need to make a decision one way or the other. If the majority of the council wants to cancel it, or do the McAllister plan of modifying it. Fine, but we really need to make a decision and move on.

[01:23:16] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: And for those that weren't involved in the earlier discussion, I can run through this figure for a few minutes, if you like.

[01:23:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That would probably be helpful.

[01:23:24] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Okay. We have Moffatt, over here to the right, Castro to the left, and then Central Express free running vertical on this image. There's really a few different aspects to this. One is right now, as you can see here, we have a 2 left turnpockets, a 2 lane left turnpocket, and vehicles can turn left onto central towards Palo Alto. One of the issues we have is, when the gates are going to come down, when a train is approaching, this area, the left turn pockets have to be cleared. So if you're a pedestrian walking right here and you've got the countdown signal at 20 seconds, 19 seconds, it immediately goes to zero, and the left turn arrows go green. And so you literally get stranded midway across Central Expressway with left turning cars coming at you. And that's one of the things we're very concerned about is, this project basically eliminates those 2 left turns. Those, we're going to eliminate that movement at some point anyway, and the volume of those left turns is going down as the gate times continue to increase with increased train volume. Another, um, aspect is a dedicated right turn lane here, as you can see, we've got a throw and a right arrow here. And so cars wanting to turn right onto central, get backed up pretty badly by the through traffic waiting at red lights, which can be pretty long. And then finally, we have bicycles wanting to cross central, right now, when they're right here, they either need to be to the left of a car that might go straight or to the right of a car that might turn right. under the existing configuration. What this does is, it allows them to be between the cars turning right and the cars going straight, so they can proceed. There's a few other details. But those are the main things. Oh, yeah, this also backs up because there's a lot of pedestrian volume here. And so sometimes the right turn backs up. When this is green, and then because of pedestrians, and then the through can't get through, and then the through backs up, when this is red, and the right turn can't get through, it's really that that right lane gets backed up under both movements.

[01:25:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member becoming.

[01:25:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. That's my way home, so I see. from every angle. So a quick question. So right now, it's like, uh, I think it's 4 lanes, so it removed, is that right? It's 4s at three. It's four, right? So this would change it from four, go down to 3 with the green stripe bicycle lane going through. Is that right?

[01:26:27] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Correct.

[01:26:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right. Thank you.

[01:26:31] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: And then the subtracting out what we've currently spent. If we stopped everything right now, we'd probably save a million and a half dollars. We've got a $one.700000 project. We've already spent a couple 100,000 of that by the time we've done design and staff time and other things. So that's kind of the net, what we would save. If we just stopped now and didn't build anything.

[01:26:53] Unknown Speaker: So the CTC meeting, we actually had quite a few folks who are bicyclists ask us not to close this intersection. They appreciate the ability to turn left. And so I don't feel like we are prioritizing vehicles over everything else.

[01:27:10] Unknown Speaker: I heard the comments from the bicyclists who wanted us to leave it open.

[01:27:18] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Yeah. They like having those 2 left turn lanes to use to turn left onto central.

[01:27:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, council member McAllister?

[01:27:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, so just to go back with what Director Fuller was talking about, by eliminating the West sidewalk, you would eliminate people, one jaywalking, 2 getting stuck in the middle of a particular area. And that is still is to Mr. Council member Clark's concern is that we're prioritizing. We are trying to take care of some unintended consequences, as I'm referring to, where is that traffic going to go? Is it going to go down Evelyn, or it can't turn on Evelyn, or is it going to start going down villa, and therefore, it makes some concerns there. But by eliminating that sidewalk, we are, so we are just redirecting public safety. We're not, you know, overdoing that we're making an extra burden on people because most of the destination is to the transit center. And so by crossing at Moffatt and then going down crossing on Central Expressway, they are going to their ultimate destination. If you look, continue that line. If the west sidewalk was continued, you would still put them in a little pocket of island over there. And then they still have to cross the tracks, then they still have the awkward moving people crossing on people going forward or going south on Moffatt into Castro Street. So, overall, I think the ability to still maintain safety to still redirect people in a convenient and time efficient way is definitely worth something of considering. And if we're going to take it back and have them take another look at that, that's fine with me, to restudy it. $15 million. Even though we spent some money on it, I still think there's still going to be a bunch of improvements for the east side of the corner, the northeast corner and the southeast corner. So there still will be some improvements on there. So it's not like we're throwing money away. We're still improving the intersection.

[01:29:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So does anyone else have comments on this topic?

[01:29:34] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'll just say, like, I will I will trust the traffic engineers and the BPAC over that that is that to me generally represents the highest priority. And I, you are inconveniencing people because if you're at 100 Moffatt and you want to go downtown, you now have to wait for a light to cross all the way over and then you have to wait for another light to cross all the way over to downtown, and then you have to cross the tracks, and then you have to cross yet again to get over to wherever you were going instead of just making a single movement. And all of that so that some folks can turn left. And yes, we did study where those cars would go and what the impact would be to those neighbors. We didn't just do that without studying that. And we made a conscious decision to move forward.

[01:30:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member commit, did you ever comment about this?

[01:30:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I do. Well, I'm glad that we're talking about this, and we got the walkthrough on it, so that helped illuminate things, at least for me, just coming from that direction. I know that both sides, they're actually heavily utilized. Um, and I often walk on the other side of the street when I'm the side that we were talking about eliminating when I come walk to city hall. Um, and so I think given the volume of folks I see walking and riding, um, there, I wouldn't feel comfortable eliminating it at this point, um, having walk through the, the explanation from staff and hearing from, um, Council member Calister, um, just in the, the experience that I've had. And if we're talking about, which I believe that we talked about last week, which is, I think, about 5 years. Um, I do think that the cost is worth the benefit of having the ability to go on both sides of a heavily used intersection and making it um, safer. Thank you.

[01:31:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be Coca.

[01:31:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I just had questions. I'm just coming up trying to come up with alternatives. But, um, is there anything we could do to improve the the median, to make that a better place to wait?

[01:31:55] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Well, I don't think the count. I mean, really what you would want is a push button out there so that if you are stranded and I don't think the county would allow that. Really?

[01:32:06] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Yeah. Okay. They don't want people stranded out there with the cars going on Central Expressway. So yeah, could we improve the median to make it a better stop? I think that's probably the only thing we could do, and that would mean inviting people to wait there, and I don't think the county would approve that. We wouldn't need a permit from the county. I don't think they'd approve that.

[01:32:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And then, um, for bicyclists, is there anything we can do to utilize the new, uh, through way, the Sterling that goes to Sterling, but through the project, 100 Moffatt project? It's right through here. So instead of using this, the road, the Moffat, um, yeah, a 3rd wave that they could get through.

[01:32:51] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Well, they can go through there now, but they do have to cross. I mean, if they're on the, if they're on northbound Castro, they can cross Moffatt and use that. It's open now. There's there's right there. Right here. Yeah, that's open now to beds and bikes. It is.

[01:33:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay. So... Well, um... I think I'm gonna stay with my vote.

[01:33:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And it was a 3 for three, four votes. So, um, by my calculations, uh, but let's do a show of hands on this. So how many would like to leave the current plans to change both the east and the west side, as the project has been scoped, how many just want to leave that going forward? Now. So that's four. So that's the decision. Okay. So, before we go on to the 2nd question, I just want to, I think I'm going to summarize where we are so far, before we get too far away from this. So most people are comfortable with the staff recommendations for the projects that roll forward. And then in terms of, um, most people preferred working on the Mayfield tunnel first. And then the villa tunnel 2nd. And it sounds like there's some support for extending the Stevens Creek Trail, but I would say, I think I heard the majority say, we'd sure like to find other ways to have that funded versus just the city of Mountain View, whether it be other cities, measure B funds, but we definitely want some other funding sources.

[01:34:51] Unknown Speaker: Yes. And we can continue to seek funding sources. I think without, I think if we did want to apply for measure B or some of the other sources, we would need a dedicated match. And so I think that's the real question now. I mean, we can continue to apply for grants and so on, but some of them will require some city obligation. And so, um, we can we can put a couple of alternatives in there for council's consideration at the next study session if that would be easier. Give it a little thought to see what kind of match would give us the best opportunity for the most grant grant programs. Mike, don't we already have a placeholder of funding for design?

[01:35:33] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: I think we do have 2 million? We do have that set aside in the 2nd year.

[01:35:38] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so we could use that or portion of that as our match. I think the point simply is the consensus of the council is not to expend all of our money unilaterally. We would spend that money as appropriate for our share of a match with other funding sources. One of the things that might come back, or maybe an alter, maybe an option that would come back would be, you know, you were saying a 10% match is sort of the minimum, a 20% makes it more competitive. Maybe if we were to commit to a 10% match and say, you know, Sunnyvale, if you're willing to commit the other 10% and make it a really competitive major V project, then everyone saves money. And if they're not, then maybe we just change our mind.

[01:36:16] Unknown Speaker: Okay. So the set aside we have now will roll forward into year one and then we can have that conversation. continue to have that conversation with Sunnyvale. That's 201920. The upcoming fiscal year.

[01:36:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I forgot to mention that I agree with council member Hicks talking about the transit center, including the 100 block and the plaza, but I didn't hear anyone else mention that. So the only 2 I heard for question number 3 was Mayfield Tunnel over Villa Tunnel, but we want to do both, and then the Stevens Creek Tale with all the caveats that came with that.

[01:36:56] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, just a comment on the downtown underpass alternative. As Mike and Dawn mentioned earlier, we will be coming back with a scope of work and budget. So frankly, that would be the appropriate time to make sure everyone's on the same page of what that scope is.

[01:37:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay, then we are getting to cancel question two. And, um, let's 1st talk about El Camino Real, so we'll need a couple of council members.

[01:37:24] Unknown Speaker: No, I'll recuse myself from this segment of the discussion due to real property interest along El Camino rail.

[01:37:32] Unknown Speaker: And I will recuse myself because of leasehold improvements. Leasehold on the same topic.

[01:37:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: But we can get folks in the queue, if you have comments on that. Vice Mayor Abbe Koga.

[01:37:50] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I support the continuation of bike improvements on El Camino Royale. I was actually one of the proponents of creating bike facilities, I guess they're called, or some kind of bike lanes, um, on El Camino, as we saw redevelopment happen. And I do know that that meant potentially eliminating parking, but the idea when we did the precise plan was that as redevelopment occurs, maybe we can look at other ways of parking, whether it be lots that are shared or whatnot to accommodate for the bike facilities. And, um, there was a lot of debate at that time. You know, the reality is is people actually bike on El Camino right now. So for safety reasons, I just feel very strongly that we should go ahead and and it is the one lane that or one that connects, you know, quite a bit of our city to other cities too.

[01:38:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[01:38:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I agree with the vice mayor. I think the only other thing I would add is I support, it sounds like a phased approach that staff is proposing, but completely agree. Thank you.

[01:39:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[01:39:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I agree too, and I would like to coordinate with the Graham Boulevard plan and also be, you know, any efforts made that make it not only safe, but also appealing to bike there.

[01:39:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kamei.

[01:39:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks. And um, I like the idea of possibly synchronizing with Caltrans so that we can try to uh, get any cost savings if they're synchronized. I think that that highlight from staff was a good one and an important one. Thanks.

[01:39:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And my comment on that one is, I was actually thinking it would be good to hold off on this until we have the comprehensive modal plan. Because as we've talked about that plan. We've said we want to understand which routes are going to be optimized for vehicles, which are going to be optimized for bicyclists. And I'm not sure El Camino is one that's going to be optimized for bicyclists. And so I actually would prefer to hold off on this until we finish that plan. Any other comments on that topic? When is it scheduled to be done?

[01:40:30] Unknown Speaker: End of the year. Another year. The streetscate plan itself, which includes the bike improvement.

[01:40:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No, when would the comprehensive modal plan?

[01:40:44] Unknown Speaker: Oh, thank you. Sorry. Okay. Towards the end of this year, early 2020.

[01:40:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If we held off on this until that was done, Does that impact the El Camino bike improvements?

[01:41:03] Unknown Speaker: It could potentially impact it because we're still getting confirmation from Caltrans, but if they're going to be repaving El Camino Real in either 2020 or 2021. We want to be ready for them wherever we want bike improvements. Because you collate that clean surface. Now you can get the striping in, you need to get in. And this money is to do some plenary design work for whatever segment. We want to go forward 1st because even though what we're looking at is mostly can be done by striping, which means we can get Caltrans to pay for most of it. There might be some civil work necessary to move the narrow median here or there, or move a curb here or there, and that's something the city would have to design and help pay for. So by keeping it in the five-year plan for now, we've got the placeholder there. We can continue to have our discussions with Caltrans. We can complete the streetscape plan and bring that forward to you next fall so you get a better feel of what all that looks like as well as a look at how that might relate to the comprehensive modal plan. It's not a project that we plan to start working on in this next fiscal year. I believe it's, is it a year two? Jacqueline, do you remember?

[01:42:20] Jacqueline: For the CIP? El Camino? That's a year one.

[01:42:24] Unknown Speaker: Okay, all right. But the point is, we keep it in there. We keep our options open, and we can have that discussion further as we further develop the comprehensive modal plan and the streetscape plan.

[01:42:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks. Council member Hicks.

[01:42:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, well, I've mostly had my question answered them, but I appreciate your bringing that up, Mayor Matachek, and I just, it sounds like there is, I think the sequencing is important, but it sounds like public works is keeping it in there and will be sensitive to the sequencing.

[01:42:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be Coca?

[01:42:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, I was just gonna say that. I think it's important, we can work parallel, and it probably gives us the most options if we do that, and I don't want to halt planning, especially because we see so much redevelopment on El Camino happening. I don't want to miss any opportunities. So for that reason, I'd like for it to continue.

[01:43:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so I think that is the majority saying it should stay in there. And then, um, For the downtown precise plan.

[01:43:34] Unknown Speaker: Yep, we need to. So I will be recusing myself as I own real property in the downtown area.

[01:43:43] Unknown Speaker: And I'll recuse myself as well as I own real property near the downtown.

[01:43:52] Unknown Speaker: And again, I know council's going to be discussing the precise plans during goal setting, if you want to just hold off on giving us direction on this one. Um, I think you're going to have a goal setting, um, conversation before we come back, your choice.

[01:44:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: This gave us an easy way up.

[01:44:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. So where are we? We are on the downtown precise plan, but we did talk about how that would also be part of the council goal setting and project discussion. So if we wanted to, we could defer the comment to them or if you had comments now or happy to take them. Council member Ramirez.

[01:44:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: To the extent, we're interested in providing direction now, since it's pretty clear, we have to choose between the two, I think the priority should be downtown because I think that's, we'll probably talk more about it later, but I think it's more clearly scoped, and I think there's my impression is there's greater support for proceeding with that based on the input I've heard from the community. So, I think Terraville is a lower priority for me.

[01:45:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[01:45:12] Councilmember John McAlister: I concur with Council member Ramirez. Downtown, definitely because that's something that's active. It's moving, it's evolving, and Terabella is still not one of our 5 main change areas. So the precise plan is going to be affected and that's the crown jewel in Mountain View. So let's make sure it shines.

[01:45:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[01:45:37] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I was going to say, I... I'm curious what staff thinks about, so the downtown we talked about doing, you know, looking at the area broadly, but focusing on certain elements as opposed to just doing the entire, you know, starting from scratch and doing a multi-year sort of precise plan process downtown. Whereas Terrell, I think, would be more involved. And so I don't know where they don't they don't seem like an apples to apples trade to me. Downtown's important, but it's going to be targeted and Terabella is...

[01:46:14] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, and RT or Wayne, if they're here, can chime in. I think that's accurate. I mean, downtown is not a full redo, although you did have a fairly broad scope of it. Terabella would be a full precise plan, not from scratch because you have the draft vision. I think probably you're talking the difference of, you know, 18 to 12 to 18 months versus 18 to 24 months, so it's not a huge difference in time. Is that close, RT?

[01:46:50] Community Development Director Randy Tsuda: Pretty close, I think, Artistra Vastova, director of community development. I would say the 12 month, maybe, a little bit challenging depending on what the council wants to do, we still have to do the environmental review. And the downtown precise plan is starting to look a little more holistic than we had originally thought since we're trying to pull in a lot of stuff, including parking. So it'll all depend on the final scope. But I think the 18 month is a is a good middle estimate.

[01:47:25] Unknown Speaker: Are we being asked to choose between the 2 or is there some, is it just the timing of how you proceed and how you prioritize them?

[01:47:33] City Manager Dan Rich: So I would actually suggest this is probably better to have a conversation at the goal setting. I mean, the dollars, figures and the CIP impact are relatively insignificant. I mean, it's not a huge numbers difference. And so when you talk about goals, you can at that point prioritize.

[01:47:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so I guess we'll hold off on that one. We don't have anything else. Actually, I had one, if we're going to move to the next part of question two, which is on the remaining new projects, but, um, I also wanted to bring up one that I believe council member Kame would have to recuse herself. I don't know. You can introduce the topic, Zoe. And if the vice mayor would hear or hear, I think she would agree. That, um, maybe what we want to do is bring up, um, a precise plan, the placeholder you suggested, for Shenandoah. Oh, thank you. Yes. But I guess I would just say the topic, and then council member committee would have to recuse herself.

[01:48:53] City Manager Dan Rich: Oh, yes, right. So, uh, let me just reiterate now that our downtown residents are back. I think just like the last tradeoff, any new precise plan area, really, would be a goal setting. trade-off, so probably better to have the conversation there. I am not sure you need to have it here tonight.

[01:49:14] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Can I ask a question on that? Then will we be looking at all three areas that during goal setting to decide which one moves first?

[01:49:25] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, when we have the goal setting section, sometime next month, I forget the day the 30th.

[01:49:30] Unknown Speaker: 23rd.

[01:49:31] City Manager Dan Rich: 23rd. You'll be looking at a very long list of projects across all segments of the city. All 3 of these could be, and ultimately there'll have to be some trade-offs within each work group. So it's likely you'll be trading off between precise plans, but yeah, it's not a necessarily a one for one.

[01:49:52] Unknown Speaker: Okay.

[01:49:53] City Manager Dan Rich: What we'll ask you to do with that session is essentially prioritize all of your projects and then we'll go back and analyze how far down that list we can get given resources.

[01:50:04] Unknown Speaker: All right, thanks.

[01:50:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:50:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Could you clarify? Because last time we talked about the downtime precise plan, We had two council members had to leave. So what's the difference of us talking about it now, and they can, but they can't participate? And yet when we do the gold setting that they can participate. So what's?

[01:50:25] City Manager Dan Rich: I was just making a note. Remember, segmentation. for the goal setting. So then, they won't be able to talk about it then. My point is simply is it's really more a goal setting prioritization discussion versus a CIP discussion. It doesn't have to be held tonight as part of the CAP. It's more relevant to have that conversation when you decide what your goals are.

[01:50:46] Councilmember John McAlister: But it could be decided tonight though, also.

[01:50:48] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, no, because you're gonna be looking at all the goals in the context of 60 other items, and we don't know where these three may or may not fall on that list.

[01:50:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, so you're all 3 of them could just be on the pause button.

[01:51:04] City Manager Dan Rich: Potentially, yes.

[01:51:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you.

[01:51:09] City Manager Dan Rich: And just to clarify in Charleston, I heard a couple of supporters and I don't think no opposition, so we'll probably be coming back to that with a reimbursement agreement or an MOU or some kind of document with Google.

[01:51:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you Yeah, any other comments? I feel like we've covered these all, but if there's any other comments, council member McCallister.

[01:51:29] Councilmember John McAlister: Sorry to come. But I wrote in the staff report that they were interested in doing some work on Ringsdorf. Is it possible that you could sort of, hey, uh, broach the subject with them because they they were interested in signalization. And if they're going to be doing something, they might jump on it now also.

[01:51:45] City Manager Dan Rich: I broached the subject when I got your question and haven't heard back yet.

[01:51:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you for approaching it.

[01:51:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, I'm not gonna summarize that one. The last question. So I think we are done unless you have any questions for us.

[01:52:03] City Manager Dan Rich: No, I think you summarized each question well at the end, so thank you for your input.

[01:52:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, next on the agenda, we're getting a little bit late start. I think we're going to continue forward. Um, is... calling to order the regular session. And we will start with the pledge of allegiance.

[01:52:38] Unknown Speaker: Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. to the Republic, which just stands, one nation, under God. with liberine justice for.

[01:52:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If our clerk could announce the attendance?

[01:52:58] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[01:52:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Okay, and next, we have a proclamation recognizing Red Cross month, and I would like to invite the Red Cross. The American Red Cross government operations leads Stephanie Charles to come up to the microphone so we can get you the proclamation. Is she here? Is anyone from the Red Crosshair?

[01:53:33] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I can go out and look for her mayor. I saw her in the lobby earlier.

[01:53:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you, Audrey. Wanda is going to go look for her. Here we go. Thank you. And then I'll read this one. Whereas America, American, Red Cross Month is a special time to recognize and thank the American Red Cross for all their various contributions in Santa Clara County on their 103rd anniversary, and whereas both the Palo Alto area chapter, which covered Mountain View and North, and the Santa Clara Valley chapter, which covered Sunnyvale and South, were chartered in 1916. The two chapters merged a few years ago into the Silicon Valley chapter, and since they had the same original charter year, we're celebrating this year as their 103rd year of serving this county. And whereas, we dedicate the month of March to all those who support the American Red Cross mission to prevent and alleviate human suffering in the face of emergencies. Our community depends on the American Red Cross, which relies on donations of time, money, and blood, to fulfill its humanitarian mission, and whereas day in and day out, the American Red Cross helps our community prepare for emergencies or disasters, from a house fire to a devastating earthquake, and provides assistance to those impacted when emergencies or disasters happen. The American Red Cross also teaches water safety, teaches first aid to responders and members of the public, helps patients in need of blood, and provides emergency services for military personnel and their families. Red Cross volunteers in our community work tirelessly to assist their neighbors when they need a helping hand. Now, therefore, I, Lisa Matachek, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby proclaim the month of March as American Red Cross Month.

[01:55:59] Stephanie Charles: Thank you Lisa. Thank you. As a 45 year Mountain View resident and a 20 year Red Cross volunteer, I want to share just a few personal perspectives on the Red Cross, specifically in Mountain View. If you think about Red Cross, you're probably thinking about blood banks, about first aid and CPR classes, and those are very important, but serviced armed forces is little known, but a major function here in Mountain View. We were are over at Moffat Field every week meeting with new member new military service members and their families talking about the kinds of services we provide. One example. We can help facilitate a emergency leave for a service member who has an unexpected death in their family, or maybe a baby. Another relatively unknown service that we provide is international services. We are part of a worldwide network of red crosses that help reconnect families that have been torn apart by warfare, by famine, all kinds of disasters, and some of our most heartwarming moments are when somebody on another continent reaches out to their Red Cross, says, I'm looking for this family member. I haven't seen in 20 years. I don't know if they're even still alive, but I think they went to California. And we all reach out to our immigrant communities, and when we manage to find them and reconnect them. It's truly heartwarming. Of course, we do disaster services, but I don't know if you know that we go into communities. For instance, the new frontier mobile home park here in Mountain View, and install smoke detectors at no cost. There are now 520 people nationwide who are alive because when their house caught fire and they were sound asleep, they were awakened by a smoke alarm that we had installed. We also got to house fires and they're only probably 2 to 4 times a year here in Mountain View. We get there before the fire department leaves, we provide financial assistance. We can help replace medications, the people have lost in the fire. We've got mental health, counselors, case workers. We do a lot of services for them. Fortunately, we would rarely have anything larger than a house fire happening as far as disasters in mountain view, but in my 20 years, we've opened probably 6 shelters. 1st one that I was involved in was in the 1st floor of the old community center, not a great venue. You've now built the senior center, the teen center, the new community center. Not only are these fabulous resources for the purpose they were intended for, but they have strengthened Mountain View's ability to shelter their citizens in any kind of large fire or other disaster. So I'm just here tonight to say we really appreciate the partnership with Mountain View. You've always been very focused on public safety. And I want to say thank you to everyone that we've worked at. It's been a great partnership over the years and hopefully going forward. Thanks.

[01:59:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next is item four, and this is the consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council or audience wishes to remove an item for discussion. Are there any items that the council would like to remove? I'm sorry, pull? Or remove? Any member of the audience wish to pull an item? Come on up.

[01:59:44] Public Speaker: The H friendly City update? I just wanted to point out, Mountain View has mobile home parks, 2 of which are senior only, and a significant number of seniors live there, and I'd like to keep in mind that Mountain View, as with his goal to be an age friendly city, might consider that protecting the citizens who live in the mobile home parks from rent increases that might force them out, would be a great way to be friendly to those who need help most. Thank you.

[02:00:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other comments on that? Okay, then we have a motion by council member McAllister and a 2nd by Vice Mayor Abbe Koga. We can vote on that. Okay, the consent calendar passes unanimously. Next is item five, which is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for one three minute period during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. So, again, this is for items that are not on the agenda, if you'd like to speak, if you could make sure you fill out a blue card and leave it with our clerk and come up to the microphone. How many people do we have that want to speak tonight on this? Okay, I think we're going to limit this to two minutes per person. So, please come up. So again, just to remind everybody, this is items not on the agenda.

[02:01:26] Jackie Cashan: Good evening, Jackie Cashan from 2310 Rock Street. We will be on the agenda next week. And what I have to say does also apply to the decisions you'll be making about 1950 Montecito tonight. Mountain View calls itself a sanctuary city, but to whom does that apply? Mountain View calls itself a human rights city, but to whom does that apply? In Mountain View, low income people are welcome to work and spend money here. But live here? No, that doesn't apply. In Mountain View, middle income people are welcome to work and spend money here, but live here pretty soon. That won't apply. But if you are well off, everything applies. Approving the project before you tonight and the project at 2310 Rock Street coming before you next week, we'll continue to drive out everyone but the wealthy. That is not what it means to provide sanctuary and respect human rights. Finally, I wanted to remind you all what it says at the base of the statute of liberty. The poem at the bottom says, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled mass is yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these the homeless tempest tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door. Now, that was originally written back in a time when the U.S. was open to immigrants. Now it seems to be increasingly applying, not just to immigrants, but to people who already live here. And I'd like to ask you, what would Lady Liberty think of a city priding itself on being a sanctuary city, and priding itself on respecting human rights, but in reality is one that is treating many of its citizens as disposable. In my opinion, I think she would turn off her lamp so she couldn't see. Thank you.

[02:03:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[02:03:09] Valerie Fenwick: My name is Valerie Fenwick, Mountain View Resident for 20 years. On a completely different topic. I do have a concern that came up earlier tonight, and continues to come up, and it's on our tree canopy here, specifically in Rex Manor. Many of our old heritage trees have been removed by much of the development that's been happening, but also by single-family homeowners. There's very little notice. I walk the streets a lot actually in my neighborhood for exercise, but if you don't happen to go by the right tree in the right day, there's usually only a couple of days to appeal, and a lot of beautiful old trees are being removed, which is very sad, in my opinion. So I really want to make sure that the council going forward, some of these policies, they'll say, oh, we're just going to remove 5 or 6 heritage trees, or 20 heritage trees, or 30 heritage trees. They really are adding up and starting to impact the quality of life in Rex Manor. Also, when you're talking to these large developers, I would like to somehow the city council to have a way to keep them accountable to their promises. For example, there was supposed to be a restaurant, PSL Delmar at 1001 North Shoreline Boulevard. But after the building was built, they said, oh, there's no, we can't sustain a business here. It was weird because there was a business for 21 years there in that exact wonderful location, very convenient for neighborhoods and people coming up the highway. And they put a gym in a cafeteria there. WhatsApp on Villa Street, did the same thing. They tell you they're going to do a public benefit, and then they don't. And then there's nothing ever seems to happen. So please, if we can, as these new developments come forward, have a way to make sure that there's a way for the city to hold them accountable to their public promises. Thank you very much.

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

[02:04:57] Chris: Good evening, my name is Chris. I lived here in Mountain View about 8 years. I love our city's fusion of Tech Innovation and Village Charm. I acknowledge our regional housing crisis, and I truly believe that everyone here wishes to do the right thing for our city's future. I want to see all of us brought into that future together, but I see an increasing displacement of renters, many of whom have lived here their entire lives, of kids that have only ever known our schools. I don't want them to keep losing that, and I don't want us to keep losing them. They are the human part of our city's history that we won't get back once they're gone. I understand there is a proposal for a nine month moratorium on the removal of existing affordable housing. I would like to voice my support for that. Thank you very much.

[02:05:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[02:05:45] Gael: City council members, my name is Gael, and I'm a decade long, renter, resident, in Mountain View. My fellow community members and I are here this evening to urge you to legislate and implement sensible, effective measures such as a temporary pause on demolition of existing affordable housing. The current development strategies here are extremely imbalanced, and seem to only favor big business, developers and property owners. There is a large, underserved community population that lives in constant fear, that their lives will be up rooted from currently affordable rental housing due to more office and upscale housing development. Much of the local, small business service, labor infrastructure is composed of this population, or comprised of this population, who also contribute greatly to the local economy and sales tax revenue streams as consumers. I believe that this current trend is not sustainable, as there will be an increasingly larger population of low income people in this region in the next several decades, including seniors, such as myself, living on low fixed incomes. In my case, my very survival in my later years of life might depend on my being able to remain in the area that I was born and raised in. I am a cancer survivor with multiple serious medical conditions. All of my physicians and specialists are at Stanford Medical Center. It's imperative that I be able to... continue living here as a renter in Mountain View, to maintain a quality of life in my later years near my medical team at Stanford. The crisis is real, and the time for effective solutions is now. Thank you.

[02:07:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:07:43] Tarika: Good evening. My name is Tarika. challenge me today, because I want to speak in English, because it's my second language. I'm gonna force myself. I was living here for 15 years. Here's the city where my son born. I want to raise my kids here, and I, and I see a lot of signs that are new projects that are, is coming up. And I think those projects are gonna be very uh, uh, very high level for me. And I, I think we are gonna lose a lot, uh, a lot of, uh, a lot of low income, uh, houses, and if it is, is gonna happen. Um, I'm gonna, I'm gonna be forced. I'm gonna be forced to move to another city or another uh, stay because it's not gonna be affordable for me anymore. So I hear about the 9 months uh, propose out pulse. And I'm here today to, to, Support that propose, that propose all that 9 months. Thank you.

[02:08:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[02:08:56] Karen: Good evening. to all of you. My name is Karen. Bengo, aversipo de improponerla, le de los novemeses, si Bengo, aversipo de mosa, support para quiso de espiensen, y puedan estudiar de so de que parenas de moliciones. I came here today to propose...

[02:09:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could get a little bit closer to the microphone. That'd be great.

[02:09:19] Karen: I came here to propose the idea of a 9 month pause on all development and demolition of affordable housing. Tengo tres nios. Questanacidos, aqui, and Montebu, yo tengo quinci, ainos, vibiendo, montebu, y esta, ciudad, esta, por los projectos, quiste de San realisado? Um, I have lived here for 15 years, and I have 3 children also living here in this city, and, um, and these projects are hampering, um, that that way of life. Y ay unas personas, que son compañeros de las kuela de mija, ques a muy affectadas, por la demolición de los, de las vibiendas, and donces bengo aversi podrianos de destiner una tactica, para platicar sobre eso, y que la realicen. I have heard. that my daughter's friends have been really affected by these new developments and I came here to see if we can come up with any new tactics and approaches to these new developments. Gracias, personal tension. Thank you for your attention.

[02:10:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. Don't forget to fill in a blue card and leave it with the clerk.

[02:10:46] Donna: My name is Donna, and I came here to work in Mountain View about 25 years ago with teenagers and their families. About 10 years later, I moved here to the Mountain View community. I was very attracted by the dynamism of the downtown, the neighborhood surrounding the downtown area, and I also very much appreciated the diversity of the communities here. I've been living here since then, and sometimes after work, tutoring Latin children, in helping them with math and with English skills. I've seen how the housing, the expense of housing has affected these communities, and particularly the low income, lower income communities in Mountain View. I'm very concerned that, um, this keeps up, we're going to lose a lot of the people who just contribute to the regular economic and social life of Mountain View. The people who provide food, the people who provide services here. These are all important to the communities, and the people who, um, who do these things, can't afford the rents that, um, new, a lot of the newer developments, um, ask for. So, um, I really would like to see the, the vibrancy of the mountain view community continue to be supported. And I understand that there's a 9 month, a temporary 9 month pause on any redevelopment projects affecting such housing under consideration to give the city time to strategize around this issue. And I strongly urge the council to support this effort. Thank you.

[02:12:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:12:45] Miriam: Good evening to all the council members. My name is Miriam. Me familia yo... My family and I have been living in the city of Mountain View for a bit over 10 years. And I have a seven year old child, and one of the reasons we're living here in Mountain View. And those reasons are the safety and the overall comfortability of life here in the city. Las buenas Escuelas? The good schools? And because everything is accessible within two miles of my house. As you've known, uh, over the past two years, uh, traffic has grown. And every year, there's more developments and demolitions on these affordable housing. And that really hurts people because they end up homeless and living in mobile homes. And that's why I support the nine month pause on all demolition of affordable housing. Gracias. Thank you. Thank you.

[02:15:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:15:13] Cesar: Good evening. My name is Cesar, and I've been living in the city of Monterey for 13 years now. I really enjoy the city a lot, and I've, and if I get to leave, it will affect me a lot because I have friends, I've been known since elementary, and I play soccer here in my interview, and I also feel secure and safe in this area. I hope never to leave the city. Can you please approve the 9 month positive demolition? Thank you.

[02:15:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. Um, There's going to be folks here with different perspectives, and so we really want you to hold off on any sort of applause or booing. We're just going to listen respectfully to what everyone has to say.

[02:15:54] Arma: Why that's not chess? Mi nombres harma, en estas ciuda de montebio, e vivido, porticio chuaños. Good evening. My name is Arma, and I've been living here. For 28 years. All my children have grown here, and, uh, for that reason, uh, of... And considering how safe and clean the city is, it's a convenient place to do so. Por eso impacta ques estendes, riendo, casa, accessibles, para familias. That's why it impacts the, that's why the demolition of these affordable housing complexes impacts me. And building new unaccessible building. Espor eso, que el espido, que proven la le de los nueve meses, porque no que sierra ser las sienten la lista. Gracias. Thank you. And that's why I support the nine month pause of all demolition of affordable housing, because I don't want to be the second on that list. Thank you.

[02:17:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[02:17:31] Irma: Buenas noches. Mi nombre, cirma, y tengo, vibiendo, des del dos mil cinco. Catorseno? Catorsenos? Good evening. My name is Irma, and I've been living here since 2005. And I can't help but feel, um, hurt by all these new developments in the city, which affects the affordable housing complexes in the city. And, uh, I always, um, think about whether I'm the next person on that, um, development process and... And when it's gonna be our turn. que, que, que so para, is... Porque, nesta communidad, es, es la ciudad mast, tranquila, ibonita, para la famile. And I hope you all can stop that. those developments, uh, because, uh, the city is really, um, It's really... It's really calm and nice for families. Gracias. Thank you.

[02:19:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:19:40] Heather Phipps: Hi, my name is Heather Phipps, and I'm a renter here in Mountain View. I just wanted to bring up two topics. One is to ask the council to stop cherry picking, the certain stories that are being told by the RV about the RV residents, according to your own experiences, on the drives you've had with Mountain View, police, and as well as the Mountain View police themselves, giving cherry pick stories. Um, I live on Center Street and there was a shooting um, on my street uh, in February, early February. I think was February 2nd. Um, there was a 17 year old, um, who was shot in the leg and 2 men, um, stole carjacked a car, essentially. Um, these 2 men were from Richmond. The car was found in Richmond. There are no RVs on my street. So crime happens in Mountain View. Um, and it has nothing to do with whether there's RVs or not. Um, so it would just be great if there could just be, you know, less of this trying to tie crime into RV's narrative and myth that's being perpetrated by many of you on the council, um, because it's just, it's not helping the situation. It's also just not truthful. And we have enough lies being perpetuated, um, by our current national or federal administration, so it'd be great if you all would stop following suit, um, and doing things like that. Second, I would just ask that. Um, that you do consider, again, a 9 what's been asked from a very diverse group of people here tonight, um, to, uh, have a 9 month moratorium, um, on demolitions, uh, because, uh, you all rubber stamping these demolitions, as well as you all rubber stamping, more office space over the last decade or so now, uh, without there being a job, housing balance is is causing this housing crisis. This housing crisis is on your hands. So, you know, please do something here to step up and stop it. Besides just banning RVs and just rubber keeping rubber stamping these demolitions of affordable housing. Thank you.

[02:21:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[02:21:38] Leia Simeja: Hello, my name is Leia Simeja, and I've been a tenant here for over 10 years in Mountain View. And I start with a question. Margaret, have you ever been homeless? Is there any possibility of you being homeless? Right. Life does go around and you never know what happens tomorrow. So you could be in any of our shoes anytime. Come here. We've ordered you in. Are you really beholding your commitment to us as people who voted you in? Are you looking out for us? Lucas, we voted you in? Are you looking out for interest? Look at your boarding records so far. Do you think you are really standing up for what you promised us? You stood here and said that very clearly. So what I'm saying here is that we voted you guys in. You sit there, you hold so much power. Your power to change our lives in a minute. Families are being broken. Children are being pulled away from their schools. People are living on the street. People are finding a way to survive, whether it's an RV or mobile homes, or cars, and you're here to try and even take that away from them. You need to develop a conscience. You need to know we voted you in, and we not vote you to uphold all those who can make it, but rather to really uplift those and help those who cannot. And for us as voters. We need to keep our eyes open. We need to look at everybody here. What they are doing, how they're doing it, why they're doing it. If they don't have your interest in mind, you need to get together and we need to be a stronger force because this is just not acceptable. Thank you.

[02:23:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. Again, we're not gonna... please hold off on clapping.

[02:24:04] John Inks: Evening, Counsel. Uh, John Ink's, uh, showers drive. Council candidate in last year's city council election, uh, a campaign marked by extensive spray paint vandalism to my campaign signs, you may have seen in the Daily Post last week. Those of you that read The Daily Post, some of you don't. But sign vandal gets probation. How this all came about was there was a property owner on Church Street, uh, that became exasperated with so many signs disappearing from her yard that she installed a security camera, um, in her porch light. And on the morning of October 19th, 340 a.m., this is what the camera caught. Oh. I'm used to... Right, so, uh... There was happened to be other camera coverage, um, around town, Shoreline Latham, uh, Central Avenue over by JCson Way, was a similarly tired individual, um, in the hoodie, in the ball cap. You can't get a good picture of his face, so he was charged only with a Church Street vandalism and theft. The district attorney recommended 240 hours of community service. I think his lawyer counted with 80 hours, that's what the judge settled on. 80 hours is equivalent to 10, 10 days in jail. That's the way they treat it in the courts. So, Joe Lopez now has a criminal record. He's on the thumb of the court for the next two years. It's actually good. I think that he got the lesser sentence, because he will be able to resume his more purposeful activity in the community, the charity work that he done. Thank you. This is now recorded on the city website.

[02:26:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:26:21] Joe Lopez: Hi, everyone. My name is Joe Lopez. More than 40 years, rested in a mountain view. I am here to... echo what many people behind me have said before me have said about the need for you to adopt permanent policy about the demolitions. We are facing the demolition on Montecito, and another one on Rock Street. Last year, unfortunately. You approve the demolition on 2005 Rock Street. So please again. Even though it is true that the, any landlord has the right to get out of the rental He or Chiso desires. But it is also true that every resident, every tenor in Mountain View has the right, the human right, the natural right, to have a, a decent, uh, rule where he, she and his family, her family can live. And that's what we have heard before me. So again, Um, We elected you to do the right thing politically and legally speaking, but I want to remind you once again that you also have the moral obligation to side with all the people in Mountain View who are facing. The threat of being this place. You keep approving demolitions that will only worsen the house in crisis that we are already facing. Thank you Keep that in mind, each one of you.

[02:28:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak with us on an item that is not on the agenda tonight?

[02:28:45] Joshua: Hello? Uh, my name is Joshua. I'm Los Altos, freshman. And today I came here to talk about a 9 month pause on the demolition and development on existing affordable housing units. And um, actually, I heard about this 1st uh, from a friend. Um, uh, he's very close to me and, um, uh, I've seen the occasional development plan sign, and it, it really, it hurts me, uh, a bit, um, to see that, um, that he's suffering and, um, a bit, um, worried. But I've come here to reinforce the idea of the 9 month pause because I think it's essential to examine this, I don't want to say crisis, but problem that people and affordable housing units are facing. And, um, I'm just, Sorry. Um, I'm sure. Never mind. Thank you.

[02:30:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak?

[02:30:29] Public Speaker: Madam Mayor, see the council members? I'm here tonight like I have been before. I'm here supporting my neighbors. I live on Shoreline, and I am here to tell you to please stop approving these demolitions. These people deserve to live here. They've been here for a long time. They're my neighbors. I don't want to see them go, please, we voted for all of you. Please touch your hearts. This is people that want to stay here that they love Mountain View. And I've seen them work really hard to make mom to view what it is today. That's all I'm here to say. Thank you.

[02:31:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, anyone else wishing to speak on an item that's not on the agenda? Okay, we will close this portion of the meeting, and we will move on to our public hearing, which is what? Not yet. Did you need one? Let's just go through this one, then we'll have a break. So, um, item 6.1 row house development at 1950 Montecito Avenue. The presenters are senior planner, Diana Pancholi and planning manager, zoning administrator, Stephanie Williams.

[02:31:56] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Good evening, Mayor, and members of the council. Again, Diana Pancholi, senior planner with the city's planning division, and I have it me, Stephanie Williams, our planning manager. The item in front of you tonight is a request for a plan unit development and a development review permit to construct a 33 unit rowhouse development and a heritage removal permit to remove 22 heritage trees, along with an associated Westing Tensitive map, to create 33 lots and 2 common lots at 1950 Montecito Avenue. The approximately 1.. 85 acre project site is located to the north of Montecito Avenue, north of between Rengstorf Avenue and Sierra Vista Avenue, and it is located in the R3-2 multifamily residential zoning district. The surrounding uses includes two-story multifamily residential development to the north and to the east. Uh, single-family residential development and two-storey, senior center to the south. The project site is also adjacent to a recently approved 3 story residential development to the West. The existing site is currently developed with a 34 unit, 2 story apartments, which are proposed to be demolished as part of this project. The site is laid out, and it includes 6 buildings with 5 to 7 units each. It also includes a circular loop driveway, a pedestrian path along the entry driveway to the north of the property, which leads to the common open space. The project site plan proposes a 7 unit building facing the Modecito Avenue street frontage, and rest of the buildings face the 10,000 square foot common open area. The proposed architectural style is traditional with craftsman elements, including gable and shed roofs, porches, balconies, and wood type siding, and shingles with stone veneer bases. Units are differentiated through massing, with varying use of materials and projections and varied root forms. The project site includes the project proposes 33 ownership units, which will be replacing the existing 34 rental units on site. These 34 rental units are covered under cities, community stabilization and fair rent act, and the tenant relocation assistance ordinance. Of the 33 households that will be displaced, it is estimated that 12 might be eligible for the relocation assistance. The developer has been working with the city's tenantary location assistance program. And as of February 2019, 7 eligible relocation assistant applications have been received. The project was reviewed at the development review committee in July of 2018 where it was recommended for approval with some design comments, which have been noted in the resolution attached to the staff report. Further, the project was also reviewed by the zoning administrator and the subdivision committee in February 2019, where they recommended the project approval to city council. At that meeting, we did not receive any public comment, but we did receive a neighbor's email that had some concerns regarding the tree removals, which have been also attached to the staff report. In conclusion, staff, the zoning administrator and staff recommends approval of the 33 unit rowhouse development and subdivision committee recommends approval of the vesting tentative map at 1950 Montecito Avenue. Staff finds that the project supports journal plans, policies, for neighborhood character, and street presence. It is also consistent with the land use and development direction in general plan. It is in compliance with the zoning code and subdivision Map Act as well. The proposal promotes a well-designed development that is compatible and harmonious with surrounding uses and developments. The project was also found to be categorically exempt as per the infill development projects, category under Sequa. And this concludes staff presentation. The applicant is also present here tonight, if you have any questions for staff or the applicant. Thank you.

[02:36:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Does the applicant have a presentation?

[02:36:59] Josh Frozis: Evening, mayor, members of the council. My name is Josh Frozis. on behalf of Sierra Montecito, Investors and Dividend Homes. I'd like to start by thinking staff for their efforts on the development application. We started planning this site early in 2017 and worked hard with staff to bring forth a fully compliant project under its zoning guidelines. We're excited to provide 33 new for sale housing units in the city of Mountain View. Our application will increase the number of bedrooms from 44 to 86. And we're excited to integrate our development with the beautiful on-site redwood trees. Over the past 30 years, dividend homes has been providing new for sale housing in the city of Mountain View. Some of the projects developed include Cornavaca, Bentley Square, more recently, 1958, Rock Street, 111 and 133, Fairchild Drive, and most recently, 24 New For sale Housing Units at Sierra Vista and Hackett. With regard to our relocation efforts to date, we've met all requirements of both measure B and the trio. We provided the 2 special circumstances households with the one-year notice as required. Both have moved out to new housing opportunities within the city of Mountain View. To date, 5 households have vacated and 2 more scheduled to leave by the end of the month. In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to build homes in the city of Mountain View. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Our project architect, Jamie, is here as well if you have any questions about the design. Thank you.

[02:38:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So at this point, we will have counsel questions, and then we will open it up for public input. So, um, does any member of the council have questions either for staff or the applicant? Vice mayor, Abbe Koga.

[02:38:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Regarding the heritage tree removal and replacement, um, I noticed that the canopy, um, well, existing canopy is actually 47% quite high, and it's going to take more than 10 years to get to that, and I was wondering, um, I know in the past, we've required larger trees that will grow more quickly and replace the canopy sooner. Is that something that we've gone through on this project?

[02:39:20] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: So, we did work on the review of the proposed landscape plan that is proposed with the project, they are meeting the minimum requirement of the city, but at the same time, they're also proposing a very well-designed, common open area, which kind of takes up a lot of area that might be used for planting trees. And the open space has to be, we do require an suggest the applicant proposed active area that can be used by the community that is being proposed there. And hence, at this point of time, we are not requesting them to use a bigger tree size. We do not know if that can be accommodated by on site without losing the total number of trees. But if we are just looking at tree canopy, council can definitely consider that.

[02:40:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you.

[02:40:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Council member Ramirez.

[02:40:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of questions for the applicant. Just for my benefit. How often do you meet with the tenants and stay in touch? Just let them know what's going on in the process and have opportunities for them to share their own needs and concerns.

[02:40:35] Josh Frozis: Sure. So, um, as part of the tenant relocation process, we meet and have a kind of a kickoff meeting after our application is deemed complete, where myself and then the city's representative from ARWBS comps and explains the relocation process, the benefits that they're eligible for, and then kind of starts with a general overview and gives them a handout and flyer. At that point, I was at that meeting as well. We had it at the pool here. And then we also engaged a outside relocation company, auto temps, where we offered free additional services to all the tenants. Basically, they were there and held office hours on the weekends. We only did that at the beginning because the tenants at Montecito were not attending those office hours. So what they did was they left their business card information on all the doors, and we sent the flyer and post it in the common area as well. The point of that was that they're there to offer help in terms of finding new housing opportunities in terms of filling out applications. They were there to drive tenants to look at different complexes, both in Mountain View and abroad. So they're constantly available, as well as I'm constantly available. I've not been contacted by anyone directly in terms of the tenants.

[02:41:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And then during the development process, how often did dividend homes or the property owner reach out to say years were approaching the next step in the process, here's what's going on.

[02:42:01] Josh Frozis: So that's not something that we typically do. We basically, at that initial kickoff meeting. We give our general timeline. We explained that, you know, the people, the 2 special circumstances, households, receive their one-year notice. I think sometime around July or late June of last year. So that lets them know roughly our one-year our one-year timeline. And then basically we have not served 120 day notice as required under the trail to the tenants. What we'll do is we'll serve that as we get closer ready to start the development, which will give them kind of a sense of their moving timeline.

[02:42:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And a different separate question for staff. Is it possible for this applicant or a different applicant to propose a project that is in compliance with regulations that does not require council approval?

[02:42:52] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Yes. So the main driver of the project coming to the city council for approval is a tentative map. All tentative maps require council approval if it were an all rental project. It could be approved at the zoning administrator level.

[02:43:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[02:43:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh.

[02:43:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Um, so for those, uh, who may not, um, qualify for tenant relocation assistance? Perhaps they're just over the 120% AMI. Has there been any discussion about trying to provide them with any type of relocation assistance?

[02:43:31] Josh Frozis: Um, I actually have not been contacted by the city's relocation team, and I reached out to them today about anybody who, on this site, was in that situation, but we don't hear from the tenants directly. Um, now that, Um, so at this point, no.

[02:43:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you.

[02:43:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[02:43:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. Hello? Um... So you don't... Directly hire the relocation assistant agency, but did the tenants ever... tell you stories, or to say how they're working, or how is it going with them?

[02:44:12] Josh Frozis: Are you talking about the one that we personally hire the city?

[02:44:15] Councilmember John McAlister: One that the city contracted, yeah.

[02:44:17] Josh Frozis: I haven't heard feedback on this... application about the cities. Their role, generally, is just to take in the information, and then let the tenants know if they qualify under the city relocation ordinance.

[02:44:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, and so you said you hired a rental referral company or placement company on your own?

[02:44:36] Josh Frozis: Correct.

[02:44:37] Councilmember John McAlister: And you did that on your own, or because you were to do that through this tenant relocation ordinance?

[02:44:43] Josh Frozis: No, we did that on their own. See, the tenor relocation ordinance. All tenants are eligible for a 60 day housing listing service through bay rentals. We hired auto temps, which is a relocation company who was there just to provide additional services. Under the trail, the city's relocation team does not help tenants find new housing. What they do is they take in their financial information and then tell them if they qualify under the trail. They don't do anything like take them to appointments, look for listings, fill out affordable housing, applications. It's a separate process. So what we've been hearing at other developments is that people were interested in extra help in terms of finding relocation options. And that's why we did it free of cost.

[02:45:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay. I heard the same thing that was it. Okay. The other, how many of your tenants are under a one-year lease? And how does that process work? Because the city had an ordinance that you had to have a one year lease, they had the option of taking a one year lease. And then when you give them the notice that, I guess, starts, when the clock starts, and they get the one year tournament, termination. So, how do you deal with it? Do you put everybody onto, after the one year lease, or they put on a month to month at their discretion?

[02:45:58] Applicant Josh: So we don't currently operate the property. My understanding is that all of the households there were on month to month leases and that the current owner of the property decided not to release any unit after they became vacant. So the situation didn't arise.

[02:46:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, it didn't rise? Okay, because those were there.

[02:46:14] Applicant Josh: And those tenants that were there, I should ask the owner of the property, but he gave them those, the tenants took the option to go month to month. I believe that I don't know the answer on this. Okay. So I believe the majority, the landlord had always offered month to month. I could be wrong on that, but I know that under Measure V, they're now required, I believe, to offer longer term tenancy on new applications.

[02:46:40] Unknown Speaker: Council member McAllister, we repealed the 12 month lease requirement. Once we had the CSFRA because we have just caused eviction.

[02:46:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh. Okay. Because I asked that one of the questions, and it didn't come up, so... So they can be on a month to month. Okay. Did not... Well, there's just cause eviction. Okay. Thank you for correcting me on that one. Uh... That's it for now. Thank you.

[02:47:12] Unknown Speaker: Excuse me. Um, I have a couple questions. In this proposal, are there any variances or exceptions being requested?

[02:47:25] City Staff: Yeah. So they're not requesting any exceptions. I think this was also part of the council question. They're not requesting any exceptions. They are applying for a plan unit development permit and under the plan unit development permit. There are some deviations, which allows them to have less than the required minimum lot size, which is required by the R3 standards. But under the PUD development guidelines. They can actually propose a development like this.

[02:47:56] Unknown Speaker: Okay. And do you know why the owner is selling this property?

[02:48:01] Applicant Josh: The owner of the property told me that the reason he sold was after rent control passed, he decided to get out of the rental housing business.

[02:48:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, And I want to find out a little bit more about the rental listing service. So I sent in a question about that, but I don't think I use those exact words. And so the question came back more about the, um, Trao. So do we require a subscription to a rental listing service, but the applicant gets to choose, who provides that service?

[02:48:42] City Staff: So I think it would be helpful if Onky could come help us out with some of these more specific questions about that. No.

[02:48:58] Onky: That is correct. Uh, Dennis have a right to get a subscription to Bay Rentals, as Josh mentioned, um, and then it's up to the attendant to decide if they want to make use of that service.

[02:49:11] Unknown Speaker: And are there any requirements around what that service has to do?

[02:49:16] Onky: Uh, from historic perspective, that service provides available rental units for the level of income that the tenant indicates to that service.

[02:49:26] Unknown Speaker: And are they emailing those to the tenants? Are they coming by to meet with them or does it vary?

[02:49:35] Onky: So mostly, I think it goes by email or online contact. They don't provide the extended services that Josh hired through auto temps.

[02:49:46] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Thank you. And that's all the questions I have.

[02:49:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[02:49:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I was just gonna ask...

[02:49:57] Unknown Speaker: Okay, I'm sorry, I have one more question for you. Um, do you know, do you have any estimate of the rate of success of people looking for apartments, um, like within, within Mountain View or within the, you know, vicinity, um, within Mountain View in the vicinity as opposed to Gilroy in the vicinity?

[02:50:20] Onky: Um, I did not specifically ask that question, but our trail agency should be able to kind of estimate, guesstimate, they do get that information back from the tenants, where they move to, but I don't have that information with me right now.

[02:50:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Okay, then at this point, um, we will open it up for public input. Can I see a show of hands of how many folks want to speak on this topic? Okay, we will give you 2 minutes per person, and if you could remember to fill out a blue card. And also, uh, like I was saying earlier, you know, we're all going to listen very respectfully and we are not going to have clapping, applause, or booing. Different people have different perspectives on this topic, and we want to hear what everyone has to say. Please come up.

[02:51:23] Sammy: Yes, my name is Sammy, and I live in 1950 Mutecito. I'm not taking a long time. I never see Mr. Josh. Okay? If you bought the apartment building or hidden board, I know Robert Thurman, the owner of the apartment, I never see this person, I never see nobody from this here, you know what I mean before, to talk to me or something to say, is like, we offer you something, or we're talking about something. There is nothing like that. They, I heard, they made some meeting in my swimming pool, in the apartment building, and they left at nighttime, you know, nobody there. Anyway, we have rent control. Okay? If I leave this apartment, I'm gonna have to pay $800 extra every single month. Okay? What is the situation about that? This is number one. Okay? We are living there from 2009. Okay? I could see here, it's just the investment for Mr. Josh. He's gonna kick out 34 family to put 33 family. This rich people, sure. They gonna pay more, he's gonna make money. Okay? But what about this 35, 33 family? Doesn't matter. They got kicked out. It's an investment. It's not something is development. It's an investment. We have to talk right. We have to be clear. Are we going by investment, or important for us, the people of life? Just like that. Take them out with their family and bring another 34 family, rich or 33 families rich. They gonna pay more, and he's gonna make more money. I'm not saying anything, I don't have anything between me and you. But I'm just saying, I know Bob Furman, the owner of the apartment. Okay, and that's what I know. I never see anybody. from this development company, they say, we are the owner of the apartment.

[02:53:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

[02:53:31] Alex: Hi, everyone. My name is Alex, I'm a tenant from Montecito, 1950. Just a quick insight, you asked a question, Mr. John McAllister, right? You asked a question about how the process works for finding an apartments for tenants. And I would just add my 5 coins. It's very hard because according to agreements we had with the landlord, there is a 30 days notice. So every 30 days, I tried 4 times, 4 times I speak with manager, we try to notify the landlord, that I'm going to relocate. But I'm saying this without having actual apartment found yet. So every time, by saying this, I'm risky to get without my apartment to have someone else sublisted for half a year, because eventually landlords have listed a couple of apartments of free apartments for half a year. And for me and my family, I have 2 kids, every month, I'm risking and going on the market and trying to apply. And the problem is not even in paying higher rent, the problem is to be approved by the landlords. We tried Santa Clara. We tried Sunnyvale. I already forgot about the dream to keep my kid in the same school where he where they're like for 4 years in the same area. And that's also very important, just because of the area is close proximity to middle school, to elementary school, to kindergarten and Turkov, which is really affordable for people as well. And for us is a problem to relocate because every month I'm saying, I'm moving out, then I'm trying to find something and I cannot. That's it. Thank you.

[02:55:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Sir, I have a question for you, because this is a concern of mine about this. Relocation time. So you're trying to tell the land, so you're looking for apartment.

[02:55:23] Alex: Yeah.

[02:55:23] Councilmember John McAlister: And if you find one, and you want to move immediately, you still have to wait 30 days before you can move immediately.

[02:55:30] Alex: Absolutely. I can't move immediately. And that's the reason of rejection, because people usually found someone who just drive to the country, who could, like, who was hired by Google or whatever, and they could move in immediately within a few days, 5 days. I can't, I can't pay like 2 rents because I need to pay for Montecito for new apartment and security deposit. It's around 10,000.

[02:55:52] Councilmember John McAlister: This is after you've been given notice.

[02:55:55] Alex: Yeah.

[02:55:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Then, okay. So that, okay. The other question is, when you are given the opportunity for 10 relocation dollars, if you qualify, can you, how hard is it to take, let's say you find your apartment, you get noticed, you find an apartment. I want to move out, but I need my money now to pay for the other apartment. How hard is it for you to get if you qualify for the tenant relocation dollars to apply it to the new unit?

[02:56:25] Alex: So if you will take the median price for the apartment, let's say like the similar price, we are paying like around 3000. So there will be security deposits, 3000s, then I need to pay out of the pocket for Monte Cito because I have a month. I still need to pay to a landlord and I need to pay for the 1st months at the new apartment. So it's 9000s out of the pocket. As far as I knew, the tent relocation assistance is a little bit less. I mean, like, it divided to parts and you still have less money to be able to move somewhere. And it's hard if you have like 2 kids to find like 10,000 Ks or 9000s, whatever.

[02:57:03] Councilmember John McAlister: So have you been given the yeah, I understand you get one half now and a half later.

[02:57:08] Alex: Yes.

[02:57:08] Councilmember John McAlister: And have you asked for the half?

[02:57:10] Alex: Of course, of course, because my median income was like...

[02:57:14] Councilmember John McAlister: And then, in your understanding, to get that 2nd half, how soon can you get that second?

[02:57:18] Alex: Only after so the condition is that as soon as you find a new place and relocated and received a new address only after within 15 days you have the 2nd part. The 2nd part.

[02:57:29] Alex: Yeah.

[02:57:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you very much. That was very helpful.

[02:57:32] Alex: You welcome. Yeah, thanks.

[02:57:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:57:40] Yuri: My name is Yuri. I moved to Mountain View with my family, 2 kids and wife, 2 years ago from Cupertino, in hope that we will get rent control here, and we went over the nightmare to move to here with 2 kids is a lot of mess, and now we are forced out. So we didn't get any help on relocation. Okay, unfortunately. And we have been searching a new place for about like 6 months without any luck because the current price, unfortunately, is over 50, 100 over what we are paying now and we've been constantly searching, you know, Mountain View, Palo Alto, you know, Sunnyville, and there is nothing here, okay? So, yeah. And plus we have 2 kids and they are forcing us out. So yeah, those guys are not helping actually in finding anything, yes, they just for who is not qualifying. Okay? So they didn't reach us to help, you know, because, you know, we have 2 keys, but still we didn't have any help from them. Okay? And so in other concerns, so they are going to remove all the trees. okay? So those are beautiful trees that they're going to demolish, okay? So I've been in the new apartment nearby that they built. okay? It's not even close, okay? It's not even close to what you have in that apartment regarding the trees plus the all the all the animals. So we have families of skunks, raccoons, okay? And they they are going to kill them. Okay? And it's illegal by California to relocate them. Okay, they didn't address that. I didn't see it in the item. They address the wildlife in that apartment. I encourage you, please visit it. Thank you.

[02:59:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I'm sure to fill out blue cards and leave them with our city clerk.

[02:59:48] Sergei: Hello, my name is Sergei. I've been living in this apartment block for nearly 2 years, and it's actually my 1st place in the United States. I fell in love with this place. If you look with attention to the 1st slide, you can see the tree cannot be of this particular place. You know, it just stands out. You know, if you if you have an opportunity to switch back to the very 1st map, yeah. can you see that? You know, to cannot be wet shade, it's really cool. It's like, oh, this, in this, you know, area where we have droughts. And I know what mountain view is moving towards sustainable city direction. And, uh, you know, wet shade basically let us not use AC during summer at all. And it was really great. And yes, raccoons, you know, like I could see them every night, basically, raccoons and skunks, you know, it's, you know, family of raccoons, and birds like on nesting on these huge trees, sequoirs. And also, I was able to use bike to ride to work, to mountain view now. I, this particular weekend I had to leave it. I vacated my apartment, because I have a child newborn, I couldn't wait for this decision to be approved or not, it's risky for us. So I'm here just to support current residents in, you know, because it's our common pain. Thank you.

[03:01:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:01:37] Valerie Fenneck: Hi there, Valerie Fenneck, a Mountain View resident, Rex Manor resident, BPAC member, but I'm speaking as myself. I did not receive notice of this. Those, the short walk from my house that may explain why no neighbors came to the any of the other prior meetings. You've seen me before for all of the other big construction in this block and other areas in our neighborhood. Those prior projects were all in very bad disrepair, and we were getting offered more units in the same space. So it made it seem more attractive. But I know prior owners, prior council was really focused on ownership housing, but I've seen block after block of apartments and affordable housing in my neighborhood, which I love. I've rented many of those. I was a renter my 1st 10 years in this. They just are getting knocked down. And there is nowhere for renters to live. It's ruining the diversity of our neighborhood. There are tons of unoccupied houses starting to pop up in our neighborhood, an old person dies, their house gets torn down. An investor buys the home, it sits empty. Across the street from me is now an Airbnb. Down the street, another Airbnb, a youth hostel on Burgoyne. I mean, these were happening all over. These are not family neighborhoods anymore, like it should be. We have already lost so many affordable homes here. And it is just getting, and also on Rangsdorf and San Luis all over our neighborhood. I walk this neighborhood every week and it is changing before my eyes. What is not shown on this picture, is all of the trees next to that unit have already been torn down from the other projects. It is a tree desert. It is a desolate mud pile at this time. You're talking about all of those animals that would have gone there to seek refuge when all of the other construction is happening. All around there has already been torn up. That picture is severely out of date. This project is beautiful. What's currently there is beautiful, wonderful tree canopy. Please consider delaying this and getting some other public benefit. Thank you. Thank you.

[03:03:40] Unknown Speaker: I have a for you. Oh. You said, Yes, sir. How far away do you live? You said you didn't get any notifications. So how far away did you live from this project?

[03:03:49] Public Speaker: I live on Bonnie Street. Let me just put it this way. When the unit further to Rangsdorf was going under construction, I received notice. It's about about a six, 7 minute walk from my...

[03:04:00] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so it's more than 300, 500?

[03:04:02] Public Speaker: But I don't know the unit further. I got notice. So, and I got noticed for a tree across the railroad tracks is getting removed, but not for one in my own neighborhood.

[03:04:12] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you.

[03:04:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:04:18] Olga: Hello, my name is Olga. I'm living in 1951 to City Avenue. Yeah, as my husband says, we moved about a little bit more than a year ago. So I agree with all what was mentioned before. What I want to add is the new owner mentioned that he's actually adding bedrooms, but here's my point. These are floor plans, if you noticed, 3 floors tall, and then it means like the floor plan is kind of like one bedroom per floor, which is or something like that, which you like you have a stairs and you have like run up and down on the stairs. Like imagine having newborns, having little kids running up and down on the stairs. Well, not so safe, right? So that's one. Another one, backyards. Currently 1915, all 1st floor apartments. We have a pretty big patio. I have a, I have a tree on my patio and I have a, I have a swing on my patio. My kids love it. And I don't see on the new floor plan, nothing like that. Like, it's just an apartment, but not flat, 3 floors tall. Yeah, it's kind of... Yeah, it's not even a box. It's, I don't know, it's how it's called. So, so it's, it's just, It's not convenient for people, let's say, to to live in such horrible floor plans. Like you have a garage, and then you have to climb up the stairs and people getting older and living in such floor plans is, well, getting harder and just not convenient. Thank you.

[03:06:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next please.

[03:06:26] David Meyer: Council, thanks for the opportunity. My name's David Meyer. I represent SV at home. I also a Mountain View resident. The proposed redevelopment before you tonight is the latest example of ongoing economic pressures, and see policies that favor the replacement of naturally occurring affordable housing with for sale homes, which, while priced lower than a detached single family home in Mountain View, are still outside the reach of even moderate income families. We reiterate our call on the council, to task staff, with craftiness strategy, to proactively engage with the challenge of displacement, a loss of naturally occurring affordable housing in Mountain View. Staff in the council could consider a range of policy options to address this placement of low income families, from enhanced relocation benefits, to explore opportunities for tenants, or nonprofarizations to purchase that sort of properties. We could also consider variations of no net loss policies. At a time when the region faces serious undersupply of housing, SV at home agrees it is appropriate in some circumstances, to redevelop low density, housing developments, to replace older outdated buildings, and achieve more density. We do not, however, support developments that will result in net loss of housing units, and instead stress the importance of leveraging redevelopment, to achieve the replacement of affordable homes. To be clear, has feed at home's intentions not to single out one developer or one proposed housing type. In fact, I'm really thankful for dividend homes being gracious and being with me and explaining their projects. Rather, we seek to call attention to displacement challenge and encourage the council to take this opportunity to consider holistically what types of citywide policies could be put in place to ensure fair outcomes for both developers and presidents. Thank you.

[03:08:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister, has a question.

[03:08:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Welcome back, David.

[03:08:04] David Meyer: Thanks.

[03:08:05] Councilmember John McAlister: So last time you here, we talked about your, uh, trying to buy some units, but, uh, and I hope you're exploring that with your corporate, uh, membership. But we're hearing a lot about tenant relocation, and it's really tough to find the funding or loans or so forth like that. Have you guys ever thought about working on that aspect of trying to help people coming up with a fund, to help them get that first last month, or get the, or guarantee that they will, for a year or 6 months, Silicon Valley at home, will guarantee the payment of a property so that you are part of the solution and helping get there?

[03:08:46] David Meyer: And I think it's a great idea. I mean I'm not sure. Maybe some other kind of more financial organization could be worked with to potentially sponsor something like that. I don't know if it's something that a CSA that provides rental assistance or housing trust, which does loans for people looking to buy homes, who have lower incomes. But it's certainly interesting idea.

[03:09:11] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I mean, you know, this is, as you ask everybody to help. This would, I think, would be a great opportunity for your organization, since you do some good advocating for it. So that would be nice. Other question I have for you. When you go to advocate displacement. Do you see it mostly at cities that have rent control, that you see the displacement of current affordability, or do you see it throughout the valley?

[03:09:35] David Meyer: I don't think Mountain View is unique in this issue. I know that Palo Alto dealt with this extensively last year around the redevelopment of the present hotel in downtown Palo Alto. They worked through that for many months, working with trying to figure out what, uh, vast approach would be in terms of relocation assistance, and I think right now, their staff is actually studying various options for other policies.

[03:10:00] Councilmember John McAlister: But, like, say, Sunnyvale or Santa Clara? Are you saying naturally affordable housing being torn down and put in with ownership?

[03:10:11] David Meyer: I don't have the numbers in some of the other cities. I know it's not unique to Nonview. Mountain View, there have been. many of these exact types of cases in the past couple years, so. Thank you.

[03:10:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:10:33] Irene Yoshida: Good evening, my name is Irene Yoshida. I'm a Mountain View homeowner since 1981. I rented here for 10 years, and I was able to purchase my own place, a very reasonable price tag of $260,000. I'm still working professional, but today, it would be impossible to rent or buy housing. My own townhouse would price tag would be about $1.5 million. I've seen the changes in Mountain View dramatically, and with every demolition, mountain views becoming conspicuously gentrified, and it's very ugly. I'm glad Mountain View has a policy to provide housing for residents of all income levels, even though, and I'm proud that my city tries to create affordable housing, that we do need to do much better than this. Mountain View used to be known for natural, affordable housing, but because of the housing crisis and escalating rents. This natural affordable housing is forcing family to do a rapid and forced disappearing act. And I don't like seeing all of our good neighbors and friends being forced out in a disappearing act like this. So please, say no to this demolition. Thank you.

[03:11:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:12:02] Joe McDonald: Joe McDonald speaking for advocates for affordable housing. The general plan, and the housing element of the city of Mountain View, states very, very clearly that there must be a distribution of housing across all income levels, including low, low, low, and extremely low. What we are seeing now, by virtue of council's approval of demolitions of naturally affordable housing, or covered affordable housing, is a lowering, a significant lowering of the numbers of housing units for low income. and a significantly rising number of units for above 120% AMI. This is just one example of many. And I personally cringe as I drive down streets near me. When I see signs from the city. that there are going to be more demolitions in the offing. I urge you to pay attention to the general plan and the housing element within it that tells you what you need to do in order to abide by that document. Thank you.

[03:13:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:13:58] Eddy Keating: Eddy Keating. The 2005 Rock Street project reminded us of some of Mountain View's policies in the housing element. Policy 2.one assist extremely low, low, very low, low, and moderate income households in renting or purchasing a home. 2.4 implement anti-displacement strategies. Goal 5, support equal housing opportunities for all segments of the community. Does approving this project support those goals? No. Definitely not. In the staff report, was this project compared against these policies? No. This project will destroy relatively affordable housing. relatively affordable, I assume, because it's occupied by a range of income levels, and the staff report gives evidence of that because it's clear that only a fraction of the residents are eligible, others have, I think, a majority are above the income level cutoff in the trail. So what should you do? Whether or not you approve this project? There are steps you can take. I hope you will articulate to developers that you want to end the demolition of apartments, and instead, expect housing developers to bring forward commercial sites for housing development. I hope you will financially discourage demolitions by revisiting the trail and removing the income cap from who can get benefits. It is never easy to move, and demolition should be discouraged, not facilitated. I hope that future staff reports and this staff report will be considered incomplete without review against clearly relevant housing element city policies. Finally, I hope that you will not approve this project. Thank you. It harms the it harms rather than benefits the residents of Mountain View. Thank you.

[03:15:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:16:03] Liz Glorioso: Hi, my name is Liz Glorioso, and I live at 1915 Montecito Avenue, and I've lived there for 7 years before the affordable rent control, and when that was passed, it was a nice surprise for me as it did help me out in being able to continue to live in Mountain View. Well, I just wanted to be here to support my apartment complex because I've loved living there for so long. I've made improvements to my own apartment. It became part of my home, which has been so exciting for me, and I'll walk outside my house, and I'll be like, oh my gosh, I live in heaven. And it's a little sad to me to see, um, it's gonna be torn down, and I'm okay. I can, you know, I'll be able to survive. I'll be able to, you know, wherever I need to. It's just a little sad to be able to see it go. And that's all I had to say. Thank you.

[03:16:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:16:52] Heather Phipps: Evening again. Um, again, Heather Phipps, live on Center Street, Mountain View, resident, um, tenant, Mountain View. Again, I just want to come up with a little Mythbuster 101 for everybody here that brain control is not causing these demolitions. It's the council who's causing the demolitions. This is a hot, hot market. Of course, you know, landlords are interested in selling because they're going to make a lot of money. I mean, it's just it's that's just the nature of this market. Whether you're in Sunnyvale, you're a mountain view, you're in Palo Alto. So rent control is not the problem here. These demolitions were occurring way before rent control was put in place. rent control is a triage measure to try to keep, um, some of the diversity that is left here in Mountain View because we're in the late stages of gentrification of this, of this town at this point, and you all just keep perpetuating it by, um, having these demolitions go forward. So I would, again, just ask that you, you know, figure out how to take a pause here, put a 9 month moratorium or whatever it takes in place. Um, so that you can figure out some kind of note, net loss of affordable housing, um, which will, you know, is the only real step at this point to do anything more about this housing crisis. At this point, you all are actually perpetuating the housing crisis and to try and pass the buck to corporate, you know, corporations that your predecessors all allowed to come here without any, you know, whether they bring all these jobs. There's so many people now moving into the city, your predecessors allowed that to happen. And then to blame those corporations, we're not doing enough. When there was no affordable housing, put in place in the agreements that brought them here. It's just passing the buck. I mean, the you guys are the ones responsible for this housing crisis. Please do something to stop this deep gentrification process that you all are perpetuating. Thank you.

[03:18:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:18:51] Public Speaker: And thank you, Heather, and Heather speaks very clearly to what is on my mind on everybody's mind. As you've all heard from the developers representative, I'll say, the reason why that the property owners are there to sell to get a new development is because of rent control. But as Heather said, it's not really rent control. You guys are making that decision. So because of rent control, are you guys going to then go this roundabout way of allowing these demolutions and new development in order to curtail rent control and render people homeless and move out of the city? One of the tenants just say they're paying about $3000 in rent. So please don't tell me that the owner is not getting a fair rate of return. I live in an apartment that also has been going through code case because of rent control. The honor is highly getting very profitable. They're not getting undercutted anyway, even with rent control. So I think the policies need to be adhered to. Um, as one of my former uh, uh, tenants also spoke earlier. We need to call, again, I want to beckon on your conscience and your duty to listen to everything that has been said here before by everybody and really act accordingly. It is very serious, and I think we as voters, and tenants, and mountain people who live in Mountain View, homeowners, and friends of tenants, are listening to you, and watching you, and hopefully you will definitely act accordingly, and spare this new development and future demolutions as well. Thank you.

[03:20:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. So anyone else who wants to provide us with input on this topic? Okay, we'll close the public input portion of this and move back to the council for any further questions you have or deliberation? Turn your... Council member Hicks.

[03:21:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, whatever my colleagues on council decide tonight in terms of approving this project, I just want to say that as these roll forward, I think, uh, the next time we see the census, we're going to see a disturbing loss of certain members of our community, um, particularly, you know, that we're going to see a less diverse community, both in terms of some long-standing members of our community, Hispanic members who've been here since Castro Street, for example. Also diversity in terms of occupational diversity, you know, the kinds of occupations that a city really needs to be a city. You know, whether it's teachers, waiters, nurses, chefs, et cetera. You know, I hope we don't end up in a few years with a city that's just engineers and tech workers, even though my husband's an engineer and I love engineers. Um, I think we really, several council members have brought up as a possible project under our goal setting, having a serious discussion of displacement and anti-displacement policy, and I'm just going to put a pitch. I think it was 3 of us, but I'm going to put a pitch for all 7 of us making that a serious, you know, really serious discussion. I know that other cities have put policies in place. I'm not going to go into deep. I'm not gonna make a list right now. But, um, But I'm going to start off with a pitch for having that discussion as soon as possible. Um, and then 2nd end as a, um, minor comment, I'm, I'm a little, um... I'm a little, uh, uh, I have a question about active areas being open lawn, because I would be unhappy myself if I had a loss of trees and tree coverage, in a community that I was living in, and for me, an active area can include tree climbing, doing yoga under the tree, etc. cetera. When I look at parks in the vicinity of my house, I see people using shaded areas much more than areas with lawn and trees. So those are my opening comments. Thank you.

[03:23:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else want to... weigh in? Peer pressure. Council member Ramirez.

[03:24:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, I'll do my best to be coherent. So, I've been, I've seen a lot of these kinds of projects sitting in the back of the room over the years. And, um, you know, tried my best to figure out, or to appreciate the difficulty that any council has in evaluating these kinds of projects. It's a lot easier from that side than it is on this side. So just in thinking about the council's role generally, a key component of our responsibility is to evaluate negative impacts and to find measures that as best as we can, you know, sufficiently mitigate those impacts. We do that with traffic and the loss of heritage trees. And sometimes it's unsatisfying because you can't fully mitigate every impact, every negative impact. And the way I think about displacement is it's the most severe kind of impact. There's nothing more destabilizing than having to leave your home involuntarily, whatever the situation, if there's a natural disaster, a fire, or if there's a development proposal that results in your apartment complex getting demolished. It's a very, it's a very challenging thing to have to deal with. I've been really lucky that I've had to move very few times in my life. I can imagine somebody who was lived in their home and raised a family there. You know, they have kids in the school district who suddenly, through no fault of their own, have to find some place to live, ideally nearby. And we've heard testimony, suggesting that that's not easy. It's an impact that I think this council and previous councils and future councils will have to, you know, evaluate very seriously. It's a hard thing for us to sit here and to consider a project that is going to destabilize the lives of people. So that's, I think, something that we're struggling with. The difficulty with these kinds of projects though. is especially if they're fully compliant with the rules and regulations that the city has established, it's not really, it's not really easy for us to just deny it. And the reason I asked the question of staff earlier, is it possible for a project to be fully compliant with the regulations that would not require council approval? Is that could very much happen? We could reject the project, and see a project that's fully compliant, that does not require council approval, go through and result in the same impact. Um, And, you know, denying a project that is fully compliant with the regulations that we establish, it doesn't feel reasonable or fair either. We set the rules. If we want to change the rules, we have that prerogative, but we can't do that. I don't think we could do it rightfully, you know, when somebody in good faith has gone through the process that we've set. So I can't, I, it's, this is the 1st displacement project, you know, that I'll have to vote on, but I can't, I can't justify voting no when the applicant is proposing a project that is fully compliant with the rules that the city has established. And even if we could corral the votes to deny it, it wouldn't make a difference anyway, because I think we would just see a development proposal that is fully compliant. her approval anyway. So I think I think where council member Hicks was going is where I'm inclined to go longer term. you know, we need to identify policy solutions that to the greatest extent we can, mitigate this impact. If it's appropriate, we should consider changing the rules and regulations to results in projects that help us address our long-term goals for adding affordable housing supply or targeting housing for the missing middle, I think that's appropriate. I think we'll have that conversation during goal setting. But I can't I can't vote no on this project when it's fully compliant. And when, you know, we're the ones who are responsible for the rules and regulations in the first place. Thank you.

[03:29:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other council members have comments they want to make? Council member Hicks.

[03:29:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I don't know, can we do this? Can we... There was a problem described with the way the trail works in the giving them the money out in two parts. I'm not being very articulate about this, but can we change that? Can we change it now?

[03:29:30] Unknown Speaker: In the trail? No, you'd have to change the trail, which is an ordinance, and you could do that. And one of the, we could explain the theory why it's that and give you options. why it's done that way.

[03:29:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member. Council member. Came. Okay, great.

[03:29:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Primero yo quero de si gracias, um, a la gente, para su comendario, um, yo quero de sique, soy um, escuchando, y soy placicando, conaciudas, y veces, um, el consejo, para situación. So to translate for myself, um, I just, and my colleagues, um, I'm just, um, thanking those Spanish speakers, um, for their commentary, to let them know that I am listening and that I am, and I have been talking to the city about what the council can do to handle these types of situations, which is displacement. Um, So, I'd like to start out with saying that I did meet with the developer, um, to talk about not only this project, but the Rock Street projects that were mentioned, uh, 2005 and 2310. And I shared with them that they had just put a project forward, that displaced members of our community, and they were coming forward again, asking to displace members of our community, and how difficult, that is. And the disappointment that I felt in having to review a project like that. I also asked about the tenant relocation ordinance. because I was told, as we heard tonight, that there hasn't been any type of communication, but from the public comment, I hear that there are those who are interested in tenant relocation assistance, and that those conversations that are critical have not been happening. And I feel disappointment at that as well. As been mentioned, this is a form compliant project, and the Ellis Act allows for landlords to get out of the housing market. And being in this new position as an elected official, the things that I, and I feel the council can do, are quite limited. But that means that I can ask for things. So this is what I'm asking of the developer. To work to preserve the tree canopy and heritage trees on site. Assistance for all the residents, including those who are above the 120% AMI. I'd also like to ask my colleagues if they would be willing to look at reviewing the trail ordinance. Um, I believe someone in public comment mentioned, um, removing the income percentage. That's something that we reviewed um, on the environmental planning commission, maybe 3 years ago, and I, and I had supported that, um, And I would support that again. Um, I don't take this situation lightly. It's unfortunate that we're gonna have to see this again. Um, but I really feel like... that people who are going to be this place needs time to find relocation in Mountain View, as was mentioned, people are looking and not having that luck, and I feel that it needs to, everything needs to be done to help them and ensure that they can. So, um, hear what my colleagues have to say. Thank you.

[03:33:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[03:33:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Last week, I met with a group of tenants over at the Rock Street property, and I was hearing their concerns, and it moved me. I mean, I heard real stories, and it was important to hear what they had to say. They also realized the realization of, you know, life is not always fair. But I also, I was asking questions about the tenant relocations, and the many of my council members did, and I was specifically asking questions, because I think there is a, there is a, after a number of these relocation deals that we're seeing, flaws, things that we can improve, things how we can make it better for people. When the gentleman said he could find an apartment, but he couldn't get the money until he had it, that was another one I heard from Rock Street, is that they need to be able to move quickly. We saved time. Well, that's a, so that's something when it comes back, I would like to see that. I would like to see somehow that we can change it so that they get the money 100% up front if they find an apartment, that they can get out of their lease, and even though they have a month to month lease, I think that would be. The landlord's going to probably want to keep it vacant anyway because he can change it. So those are important things. And that's where we can take care of the mitigation that has worked. I've heard complaints that the apartment finding company doesn't really do a very good job. And that's another area we can work forward on. I think we should take it upon ourselves, the city, and we have a housing relocation committee, and work with current landlords and Mountain View. I think that's important that we can get that being done. I know, Josh worked on another project, and he reach out to a major landowner, renter in our community and asked if they could do certain things, and he was hesitant. And so there's another thing that I would like to see is where the city, instead of going to CSA, that we can guarantee 6 months rent. Not that we would pay it, but that if somebody defaulted or a year that the city would step in and have a fund, or if we give it to CSA to a minister so that they could go to a developer and say, hey, I don't have the money, I can't justify it, but give me a chance. Give me a year, give me 6 months to prove I can pay the rent. And that the city or a CSA would guarantee it. So I think that's a mitigation. But Heather was mentioning a question that rent control is not the cause of what's happening. I take a different perspective on it. I think rent control is the cause that is happening. When you take a California or the our rent control ordinance, and it's geared towards the pro tenets, and council member Ramirez pointed that out to me that it was pro tenant. That anytime you come into an agreement, you need to have some good balance. It has to be fair. And when this tenant was dead, and it didn't give fairness to the return investment on the landlords. And I am pro rent stabilization. I'm all for it. I deal with the people that are being affected. I hire the people, they work for me, they're my customers. But we need to find an opportunity to get something equal, and that's fair. And hopefully that's the dialogue that we're going to be done in maybe next year we can approach it. But what happens is the economics is that you have a landowner that wants to be able to make a fair rate of return, but he can't because the rent is controlled. So he says, I can get out, I can use my dollars elsewhere. That is what they say. Now, if the land owner was able to get a fair rate of return, and that could be determined, he would be able to sell that rental property to potentially another landlord who wants to keep the rental property in the market. But because we're keeping it at 3% or 4%, it's very difficult for them to justify keeping that property. So I think one of the sales is down the roads, if our council works, that we say, let's figure out something that's fair, that keeps rent stabilization going, but it still doesn't give the landlord the incentive to change the property. That is what's happening. That's how I feel, that's what's rent control has contributed to. And that is one of what's happening in the displacement is what we were considering unintended consequences, and we knew this was going to happen when rent controlled, moved through without having a fair rate of return for the in the landlord. And I'm not the people aren't going to attack me for saying, oh, they're getting plenty of money. It's not what I think is fair. I think what they have to It's their perceived value to the person that actually owns the land. People are always saying, we have a human right to do this. There's also, if you look at the human right city deal, the human right to own property. So if we're going to stemize, to slow down this displacement, we need to work on finding solutions together, and if that means revisiting rent control, then I'm for it. So, This is...

[03:38:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Excuse me. We're not open to public input at this time. We close that portion of the meeting. So right now, we're at council deliberation. Excuse me. Or we will be taking a break.

[03:39:10] Councilmember John McAlister: So I'm pointing out my perspective. I want to help resolve it, but there's other underlying issues that have to go. I want to solve it, but I might have a different approach than some of my council members or some people in the audience. And so that's why we need to work together to figure this out. And, you know, we have another particular, so if once we address that, we can work on the tenant, what we can do fairly quickly is the tenant relocation to give the people the money, give them the money quicker and help them find the units. And that's what I like to see that we can do to work for. But to go along, I've asked my prior councils in the past, for us to, if we want to do something immediately, buy the properties. If we, the city, could buy the properties and maintain a natural affordable units. But I haven't gotten the support or for whatever reasons, the council hasn't said that this is the best use of our money. I always will continue to support spinning the money and buy the units, and then we will have control of the property.

[03:40:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Excuse me. Again, right now, we're having council discussion. I mean, I can't speak for everybody on this council, but I know everybody this displacement is heartening for all of us. And we don't like seeing it, but that's again, the consequences. Some of you say you've been here for 20 years, 40 years. I've been here 60 years. I've seen a lot of change. And it's I think it's how the city evolves. It's not by design that we were going to have it. I mentioned to a group before. across the street was an electrician. Down the street was a commercial airline pilot, down the street was a firefighter. Back then, it was everything was mixed together. But as evolved, and the economy went booming, all of a sudden, the jobs came a lot quicker than the housing, and people are blaming us that we have a housing crisis, because we didn't react quick enough. Even if you can see now, dividend or any of these other people, they'll come in, it takes two, three, four years to get a project moving. Cities don't move that fast. And the housing, when they hire Google, could hire 10,000 people in a year, and we won't be able to keep up. So it's a complex problem. Give us the benefit of the doubt that we are trying to solve it, that we're not trying to genify the city. We are not trying to have people leave. We know they're important, but this is a complex problem. take a while, and... We go move forward.

[03:41:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I want to disclose that I did meet with the applicant. I didn't hear from any of the tenants, so I didn't have the opportunity to meet with them. Um, I think my colleagues have made a lot of good points here. I just want to echo a few. And that is, as council member Ramirez said, these are really, really difficult decisions. And we have listened to the input. And it's really challenging given. This project is fully compliant with the rules and regulations. And as you said, we did make those rules and regulations. So how do you then say no to that? Um, I do want to recognize that I heard a lot of the comments about the trio and meeting with tenants at a different property. I heard quite a bit about their concerns about that. So I would be open to revisiting the trail. Um, certainly not tonight. We can't do that, but I did hear quite a few concerns about the services provided by the rental listing service. And it sounds like there's variation, and maybe that's something we need to set standards for. Um, it sounds like in some cases it's just, uh, someone is emailing you a listing versus actively trying to understand what your needs are and getting more involved in the process. I do think it would be great if we also could reach out to some of the other apartment owners to see what they could do to help. And I'm open to discussing the timing of the payments. And if we want to revisit the income levels. You know, if we can do more for folks that are, um, in a complex that is subject to redevelopment, I'm open to discussing those. But again, I feel like it's hard to say no at this point to this specific project.

[03:44:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'm sorry, of a vice mayor, I'll be Coca.

[03:44:08] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I appreciate my colleagues and their comments. I agree with a lot of them. This is not an easy issue. We've been dealing with very difficult issues pretty much every week, the last, since at least the beginning of this year, if not, before that. And, you know, I hope folks understand that we do not take these issues lightly. Um, you know, personally, um, I share the sentiment that it is hard to see, um, displacement or, or, um, the disparity in income levels and the growing divide, and, I mean, I have been really troubled by, by those issues and happening in our community. Um, you know, someone at the, the woman who asked me if I'd been in a situation of being homeless. Um, I have not been homeless, but, um, there were times when my parents almost lost their house. And so there was a time when I thought I might be homeless. And so, you know, I remember, those are the stories that we have, you know, we come with different backgrounds, different experiences, and those are experiences that I have and I share. And frankly, you know, because of that, um, you know, my goal was to just do work hard and do what I could and to not be in a situation where, you know, we might lose our home the next day. And, um, and so, um, you know, it affects us in different ways. The issue here, though, as it's been mentioned, is that we have a fully conforming project. And I think it's important that we, I mean, we have to acknowledge property rights. You know, I own a home, yes. I know many of you, some of you out in the audience do too. And I mean, what if I said, I want to sell my house, but I was told, I can't. Is that fair? Is that right? I mean, that's basically what we are dealing with in this situation where there's a property owner who, I guess I understand, is elderly and wants to get out of the rental business and probably retire. And is it really our place to say, no, you can't do that? I mean, that's what we're dealing with here. So the best thing, and, you know, we could do, and I've always supported, um, relocation assistance, frankly, back in, over 10 years ago, I was one of the council members who, um, started the idea of relocation assistance, um, as a requirement. And so, um, you know, my hope, my hope was that at least through assistance, um, we can help soften the, the blow, you can say, of having to relocate. Um, you know, I was told the CSFRA was comprehensive, and would cover all of that, and everybody would be taken care of, and, you know, we're discovering that's not the case. Um, whether rent control... I mean, I agree with council member McAllister, I think rent control. If it's not perceived as a reasonable amount of a rate of return, we'll motivate property owners to sell or to get out of the business. And so, I, you know, most people know I didn't support CSFRA, but I did support Measure W, the other option that I thought was more fair. So, that's what we're dealing with is, you know, is this something that is worthwhile for landlords to stay in the business, because at this time in this country, housing is still a business. And, you know, I've always said, the best way to provide, uh, more affordable housing, is really for, that's where the government can get involved. We build, BMR units, or help build BMR units, and I think as a council, we've done a lot to build a lot of units. You know, we can do a lot more. I would love to do a lot more, but frankly, we just need more help funding wise from the state and whatnot to do that. You know, we've done everything, I think, in terms of impact fees and whatnot to build as much affordable units as we can. I feel supported, making Mr. McAllister's idea of buying apartments. I have, I have. But, you know, frankly, I remember staff saying, and as many years ago, but it was more expensive to buy and rehab, existing older buildings than rebuilding from scratch. So I would like to revisit that. I've said that many times because I think land costs have changed that economics of that. So I'm hoping, I was expecting that to come back when we do the BMR part two, I'm not sure if that's part of it, but maybe we can confirm that. So, I agree with the comments that have been made. I think there are definitely improvements that can be made with the Trao. Um, the, uh, noticing, um, yeah, I wasn't clear on how, who does the subscription service or whatnot? And, you know, I'm sorry that folks weren't noticed. I expected everyone would get noticed and have that consultation. Um, so we need to tighten that up. We should. Um, I also heard about getting out of your lease. Um, I think if there's a way to, with these projects, that if they're noticed that the, their apartment complex is gonna be demolished. If they find another place, I think they should be let out of their lease right away. I don't think they should have to wait 30 days. So that's something we can look at. Um, I think the short term rental assistance program, that's always been something I've advocated, and I know we'll be looking at with the vehicle dweller issue, but, you know, if we can expand that out to help folks, maybe, if we can't work on the trail and the 1st the 1st half and the 2nd half, the timing of that, maybe we can, you know, help with our fund from our own affordable housing funds. The comet Valerie Fenwick made about vacant homes. I know that there is that issue. And I remember Spur is this age, uh, not I guess it's a nonprofit, like a think tank that, um, planning issues. And I remember going to a talk and the speaker had said that if all of the vacant homes were not vacant in the Bay Area, we actually would not have a housing shortage. So that is an issue. I know we've talked about it in passing, I don't know if there's something we can do, you know, down the road, but that's definitely something we can keep in mind. And so, lots of issues that have come up out of this, and I think, you know, we will continue to talk about it, but for this project, given that it is conforming, I just don't see a way that we can not approve it.

[03:51:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[03:51:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, as everyone said, these aren't easy decisions, the fundamentally what's wrong here is, in my personal opinion, the rules are wrong. They need to, are they, they're outdated, they need to be updated, and hopefully we'll be doing that soon. I think in addition to talking about no net loss, we can wrap in the discussions about Trao, and all the other mechanisms at our disposal to ensure that these sorts of things don't happen with the regularity in the future that they are now. Given, so the solution to this is to change the rules, so that we don't have fully compliant projects like this coming to us, that create all of these all the issues that are before us tonight. Our options are, you know, we can't delay the project, were required by law to act on this project within a specified amount of time. If we deny the project, the developer, or the landowner, the current landowner can proceed with 120 day eviction notices, and come back to us with an empty apartment project, that's fully compliant, and basically everyone's in the same situation they were before, except they might not have some of the relocation benefits that they would have if this project were to move forward. A number of people earlier tonight mention moratoriums and stopping demolitions, and I understand your desire for that, but I'm not sure, but I think you may want to review the city charter because of those sorts of things typically require a 6 vote supermajority. And I doubt that that is we could argue about whether that's politically feasible or not, but I doubt that that's something that we can do. So our best path forward, I think, is to have a discussion about what the rules should be moving forward, what tenant relocation should look like under the current process. And moving forward with this, I think, at least gets those who are being displaced, the best options for relocation assistance that they could get versus if we deny it, and everyone ends up being evicted anyway, and this comes back in a different form. So, it's not a great set of solutions, but, um, unfortunately, you know, we just need to fundamentally change the rules at some point very soon so that we're not in these situations moving forward.

[03:54:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? If not, um, emotion is in order.

[03:54:42] Unknown Speaker: So, my understanding, if I can jump in, My understanding, um, from having, there may be an opportunity. So the developer needs to provide 120 days notice. I think when they provide that 120 day notice, there might be some flexibility on. So, um, you know, if we could specify that it's minimum, you know, I don't know, 60 days from now, whatever it happens to be, um, to ensure, um, that could be something that we ask, um, we ask dividend and the landowner if that's something they'd be willing to accommodate, I think, as long as it's free and negotiated and agreed to. It's acceptable. And I think it would probably help folks to have, I think a lot, I think several folks have probably been waiting for tonight to decide, you know, whether to kick into high gear about moving and other things, and I think having that a little bit of additional time would be helpful. My, my, my struggle with, um, My struggle with applying the assistance more broadly is how you handle those who've already left, um, and and the fairness there. So I'm open to suggestions, but I think at minimum, I think what people most value is certainty and enough time to act on what that certainty is. If I were in that situation, I would certainly want to know what's happening and what the timeline is for me to be able to make decisions on, and the longer the better.

[03:56:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[03:56:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. A quick question for the applicant, if you don't mind. One of one of the tenants had mentioned the difficulty of relocating because of the 30 day issue. Is that something that you would be able to address? So if somebody said, I found a unit, I want to be able to move right away. you know, could, is there something that we need to convey through emotion or is that something that you can allow? Is that a flexibility that you could permit for the tenants?

[03:56:36] Applicant Representative: We can take care of the problem. At the initial on site meeting, Robert Fierman, the owner of the property, who still owns the property today, was there. And my understanding is, from what he said is that he would let people out of leases if they found a new opportunity. If that's not been the case, I can speak to Robert, if they find a new housing opportunity, we can let them move on.

[03:56:52] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. Could I follow up on that? Could you then send that in a written notice and post it throughout the property? Because we continue to hear issues with people. The communication has always been weak at best. But all projects that what's being offered to them is not being conveyed to the people, or there's misconceptions on that.

[03:57:13] Applicant Representative: Sure, I'm happy to do that. We can actually have the city's relocation team from ARWS, send the notices, then we can post it on site in the community, um, you know, areas.

[03:57:23] Unknown Speaker: This is a side question. How well does the city interact with you on the tenant relocation? Do they just give you the requirements and then walk away or do they help on a continuous basis for projects?

[03:57:37] Applicant Representative: No, I think, uh, the ARWS does a good job in communicating.

[03:57:42] Unknown Speaker: No, a city, not a city staff. City staff. So once they give you the requirements, On the tenant relocations. Are they involved, or is that all up to the applicant and the property owner? From your perspective.

[03:57:57] Applicant Representative: Well, the city is very clear about what our requirements are under the trail and measure.

[03:58:01] Unknown Speaker: Oh, I know, they're very clear, but do they participate in any way to help get that information out, mediate, assist?

[03:58:08] Applicant Representative: Yes. Through ARWS, the city's relocation, coordinates. They do a good job. I think, you know, any notices that have gone to the tenants? They actually don't come from us as the applicant. They're sent via the city, so Onki could speak to that. You know, we keep records of any notices that go out that are posted. That's all handled by the city. It's not handled by the applicant.

[03:58:25] Unknown Speaker: So it goes through the year. The city sends the notification or the contractor sends up.

[03:58:30] Onki: The city hires a relocation service. That's part of the trail. They work for us. They're hired by us. They're outside consultants. And we follow up on their efficiency. We oversee the contract.

[03:58:43] Unknown Speaker: Okay, that's it. Thank you.

[03:58:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Did you have other comments, or was that it?

[03:59:08] Unknown Speaker: So, um... Right. So I guess my question would be, um, on process, it sounds like, um, many of us talked about kind of different things up here. And so, um, I don't know if now is the time to incorporate some of the ideas into the emotion or if we had consensus on any of these ideas. If now's the time, we have to do it up council goal setting. It just wasn't clear on process. I don't know who can help clear that up..

[03:59:42] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: I think it sort of depends on what you're trying to do. There may be some things you're interested in, and would need to be voluntarily agreed to by the applicant versus put in as a condition of approval. So if those are the kinds of things you're looking for, you would need to ask the applicant if they were willing to agree to them.

[04:00:04] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Yes, I have my list. Um, can I ask you some of the things that I mentioned? and see if there's an openness to any of them. I don't know if you did you take them down?

[04:00:17] Applicant Representative: Some notes.

[04:00:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So, one of them was, that was mentioned was preserving tree canopy, I think you had mentioned trying to, to preserve as many as you can. I know if that's the thing.

[04:00:27] Applicant Representative: Absolutely. You know, we spent a lot of time with staff. It's a beautiful site. There are a lot of redwoods. We were able to maintain 9 out of 12 of the on-site redwoods and any other, you know, we follow the process as always required. We have an arbor to go out there. We try to keep as many trees as possible. And we meet the replacement requirements of the city.

[04:00:44] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Um, one of the things that I mentioned, and, um, was assistance for the remaining, I think, 27 residents who are in the complex, those who might qualify for trail and those that might not. I'm not sure how many people that would be, I don't know if there's any kind of openness on working with folks who may be, you know, above that 120%.

[04:01:12] Applicant Representative: You know, in this case, we feel it's appropriate to follow the city's trail. The average rent, just to give you an example of a two-better unit in this complex, is almost $2,800 a month. So the citywide market rate average, according to ARWS, is about 3000. I do believe if they work with our relocation team, there are units available in the city of Mountain View. We are sympathetic, and I understand that's not something that they want to do, but they should, they can reach out to me. I have spoken with Mr. Speaker. His qualifications are 2.4 times the gross rent versus most apartment owners in the city require 3 times. He's expressed to me that if someone is ready to move, that they should email me or contact him directly and let them know what they're looking for, and he'll quickly get an answer to them.

[04:02:01] Unknown Speaker: So would you be willing to act as that liaison for those who qualify for trail, but maybe those who are still looking and doing that type of connection?

[04:02:11] Applicant Representative: Oh, absolutely. liaison for anyone who qualifies or doesn't qualify?

[04:02:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. That it?

[04:02:18] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes. And I just wanted to, I just wanted to ask one other thing. I think this might be possible for you to just do in the general course of business, but I think one thing that might be hard for folks who are trying to move to a new place is if you require them to have a signed lease in order to release the funds. Because typically when you sign the lease, you have to have made the deposit at that point. And I don't know if you'd be open to like some sort of written letter of intent signed by both parties or something. It's just something to think about. Um, I think because 1st months, last month's rent, um, and a deposit on top of that is a, is a pretty big burden, and I think if you've signed the lease, you've already had to provide a lot of those funds. So I don't know if there's some way for you to think about, you know, maybe a signed letter of antennas sufficient to release the funds or something like that,

[04:03:10] Applicant Representative: but I don't personally have any problem. Jenny may be able to chime in about what the logic, the thought process was about why it was split up 50-50. I know part of the reason from the owner's perspective of the apartments is to keep some money back, to make sure that the unit is kept in reasonable condition, that they continue to pay and abide by their lease and the applicable laws. If some our goal is not to impede in any way, someone's ability to find a new housing opportunity. So whatever we can do to help facilitate that.

[04:03:39] Unknown Speaker: And then, um, and then would you be open to, um, so I guess, 1st we should ask, you know, when, when do you plan to, um, roughly, when do you think after this hearing, would you issue the 120 notices? Do you have a timeline for that yet? Or what are you thinking people would have?

[04:03:57] Applicant Representative: You know, we've heard the concerns about timing. I think that in terms of when we're going to need to start our development, we're comfortable providing the 120 day notice, which would allow them to stay until the end of summer. That's the point where we need to move forward with our development application. So we're comfortable giving them that timeline. So I'll back out 120 days and then serve it then. So through August 31st. see.

[04:04:21] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Giving them an extra almost 2 months.

[04:04:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: What do you think? Council member Hicks.

[04:04:35] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just wanted to point out that if your purpose, one of the purposes behind holding back the 2nd half of the payment is to make sure that the condition of the unit is fine. If you intend to demolish it anyway, that's probably not an important factor.

[04:04:51] Applicant Representative: I appreciate that. You know, we always follow the rules of the city, and the city's trail sets out specifically when we're supposed to pay them and how many days from when they turn their application, then how many days from they vacate. If the city wants to change the trail, we'll support any decision.

[04:05:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, Council member Clark.

[04:05:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, um, so, I'll move that we adopt a resolution conditionally approving a planned unit development, permit, and development review permit to, uh, construct a 33 unit row house development, and heritage tree removal permit to remove 22 heritage trees at 1915 Montecito Avenue, to written title only for the reading waived, and adopt a resolution conditionally approving an investing tentative map to create 33 lots, and 2 common lots, and a 1.85 acre lot, at 1950 Montecito Avenue to be read in title only for the reading waived, um, and noting that it sounds like we've freely negotiated basically the 128 day notices would not be issued before such time as basically the tents would have at least until August 31st, 2019, at the very earliest, to be required to move out. the developer, providing, or the applicant providing, or offering to be the liaison for not only those who qualify for under the trail, but those who didn't, who require, you know, who need assistance, perhaps on special circumstances, such as, um, uh, you know, maybe they need a shorter, shorter than 30 days in order to get out of their ways, if they've already found something, they need to be able to be more nimble. And then, and then it sounds to me like they've, I think, and it sounds like staff is okay with where they've gone sort of on trying to save as many trees as possible. Um, so I'm not, um, if I didn't feel that were the case, I might be willing to reserve that, but I feel like we've gotten pretty far down where we where we should go with that.

[04:06:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[04:06:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Just a follow up on that, Chris, but I have quick questions for the city attorney. So, we were asking that they could cancel the lease immediately and get reimbursed. We were asking voluntarily. Is that allowed? That way, if the tenant agrees to, if somebody finds place canceled the current lease and immediately, moves and gets their full reimbursement. Is that allowed?

[04:07:19] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: It's allowed if the property owner would agree to that, right? Because the terms of the lease control, and they're the parties to the lease. It isn't within the city's authority to dictate that, but it sounds like the developer was willing to make that accommodation.

[04:07:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Can I confer that? Okay. Do you want to include that in your motion?

[04:07:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: I will include that, yeah.

[04:07:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, are you still working on it?

[04:07:44] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay I just... No, I'm done. But if that provided more clarification. That's what...

[04:07:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes. I'm your second or so. Okay, I'd like to make sure that.

[04:07:53] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: And then I don't know if you'd like to, um, Onki... Onki is more familiar with the actual administration of the trail than I am on a day to day basis. But my understanding is that the developer deposits all of the money into an escrow account. So, um, so, you might, she might have some insight onto whether or not we could facilitate having that money released from the escrow account, because typically, the requirement is that the tenants show that they have this lease, and then the money's released. And I think that that was the council's intent originally to make sure that the tenant is also responsible for following through on their obligations under the trail. At least that was the thinking at the time.

[04:08:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I think that makes it... I mean, if we if we actually have if the funds are in escrow and we have the ability to release those maybe with signed letters of intent or in situations like this where something's being demolished. Perhaps, perhaps we have the flexibility and we can direct staff to do that as opposed.

[04:08:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, could we ask? Okay, about what's the time frame? I mean, so the developer no longer has control of the money, though. He's put it into escrow, so he's out of the equation, then. Do you agree, George?

[04:09:04] Onki: I think ARWS also has gives the approval when the tenants say that they've moved out. They send, we approve this release of money. The city gets informed, Josh gets informed. We're all in agreement, and then the money gets released. So if you all agree that the money gets to be released when a letter of intent comes in, then our agency can work with that, and we give them that direction.

[04:09:31] Councilmember John McAlister: How much time? Because once somebody signs the lease, they don't have a lot. I mean, they need to snap cash. So what kind of turnaround time are we talking?

[04:09:37] Onki: Usually they get them within a week of ARS being informed by the tenant that they're moving out, they can have their money. For the gentleman that moved out, is it weak? reasonable?

[04:10:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Yeah. I just want to make sure the timing is adequate that otherwise, it doesn't work.

[04:10:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. So, I would be okay, sort of giving staff general direction that, it sounds like ARS will handle this, but, you know, if there's a signed letter intent that they can verify with, you know, that they aren't just making up that some property is signed to. But if there's a signed LOI, then I think it's reasonable, as long as it's verified to you, to consider that the same as a signed lease to release the funds.

[04:10:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, do we need to take a special vote on that, or to get directions so that the city manager knows that that's...

[04:10:38] Unknown Speaker: As long as you accept it. Of course.

[04:10:40] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I think the direction is clear. I would just, you know, without seeing the wording of the trio in front of us, we need to make sure we're complying with the ordinance as it's worded, but we understand the intent, and within the confines of the law, we will do everything we can to get the funds released as early as possible upon verification of, you know, moving.

[04:11:04] Unknown Speaker: Would you be able to give us a memo on action plan on this particular item, to just verify what actually can be done?

[04:11:14] City Manager Dan Rich: A memo. Sure. On that specific issue?

[04:11:20] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Yes, on that specific issue. I'm trying to keep it tight for you.

[04:11:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member Ramirez.

[04:11:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. One more addition to the motion. Council member McAllister had suggested that the applicant provide written notice to the tenants about, I think, specifically about the 30 day issues, just so they know that they have that flexibility. Are you amenable to that modification. So if we could include that in the motion as well. Thank you.

[04:11:45] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'm not sure how I'd word that, but do you understand the intent?

[04:11:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I think the, basically, the applicant wouldn't notify anyone who's still there, that they have the ability to, um, cancel their lease.

[04:12:02] Unknown Speaker: Oh, cancel their lease without the 30 day notice.

[04:12:04] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, but that was part of being able to get into the new one quickly.

[04:12:07] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Right, right, right. Yeah.

[04:12:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. As long as that's under... Okay.

[04:12:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay, so we have a motion by council member, Clark, and a second by council member, McAllister. Is there any further comments? Not? We're ready to vote. And that is unanimous. And that closes item 6.one, and we are gonna take a little break. Let's come back at 9.25. So about a 12 minute break. Okay, we'll call this meeting back to order with item 6.2, which is an amendment to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance for North Bay Shore area, and our presenters tonight, our community services director, JP De LaMontagne, and principal planner Martin Alkire.

[04:13:19] Community Services Director JP De LaMontagne: Thank you, Mayor. It's kind of fun having different departments team up together to present, you don't see that often. And also, Jenny's a huge contributor to tonight as well, so don't hesitate to ask her any questions. So, as you mentioned, we're proposing an amendment to the Parkland dedication ordinance. And for a little background, in September, we held a study session with city council to talk about the cost of development in North Bay Shore. And some of the concerns came up from that we've heard from different developers, related to housing, is the cost of parkland fees, as well as the issue of schools in the area. So that was the intent of that study session. And from that, we went on to a study session in October that was the Sobrado development at 1255 Pear Avenue. And following that discussion, the council actually directed staff to review the Parkland dedication ordinance, to see if there was a way to increase private open space credit, if the open space was publicly accessible. And the council also directed us to look at, if we could amend the ordinance for the North Bay Shore area only, and to also provide an option for an alternative proposal if there was something that the developers wanted to propose on a case by case basis you would look at. For some more background, the current ordinance does provide a credit for private development that is applied citywide. If it does have one contiguous acre of open space property, but it does not allow private public access. It's only for private use, but it must meet 4 out of the seven elements, and the seven elements are listed there. The turf play area, children's playground, a landscape, quiet area, family picnic area, game court area, a swimming pool or a rec center building. And typically, you see the swimming pool in the rec center buildings are always just for private use of that development. And the credit would only be up to 50% credit is what the current ordinance states. In the last 10 years, we've probably looked at 3 or 4 proposals, but none of them actually received a credit. The proposed credit, as directed by council in what we've done with Jenny's office and CDD and Dennis in public works. We've come up with a credit that is only in the North Bay Shore area. It still would require one contiguous acre. Instead of private open space, we would make the private open space, had to be public accessible. And it must have 3 of at least the 5 elements. We took out the swimming pool and the recreation center, but listed the other 5 elements. There was also some questions about the restroom guidelines, and that came up both at the council level and the PRC meeting. And just I just wanted to give you a little background again on what our park restroom guidelines currently are. And that is if it's in a park that has a minimum of 3 acres in size. And the or the park provided extended stay activities, such as athletically games. If it was with a school district, the park was jointly owned that both parties would have to agree, and that the restrooms must meet design standards, supportive of activity levels. So in most cases, if it's just a one continuous acre, it probably wouldn't need a restroom, but if they had some special, unique element in their development that may require people to stay longer for some reason, spend the afternoon, do a lot of outdoor activities, maybe we could look at, we talked about in the past, maybe those portaloos, or those single type restroom, or maybe there's something in the development that that they could build that is open to the public and still could meet the kind of criteria. You ask for an alternate, an alternate proposal, and the amendment also allows for developers to provide options for publicly accessible private open space on a case by case basis. That is something that's listed in the draft ordinance. We did take it to the Parks and Rec Commission in December, and they were in favor of the updated ordinance for this. They did request that staff work with the developers to ensure that there was adequate side age to make sure that people knew that it was open to the public. A lot of concerns were when there's security guards or others around the development or the way the fencing is, maybe it didn't look like it was open to the public. And then they also would had some suggestions of staff to when we publicize our parks and open space areas, that if there is such a development that we incorporate that in the city, whatever literature that we have also. So we make sure we do that. So with that, our recommendation is to introduce an ordinance, amending the chapter 41 of the code to provide a credit for publicly accessible private open space in the North Bay Shore area. And with that, our award-winning Martin and Janney is here to answer any of your questions.

[04:19:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you Are there any questions from council members, council member McAllister?

[04:19:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Last page you put on their fiscal impact. Approval of this ordinance would likely result in an increased number of requests for private open space credit, affecting the total funding received by the parkland for the North Bay Shore planning area. That concerns me. So. What do you anticipate that we'll get a lot more publicly accessible? I mean, obviously, you're saying, instead of actual dedicated parks, or oh, big open space. And so we'll have all these windy pathways through these developments will be considered.

[04:20:05] Community Services Director JP De LaMontagne: No, I think in our discussion with the finance director, we tried to come up with what this would be. What is the fiscal impact? We just felt, no, we knew what the Sobrado project. I think they were going to pay 28000000 in Park and Lou credits and this would have given them about a $5000000 credit. But depending on what the Google project came in or any other developers that were in the area, if they looked at that, how much of that impact would be. So it all depended on whether they did dedicate land in addition to try to get some private open space credit, we weren't quite sure what the fiscal impact was. So there could be a wide range of that. But I still think the intent is to get as much publicly open spaceland as we can, whether it's in North Bay Shore or elsewhere, but in North Bay Shore, if the intent is to try to get more housing. I think this is a good way to go about it.

[04:21:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Can the Parkland money, does it have to stay in North Bayshore or can it go?

[04:21:05] Community Services Director JP De LaMontagne: So the way the current law allows us to use the land, the money that's collected, you have to use it within a mile of the project, if it's for that specific park project, or if it's a community, project, like a community center, a swimming pool, community park, then it could be used elsewhere in the city.

[04:21:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So what's our experience in buying parkland of a large percentage? Let's say we wanted to buy an acre or two. How successful have we been?

[04:21:45] Community Services Director JP De LaMontagne: Actually, we have probably 12 projects in the midst, somewhere in the design and planning stages. Out of those 12 park projects, we've been very successful working with developers on the majority of them, but we actually bought land and probably 3 or 4 cases in the last 5 years, I think.

[04:22:09] Councilmember John McAlister: But are they big enough to put a field in? Got a lot of pocket parts, but I'm asking other than the East Whisman.

[04:22:16] Community Services Director JP De LaMontagne: It's a built out city. There's there's no land available that's vacant that's, you know, where currently have a couple properties on the books that are probably 6 or 10 acres that we keep an eye on if we can acquire those.

[04:22:32] Councilmember John McAlister: But if North Bay Shore, if we get the density that's proposed. Where's going to be a large open space for them? to actually put a big, nice field. I mean, we're talking 6000 units or so. And so based on that, you know, we're looking at a good sized park. So where would that go?

[04:22:52] Principal Planner Martin Alkire: So I think at the scale that we're talking about in North Bay Shore, because we have the parcels out there are larger, There's more opportunity to get those bigger spaces. Also, just for a frame of reference, you know, the major land owner out there, Google, when you considered their bonus FAR request, recently, you know, they had proposed conceptually to dedicated approximately, it was about 30 acres of open space, about 10 to be publicly dedicated in about 20 to be publicly accessible, private open space. So, I think at the scale that we're talking about, you could more likely get those larger open spaces.

[04:23:34] Councilmember John McAlister: So North Bay Shore, since we're talking about, if they, let's forget the public accessible space. How much would they, so they were going to give us 30, 10, this, and 20 of that. So you were saying that they should have given us 30 acres of open space?

[04:23:50] Principal Planner Martin Alkire: Well, again, that was just their conceptual proposal based on the amount of housing they're proposing, their redevelopment plan, master plan, and the opportunities to do that, and to also comply with the intent of the parkland ordinance.

[04:24:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Would that 10 acres be continuous? Just as I mean, we're going into the weeds here, but I was just curious about, I know they're proposing it, but would it be continuous?

[04:24:14] Principal Planner Martin Alkire: Yeah, again, I just want to reiterate, and I don't want to sound like a broken record. It was just a conceptual thing, but I think, in their mind, clear, they had a clear intent to include larger areas, and not scattered, they were distributed, well distributed, in each of the three complete neighborhoods, with some large areas. Just as a reminder, the precise plan requires master plans for each of the complete neighborhoods, and one of the reasons to have a master plan, and to see the whole picture at once, is to address issues like that, where will the open space be? What's the circulation, how big of an open space can it be? So those are all things that would come down the line if and when we look at specific formal proposals for master plans.

[04:24:57] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I pushed for the master plan. So I'm just trying to get a better clarification. But let's say they have a green belt right now. My last question, they have that green belt that goes down. Is that considered publicly private accessible land? Would you consider that? You know, they got the bike pathway that sort of cuts through the area.

[04:25:18] Principal Planner Martin Alkire: Yeah, that is, we haven't considered that open space in the context of the discussion tonight.

[04:25:26] Councilmember John McAlister: So you would not include that as part of the publicly accessible open space.

[04:25:33] Principal Planner Martin Alkire: Not the way it was proposed and the way it was approved. Now, some other proposal comes forward that, you know, we could take a look at it again, but that's not how it was approved.

[04:25:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member Hicks.

[04:25:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, a couple of questions. First, um, what is is active area, a city definition, or a wider definition, and what is the, I think it's a little bit defined here, but maybe you could tell me more about the definition of active area?

[04:26:05] Community Services Director JP De LaMontagne: Well, normally in a park space, the criteria is either it's active or it's passive, so an active, just has the ability to, whether it's throwing a Frisbee, it would be still considered an active activity, throwing a ball, chasing a dog. I mean, compared to a passive that may just be sitting under trees and having a bench area or something like that.

[04:26:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then the reason I'm asking, I liked on the next page, it talks about encouraging a variety, and I guess that's what a variety of different kinds of uses and different kinds of perks, and that would be one of the things that I would most want to encourage. I would hate that if there are going to be a number of possibly smaller parks that are open. I would hate that they would be repeating themselves the same game court, family picnic area, open lawn. I would like to encourage as much variety of as possible. And I'm also thinking of, you know, earlier, we talked about the survey for the age friendly city. And I think the way different people think about different age groups and different people within our city probably think about active areas in a different way. And I would hate that we're taking a very narrow definition of it. I would like to encourage, you know, I would most like it if there were multiple parks like this, if there were, you know, botchy courts in one place, ping pong tables, and other water features, dog parks. We could, in some way, make sure we're not repeating ourselves. And I don't know if there's a way of adding that in, in here.

[04:27:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Nice mayor, Abbe Koga.

[04:28:01] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, if I recall, um, this issue came about because of the, um, edition of having to meet a school, this needs of the, the school district with the growing, um, population. And, um, I guess if I remember the projects that have come forward so far, it sounded like neither have is, uh, paying the full school impact fee, that the school district says that they need. Um, So, like, could we be looking at the 2 fees and, you know, depending on what they agreed to with the school district that would, could determine or help determine what we agreed to do for them for the developer to offset their cost?

[04:29:08] Principal Planner Martin Alkire: Well, I think that is a dynamic situation, and that was evidence with the October Serrano project that was before you. So the question there was looking at what the question before the council was, what is that school contribution that we should come up with? And the school district had one ask and the developer had another and council, I think, settled on a $12 million amount. So that's part of that dynamic is figuring out the a number that would make a project feasible and then allow the voluntary contribution to the school districts.

[04:29:49] City Manager Dan Rich: So just to add on to that. I totally agree with what Martin's saying. Just remember, this is optional. It's a council's discretion to go up to 75%. So when you're looking at a project, you can look at the totality of the project, and the benefits, and other contributions, and school strategy, and other things, it could be fact. in your decision making.

[04:30:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So we could put, like, a condition saying, if you pay the entire school fee, we'll do the 75%, whatever, or...

[04:30:19] City Manager Dan Rich: I don't think you would want to, number one, there is no specific school fee. There is a school strategy that can be voluntarily agreed to under a number of different scenarios, but I don't think you would want a direct linkage. All I'm suggesting is you can look at the totality and use your discretion on whether or not you grant the entire 75% or some lesser amount, depending on the total package in front of you.

[04:30:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. My concern is that, you know, they developers came saying that the school fee is what's at an added cost, and that's why they need this lowered. And if they're not going to pay the entire school fee, then why are we going to give them a discount. So that we can discuss that later.

[04:31:05] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I would just, I would cautiously suggest that there is no one definition or agreement to what the appropriate school fee is. There's a lot of, um, opinions on what the generation should be and what the right rate should be and what the acreage should be. And so, and what the state and or other sources of funding could provide for the schools. So it's hard to predetermine or to unilaterally accept the numbers that the school district is using.

[04:31:46] Unknown Speaker: Would an applicant be able to request a credit for both private, open space as well as a credit for private, open space that's publicly accessible. Or would they be limited to one or the other?

[04:32:07] Unknown Speaker: That's a good question. If they have two separate areas that both meet the minimum criteria, and they're in North Bay Shore, they would be able to do it, I think, but you'd have to have two separate one acre partials.

[04:32:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Any other questions? Okay, I don't see anyone in the cue, so we will open this up for public input. So if you have thought you want to share with us, be sure to fill out a blue card and leave it with our city clerk. And you can do that before or after you speak. And, um, I think you can have 3 minutes because it looks like there's very few people.

[04:32:54] Public Speaker: I don't need 3 minutes. Thank you for wanting diversity. I appreciate keeping an eye on the community as a whole and ensuring that each plan doesn't just serve the letter of the requirements, but rather keeps in mind what people in the community benefit from. I have a personal preference for actual public land versus public accessible, private open space because I think that it's more important to have something that serves the community than just something that sometimes people can get to. And so I think dedications to the city where you can actually plan what goes on and adapt to the community's needs. I think is better. So I don't know. That's personal preference.

[04:33:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: you. Anyone else?

[04:33:53] Helen Walter: Evening, Helen Walter, Committee for Green Foothills. Thank you for hearing us about what our concerns about this proposal. Um, as you know, we work up and down in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. And In talking to developers, what I am seeing and when they came into East Palo Alto, they asked for 100% credit. So I'm seeing we're seeing Credit Creep. Um, The only city that I'm aware of so far that actually gives more than a 50% credit is San Francisco. They give us 66% credit in a few neighborhoods for, they call them Popo's privately owned publicly accessible open spaces. So, um, just to give you another data point, Roseville gets 9 acres per 1000 residence. It's Costler City a ton. When I talked to developer up in Roseville. He and I mentioned to him that developers here were getting 50% credit. He was surprised. Um, so philosophically. Um, you know, JP, you guys, your perks department has done a fabulous job. We hope, personally, committee for Greenfood Hills, and personally. We support having the city get more of a dedication. We recogn- you know, I personally recognize the housing situation that, you know, you can lose some housing potentially. And I know that there's a balance and I recognize that. But again, I feel that 75% is, um, excessive and high. I also wanted to point out that when you look at the figures on the staff report, respectfully. You know, the rest of the city has never utilized the shoreline acreage. They run the numbers both ways with Shoreline Acreage and without Shoreline Acreage. Um, The staff analysts did not offer those numbers. They just only offered it with shoreline. I just, uh, Google mapped the, from Shorebird way to, um, to Shoreline Park is one. 2 miles away. Our, you know, the parks ordinance here is to be within a mile, to make sure that you get enough parkland. So, I did want to mention that. I think that's it. I appreciate your consideration and thank you.

[04:36:17] Councilmember John McAlister: I have a question for you. Are you familiar with what Sunnyvale does?

[04:36:20] Helen Walter: 5 acres per 1000 residents.

[04:36:23] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, that's what I and is anybody else hire Santa Clara saying?

[04:36:27] Helen Walter: Um, I don't I don't know Santa Clara. I know Palo Alto's at 5 acres per 1000 So I know that Santa Clara with some of their new development. They, uh, expected, they didn't get as much Parklean dedication, but they, and what I'm seeing with Santa Clara and with Manila Park is that they're getting the parks built for them, but dedicated to the city. So that they are a turnkey situation for what the city wants and the developer has paid for those parklands.

[04:37:01] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Thank you for coming. Appreciated. Actually, I have a question as well. Since you seem to have looked over parks like this in different cities. I'm wondering if you've seen them, kind of the policy executed better and worse in different places. And I guess one of the things that I'm thinking is that when I've seen apartment complexes go up around here, to me, it's often a detriment that the open space is enclosed. And so for me, as a person living in the city, all I see, actually, the apartments kind of look like they're built with the back to me. The streets may or may not be attractive. In some cases, they are, and in some cases, they aren't. I walk a lot. I'm wondering if done right. This could actually, I also know some apartments like Park Place Apartment. Am I pointing in the right direction, just down the street from us. The center is open, and my community does walk through it, a lot. It has a water feature and trees and paths, and it gives, it makes our community feel much greener. The fact that it's open and not all enclosed in a square. So I kind of say this, particularly in the North Bay Shore, where there is a lot of close by open space. If it's handled properly as possibly really an asset to have a bunch of, even though John didn't seem to like it that much, a bunch of kind of pocket parks. And if they're all very different, you know, I can choose which one to go to and have a different experience. So I'm wondering if you've ever seen it turn out that way or what your experience is in different cities.

[04:38:36] Helen Walter: Right. No, I have the same concerns and when I lived here, I would I noticed sometimes children's play structures, you know, built inside of a development. Um, I, um, I haven't, you know, I think San Francisco Parks, actually, so a lot of their, um, public parks are publicly accessible parks are, they've done a really effective job of keeping the ingress and egress accessible for people and making sure that the development is, um, facing the street and not centered on the park amenity that the, that the developer has privately provided. So that's my personal experience. Thank you.

[04:39:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay, if not, we will close this portion of this topic and bring it back to council for if you have any additional questions or discussion. Council member McAllister.

[04:39:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Well... Last time we talked about this, I was in Hawaii. There were plenty of open space, and... blue skies, and... and I voted against the the ordinance at the time of giving the credit, because open space to me is so much more valuable than accessible. I keep seeing this publicly accessible land that they're giving to us, and it's not really a true open space where people can sit under the tree, where they can throw the Frisbee, where they can play. Nowadays, you're seeing rugby and cricket out there, and soccer, and all kinds, and you need a critical mass of open spaced to do that. I'm not opposed to little pocket parts, but you still need open space when you got to be critical. And if we continue to grow at the rate, we're putting 1,300 acres, or 13, 100 units down on California, San Antonio, we're going to put 6,7,000. North Bay Shore. And unless we have large open space, we're just going to have a lot of massing of buildings. And we need to be able to break it up with open space and let people run through it and do some various things. And That's why I was supposed to when Sobrado came along that they said, well, we're going to give 75% open space. And that's what I'm, Buildings, housing, people are concerned about housing. Housing, I'm willing to go up as high as they need to go so that we can get the open space down. So I think we can solve the issue of, well, they won't build unless they have the housing and I think we can do that, but open space, once it's built, it's not replaceable, but housing can be replaceable. And it is such a sacred or scarce commodity, even though JP said we're buying these things or getting these. I've been here on 7 years and we have to be right on top of a piece of property if we want it. Most people are giving us in loop fees and we're sitting on the money. That's why we have, what, $21 million or something along that line, if I'm correct me if I'm not correct, but we're sitting on more money than we actually go use. And that's why we need to make sure the developers are giving us the open space because we can't go afford to spend $150000 in North Bay Shore to get a park. We need to have them build it for us. And if we can get to matching 5 acres per 1000 people. It's really important. So I will not be supporting this motion as it stands, and I wish the rest of my council considers that open space is so critical to the mental well-being of the city and also for the cosmetic look of it to keep it that open space.

[04:42:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abbe Coca?

[04:42:49] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, originally, when we discussed this, I did support this concept, and I was frankly convinced by the argument that housing, because of the school fee and other reasons, housing in North Bay Shores, becoming too expensive to build, which, frankly, I always knew, but, whereas, I guess, seeing the actual result, the of this now. Um, I, to be frank, I've had a, as we've talked about this issue in light of the schools, concerns and needs. Um, I've been troubled or concerned because, um, you know, as I mentioned, asked my question earlier, and the projects that we have seen out in North Bay Shore are, you know, offering, I think Serrado offered 9 times the impact school impact fee. The Google Shorebird plan was something like 5 times. I remember, Hans from another McAllister asking Google about that. And my, you know, assumption was that if they're not going to pay our park fee, then at least they should pay the whatever the school district deans they need to satisfy their their needs. And that's not happening so far. And so, um, I guess I've had a change of heart as a result, um, You know, I don't, that's not about, I don't want to get into whether the what the school district is, you know, saying they need is true or not or blah, blah. I mean, I come from a school board. serving on a school board. I tend to trust the school district, folks. So, you know, that's where I'm going to side. And so my concern is that, is that if they're not satisfying the school fee, and they're not satisfying our park or their school needs, and our park fee or our park requirements, And this has been mentioned, you know, the city might have to get it, go in and help the school district. get acquire what they need. And so that's my concern is that if we're going to give them a discount. But we might end up even having to use what we have to help the school district get what they need, then we're like in the hole quite a bit. So, um, because of that, like either I can't support it now, the way it is, um, it would have to be, whether we tie it to the school needs or the school requirements, or I would, I guess, compromise and drop it to 50% and, um, and follow our citywide policy. So those would be the 2 options. But yeah, I won't be able to support the 75% at this point.

[04:46:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[04:46:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I, um, I appreciate so, us work on this. I mean, they put together an ordinance based on what we directed them to do a few months ago. I haven't received any new information that changes my mind here. I think that the bottom line here is that we've heard from, um, Sobrado and others that, um, you know, the the, the Parkland fee, um, or dedication is really a significant barrier in the North Bay Shore area to developing housing. And so we have to decide what our priorities are. In the North Bay Shore area. You have a lot of existing parkland, you have a lot of habitat that's being restored. You have a lot of, I think, a much greater ease to move between spaces than you do in the rest of the city, which is more dense and built out. And so, you know, in my mind, the reason that I was okay with only addressing this for residential when only addressing it in North Bay Shore was because looking at the specific circumstances of North Bay Shore, what's there today, what's planned in the precise plan in terms of green space, habitat, and parkland and connections. greenways, that it made sense to if we really want to find ways to get housing built or create other opportunities for people to pay other fees, whether it's schools or others, then, you know, it made sense to me to provide a discount for, um, for publicly accessible open space that might be privately owned. And so I felt that was a very fair compromise, I feel it still is today, if we were in a part of very deficient, park deficient part of the city. We're talking about that, then I'd feel very differently, but I think the North Bay Shore area, comparing what's there today, what I think will likely be there in the long term. I think if we're looking for ways to make housing more feasible. This is one of the easier ways to make it more feasible. And so I support the staff recommendation.

[04:48:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[04:48:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. No, I agree with council member Clark, and I think what the reason I'm comfortable with this is because the council retains the discretion to reject any request for the credit. So if there's a substandard project or a project that we feel that the council feels isn't really meeting the intent of the precise plan, if it doesn't address some of the problems that the vice mayor pointed out, then there's no obligation to provide the credit. So there is, I think, the underlying presumption that this is that to be eligible, you really need to provide a superior project. So for as long as the council retains that discretion. I'm comfortable supporting this proposal.

[04:48:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[04:49:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I agree with the number of comments that have just been said. I agree with Chris, that the council considered this well in the past and that the area is relatively rich with open space. So I would, uh, and actually there's a table showing that in the CIP part of our, um, our staff report tonight. Um, But, uh, and I also want to make sure, I think the reasoning behind this was partly to make sure that we do build housing, and we saw a number of people here earlier tonight, who, I think, would really like to make sure that we build more housing. But at the same time, I'm interested, I do have concerns about schools, and I'm wondering whether there's a way to hear more about what Margaret was saying about tying it to the school fee, because I would be, I am also concerned about providing schools in the area. So if that would allow Margaret and maybe other people to support this, I would be supportive of that.

[04:50:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Cancel member, Clark.

[04:50:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I just say there isn't a school fee. There exists no school fee. And I think I don't disagree with that sentiment. I think what this, but I do think that this framework provides us the ability to couple this with any freeway negotiated school contribution. So, I don't see this as an impediment to that, but staff can correct me, or other council members can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't see this as impeding that, since, as council member Ramirez said, you know, this isn't like a guaranteed credit that they just take. It provides a framework through which they can think about this. And by the way, I was going to say, if we really want more parkland, I would be happy to increase the fees or requirements on office space. but instead of instead of residential.

[04:51:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be good.

[04:51:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so there's no school fee, but there's a requirement that uh, the developer reach agreement with the school district to satisfy the school needs, which the school district will deem. What we've seen with the 2 projects that have come, you know, when was Google, Shorebird, through the SiWest, Google, the Commons, or the gateway parcel, was that they're not paying, they're not, they're not meeting what the school district is saying they need. And so that's my concern is that they're going to be shorted. The school districts are going to be shorted. If we give this credit, then we're not getting our full park fee or, you know, park dedication, land dedication that we have in our requirement, and I, you know, I've also, and I've had a lot of discussions with folks, especially in the education community, and, you know, there's like, I think we've even talked about this, that maybe the city would have to then. make up the difference. And I think there might be an expectation of that starting. So my feeling is, yes, I think I, you know, I understand it's expensive to build. But one, um, you know, my, they came to us saying, well, we have this fee and this fee and this fee. And so, you know, I just looked at it as, okay, we have the school requirement now. So as long as you're satisfying that, then I'm willing to do a discount here. But if they're not satisfying that fully, which it looks like they're not, then I have trouble giving that discount. And yes, you could make it discretion ordinary towards, you know, up to the council to decide, but my concern is we do it once, and as it was mentioned, we're just going to get a lot more, a lot more requests for this, and at some point it's going to be very difficult to say no.

[04:53:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kumay.

[04:53:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, so, I feel a bit torn on the changing of the percentage only because I do feel that retaining as much open space as possible is really important and, uh, the... I know that when this this broader project came forward, I thought it would be, that was kind of a one-time case. Um, that's what I had followed in terms of the discussion, but that predates my time on council. So, um, you know, I feel like, I don't know if there's a way to, I do like the discretionary element that council, remember Ramirez talked about. I wonder if it could be the range of 50 to 75%. I don't know. I just, um, I hear kind of everyone's concerns and I feel just a bit torn. I mean, I think we need to be moving in more innovative ways on, um, what qualifies as a park and what, um, even qualifies as open space because of uh, the densification that we're seeing kind of in our city, but kind of throughout the state. So I think we need to be innovative. Um, But my concern too is with parcels that are so small, will they really be, you know, utilized? Um, and that's kind of what I think about when we look at projects kind of overall, um, especially if there's a, if we're asking for like corner activation and things like that. Um, so, I mean, I'm open to the discussion that's happening, I don't know if we can do, um, the range of 50 to 75 where we just have to move to the 75% tonight. Um, So I'm open to conversation. Doesn't it say up to 75? So it would be the range, is that right? Okay. All right. Thank you. 0 to 75? Thank you.

[04:55:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[04:55:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Further newly elected council members, if you were following this, that there was, if you, on page, the 1st page, it says, the outcome from the meeting was that increasing cost of land, construction as well, development, parkland dedication lose. There are a lot of expenses going on to this particular activity in the North Bay Shore. And at the time that I perceived Sobrado was asking for was that the park fee, along with the school fee, was just a tremendous burden on them. But in prior meetings, we've said that the school district would have to contribute to some of their own costs. And what I thought I heard was that Soprado said what they were going to have to pay their fair share are more than their fair share. But at the time, they wanted like 7 half $10000 somewhere along that line. And I mentioned to my council members at the time, I said, guys. It's not your job to pencil out their projects. If they pay too much for the land, then that's what they need to figure out how to do it to comply with our requirements. And here's going to be a multi $100 million project, and we were given away $7 million. And I said, you know, I really feel that they were going to build, regardless, if you gave it to them or not, and sometimes it's a game of seeing if they really are squeezing us or that we can actually say, here's what we want, and we want to stick to our guns. Chris Clark's council member Clark was mentioning, yeah, there's a lot of open space, but it's not usable open space. You know, when I think of that kind of density, I think of a ring store, I think of a questa park in that neighborhood, in that area. And if they can come along and say, well, we're going to give you this smaller Miranda, you know, the little park that wiggles around town and so forth or the, that the basin that's over there now, the retention basin, that's, to me, is not a big park. And that's why we need to stick to it that, that we need to get that open space. And we need to set a clear message to them that, as the message says, it's been that if we open up the gate, And I think, uh, Helen mentioned the same thing that's getting us, we're going down a slippery slope, is that where people are going to ask more and more and more, and we just need to say open space is important to us. Don't even consider coming to us with something else. And I think we can accomplish all of our goals of housing and open space if we just stick to what we have and enforce our current laws. Oh, never mind.

[04:57:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So to your point, often an applicant or a developer has not acquired the property until they get their entitlements, and often then the price of the property is reflective of what the entitlements are. So, I do think what you said about, it's not our responsibility to make this pencil out. I think the parties who are involved in the transaction, figure that out based upon what the entitlements are. So I do feel like, I certainly thought about this more since we had the last discussion. And I'm concerned about having the ability to ask for 2 different credits. So if you could have a 50% credit for the private open space and a 75% credit for the private open space that's publicly accessible, that's a lot. And at a minimum, I would want to say that you can't do both. But I'm also thinking that, um, I'd feel more comfortable if this was less than 75 and maybe something where in the order of 50% credit. Although I do hear you, council member McAllister. Um that open space, park space is really important. So, um, I am trying to figure out how do we balance this with the desire to get, you know, housing in North Bajor. So I guess I feel like I'd feel more comfortable if it was, you know, less than 75% and that you could only make use of one. I do want to echo council member Hicks's point about, I think, having diversity in the activities that are available would also be good. But I don't know that we need to write that into this, unless you feel like we have to.

[05:00:04] City Staff: If I may. My only point is to be clear in the ordinance as drafted is the council has the authority to give up to 75%. Any amount in there. Could be zero, could be 70 on a case by case basis. On the other one, and that makes it publicly accessible, open space. On the other one, the private. It's, I think it's staff, it's community development and public works that can make the case up to 50% on the private open space. And the only reason it's North Bay Shore is because it exceeds the parks per acre per person plan in North Bay Shore with Shoreline Park and Shoreline Athletic Fields and Charleston Park. And so that's why it works. And plus we don't have to maintain it if it's if they're getting credit for it also.

[05:00:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So would all projects in North Bayshore come to council?

[05:01:03] City Staff: If they're asking for this credit, only the city council can give that authority up to 75%. And ordinance is also giving developers on a case-by-case basis, you have an alternate proposal that you can look at in each case by case basis.

[05:01:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I get that it's up to, I guess I'm feeling more comfortable with like up to 50%. Vice mayor Abi Koga.

[05:01:29] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I guess just to clarify, if we were not to not do this, this evening, then could the developer still ask for the citywide credit that's 50% for private open space only? So it's not publicly accessible, it doesn't have to be.

[05:01:52] City Staff: Right, the current ordinance allows anyone to come in and ask for up to 50% of the private.

[05:01:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Great, thank you.

[05:02:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[05:02:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I have a question for staff. So if this doesn't pass or if it's, um, if it's modified in the way that I think the mayor is describing where you would only be permitted one option or the other, so the 75% credit for the publicly accessible private open space or the 50% credit for private open space, how would that affect the Soprado project? Would that jeopardize the financial feasibility of that project? Do we have a sense of that impact?

[05:02:40] Staff Member Martin: We can't speak for Sobrano. I believe there is a representative in the audience, but I don't believe so broader requested a private credit. They only requested the public credit. Correct. The owner...

[05:02:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. Did you have a comment you want to make?

[05:03:01] Rob Turcini: Uh, Rob Turcini with Cebrado? Yeah, Martin's correct. We're only requesting a credit on the publicly open space for 75%. So our request particular is McAllister had to write 75% of an acre, so $7.5 million. And just to touch on the school fees, that 7.50000000 was directly transitioned into our ability to pay the school a little over 5x what our state mandated school fee would be. So Hopefully that helps clarify.

[05:03:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did you want to ask your question?

[05:03:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, Well, so thank you. Okay. We don't need the private. Right. So with this information, I would be comfortable supporting your change to allow for only one credit or the other and not permit stacking the two.

[05:03:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Counsel member Clark.

[05:03:58] Councilmember Chris Clark: 2 questions for staff. One is, what do you believe would be the practical implications of that? I mean, have you seen other sobrado aside? Have you seen, do you anticipate, you know, looking at, for example, the concept that Google put forward? Would there be significant, you know, both private and publicly accessible, private, open space where the credit might be stacked or something like that? Or do you think that would be rare? Or do we know?

[05:04:29] City Staff: I don't know, although their proposal had just a wide variety of different open spaces. Yeah, of publicly dedicated and publicly accessible private open space.

[05:04:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: And then the 2nd question is, in sort of the way that you, the way that we expect this to play out, because there have been questions about how do we consider this with any sort of school contributions, would we, for the most, aside from a few standalone projects like Iserado, I think most of this would be part of master plans, right? So we might have a sense for what the school contribution would be when we're deciding sort of what park credit to allow. I know you can't guarantee that, but I'm just wondering how that would typically play out.

[05:05:16] City Staff: Mostly they'd be master plans, I would expect. Correct. They would be almost all of them would go through the master plan process. In fact, anything in those three neighborhoods require a master plan.

[05:05:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. And then if we wanted to, um, Jenny, if we wanted to do the, you know, basically allowing the 50% or basically one credit or the other, but not both stacked. Could we do that tonight through a language adjustment, or could we just sort of speak in plain language, what we want to do and

[05:05:52] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: If I think it's possible to add that language. tonight.

[05:05:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. So, I'll move that we introduce in Ordinance Amending, chapter 41 of the Mountain View City code to provide a credit for publicly accessible, private open space in the North Bay Shore precise point area, to be read and tied only for the reading waived instead of 2nd reading for March 29, 2016 attachment, one of the council report, and just specify that we want to make it clear that they can apply for up to the numbers that are described in the recommendation, but for only one or the other, and not stack them, and that we have full discretion to provide credits anywhere between 0 and the maximum for whichever it is, private open space or publicly accessible private open space. And then it sounds like to me, we'll be able to consider that along in most cases along with whatever the school contribution is because it'll be part of master planning processes.

[05:06:48] Unknown Speaker: Councilman Clark, we had the on the screen the wrong date for the 2nd hearing, it would be April ninth, not March 26th.

[05:06:55] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, then if Lucas will accept, we'll set the 2nd hearing for what day?

[05:07:01] Unknown Speaker: April ninth, April ninth, 2019.

[05:07:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member Clark and a 2nd by council member Ramirez, Vice Mayor Obeykoba.

[05:07:16] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I was going to make a different motion, but it was too slow on the button. So, um, my my thought was to, um, change it to uh, 50% for public access, publicly accessible, private, open space, and then allow stacking of up to 10% for private open space. But, um,

[05:07:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, um, like an alternate motion that is a substitute motion then.

[05:07:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sorry, and the substitute motion is 50% for publicly accessible, private open space. So I think I like the idea of publicly accessible, open space, private or public, even throughout the city. I didn't realize we give credit for just private open space. I think it should be publicly accessible. We don't want to keep building walls. So to encourage that, I would give the 50% credit for it being publicly accessible, private open space, but in light of what our city policy is now, with giving credit for private space, that's not accessible publicly, you know, I'm willing to stack add allow some stacking and do a 10% credit for that.

[05:08:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That makes sense. And you would leave the citywide at 25%. But then in North Bay Shore, it would only be,

[05:08:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry, I said, I said 25%. I meant 50% for the private open space, but in North Bay Shore, it would be 10% and they couldn't make use of the city wide one.

[05:09:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Correct. Okay. I'll 2nd that. Council member Clark?

[05:09:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: Can you repeat that just so I was trying to follow, and I'm not sure I got it.

[05:09:16] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, yes, so, uh, I'm happy to repeat it. So we would give credit, 50%, up to 50% credit for publicly accessible, private open space, and in addition, allow up to 10% of just private open space.

[05:09:38] Councilmember Chris Clark: 50% citywide. 10%?

[05:09:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, but then I want to encourage more publicly accessible open space, so that's how I would switch it. And we may want to, well, we may want to revisit the park ordnance citywide. I don't think we can do that tonight, but, you know, we may want to look at changing that too.

[05:09:57] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: So can I ask a question because I'm looking at how the Brown Act and how the item was noticed for tonight and it was really talking about a credit for the publicly accessible, private, open space. So are you, does your motion contemplate modifying the existing credit for the private open space or adding a provision that talks about stacking?

[05:10:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So my understanding from the answer from staff was that the developer could do that, do both right now. So I guess mine would be to lower that, actually, to 10%.

[05:10:36] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Are you lowering the city wide or just the one in North Bay Shore?

[05:10:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, I think we can only do North Bay Shore tonight, so that's my, that was my emotion in light of that, it's a precise plan. I thought we could do that for this area only tonight. But having had this discussion, I think there's might be interest in revisiting the citywide policy down the road. But I'm not making emotion on that at all tonight.

[05:11:05] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: And I guess I'm still trying to... Are you suggesting modifying the credit for private open space throughout the city from 50% down to 10%, or are you talking just about?

[05:11:19] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I guess what I'm trying to do is for North Bay Shore, we would allow up to 60% credit. And that would come in the form of up to 50% for publicly accessible, private open space, and then an additional 10 for just private open space.

[05:11:38] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Right, I'm gonna work on some wording. Thanks. And we can do that tonight, because it's not modifying an existing one.

[05:11:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Any discussion on that.

[05:11:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I was just going to say, I, I, um, I understand the principle and the concept, but I, I really think, I think this creates, this doesn't create the right incentive structure because you're basically incentivizing publicly accessible, private open space, the exact same as private open space that isn't publicly accessible at 50%. And I think publicly accessible private open space, to me, is almost, especially if there's a dedication of some sort of access easements, to me, is almost, is very, very close to the same as the city owning and providing it, except we don't have to maintain it. So I think there's a significant benefit to having publicly accessible, private, open space, and that's why I'm willing to go up to 75% there. We can talk about changing another day, the private open space credit from whether 50 is appropriate or not. But I think we, as the council, have the ability to move that up or down on a decision by decision basis. So, I just think the right incentive structure is publicly accessible, private own space should be some percentage higher than what privately accessible, only privately accessible, open space would be.

[05:13:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[05:13:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So just a quick clarification from staff, what time is it? It's 1030 and I'm already fading fast. So just to make sure I understand. So there's already, um, a developer can request a credit for 50% for private, open space. So with this motion, I'm having troubles sort of understanding how this would work. Are you suggesting a 10% credit on top of the 50% credit that they currently have?

[05:13:44] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So they could get, so, in other words, so if they if they provide 50% publicly accessible private open space, they could also stack the 50% that they can currently get and then an additional 10% over that.

[05:14:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, got it. No, I don't think so. 110%.

[05:14:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, that's why that's why I'm well, I mean, it's the same 50%, but the city, the city policy is for private, open space, no public access. So I guess I'm trying to incentivize public access, and then the extra 10% to incentivize that to become publicly accessible. So the citywide stays the same as 50% for private open space. And then in North Bay Shore only, it would be 50% for publicly accessible private open space plus 10% for private open space. So you could get 60%.

[05:14:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: 10% private. Oh, but that's not that's not 50% publicly accessible prep open space and then 50% plus an initial 10%. Okay, got it. You can't do both. the citywide and this one. Okay, so the... It's still either or. It's just if you do the new option for them.

[05:15:02] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, you just said you could stacks. So you could do the 50 to 10. But not the city wide one.

[05:15:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But not the city wide one. Right. Right. So you can't get to 110%.

[05:15:10] Unknown Speaker: Right. And that's permissible under the way this is noticed?

[05:15:14] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Yes. Except would we have to, in the citywide one, exclude North Bay Shore?

[05:15:19] Unknown Speaker: It does, the credit for publicly accessible open space only applies in the North Bay Shore.

[05:15:26] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Right, but the 10%. And then so the motion would be demodify how it's currently drafted, the 75% down to 50%. And then here's language that I would suggest that we add to the process. number four. If a credit is awarded for publicly accessible open space, then the maximum credit for private open space for the same project as 10%.

[05:15:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Got it. Okay. That that, thank you. That clarifies sort of that relationship. just very quickly. I'm inclined to agree with council member Clark in that, I think the way, the reason I could justify the 75% credit for the privately, so private, privately owned, publicly accessible open spaces that has greater value, I think, to the city than just pure private, open space has. And just so, so in other words, if if, you know, I don't, I would want, I think the credit, it can justify a higher credit for, for the publicly accessible private, open space, then just a pure private, open space component because that private space component is not publicly accessible. So I appreciate, I think, the direction that we're going here, but I don't personally see a great deal of value to the private open space and would want to, if we're going to have this, I would rather incentivize publicly accessible, private or privately owned, publicly accessible open space in any given proposal. Ooh, boy. Hope that makes some sense. Thank you.

[05:17:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, Council member Kameh?

[05:17:10] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, did you ever comment? A question then? So if I changed it, just 50% publicly accessible open space. Would that be more acceptable?

[05:17:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But then, as I understood, council member Clark's remarks, that those have equal weight, right? And if I'm if I'm a developer, I would think 1st and foremost about my perspective tenants or whoever is occupying those units, and I think the greater value to the tenants would be the private, open space and not the publicly accessible, privately owned, open space. So if the credit is the same, I think 10 times that of 10 as the developer, I would pick the private open space over the publicly accessible space. And that's why that's why I can justify the higher credit. hope that makes sense.

[05:18:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, thank you. Council member Kameh.

[05:18:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Um, so I just wanted to clarify. So I think for myself, I was, I grew to be comfortable with the motion that council member Clark put forward. Um, with the, um, choosing, you know, not being able to basically double dip, qualifying for just one. And then the up to for the publicly accessible, privately owned. I think the reason why, you know, and I'm strictly thinking the North Bay Shore area is, um, you know, I, the, if it's privately owned, it would be maintained by by that entity, um, but publicly accessible, I think that that could be, um, you know, uh, very beneficial for the, for the city as well. And then for both percentages, I think that the discretionary ability for it to come back to, um, council for us to look at it case by case gives me, um, the comfort that we can let them know if what we're seeing is is not adequate. Um, so, I'll be voting no on this one. Um, because I was hoping to vote on the 1st motion.

[05:19:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Just to clarify, uh, the motion by council member Clark was introduced, and are you saying that you seconded his motion, formally, or seconded by loose? I just wanted to clarify... Council member Hicks.

[05:19:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I also prefer the original motion, and not the substitute one, and it's because I think that, um, there's greater benefit to the community to have a series of, if possible, a series of publicly accessible, private open space, rather than not accessible. And also, I think it's a greater cost to the developer to maintain something that the communities using, so they should get a greater credit. So for those 2 reasons, that's the motion that I prefer.

[05:20:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I go there.

[05:20:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So just to conclude then, um, the reason why I wanted to, the, you know, bottom line was I was trying to find a balance and, but lowering the 75% down because I think there is value to actually collecting fees. if we can. And, you know, we talk about usable, open space, active, open space. I think that's council member of my college sisters and interest in getting large fields. I have a different interest, frankly, in North Bay Shore, and that's our, you know, wildlife habitat and actual real open space. So if we can generate more funding to somehow, you know, acquire more open space, help rebuild, you know, habitat out there. That's what I really want to be doing in North Bay Shore, because that was really what our precise plans vision was, was to, you know, respect and to try to expand, frankly, our wildlife habitat and our environment out there. So, I understand and yeah, it doesn't look like, well, we'll see.

[05:21:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So any other comments on the motion on the table? Or the motion on the floor. Okay, then we can vote on this one.

[05:21:29] Unknown Speaker: Which one?

[05:21:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: This is Margaret's proposal. Did it disappear on your screens, by the way? Does it still show the... Okay, interesting. Just give me one moment. Sorry. Yeah, it's still in there, man. Okay. Okay, now go ahead and vote, please. Thank you. So that motion fails. Um... With 2 voting, yes, disappears from here. Vice mayor, Abikoka, and me, and the rest, no. Okay, so we go back to the original motion, which was council member Clark's motion, 2nd by council member Ramirez. that what it was? And that is 75%, the staff recommendation, except you can't make use of both credits, right?

[05:22:36] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: So that I suggest... But this motion, language, adding a number four, only one open space credit may be awarded for a project. Semicolon, either private open space or publicly accessible private open space. Although we do have, we still retain the, they can, they can propose the world if they want. I guess the idea would be that that would be an alternate mitigation that would be greater then, but okay.

[05:23:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other comments on this one?

[05:23:09] Councilmember Chris Clark: To just thought to further muddle items. I mean, I think everyone agrees that appropriate school strategy is important. You could conceivably add a sentence that says something like the local school strategy will be a factor considered when determining the credit. So you're putting people on notice, but you're not tying them to anything specific, because we really can't do that. Without Lucas?

[05:23:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'm okay with that.

[05:23:43] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: And we would add that as K. You're up to K. And four.

[05:23:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other comments on that?

[05:23:55] Unknown Speaker: Question, then? I can't remember with the Sobrado project. Do we already agree to the school credit, park credit, or does that have to come back to us?

[05:24:08] Unknown Speaker: It's coming back to you

[05:24:09] Unknown Speaker: Okay, great. Thank you. Well, it's coming back to you, assuming that the ordinance and ordinance is adopted.

[05:24:16] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, let me clarify what Jannie and Martin... I mean, the project has approved where we were planning to come back to you on this credit, depending on tonight's action. I think the school strategy was approved as a condition of that project, so that's not really on the table anymore. But our percentage is still... You have full discretion over the percentage other than, you know, what was stated, or what was talked about in October, but that was not a binding action.

[05:24:51] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you.

[05:24:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Any other questions, everybody clear on the motion? Okay, we're ready to vote. And that motion passes. 6 to 1 with council member McAllister. No. Okay. That ends that item. The next item is 7.one.

[05:25:32] Unknown Speaker: Mayor. Yeah, I believe we need to take a vote.

[05:25:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: What tech time is it anyway? I always forget that. What is it? Is it? Oh, it's...

[05:25:38] Unknown Speaker: I moved to proceed past 10 p.m.

[05:25:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: One second? Oh, second. All those in favor? Well, we only have three. Oh, four. We got four. Okay. Item 7.one, which is an ordinance repealing article 6 of chapter 19 of the city code, and adding a new article 6 related to bicycles, electric bicycles, motorized scooters, and transportation devices. And... The presenters tonight are transportation manager, Rhea Lo, and Assistant Public Works director, Don Cameron.

[05:26:27] Transportation Manager Rhea Lo: Good evening. So the item deals with chapter 19, article 6 of the city code, which is also known as the bicycle ordinance. And in September of 2007, Council requested an overhaul of this ordinance, and we came back in December of 2018 with a proposed regulatory framework for council to consider. And tonight, we're going to be looking at draft ordinance language. for the same ordinance. So at the last session on this item, council generally supported the proposed regulatory framework, and for places where sidewalk riding would be prohibited, council requested input on the age threshold for the exception to the sidewalk riding ban in those places. Staff have since drafted ordinance provisions, and we held a community workshop on the 13th of February, and at that workshop, the participants generally supported the draft provisions. There were a range of different responses, but in general, most people suggested an age threshold between under 10 and under 12. And we then took the draft ordinance to the BPAC on the 27th of February and BPAC recommended that the city council introduce the ordinance and adopt the resolution with some revisions, which I'll go into a little bit more as I go along. So diving straight into the draft ordinance, the 1st section is section 19.51. And this provides definitions of different devices. So we're using the California vehicle code, also known as the CVC. For the definitions of bicycles, e-bicycles, electric bicycles, rather, motorized and motorized scooters. And we're defining transportation devices to include 4 things, skates, which includes roller skates and inline skates, skateboards, electrically motorized boards, and electric personal assistive mobility devices, otherwise known as EPAMDs, and segues would be an example of that. Sorry, honey, there are some images to go with there. What is not covered in the definitions and in the ordinance are motorized boards, because these are banned under the CVC from sidewalks and from roadways and streets, devices that are not identified by the CVC, and also devices that are defined as pedestrians and include wheelchairs, disability related mobility devices, and human powered scooters. And the reason for that is that we don't have authority to regulate those items. In the next section, item, section 19.52, it highlights our authority to regulate these the different items and the fact that the city cannot regulate devices unless we're expressly permitted to do so by the CBC. And so you've heard of E equals MC squared, the equation for tonight is E, the effect is equal to R code, the Mountain View code plus the CBC. And so you need to bear in mind both of those things as we go through all of the options, the provisions. So section 19.53 relates to operating on sidewalks. There's 3 elements to this one. The 1st piece is that bikes, e-bike, skateboards and skates are required to exercise, due care under the circumstances, and conditions, and also to yield to pedestrians. And then when you combine that with the CVC, That would mean that all bikes, e-bikes, and transportation devices need to exercise due care under the circumstances and conditions, and yield to pedestrians. The 2nd element of the sidewalk riding provisions address locations where sidewalk riding would be prohibited, and the accompanying resolution includes the location of Castro Street from Central Expressway to high school way and Yosemite Avenue. As recommended by the BPAC, San Antonio Road, which had been included in the 2017 draft resolution, was dropped from the resolution. And the reason for this is that it has low, lower pedestrian volumes, high traffic speeds and a lack of alternative routes for bicyclists at this stage. Once the concerns regarding the conditions along Castro along San Antonio Road were eliminated, BPAC also recommended a lower age threshold for the exception to the sidewalk riding band on Castro Street. And the reason for this was to protect the safety of pedestrians in this area which has very high foot traffic. The 3rd element of the sidewalk operating provisions would ban the use of bicycles, e-bicycles, and transportation devices that are 3 feet or wider from any sidewalks, and the CVC also bans motorized scooters from operating on sidewalk.s. So moving then to section 19.54 regarding the operations on of these things on roadways. The draft provisions would not allow EPAMDs, skates and skateboards, and also motorized scooters to operate on streets that are faster, that have a posted speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour, unless you're operating in a bike lane or a protected bike way. And then when you combine that with the other items that are covered by the CVC, that would mean that all motorized scooters and transportation devices would not be permitted on facilities with a posted speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour unless they're operating in a class 2 bike lane or class 4 protected bike way. This provision would affect 4 segments, roadway segments within the city. And I should note that 3 of these segments, the El Camino segment, the Moffat Boulevard segment, and the Ellis segment, have the proposed five-year CIP, has projects that would advance bikeway projects on each of these segments. So the only one that would be remaining to be addressed would be Central Expressway, which is not actually our jurisdiction. But in the meantime, roadway riding would not be permitted for motorized scooters and for transportation devices along these sections that are marked in red. And I should also note that, given our previous segment, the previous provision, motorized scooters and devices that are wider than 3 feet would also not be allowed on the sidewalks for these segments. The other part of the roadway operations provision would apply similar or equivalent road rules to bicycles, e-bicycles, motorized scooters and transportation devices. And this includes things like driving under the influence and using lights and reflectors. And in table 3 of the staff report, It describes where each of these come from, some of them are from the CVC, and some of them are from our proposed provisions. Section 19.55 addresses city-owned garages, parking structures, and under this proposed provisions, bikes, e-bikes, motorized scooters, and transportation devices would not be permitted to operate in city-owned parking structures, except for the limited purposes of accessing parking or destinations. And the addition of destinations in this was one of the things that BPAC had requested. In section 19.56. It just clarifies the operations in city parks and facilities are governed by chapter 38 of the city code, which relates to the use of city parks and other city facilities. And then finally, in section 19.57, Um, This relates to bicycle parking. And so what is proposed here is that bicycles, e-bikes, motorized scooters, and transportation, devices, are required to park upright in an upright position, either at a designated bike parking space, or in the hardscaped area of the furniture zone, in a way that is consistent with our current bike share permit requirements and also allows wheelchairs to navigate up or down ramps and turn or to pass pedestrians. There's a number of sections that have been eliminated relative to the current ordinance. And these include the provision that allows police to season hold bicycles, which was something that we discussed last time, and then in addition, it also includes the provision that requires the use of a temporary use permit for the commercial use of EPAMDs on public roadways. And the reason for this is that, and we looked into it, the temporary use permit isn't inappropriate for this type of use. And so there's actually no mechanism for implementing this provision of the current ordinance. So in terms of next steps, 2nd reading is scheduled for the 9th of April, the ordinance would, if it's passed, it would become effective on the 9th of May, and then it would be followed by educational efforts to help inform the community of what the requirements are. And finally, our recommendations are to introduce the ordinance to repeal the Mountain View City Code, chapter 19, Article 6, to add a new article 6 on bicycles, electric bicycles, motorized scooters, and transportation devices, and also to adopt a resolution prohibiting sidewalk operations on Castro between Central Expressway and Yosemite Avenue slash high school way. Thank you.

[05:37:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any questions from council members? Council member Clark.

[05:37:11] Councilmember Chris Clark: Thank you for adding into the question I submitted about the segments with the higher speed limits. The only question I had after looking at this again would be, I mean, there are technically bike lanes on Central Expressway. Do they just not fit the category of Class 2 or whatever?

[05:37:29] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: That's correct. They're not formally date formally designated class 2 bike lanes.

[05:37:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: Even though they're little pictures of bikes every now and then on.

[05:37:38] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Correct. The counties policy has been to design the shoulders of expressways, took bike lanes, bike lanes standards, but not to designate them as bike lanes.

[05:37:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: I should know. Except the County Expressways committee hasn't met in, like, two years, so I guess I forgot, but I shouldn't know that.

[05:37:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Cancel member McAllister.

[05:38:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, you mentioned something about six, but you said the community supported under 10 to 12, where would that fit into? The, uh, what would they not be allowed to do yet? I know, I saw that, but where's the six? They're not allowed to ride on a sidewalk?

[05:38:21] Transportation Manager Rhea Lo: Yeah, 6 are under? That concept was based upon, there are certain segments like Castro Street, where riding on the sidewalks would be prohibited, except that thinking was that children of a certain age would be allowed, along with their parents, or another reason to be riding on the sidewalk. Originally, when this was being discussed, back when I first started, my very first council meeting in September 2017, there were two roadway sections proposed for prohibiting riding on the sidewalks. One was Castle Street, and the other was San Antonio Road. When we went to the community meeting, both those roads were still listed, and the community was and the BPAC on previous discussions. We're talking about a higher age range, because even though there's a bike lane on San Antonio Road. It is a four lane arterio, speeds are higher, and they felt that somewhat older children may be better off on the sidewalk. When the BPAC proposed dropping San Antonio Road because it really doesn't have that kind of pedestrian demand on the sidewalk, and just staying with Castle Street, that's when they started talking about, really, with the level of pedestrian activity on Castle Street. It needs to be just the very young children that are on bikes and scooters and stuff next to their parents, and that's their recommendation.

[05:39:44] Councilmember John McAlister: So was there any consideration that San Antonio develops, with 1,300 units, that there is going to be a lot more pedestrian?

[05:39:52] Transportation Manager Rhea Lo: Yes, so, um, the resolution is easier to to change the ordinance, and so, as San Antonio develops, and if they're as part of that development, if they become nearby alternative bicycle routes, and there's more pedestrian volume, council could consider whether to add San Antonio at a later stage.

[05:40:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[05:40:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[05:40:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So just a follow-up question from that. Would it be possible or does staff have a preliminary idea of what a definition for high pedestrian volume or high, you know, foot traffic would look like to give us a standard for future resolutions designated, designating prohibited streets or sidewalks, I mean?

[05:40:44] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Good idea. I would say at this time, no, we don't have such a standard or a metric. It's going by what we already experience and realize. And, um, at some point, if need be, something like that could be developed, but for the most part, we'll be able to see when pedestrian volumes get to a point where you see more and more conflicts between bicyclists and users of transportation devices and pedestrians, and we'll say, you know, there's just not enough space for both.

[05:41:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And then 2nd question. I don't, I don't have a good sense of, I assume you're working at some point on a regulatory framework for shared micromobility, for all of the, you know, assuming the council has an interest in allowing scooters at some point. There's a whole different set of regulations that will have to develop for those, but those regulations will need to talk to this ordinance. So is this sort of future proofed for that regulatory framework?

[05:41:53] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Yes, it is. And if we looked at our model for our bike share pilot program, which is by permit, what we do is we have permit requirements placed on the operators when we issue the permit that go above and beyond what you might see in this ordinance, and the same thing could happen if there is a scooter share permitting program is, first off, these regulations are for the users of these different devices, including motorized scooters. You know, a lot of people that actually own their own motorized scooter, you may look like a lime or a bird, but it's their personal motorized scooter, and they're out there today. So this ordinance regulates how the users may operate within our city, to the extent the CVC allows us to do that. And then any kind of permit that might be issued in the future to a scooter share operation, which set the requirements for how that program is to operate.

[05:42:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[05:42:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I have a question. The CVC requires you to go with the flow of traffic if you were on the road, right?

[05:43:04] Transportation Manager Rhea Lo: Correct.

[05:43:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No matter what you're doing.

[05:43:07] Transportation Manager Rhea Lo: Correct, correct. Yep.

[05:43:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So why would we say it's okay to go against the flow if you're on the sidewalk?

[05:43:16] Transportation Manager Rhea Lo: So, um, so the proposed proposed provisions for sidewalk operation include exercising due care and and yielding to pedestrians, and we think that that would help people to be moving at a speed that is more amenable to being on a sidewalk. And also, the other thing that we discussed as staff is that, sorry, I'm very tired and not quite thinking straight. Well, we did, we looked at ordinances throughout California and there were no other examples of banning contra flow riding on the sidewalks. And what was the other thing I was thinking? I'm a migrator, thank you.

[05:43:59] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: You know, one of the primary concerns, and, you know, not only did the B pack express this, but staff as well, is, um, you know, bicycles and the transportation devices, you know, people are more vulnerable in these devices, and to have them have to cross a street... a couple times to get to a mid-block destination. you know, just creates more exposure to them as well as increases their distances, which, again, you know, automobiles, obviously, they can go out of their way. They can make you turns and all of that without wearing out the user, creating extra stress. So there are many reasons why you would want to go ahead and allow, you know, multidirectional riding on a sidewalk.

[05:44:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member, Hicks.

[05:44:51] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So how does this apply to underpasses? And like, if I assume you can walk your bike on the sidewalk down Castro Street, I can get off and walk down the sidewalk. Then when I get to the underpass, Can I ride it or should I not ride it or do we determine that later when we build the underpass?

[05:45:15] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: If you're referring specifically to the underpass planned for the transit center, um, it, though, that will be determined once we build the underpass, as you may recall, that we're designing the two legs that go under Central Expressway to be wide enough that there, we'd separated bike and pet areas, in which case you can ride through those areas. When you get to the concourse, which is under the train tracks and the platform itself, because that's actually Caltrain right away and part of their station area. They may actually make the final determination of whether you have to get off and walk your bike or you're allowed to proceed slowly through that area.

[05:45:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other cancel questions? Okay, um, we will open this up for public comment. If there's anyone who wants to share their thoughts on this one, fill out a blue card, come up to the microphone. Everybody was racing up there. Okay, saying none? We will close the public input portion of this, and have council, deliberation, and... action. Council member Clark.

[05:46:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so I think we've discussed the provisions of this previously, so I appreciate all the work that staff put into this and answering all of our questions along the way, so I'll move that we introduce an ordinance repealing article six of chapter 19 in the Mountain View City code in its entirety, and adding a new article, six related to bicycles, electric bicycles, motorized scooters, and transportation devices to be read entitled only for the reading wave instead of the second reading for April 9, 2019, and adopt a resolution prohibiting the operation of a bicycle, electric bicycle, or transportation device, upon sidewalks, and designated locations to be Titled only for the reading wave.

[05:47:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So you have a motion by Council member Clark and a second by Vice Mayor Abikoga? Um, Council member Ramirez?

[05:47:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, I'm going to support the motion, but I did want to float a couple of ideas just to see if there was interest in some, I think, relatively minor modifications. Um, so thinking about where I think it would be appropriate to prohibit sidewalk operation. The 1st thing that came to mind is doesn't make sense to allow sidewalk operation when you have a cycle track or a protected bike lane. Is it really, is it really necessary to allow sidewalk writing in that case? Is that a, you know, is that something that you had considered and deliberately chose to allow?

[05:47:55] Dawn: That was not something that we actually considered. We only have a small amount of cycle tracks at this stage in the city. So, um, but, um, I know that at one point, it did come to mind a little bit about, do we restrict them to protected by, and we're only now thinking class 4 protected bike ways, where you have some kind of physical separation. It's more than just a painted buffer, right? We did think about, you know, do we say if you're on a bicycle or transportation device, in that case, you cannot be on the sidewalk. The concern with that is, you're dealing with multiple ages here, and you could have some of these devices. Motorized scooters are allowed to go up to 15 miles per hour, and the electric bicycles, and so on. So if you have a younger child, uh, you may prefer that they be on the sidewalk, and as the parent, you may want to be along with them. So, the idea is, you provided the choice, and most writers will prefer to be in the protected bike way, and not have to go around pedestrians or anything, but still leaving open the choice, if you feel safer and more comfortable on the sidewalk, was Staff's general thought of why we didn't really introduce that.

[05:49:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, I would be amenable to that modification if other members of the council are interested. Um, two others really quickly. One other thing that came to mind is having, and maybe this is, again, more appropriate when we have the shared micro mobility discussion, but having designated parking areas or drop off areas that I know some cities have done this where you have an area that's sort of colored, right? So it's very clearly designated, especially in areas where you have high pedestrian volume or in like the parking garage instance, you don't necessarily want the dockless scooters or bikes left on any level of the garage. You know, it would make sense maybe to require that they'd be parked in a designated area. And I don't know if that needs to be spelled out in the ordinance, but that's one other idea I was thinking about. And the last would be if it's appropriate, that makes sense. thinking about what a definite, what the definition of high pedestrian volume would be, so that way it's not just sort of eyeballing it. There's a lot of pedestrians here. So let's introduce a resolution, but we have some kind of metric that we can use to sort of determine when that would be appropriate. Thank you.

[05:50:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[05:50:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I was hoping that we could reconsider this age of six. You know, I know 10 year olds that are not quite coordinated, and I think we want to be on the caution side, when we have some older kids from 10 to 12. And H6 is really, if you're on age 6, you're probably with your parents, but if somebody that's under 10, maybe by themselves, and I think they would probably prefer to be a little safer along the street. So I would like us to consider raising that up to 10 versus the six year old, if uh...

[05:51:06] Unknown Speaker: Is that 10 and under, or under 10? Under 10.

[05:51:11] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Or 10 under, or...?

[05:51:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Inclusive, you know, so... Yeah, but instead of the age of six, or younger, that's, I think that is... It doesn't make common sense. I think we need to raise the age, and I'd like to see if we can go to at least 10 years old, if the maker would consider it.

[05:51:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Let's just hear all of... Council member come in.

[05:51:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm not trying to make any amendments. Um, I just, uh, I wanted to thank staff. Um, for, um, meeting with me to walk me through the 3 years plus of hard work that you've been doing on everything. Um, it makes me comfortable voting for, um, the motion today. I think the one thing that, um, council member Ramirez brought up that I was interested in was if we were going to be looking at, um, anything to replace kind of the bike shares. So would that be scooters, et cetera. And it sounds like with this, we'll have something, some framework to work with going forward. Because I think the last mile will continue to be a challenge. So, yeah.

[05:52:22] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I was just going to suggest and Dawn can correct me. I think the idea of designated parking, those sorts of things would all be part of the regulatory framework specific to a permitting scheme, so they don't have to be dealt with tonight.

[05:52:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Right, which is why I'm not making any amendments to anything. Thank you.

[05:52:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[05:52:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I'm a little uncomfortable with the amendment that council member Rammer has made about having to be in a protected bike way. I know if I were walking my kids with, which I've done a lot with, um, various wheeled devices. I would want them to be on the sidewalk. So, the white staff proposed, although, if no one else agrees with me, I'll go along with that. And then I was just going to add the amendments that the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning made. There were two that staff said were fine, and they're written here. I don't know if you want me to read them out. Do I read? One is to... modify the following section titles, as shown below, to be complete and better, a line across the sections, section 19.54, operating motorized scooters and transportation devices on roadways, section 19.57, parking spaces for bicycles. electric bicycles, motorized scooters, and transportation devices. They also had a recommendation that staff said we can't do, so I won't read that. And then their last one was to keep ordering consistent, put motorized scooters before transportation device in the following section 19.57 bicycle parking spaces, and B, when official signs are markings for sticking, parking, to bicycles are in place, no person shall park or stand, any vehicle other than a bicycle, electric bicycle, transportation device, or motorized scooter in such a space. So just adding their amendments. No, just the two that staff said would work, not the one staff said would not work.

[05:54:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other comments?

[05:54:39] Unknown Speaker: Can I ask a question based on that? So I remember you just remind me of the discussion. We talked about ages, and I think, at one point, the vice mayor talked about, you know, roughly middle school, and then we took it back, and I think the BPAC gave their feedback on six. And so I'm just wondering if you, you just sort of said, um, this is what the VPAC said, six, that's what we're going to suggest in the ordinance, or if there was more thought put into that, that we may not have thought about tonight.

[05:55:12] Dawn: Generally, what we presented to you was the BPAC's recommendation of 6 and under, if you're asking, you know, what staff is discussed. Uh, you know, we have discussed that um, middle school age is a little too old, uh, to be riding on the sidewalks in Castle Street, with those pedestrian volumes, and interesting enough, our youth advisory committee also made the same recommendation. And, you know, that's sort of where we got to 9 or 10, keeping it more at the elementary school age or under. So, really, this is, this is really council's decision at this point, what age.

[05:55:52] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, right, right. Okay. So, Don, could you just clarify exactly what the yak recommendation was? Did they make a specific age recommendation?

[05:56:00] Dawn: They strongly recommended against allowing middle schoolers to share the sidewalk with pedestrians. They didn't, they didn't, actually, they said 10 or 11. At that stage, we were talking about 14 and they said that's too old.

[05:56:20] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Mayor, do you have anything that you want to have? Before I go down the list.

[05:56:27] Unknown Speaker: Well, I don't think they're support for changing not writing against traffic on a sidewalk. I'm not wild about that one. And then the definition of a destination, if you're going through a parking structure, I think that's really tough to figure out what that is. So I'd take that out. I mean, what are you writing to a destination? What's a destination? Anything I say it is. Right, so that kind of defeats the purpose. It's amazing.

[05:57:03] Dawn: The goal here is to not allow people to ride to a parking structure that they use as a skate park, a parking structure is not a destination for recreational activity, like skate park activity. But it would allow people to go to the grocery store or to a restaurant or to that, you know, something that has been intended as a destination.

[05:57:28] Unknown Speaker: So, Do we think the average person is going to have that same definition? Because we've heard people say, oh, we like to ride our bicycles to the top of the parking structure to check out the view. Is that a destination?

[05:57:45] Unknown Speaker: If I may, maybe. So I think the way that it's drafted, it's basically accessing the parking structure to travel or you can travel through the parking structure to access a destination. So it also implies going through the parking structure, um, coupled with the fact that a destination, take your point. I guess destination could be a parking structure, but because of the way it's framed or traveling through the parking structure. I don't think that that can be applied that way.

[05:58:10] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Okay, so do you want to go through the modifications?

[05:58:16] Unknown Speaker: I've already read one and two.

[05:58:19] Councilmember Chris Clark: And so we just want to, um, I don't know what sections these are, but I am, um, we can set the age to 10, um, from six. It seemed like there were a fair number of people who were okay with that.

[05:58:33] Unknown Speaker: 10 and under or 10?

[05:58:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, 10 and up. 10 and under. Oh, 10 and under, sorry, making it so harder than it needs to be. And then there were the 2 edits that the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning had suggested that staff didn't seem to have issues with the council member Hicks read. And then, yeah, I'm sorry, Lucas. I don't really see a need to impose that additional restriction on the cycle track. So I think it's just those two, the age modification and the coalition for sustainable planning.

[05:59:11] Unknown Speaker: Just to clarify, the amount of you coalition for sustainable planning amendments affect 3 sections of the ordinance, but it's their 2 of the recommendations of the intent, correct?

[05:59:23] Dawn: That sounds right. And it was clear, we staff felt that it didn't modify the intent or anything like that. It was just a clarification.

[05:59:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: So as long as that's clear, that's my motion, as long as the vice mayor is okay with that.

[05:59:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any discussion on that? Okay, I think we're ready to vote. And that passes unanimously. Okay, on to item eight. Council staff committee reports. Council member Clark.

[06:00:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: Super quick. So at the A-Bag meeting, I know the city's association did not get to appoint anyone to the legislative task force. You will in April because of agendizing and annoying things. We did specify the executive board, did specify the staff that and staff agreed to do this to make any meetings that occur because things are going to move pretty quickly. Any meetings that occur before you're able to make that appointment will be open and will be noticed to the city's association so that if there's anyone from this association who is interested in an appointment that might want to attend and be present at those meetings to provide public input in those sorts of things, you'll have the ability to do that. So you should be getting those notices about the meeting starting very soon. So if you know anyone who's applied for that or if you want to send a representative to those, you can do that, even if they aren't the official representative.

[06:00:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else? Uh, council member Ramirez.

[06:01:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I just would like to say something completely self serving, if that's okay. But over the past few months, we've tackled some very tough issues and made some very tough votes. And I just want to express my appreciation to everybody on this council for doing so respectfully and civilly. It's I would have liked a little bit of an easier transition, but we haven't had that. Yeah. Well, the 1st month was easy. But I just, I think it's, you know, I really appreciate the way that we've been able to conduct our business. I just wanted to share that. Thank you.

[06:01:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I would agree with it. Um, okay, so, next, we're gonna have a closed session, but do we ask here if there's a closed session report?

[06:01:50] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: No, I don't anticipate any close session report, but I could make the close session announcement, um, right here, and we could see if there was any member of the public that wished to comment before we recessed to the Plaza conference room. Okay, so item 9.2, conference with legal counsel, existing litigation, pursuant to paragraph one of Subdivision D of Section 54956.9 of the California government code. The name of the case is Nicholas W Emerline versus City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County. Superior Court case number 115 CV 280920 and the 6 appellate district court case number H 044521. Is there anyone who wanted to provide comment on that?

[06:02:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, seeing none. Um, we will adjourn the regular meeting. to the next city council meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 2nd, 2019, at 5 p.m. in the council chambers 500 Castro, and we will adjourn to the Plaza Conference room for the closed session. Thank you.

• ← Previous
• Next →