April 23, 2019 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] City Clerk: Work announcing attendance. All council members are present.

[00:00:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[00:00:04] City Clerk: Oh, actually, I'm sorry. Council member Ramirez is now present.

[00:00:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. The study session tonight is regarding 2645 and 2655 Fayette Drive, and our presenters tonight are senior planner, Matt Van Osten and planning manager, zoning administrator, Stephanie Williams. And we'll start with the staff report. And since this is a study session, we'll do the staff report. will open it up for public comment, and then we'll bring it back to council for discussion.

[00:00:36] Senior Planner Matt Van Osten: All right, good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council. Tonight, we're discussing 2645 to 2655 Faya Drive. The project is located just south of Fayette Drive in just west of San Antonio Road. It's currently surrounded by a 3 story apartment building to the west, a 4 story apartment building to the south, and then to the north is the new Dean Project. That's 5 and 7 stories along with a public park. So just for a little background on the project in June 7th, 2016, council approved a project on the site. It was for 27 condominium units with a density of 36 units to the acre, 4 stories, one. 5 FAR with a 45 foot max height that was in the R3D zoning. On December 6th, 2016 council authorized a gatekeeper for the site. And that gatekeeper included 34 to 40 units, a density of 51 to 60 units to the acre, up to 5 stories in height, with a rezoning into the San Antonio precise plan from the current R3D zoning, and then a one. 5 FAR with an improved tier one intensity in that precise plan. Just for a little project information on the currently proposed project. It's 44 units, which includes 5 density bonus units, that density is 66 units to the acre, it's 6 stories in height total, with the density bonus, 72 foot wall plate height, with a 91 foot max height at a elevator shaft on the roof. And that's a 2.5 FAR with 2 levels of underground parking in 85 spaces. And just for reference as well, this would also be proposing to move into the San Antonio precise plan as a rezoning and in the San Antonio precise plan that has a tier one FAR of one. 85 and a base of one.35 The tier one intensity allows 4 stories, 55 foot max height, and the base allows 3 stories with 45 foot height. And then 5 stories is allowed on a case by case basis with community benefits. And so here's the site design. As you can see how this is proposed next to the other apartment buildings and Phi Drive, along with the Hatchetchie property to the east. And there's there's a community amenities within the site, including a pool and spa deck area as well as pedestrian improvements along Fiat Drive. And here's the project design. This is looking from Fayette towards the site, and you can see the 3 story apartment building just to the right of the photo there. And then here's the project looking from the Hatch Hatchie. property. And then again, the project elevation, you get a better idea of where the roof height is and the parapet is as well as the max height at the elevator shaft. And so then finally, the community benefits, public benefits contribution is required to achieve the tier one intensity of one.85 FAR, 4 stories and 55 feet. And then also the San Antonio precise plan requires that up to 5 stories, and 65 feet will be considered on a case-by-case basis if the project provides significant public benefits or major open space improvements. So as far as the discussion goes, question one is, does counsel support the rezoning of the project site into the San Antonio precise plan? The request for an additional story of up to 5 stories and 65 feet in height and the bonus FAR of up to one.85. Question 2 is what type of community benefit would counsel support, if it chooses to allow the project one additional story, up to 5 stories and 65 feet in height, beyond tier one? This concludes staff presentation.

[00:04:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation?

[00:05:13] Applicant: Good afternoon, counsel staff. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. I think Matt did a great job describing our project. That was wonderful. Primarily, we have designed this as a stepping stone from apartment living to ownership, homeownership in Mountain View. And we, as was described, we originally had pursued a gatekeeper at the suggestion of council when we had our original tentative map approved in June of 2016 to go to the San Antonio precise plan where we're bordered on two sides. Matt, as Matt described, we have 44 stacked flat units of ownership condominiums currently zoned R3D. And as I described, we went into this request to, through the gatekeeper to go into the San Antonio precise plan and made a proposal at that time for 5 stories and 1.85 FAR. There's a description of the intensity for base and tier one, as was also described, and our submission, which we made in January of 2018, about 15 months ago, included a CA density bonus application to take the FAR to 2.5, and to accommodate the increased density, to go to a partial six story, and, on average, 75 feet, though, as it was described, there were some slightly on the roof tunnel. And then, in particular, particular importance, is providing five on site moderate income BMR units. I'll ask Czech Tang from Studio T Square, our architect, who's designed a number of projects in mountain here to spend some time in detail.

[00:07:09] Architect Czech Tang: Thanks, Jeff. Thank you. Appreciate it. First, I want to thank staff. for working with us on this project for a few years. Appreciate all the effort. Um, I think, um, maybe zooming out for a second. One of the things that is, we asked to kind of question and answers today is whether this is the appropriate land use. And given kind of the context of the site, you can see is kind of the red dot within half a mile of the Caltrain station, and also very within walking distance, obviously of the El Camino real kind of transportation corridor as well. And I think more importantly is right next to essentially what I call almost uptown mountain view with all the mixed use, very walkable, kind of a community. So we truly believe that this is the appropriate site. for it to be part of the San Antonio corridor. By the way, as a reference, the blue area that's on the map is actually the San Antonio center, which is much higher density in higher FAR. Our site that we're proposing is actually in the San Antonio corridor, which is a little bit lower density than the core. So we believe it is actually appropriate relative to the context. Kind of getting a little bit of a 3D diagram. What you see here is the Carmel project, the Hetachi kind of a concourse here, the office building. And you can, you understand, this is kind of the core area of the San Antonio plan, which allows up to 105 feet. This is the project that's now under construction with the state density bonus, the deans here, which is, I believe, the average height is 85 feet, or actually 89 feet up to 100 feet to the highest point. Our project site is located right here, fronting on the Hatachi, and fronting on the future community park, which would be part of the deans project. And you can also see, right, Jason, the Domo project, which is a 4 story multifamily project. And I think even the existing concept context that you can see is actually a lot of 3 and 4 story multifamily projects all around it with single family homes, neighborhoods, districts way beyond this area here. Just kind of looking at the actual urban design context. One of the things that we're very, very focused on was making sure that this project ties into the overall context of the San Antonio precise plan, to the extent that we're creating a building that fronts onto the hatch hatchy, fronts onto the park in a very kind of formal way to create a new urban edge and also a gateway into this district. The other thing that's really critical is that we actually articulate a building so that the majority of the open space and the buffer zone and working with staff is to push this building is far away from the adjacent property, in addition to the setback that we're proposing here. And then also having the amenities that becomes kind of the center of our courtyard here, so that that becomes amenity for not only our project, but also to the neighboring property, as well. The other thing is really important is also, we kind of looked at the development of the deans where there's essentially a street here that comes into the And so we lined up the ramp conditions here, so that this now circulation wise, there's no interference of the neighborhood as well. And then the design, I think, we have actually gone through one DRC, which we had, I think, very positive comments, but also very constructive comments that we're ready to respond to and come back with. I just want to highlight a couple of things about the architecture massing is relating to the setback right here. Our property, our building, at this point right here, is actually 30 feet to the PL, is, in fact, 45 feet to this 3 story building here, and then where the courtyard is, is actually 48 feet to the property line and 63 feet approximately to the building. So the setback is very substantial, probably beyond a lot of the similar project adjacencies. In terms of the transition, one of the things that I want to highlight is here's a 3 story apartment building next door, and we are basically complying with the spirit of the San Antonio plan, where we have one story beyond the adjacent building, and then the building stepping back, at least 10 feet, you know, per story, that's stepping back to the tallest, tallest form. So this is kind of the our mitigation for the adjacency to the apartments. The other thing that I think is also important is, I think, is a very positive element here, is that we're creating this corner plaza as part of our project that fronts onto the neighboring park that will be under construction here, hopefully shortly. And then also kind of adjacent to the Hatch Hatchi. Again, hopefully a greenway down the road. In addition to stoop conditions that activates the the Fayette drive. I think the one thing that architecturally is really important to note, this project is, in fact, foresided. We really don't have a back to this project. And then, this is the architecture is fronting down, the hedge hatchy, as you can see, is a very natural transition from the front, which is a Fayette drive, but it really didn't treat the hatchy as a back or the side of the project. We really treated it as just another front of the project engaging the green way. I just want to highlight quickly. There's a couple of waivers, and again, the waivers are some, you know, is discretionary is kind of how we interpret the go, the codes, and also what we think, might be departure from what we believe is interpretation of the code. So a couple things here on the Jason property. We do have some setback that we respect it, but however, there are some elements of it that I can point out later that encroach into that setback area in 2 conditions. And then on the frontage along Fayette, we're actually asking for a waiver where this requirements is actually 10 feet, but we're actually proposing 6 foot 6 because the bulk of the building. And then, lastly, one of the things that we're asking for is a setback along the southern property line along the Hatachi, the reason being is we were working with staff to push the building as far south as possible away from the adjacent property and creating a little bit better buffer on that side. So the approximate kind of a waiver is really about 12 square feet. So it's, um, This area right here is the building being pushed closer to the Hatachi by one foot six. There's this little element right here on the driveway side that we're asking for, a little waiver. And then also, there's a component here that encroach into that 10 foot setback on the upper floor that we're asking for waivers. But in general, the main thing is that we're asking for is a 2.5 FAR. And then also as part of the state density bonus, we're asking for the projects to be 6 story and 75 feet. By the way, as a reference to the deans, the deans is actually 90 feet, at average height, at the 7 story element, and then the our project is actually 75 feet average. Thanks. And then I'm going to turn this back over.

[00:14:57] Applicant: Thanks, Jack. Sorry, just being mindful of your time. In 13 seconds, I'll try to... So public benefit. The existing five story proposal that we had made for the gatekeeper, where we go from 1.35 to 1.85, there's a formulaic number to go from 22, 40 square foot for the additional square feet, about 325,000. There's a mention of a public benefit for doing a fifth floor. We're suggesting that one way to calculate that would be the square footage on the 10th on the 5th floor times that same number. We're offering a public plaza as our public benefit of equivalent value, and then there would be a payment of BMR and Luffy on the final sale. The 6 story proposal has those same issues with regard to going to one.85 and in the 5th floor, and then we offer 5 moderate income BMR units. The code would require four, and then a partial loop fee for the .4, that's 10% of 44, 4.4.4. And we are proposing to provide a 5th BMR unit, which is a substantial public benefit. In aggregate, the BMRs represent a very substantial benefit to the city of Mountain View, the citizens of Mountain View, so that the aggregate total value of benefit is, you know, almost twice that of what it would be otherwise. Thank you.

[00:16:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, why don't we do it with, uh... Okay, this time, we'll open this up for public input. If there's anyone here that wants to provide us with input on this topic. Okay, saying none. Now we'll go to council questions. And then we will, uh, do the deliberation. So I think council member McAllister be to do it.

[00:16:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, what are the expected selling price of all your units? Starting at the low end, working up and the moderates.

[00:17:02] Applicant: So the one bedroom units are approximately 800 plus square feet, the two bedroom units are a little over 1,200 square feet.

[00:17:11] Councilmember John McAlister: So what's the selling press, not the size?

[00:17:12] Applicant: So assuming something like a $900 a square foot selling price for the one bedrooms, it'd be in the $700, $800,000 for the 2 bedrooms, it would be something around a million, million, one, and for the 3 bedrooms, $1.4,1.5 million.

[00:17:30] Councilmember John McAlister: And so what's considered your moderate? The BMRs?

[00:17:36] Applicant: So any of us, the moderates, since they're supposed to represent... The moderate income BMR, we're proposing to do two, three bedrooms, two, two bedrooms, and one bedroom for the mix of units for the BMR. And those numbers from what we've been able to see in terms of calculations, those would be sold for somewhere between $350,000 and $450,000.

[00:17:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And so you said the smaller range would go between $700,000 to $800,000?

[00:18:04] Applicant: The one bedroom is on a market rate basis.

[00:18:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Are there different sizes, the one bedroom?

[00:18:08] Applicant: A slight variation from 800 to 900 square feet.

[00:18:11] Unknown Speaker: And that would make a difference of 100,000?

[00:18:14] Applicant: Uh, I just did an approximation of the math.

[00:18:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[00:18:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Two questions. First, you mentioned that the pool and deck, on the project, are amenities to the adjacent property, I'm assuming you just mean because of the deeper setback they provide, but I have talked to people who develop Randalls, who say they'll make them available, you know, that the adjacent people in adjacent properties can, you know, join a pool club or something. So I'm wondering which of those two you were talking about as a method.

[00:18:55] Applicant: I think our architect was making reference to, effectively, a visual amenity. Currently on the site, there is an old carpet cleaning structure, which is has a zero lot line in that corner of the property that goes 20 plus feet up, and really puts a shadow right against that structure. But that's what he was referring to. I have heard that, you know, on one other occasion, we have not specifically contemplated the notion of offering the pool access as a public benefit, but it wouldn't be beyond the realm of consideration.

[00:19:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, my second question is, can you explain? You said that the corner plaza was a public benefit, can you explain to me, like, what's going on there, and how, if I were a neighbor, what would I do there?

[00:19:45] Applicant: 1,500 square foot plaza area with seating and benches for having a coffee, having lunch, close proximity to both the public park that's on the Dean side, as well as the Hetch Hetchy linear park that's to be developed.

[00:20:01] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you.

[00:20:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other council questions?

[00:20:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'm in the queue, but it's only because I can't, um, I can't clear the queue.

[00:20:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I can't clear council member Hicks, so I was trying and things. Thank you. Council member Ramirez?

[00:20:27] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Just some clarifying questions, because we got a lot of last minute information, and I'm not sure I had enough time to review it as thoroughly as I would like. So, um, the, you're not utilizing the density bonus. Your, my understanding is you're, you are, uh, entitled to the waivers under the density bonus law because of the BMR units that you're providing.

[00:20:54] Applicant: Correct.

[00:20:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Yes. Got it. And you would be ordinarily required to provide only 4 units, and the 5th unit is the community benefit.

[00:21:05] Applicant: Correct. So with regard to the state density bonus, four units would be required, they do their math a little differently. They subtract out those units when calculating a percentage, so it would be 4 over 40, that would be 10% for the city of Mountain View's ordinance. It's 10%, so that would be 4.4, and the ordinance specifies that a fractional unit can be paid for with a in Luffy, and then you would do 4 units. So we're doing five. So in a sense, for the city of Mountain View, we're doing an extra .6 of a BMR unit above and beyond the 4.4 that would be required.

[00:21:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. And then, um, the, you don't need the density bonus. You do need the waivers for the project to be feasible.

[00:21:49] Applicant: That's correct.

[00:21:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And that's why you're.

[00:21:51] Applicant: I've applied for the density bonus. And without going into the arcane nature of some of that, we were still zoned R3D and the process that we went through with the gatekeeper where we're not yet zoned in the San Antonio precise plan was part of the Genesis behind that. We spent time with Wayne Chen and the housing group here to talk about the needs of Mountain View, and it was proposed to us that moderate income units in the missing middle was a target that they would like us to shoot for. And so we accommodated that with our density bonus application. to do the 5 moderate income BMR units.

[00:22:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and then last question. I want to make sure I'm articulating these correctly. You don't need the density bonus to get to this level of density. If you were not using the state density bonus law, you would, would you just pay the in lieu fees for the BMR units?

[00:22:53] Applicant: Using the California density bonus, then we would do a 1.85. We'd use the 1.85 max FAR. Because that's part of the point. And then we would not do on-site BMR, we would pay the 3% in Loop fee of the total sale price of the project.

[00:23:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Got it. Thank you. So you reminded me that that was one of the waivers.

[00:23:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Vice mayor, I'll be cogan.

[00:23:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I think my question is for staff. So I'm a little confused. How do we get from 1.85 to 2.5 then? So in their current proposal with the density bonus?

[00:23:32] City Staff: They're seeking a 6% density bonus, but one of the waivers would be a 35% increase in density or in intensity, sorry, so that one. 85, 35% on that is 2.5.

[00:23:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So they are just asking for that, but not increasing the unit count that would be included in the bonus? Is that... Is that right? Like, they're getting the waiver, but not, again, the waiver, but not the, they're not building up to the number of units they could build.

[00:24:11] City Staff: Correct.

[00:24:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And is that the six story issue as well? Because isn't it up to five stories that we allow with 1.85? So the sixth story. But does that become a second waiver? Because they only get one, it looks like.

[00:24:31] City Staff: So the fifth story is not a foregone conclusion. The fifth story is meant to be for a special project of special circumstance for when they provide substantial additional community benefit and or open space beyond what the tier one already requires.

[00:24:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so the applicant is offering one extra BMR unit. under current policy. Um, I'll get to that later. But, so, that one is, is that what you're saying is substantial community benefit to get to the six stories, or five or six stories?

[00:25:12] City Staff: For the fifth story. Yeah, the, you know, we did a comparable monetary calculation, which say, How many square feet do you have on the fifth floor? About 10,000 square feet, if you use the same $22.40, which was used for the 1.35 to 1.85 transition, that would be about $24,000. So the development of that plaza is about a comparable amount of cost, you know, to develop and make available on site for that. So that's why we said this is sort of a comparable public offering, public benefit.

[00:25:49] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So that's for the 5th story. So then what do we do for the sixth story?

[00:25:53] City Staff: That's a CA density bonus. So that's the... That's a height waiver. It's a height waiver. waiver on height.

[00:26:01] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: But you're asking for two waivers. The height? And, right? The waivers are... Waivers are not... I thought there was only one allowed, if you're only doing 6%. I'm reading your letter. I just saw it, frankly. So it's a little confusing to me, but...

[00:26:16] Applicant: Sometimes there's confusion between a concession and a waiver. Okay. And we're not asking for any concessions, but we are asking for waivers.

[00:26:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And I... Can staff explain the different, like, you know, we're looking at setbacks and heights, and, to me, they seem, like, the same. But, yeah, what's the difference between a waiver and a concession?

[00:26:39] City Staff: I don't know that it's always 100% clear. RT will articulate, but with waivers, there is not a numerical limit, right? They can ask for multiple waivers, where a concession, there are certain requirements you have to meet for each concession, but RT seems like she's poised to respond.

[00:26:57] City Staff: Just from past projects, and we can certainly confirm, and, you know, I think we're going to have to review this new information. But the difference, from what I understand, between a concession and waiver is, concession is a, it's something that's required to make the project economically feasible. And the waiver is just what they need to fit the project based on typically the increased density. To say, you know, for example, we need so many more units, and we can't fit that within the envelope that the zoning provides. So that is typical. And again, we haven't had a chance to review it in light of this new, and we certainly will, if the council wishes to move forward.

[00:27:38] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, I'm sorry, going back then. These are waivers that are being asked, and that includes the height, the FAR, the setbacks that they've talked about in the different... So, and there's no limit to waivers.

[00:27:51] City Staff: No limit to the number of waivers, and we have to go back and review to what extent the city has to be able to give those and evaluate that. But the concessions are limited in state law based on the affordability and the percentage of affordability.

[00:28:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And then moving from moderate to, or from low income on the BMRs to moderate, doesn't do anything. Does that change anything or?

[00:28:20] City Staff: That's essentially the proposal, and I think we haven't reviewed it, but based on the previous proposal, it was 11% very low, which qualified them for a 35% bonus, and since, correct me if I'm wrong, projects in San Antonio are reviewed by FAR and not density, and the general plan's very definite about that, we evaluated it based on that.

[00:28:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[00:28:43] City Staff: The letter since changes it. And so we're gonna have to review it.

[00:28:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And then the final question is regarding our BMR, um, ownership policy, part 2 is coming to us in early June, May, actually, isn't it? So in light of that. And I don't know what our, what staff's recommendation's gonna be, but is, I think I read in staff report, it would actually require more units, BMR units, if we were to follow the new policy.

[00:29:15] City Staff: I believe council's direction to come back in phase two, which will be next month, is to require 15% with ownership.

[00:29:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So then the 5 actually doesn't match, they would need to do 6.6. Units.

[00:29:32] City Staff: If you look at 15% of 44 is 6.6, and we're gonna have to go back and review, based on what density this additional is required.

[00:29:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah. Okay. Great. All right, thank you.

[00:29:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[00:29:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So just to make sure that I understand, in addition to the waivers that council member Abbe Koga just brought up as reasons to ask for a community benefit, my understanding, and tell me if I'm wrong, is that also rezoning the project site into the San Antonio precise plan would be another reason that we would do that? Is that true, or am I wording it right?

[00:30:13] City Staff: Well, it's a gatekeeper, and we often require community benefits as part of a gatekeeper? Is that it?

[00:30:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, Council member Komet?

[00:30:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. Would it be possible to pull up the slide with the community benefits?

[00:30:40] Applicant: Okay. I'm just changing my screen. Okay, so... the... the left is the existing proposal, and the right is the final, final, final. We say existing five story proposal, that, in effect, what we proposed with the gatekeeper. Okay.

[00:31:08] Applicant: in December of 2016.

[00:31:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay.

[00:31:10] Applicant: And the six story proposal is related to the submission that we made in January of 2018 in 15 months ago.

[00:31:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay.

[00:31:19] Applicant: which we have been pursuing, you know, with staff, uh, since that time.

[00:31:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay.

[00:31:24] Applicant: That is, in a sense, that's our current, that is our proposal. That is our proposal.

[00:31:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I see.

[00:31:30] Applicant: And we put that, the quote, existing five story proposal there as a comparative reference.

[00:31:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. For, um, the community benefit, it's, I think, one of our, it's the 2nd question that we're being asked, is, are you, as the applicants, kind of open to the discussion, or perhaps if we go in a different direction from the public plaza, or is that the only thing? I know that there had been discussion about other things as community benefit, and I'm just wondering to the openness of the discussion.

[00:32:08] Applicant: Very hard on this project for four and a half years, and we, you know, very much want to see it come to fruition, and break ground, and, you know, we're open and flexible to talk about, you know, what we can possibly do, to do it, and that can include a variety of things.

[00:32:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you.

[00:32:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions, John?

[00:32:29] Councilmember John McAlister: So I have a couple of questions. Have you done other projects where you've leveraged the state dentistity bonus law?

[00:32:37] Applicant: This is the first one.

[00:32:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, and what other projects have you done in Mountain View?

[00:32:47] Applicant: This is the first one in Mountain View. We've done one in Palo Alto. We have one in Los Altos, and then some smaller projects in different parts of the state.

[00:32:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Is this, I'm curious, is this the largest one?

[00:32:59] Applicant: This is the largest.

[00:33:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And I had sent in the question to the head of the meeting to staff about can BMR units, in an ownership property, using the state density bonus law, be rental units. And I was surprised that the answer came back, yes. Is that also the case when it's not a state density bonus law? Project? I'm just kind of serious.

[00:33:31] City Staff: Yes, property owners have the, um, option to rent them. Some CC&Rs, you know, limit in condominium projects, the percentage of that can be leased, but for the most part, you buy that unit, and you can rent it as you want.

[00:33:49] Councilmember John McAlister: So somebody has to buy it. The developer can't hold onto it and rent them.

[00:33:54] City Staff: They could also do that.

[00:33:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay, because, yeah, they would own it. Yeah.

[00:33:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Do we have any that are that way in our city?

[00:34:02] City Staff: I don't think we have any of the mixed type, where the owner, where the developer held onto some of them and rented them, but there's certainly a lot of condomanium map projects that are rented out.

[00:34:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, yes. Okay. And the EIR, that was done, the most recent EIR in the San Antonio area, was that for Merlongai or Phase 2, or was that for, what's it now called?

[00:34:26] City Staff: The Dean. The most reason EIR that was done was for, or not, actually it wasn't an EIR. It was a sequa checklist that was done for the Grey Star Project in California.

[00:34:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so the most recent EIR. Um, was the movie? Can you remind me about what it said about traffic in the San Antonio area? I should have sent this one in. The question was, the most recent EIR done. What did it say about traffic in the area?

[00:35:02] City Staff: I think we had to do a statement of overriding considerations. We did do a statement of overriding considerations for the adoption of the San Antonio precise plan, and specifically, there was a, um, there's an issue on the, at the intersection of El Camino and San Antonio.

[00:35:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thanks. That was the one I was thinking about. Um, let's see. And I guess that's all my questions.

[00:35:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did anyone else have any questions? Okay, if not, we were asked to questions, and since this is a study session, We will just, um, go through, and if we want to answer both of them at the same time, that's fine, and then at the end, we will summarize. Who would like to start? Council member Clark.

[00:35:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'll start. So, question one, in this particular case, just with the history here, this originally came to us a few years ago, I believe, and I remember at the time, I think Bill Masson was the architect on it, and it was a good project, and I remember some of us asking, since condos, especially in that particular area, stack flat condos were really rare, you know, if there was an opportunity to to add some additional density, and sort of, especially at that time because we had a sense for what Prometheus was going to propose, and just see, you know, if it wouldn't create any significant impacts or we wouldn't have an uprising of neighbors. whether we could get some extra stack by condos in there that might be more affordable entry level units. I wasn't anticipating, I'll be honest, I wasn't anticipating the density bonus application on top of that. If it made it really stick out in the area, I would probably have a pretty hard time with this. But I think, I think the combination of this being the product type that we've been looking for, I think, a more, frankly, I was surprised at the unit mix, the number of two and three bedrooms in this compared to studios and one bedrooms. Um, is a lot higher than I expected it to be. I think, I think in this case, the rezoning makes sense, and I'm willing to go along with the exceptions that are being requested. I think where my hangup is the community benefit. So, I think, I'm usually not a fan of, including units in ownership projects, like townhomes, just because, you know, the HOA and other Vs end up being so high that it's really, really hard for someone to maintain that, and they're really tempted just to rent it out. Um, But it's worked well, um, you know, in the complex that I live in, I think, other stackback owners where you have more of an entry-level product, um, and you have, you know, lower dues and other things like that, I think, is more doable, and it's actually worked out quite well. I think we have one or 2 teachers and a downtown business owner and some others. So I think I'm okay with including the units in this case. I think what we have to figure out is sort of where the what community benefits the most appropriate, and one of the things that I meant to ask in advance was, if this weren't along El Camino, for example, I think there's a public benefit formula, that's applied, and I was just curious sort of what that is or what that might be in this particular case. So, um, And then maybe we can think about that along with the extra .4.6 unit, um, and sort of think about the combined value of of maybe that's one framework to look through it or look at it through.

[00:39:01] City Staff: Correct, yeah. The San Antonio precise plan on El Camino real precise plan. Both have a kind of a standard calculation per square foot for a community benefit, and that's a $22.40, a square foot above the base density.

[00:39:19] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, so I didn't realize it was the same for San Antonio or El Camino, I thought, because we talked about El Camino a number of times in Nebraska. Okay, that's helpful. And then, um, And then, yeah, I think the other thing that I just want to make sure of is, is that the, the side that faces, um, the Hetch Hetchy, in case something ever does happen there, there's significant staff turnover to SPUC or some, something wonderful happens, um, where, where we have people who are much more, I think, willing to work with us. that we have the ability to open all of that up to the Hetch Hetchy. Because right now, I think, and I don't blame you for putting sort of shrubbery and other things there, but I think it, at some point, we may want to open all that up and ensure that there's contiguous access all the way, all the way along there. But I, in general, I support the project. I'm curious what my fellow council members say about the what they feel is the most appropriate in terms of community benefit formula or other things. I think there's the opportunity, especially if a school does go in there at the site. I think there'll be a lot of opportunities for, you know, safe routes and other transportation and pedestrian improvements. Vice mayor, I'll be Coca.

[00:40:37] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I did not see this gatekeeper when it 1st came in. Um, so in my eyes, I'm looking at this as a new project, frankly, um, in a sense, I could, you know, look at it as a gatekeeper project that's happening today. And, um, and I am looking at it in that way. Um, so, I like the project. It's answers to several of the issues we have been discussing in terms of wanting more ownership and wanting stack flats and wanting more entry, little, middle income units to offer. So, for that reason, I like the project, and I could support it. Um, so, and then I'm, you know, been trying to read the letter and the lawyer's letter and whatnot, and it sounds like there is a general plan, um, zoning difference with the, and so, in light of that, it seems like it's appropriate to rezone it. Um, because it's a gatekeeper. And, frankly, a new, again, I'm looking at it as a new gatekeeper, um, I think we should be, um, you know, really focusing in on what community benefits we will require to let it through. And, um, so I like the, um, BMR units, the inclusionary zoning, um, I guess my challenge with that right now, though, is in light of the timing, um, you know, by the time this project actually gets going, we will probably have done the part two, BMR part two, study session, and, um, I just think that, you know, the grandfather is in me, it's too close to that discussion for us to grandfather this in, as is. Um, so, you know, I mean, in my ideal, I'd like to require the 6.6. Um, but I know we still have to have that discussion. So I will leave that open, since this is a study session, but my expectation would be that it would be more than the five. Um, and that could be a part of the community benefit, um, give. Um, or, and the other types of community benefits I was looking for, and, frankly, the plaza is not of interest to me, to be honest, you're in front of a park and Chechi. I don't think we need a little 1500 square foot plaza in addition to that. In this area, you know, the two. And I remembered from doing the precise plan on San Antonio, is affordable housing and transportation, better routes. And in light of, especially Los Alta school districts, looks like they might be moving forward with their purchase, safe routes to school is very important when we had a meeting out there in the community about the school. There was quite a few folks who turned out from that area, Fayette, Del Medio, who crossed over to get to school in Los Altos. You know, I don't know what we can do with El Camino itself, but I think, um, definitely, you know, bike pit improvements, um, in that area would be very ideal for as a community benefit. The other thing too. I know it's a little further away, but now that we are seriously talking about the tunnel under Central Expressway. Um, I would also look at that as a potential option for community benefits. So, um, you know, we have to figure out, I think we have to figure out this BMR issue once we do part two. So I'm not inclined to say 5 is enough today. But in addition to that with community benefits, Let's look at transportation, you know, and, yeah, the tunnel. Thanks. Council member Kameh.

[00:44:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Um, so, I am gonna answer the two questions, and then get into some general comments and my thoughts. So, for question one, um, I do support the rezoning of the project into the San Antonio precise plan, um, it's kind of wedge between the El Camino precise plan and the San Antonio precise plan. Um, and I think it makes sense, given the intensity going on across the street from the project, um, to re zone it. Um, for question number 2 for the type of community benefit. I'm encouraged to the openness in the discussion for community benefit. I think, um, it would be, uh, especially with the, uh, state density bonus, kind of, I would hope that the plaza would be included in the project. Um, and we can talk, we could talk about kind of some of the transportation infrastructure, that the vice mayor mentioned, perhaps some traffic mitigation. Um, there's been some discussion about, um, the school. Um, you know, perhaps doing a little bit more in terms of contribution for a school fee. I think there's, I'd also be interested maybe in a community benefit related to the BMR mix. I think the, that's mostly when bedrooms, from what I remember, I don't know if that mix has changed, but if it, I think that could be something that I would be interested in. Moving on to general comments. I do appreciate the, um, opportunity for moderate income ownership opportunities. I think that that's really important. Stack flats is something council's been talking about for years now and exciting to see that go forward. And I think in terms of, and I think I mentioned this. Um, when I met with the applicant, was maybe some more kind of design activation, so a green wall or something to, um, uh, give it a little bit more articulation, I think, um, instead of just looking like many of the other projects that we see, uh, in the city, or perhaps in the public plaza that you do have, um, engaging with our visual arts committee for a piece of an opportunity for some public art there. I think that there's a couple different things that can happen there. Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[00:47:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I also generally support the project. I actually think it's gotten more handsome as it's grown taller, which is not always the case. Um, and I agree with, uh, what other council members have said about the, um, the big question is, the community benefit and kind of right sizing it, and I like that people are, throwing out various ideas. Oh, I would also, along the, I am concerned about the wall along. I think this is kind of what council member, Kamet, and Clark were saying the wall, along Hatch Hatchy, that it may be be articulated a little more, and some thought put into interfacing, you know, hopefully in our ideal world, where maybe that was a little more open to the park, some thought put into that. Um, so, in terms of benefits, I think, um, although I support rezoning it, I think we should have significant community benefits, because it is, you know, significantly, um, it will have significantly more impact in the area. I would like to see some, because it will impact the smaller building, the neighbors, if you're facing it, to the right. If you could allow them to use the pool and so forth instead of just look into it, I think that would be fabulous. Um, So, and I don't know if there's a way of expanding and making the plaza more useful in some way, um, But in addition to that, I think I would always appreciate, um, school donations, more affordability, um, and particularly, um, in this area, or any way, where bike pedestrian improvements, I actually walked in that area today, and I know it was hard to walk everywhere today, but, you know, tree canopy and so forth, it's just April, and it was almost impossible to walk. So I think anything that makes it easier for people to walk the neighborhood would be. And that, the whole San Antonio area in that area as well is, you know, does not have great pedestrian amenities in, in my opinion, and by amenities could be improved as well. Council member Ramirez?

[00:49:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, very briefly, since I think, uh, my comments will be substantially similar to everyone else's eye, uh, for question one, yes, uh, I appreciate the addition of ownership stacked flats in the area. I don't love the process for how we got here, but I do appreciate the product type. Um, and then for question two, um, I, a lot of good ideas here, and I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. I do think looking at safe routes to school is important, just given the addition, the, you know, whatever it ends up being vegan in the area. And then if there are opportunities to increase the number of BMR units, terrific. or if there's a financial contribution to the tunnel, You know, I'd be interested in that as well. So no strong feelings one way or the other. Thank you. Council member, McAllister.

[00:50:44] Councilmember John McAlister: I think this is the second condo complex that has come my way since I've been on the console. The other one was over at the car wash. I mean, this is a rare breed of a project, and I don't know why all of these other major developers say they can't build them, for whatever reason, so I applaud you for coming out forward and doing this. I also appreciate that you're putting three bedroom units into this project, because everything that we see. We continue to think about families and everything else we see along the lines of studios, ones and twos. At least we're able to get family leadership now. I totally support the project. I've always supported ownership. I usually am a little more open on ownership because we need it in this particular type of ownership. Entry level is a rare breed, as I say, other than a 40 some units that Mr. Council member Clark lives in. This is, we're doubling our newest developments in the few years, or many years that we've been here, so we're plugging right along. So thank you for that part. On the community benefits. San Antonio is going to be is a major thoroughfare. And I would like to see the money used for TMA or some kind of a set transportation. As we get into our goals later on today, I was talking about autonomous vehicle, something that would just go up and down from Foothill Expressway all the way up to 101. And this be a potential pilot project or something because what it would accomplish would move Los Altos, it would affect Los Altos. Mountain View and Palo Alto and would allow students to be able to cross El Camino in a safe manner. So I would rather see money spent that way since the school isn't big on blessing. It would help move retail because people that could be shopping along San Antonio could get on that from Los Altos and come up to the San Antonio Shopping Center and all the way up to Palo Alto. Palo Alto is putting a couple of new hotels up there. And so those people might want to hop on a shuttle that we have that brings us down to our retail areas. So anything that would improve the shuttle or autonomous vehicle along the San Antonio quarter would be my preference to where the money is spent. And I think it would benefit many of the various comments other people made. The tunnel, I think, is always a fallback on the San Antonio one over there for Caltrain, but if we had a shuttle, then maybe we could eliminate the Well, I still would want the tunnel, but I think that shuttle would be could go a long ways to accommodating a lot of reduced greenhouse gases, reduce congestion along San Antonio, provide safety for students and pedestrians. Thank you for bringing this forward.

[00:53:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I will disclose that I did meet with the applicant about this project, and similar to the vice mayor. This is my first time seeing it. I was not on counsel when this came forward as a gatekeeper. So I certainly have had a lot of issues with the process that this one has gone through. I feel like it's taken up in an ordinate amount of time. Um, staff resources, council resources, to address it so many times, and it looks like um, there's even more changes proposed since the meeting tonight. So, um, that kind of uh, doesn't sit well with me. In terms of the project, I am concerned about the impact in the San Antonio area. I don't think it makes sense to say this property is part of the San Antonio precise plan. There's already natural boundaries around the precise plan, um, streets and the Hetchechi, and this one's on the other side. And so why wouldn't everything else then on that other side be included in the San Antonio precise plan? Why just this one little area? So I don't think it makes sense to include it in the San Antonio precise plan. And because of that, um, certainly it would be a lower density project, um, but I'm okay with that, I am concerned about the impact on traffic, and we, it's very difficult to address traffic congestion in the San Antonio area. which is why we had to do the statement of overriding considerations for the San Antonio Precise Plan. I do appreciate, however, on the positive side, that this is stacked flat condos. Um, I do like that product, but I don't like this project. But I will comment on the community benefits. And since this is a gatekeeper, and because I think it is having such a major impact on the area, my expectations would be very high when it comes to community benefits. And I would prioritize the Mayfield Tunnel and improvements to bicycle and pedestrian experience in the area. And... I heard council member mentioned the tree canopy. That's always high priority for me. But I think the major contribution would be to the Mayfield tunnel.

[00:56:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments from council members? Council member Clark.

[00:56:24] Councilmember Chris Clark: I just wanted to go on the record for whatever thing. The, um, I, I think the, I appreciate the word you're doing in the plaza, 'cause even though Hetch Hetchy may or may not happen in my lifetime, I think having the park across the street will be, it'll be a nice place to sort of sit. I'm not sure that qualifies in my mind as the whole community benefit, but I think it's a nice element, so I wouldn't do away with that. I think I just wanted to go on the record saying the side facing Hetch Hetchy. I actually think you've done a really good job with the articulation, the colors, and the corner sections of it. So I don't think I'm not advocating for redesign at this point, but I think there could be some ways like a green wall or, you know, these trees are sort of just shadowed in. I don't know if there are some elements, some more mature trees or things that you, I don't even know if Hetchachi would let you plant those there, but, um, If you do anything with that side, and I'm not saying you shouldn't. I think it can be, you know, treatments to it, such as a green wall lighting, other thing. I don't think you need to redesign at this point, because I think you've, there's sufficient articulation on that side, I think. And I think the corner, I think the draw of the eye to those corners actually helps quite a bit.

[00:57:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, what I, unless there's any other comments from council members, um, or questions from staff?

[00:57:48] Unknown Speaker: If I could just ask a question, maybe, of the planning staff, would it be normal for us to count BMR units as a community benefit? I think, as I was looking at the slide, they were valuing $2.5 million as a community benefit, if I read that correctly. My take on it is that's a requirement. So would we consider that a communion benefit, or as the expectations council is talking about, is above and beyond that level. Just want to make sure everyone has a same understanding, including the applicant.

[00:58:24] Planning Staff: Yeah, including them into the project, could be considered a community benefit, but the units themselves would not be a community benefit, unless they go above and beyond.

[00:58:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry. Vice mayor.

[00:58:41] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: you. So, I just, my understanding is the project would require 4.4 now, or 6.6, if we change the formula. Um, so that standard required. And so above that is what I'm expecting, if it's going to be affordable housing as our community benefit ask.

[00:59:08] Planning Staff: Yeah, that's correct. Thank you.

[00:59:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um, my summary is that the majority supports this being incorporated into the San Antonio Precise Plan, and that there are expectations for community benefits. A lot were mentioned. I'd say the ones that I heard the most are contributions to the Mayfield Tunnel, safe routes to schools, bike pet, well, which could be bike pet improvements, and additional BMR units. And traffic, um, either, well, you're the only person who said that. But I was going to say the overall concept of transportation and congestion, doing something to address that, whether it be a shuttle or other things that could potentially be done. But there were, again, there were so many others mentioned that I'd say there's probably openness to other things, but those were the ones that were said the most. Anything else? Okay, if not, we will close this item. And, um... let's see. I would say we should continue on with the regular meetings. It's we're right on time for that. So we will move to the regular meeting and call it to order, and we will start with the pledge of allegiance, if you will join me in that.

[01:01:07] Unknown Speaker: Indvisible for liberty and justice.

[01:01:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Our city clerk could announce attendance.

[01:01:19] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[01:01:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. The next item is the consent calendar, and these items will be approved by one motion, unless any member of the council or audience wishes to remove the item for discussion. The reading of the full text of ordinances and resolutions will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. Are there any items that a council member would like to pull? No, you're not. Council member McAllister?

[01:01:53] Councilmember John McAlister: 4.6.

[01:01:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other items from council members? Any member of the public wishing to pull an item? Okay, seeing none? Um... Hang one a minute. Sorry, Council member McAllister, he pulled 4.6. Did you want to make a comment on that?

[01:02:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, I had a question separately.

[01:02:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, whatever you would like. Go ahead.

[01:02:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Just have a question, go forward. Okay. Uh, city manager. 4.6. Why are we able to do this in house?

[01:02:42] City Manager Dan Rich: I don't know, and our public works, staff is not here, 'cause we weren't informed that it was gonna be pulled. Um, but this is, I think this is part of a bigger project. It's noted in the council questions. It's over $100,000 project, so that's not something that we have the capacity to do ourselves.

[01:03:02] Councilmember John McAlister: $100,000, I mean, putting up a building nowadays costs $100,000, so I was just... Are we...

[01:03:08] City Manager Dan Rich: The issue of... Have the... effort, the expertise, the capacity. There's a lot of different factors that go into when we outsource and do things ourselves. I don't know the details on this one, we'd be happy to get back to you, then.

[01:03:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you.

[01:03:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, there is a motion by Council member of Clark and a second by Council member Ramirez. Motion is just to approve the consent calendar. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, let's vote. It's like a little bit longer. And the consent calendar passes unanimously. Okay, next is item five, which is oral communications, and 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 up to three minutes during this section. Is there anyone who wishes to talk to us about items that are not on the agenda, and the items that are on the agenda, are CDBG, and home allocation, and then council goals and projects to support those goals. So if it's on something other than those two items... Okay, it looks like we don't have any one wishing to speak on something, not on the agenda, so we will move to the public hearing. which is the fiscal year 2019 to 2020 CDBG and home funding recommendations. And we have as our presenters, Helsing and neighborhood services manager. Actually, is he gonna be here, Tim Wong?

[01:05:20] Unknown Speaker: He is. Staff is going to go in.

[01:05:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. And then, um, assistant community development director, Wayne Chen. So bear with us, just a couple minutes, and then we'll have the staff presentation. I have no idea.

[01:07:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, now we can have a staff presentation. The key people are here.

[01:07:16] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: Okay, so good evening. Again, my sincere apologies for my tardiness. Tonight before you are the funding recommendations for the CDBG and home funds for fiscal year 1920. 20, yeah, 1920. So just a quick recap of how we got here. Applications started were circulated in December through January, and we had our 1st public hearings with the HRC on February 7th. They considered public service applications, and on March 7th, were capital project applications. Their recommendations were folded into the draft action plan, and that has been circulated for 30 days for public review. A city has not received any comments. And tonight, we are here for the council public hearing. And after this hearing, then the council recommendations will be prepared in the action plan and sent off to HUD. Usually, uh, we send the action plan to HUD by May 15th, but since the city received its allocation later than anticipated, the new deadline is June 15th. So just a quick primer about the CDBG program, excuse me, community development block rant, CDBG for short. It's a HUD administered program, and we receive approximately 500,000 annually for use for capital projects or public services. However, any one of the activities used to fund, any activity must meet one of 3 national objectives. For the most part, all activities in the city have met the 1st objective, which is benefiting low and moderate income persons. The home program is a little bit more focused than the CDBG program in which home funds can only be used to build affordable housing for the most part, bricks and mortar. And so because of that, there are no funds available through home for public services. In addition, home requires that 15% of the city's allocation be set aside for a community, um, housing development organization, not a community, um, or a choto, a, And that is, uh, a requirement very specific to home funds. And although they don't have national objectives, one of the requirements is, um, any of the housing provided cannot exceed 80% AMI. That's the absolute maximum income level, if you will. In addition, to the national objectives and the home requirements, the council, through the consolidated plan, created these policies, and just in brief, the consolidated plan is the city's 5 year long range, if you will, plan for federal funding. And through a long public process, a priority, the public identifies certain goals and priorities. And any future CDBG funding or home funding has to be consistent with this consolidated plan. So the current consolidated plan runs through 2015 to 2020. So we will, staff will be uh, about to embark on the preparation of the 2020, 2025 consolidated plan. But going back, these are the council priorities as outlined in the current consolidated plan. And it just so happened that we received our allocation, but up to this point, I would like to point out that staff went by estimates of how much the city would receive in both CDBG and home funds. So for the CDBG side, um, staff estimated 500,000, uh, with program income, which is considered loan repayments or loan payoffs from past CDBG loans. And so staff estimates that about 100,000 in payments will be coming in through that for a total availability of 600,000 for CDBG. On the home side, uh, staff estimated, uh, 200,000 for 1920. And we did receive our allocation in which for CDBG, we got 563,000, which is approximately a 12.8% increase over what staff had estimated. And for HUD. We got 264,000 versus the 200,000, which is, I had calculated, approximately a 45% increase or something like that. So starting off with the Capitol Project request, excuse me. With CDBG, up to 65 or at least 65% of any CDBG allocation needs to be used for capital projects, capital projects being considered as bricks and mortar type projects. And um, using the estimated 500,000 uh, staff moved forward with 390,000 devoted for capital projects. In addition, home funds, again, does not allow for public services. And so a large majority needs to go towards affordable or capital projects. And in this instance, 180,000 is was estimated to be devoted for capital projects. And under CDBG, these are some eligible capital project activities, infrastructure, such as ADA ramp, repairs, are eligible, rehab of rental housing, public facilities, such as a homeless shelter, and support of new rental construction, site preparation, or even soft costs, such as studies, in anticipation for the construction of affordable housing. In addition, homeowner rehab, single-family rehab is an eligible activity, and also a site acquisition for rental housing could be used. You can use CDBG funds. Here are some examples of home funding, primarily, I'm sorry, the sentences highlighted in yellow are the ones that the city has used in the past. So for the home program, rehabilitation rental housing has been a very popular use. We're using it for the Short Breeze apartments, as we speak, Paulson Park, is another example. But in addition, site acquisition, it can use be used for down payment assistance, and tenant base rental assistance also. But again, it's much more limited in its scope of uses. So on March 7th, the HRC considered capital funding requests and here, the city received 3 capital project applications, and these are the funding recommendations as per the HRC, for, you can see in yellow, are the CDBG funding recommendations, and in the orange-ish type column are the home recommendations. So moving on, as part of the CDBG home cycle, our public service requests, those are more to pay for administration and operations. So, in the CDBG program, up to 15% of the allocation can be devoted to public services, and the city has always used that maximum 15% for public services. So in this instance, it's estimate it at $90,000. And here are some examples of eligible uses for public services. And as you can see, those highlighted in yellow are activities that have been used in the past. And it's a kind of small chart, but these are the CDBG recommendations as recommended by the HRC on February 7th. Um, In addition to CDBG public service recommendations, the HRC also does consider general fund public service applications. And in this instance, staff used $220,724. That was the 1819 budgeted amount for these general fund public services, and so staff assumed the same amount. Also, just to highlight in December of 2018, the city revamped its nonprofit funding organization process. And part of that is to make it more closely aligned with federally funded applications, just one dot point that out. So this is a two-part table, since there are so many applications that were received for general fund public services, so you can see the HRC's recommendations, again, highlighted in yellow on the right hand side. And that's part one, and here is part two. And you can see that the total amount of requests exceed the amount budgeted. And so with the final tally, about $220,707 was allocated for general fund public services. So, uh, kudos to the HRC for being under budget, so to speak, $17. Lastly, um, there's also, a staff is requesting that the council review, a 201819 Annual Action Plan amendment, in 201819. The council had approved $191,784 to do an ADA improvement for Hope's Corner. However, they received other funding sources, so they were able to complete the work sooner than before the CDBG funds were ready. So therefore, they are requesting that the use of the funds be changed to do a bathroom remodel and to install a fire sprinkler system. So the change of use is the amendment, but the amount of funds stays the same. They are not asking for additional funding. And per the cities citizen participation plan, this constitutes a substantial amendment, therefore, it needs to be brought back to the council for their approval. And therefore, this is the litany of recommendations, as staff has requested, and that concludes my presentation again. My apologies for tardiness. Happy to answer any questions that the council may have. Thank you.

[01:20:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any questions from council members? before we open it up for public comment? Council member McAllister.

[01:20:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I had a question about the 120,000 administrative fee. Is there an option that we don't charge that, and we could incorporate that into other programs?

[01:20:34] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: CDBG requirements say that you can use up to 20% for administration, and therefore, that's...

[01:20:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, let's say, can we take general funds to administer that fund and then use that 120,000, which is the CDBG money, which is limited to what it can be used for?

[01:20:58] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: The short answer is, yes, the federal government allows it, and historically, we have always done that, as my understanding is that fee is not sufficient to actually fully cover our costs of administering the program, so we're already subsidizing the program through the general fund. But, yes, the city council could reallocate general funds to further support the program.

[01:21:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[01:21:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[01:21:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. This is a general question. Over the years, we've done this, and I guess I've started becoming more curious about the outcomes or the results of our, you know, funding, like what kinds of outcomes are we getting? And, um, I know they, I know that each organization fills out the application, I asked for the new one recently, but, um, are the organizations in contact with staff on a more regular basis so that you're, at least, staff is updated on the activities, because, you know, we may be here from them once you're doing this process, but a few, I know we interact with regularly, as council members, um, some, we sit But, there are a lot of organizations, honestly, that I just don't ever hear from, to be honest. And so I just wanted to know, like, what is our contact or communication with these groups that we fund?

[01:22:35] City Staff: Thank you, vice mayor. Yes, the city is in staff is in contact with the various CDBG funded agencies. They are required to submit quarterly reports. And as part of that, on an annual basis, staff consolidates all those reports and reports to HUD as a HUD required document called the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report, or Caper for short, and that's due to HUD every September.

[01:23:10] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Is that available online or, um, how would we, other than asking you for it? How can we access that?

[01:23:17] City Staff: Yes, that's always posted on the city's housing website.

[01:23:20] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great.

[01:23:21] City Staff: Just to add that the city conducts periodic on-site monitoring for each of the funded agencies as well.

[01:23:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you.

[01:23:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[01:23:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Following up from the vice mayor's question. So you had said that the, uh, the monitoring, uh, requirements for the general fund, uh, or the programs funded through the general fund are, are being aligned with the same requirements imposed on the CDBG home, uh, programs. Can you tell us a little bit more about what those requirements are and how the general fund programs may differ from CDBG and home?

[01:24:02] City Staff: For 1st is requiring reporting on a quarterly basis, just as the same as the federally funded sub-recipients. Another way is that the general fund, those public service applications must be consistent with the 5 council priorities as outlined in the consolidated plan. I think many are very similar. The only thing, and many of those general fund, if not all, sub recipients, also serve the low income households. And so I think for the most part, many of the general fund applications are very consistent, if not wholly compliant with federal requirements.

[01:24:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And just to be clear, historically, we haven't had those reporting requirements, but moving forward, we will have that for the general fund public service programs.

[01:25:07] City Staff: That is correct.

[01:25:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Got it. Thank you.

[01:25:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Go ahead.

[01:25:17] Councilmember John McAlister: So, I got one question here. I was looking at your table four. And there's a lot of great programs, do a lot of great things, but has anybody... And I was reading also the who, in the council questions that says who's successful, you know, what programs are more successful than others, and CSA came out as one of the most successful programs that we invest in. Have we ever gone to CSA and said, you know, we have all these other grants. Is this something that you can also do? versus, you know, I'm trying to think of the, or that's similar to that, because I'd rather, if CSA is able to do something in-house, I'd rather spend more money to them because it's a one-stop type of a project. And so has anybody ever evaluated, went to them and said, hey, CSA, can you do these things versus all these other different programs we have?

[01:26:09] City Staff: I don't know about the past, but I have not done an assessment of or of CSA services. So, but that can be, um, staff can reach out to the CSA staff to see if there's any.

[01:26:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. That would be appreciated. Thank you.

[01:26:28] City Staff: I think we had something to say. No? I was going to ask for any kind of clarification about particular grants or types of programs that you had in mind, so that if we were to have a conversation, we would be...

[01:26:42] Councilmember John McAlister: I mean, anything that's on this page, you know, has this page been submitted to any other of the group on here and say, Hey, we do the similar thing, we may be doing it efficiently, we maybe can do more of it. And I'm just saying, sort of, sort of indirectly. It like competitive RFP says, hey, we have all these programs or projects that are out here. Can you do it? and maybe do it better. That's all. To serve these various. I mean, there's a lot of, as I say, a lot of needy programs in here, but maybe the one that we know that is very comprehensive in Mountain View might be able to do some of these others. And that's why I say, you know, give them more money.

[01:27:22] City Staff: Just comment on that. I mean, obviously, everything here is public. The whole process is public with numerous public meetings, so all the agencies know who's applying for what, and to do what? And we certainly encourage any agency who thinks they have a particular value to add to the community to submit that application. So if CSA or any of them think they can do something new or different or better than another group, then we would encourage them to submit that as a formal application.

[01:27:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[01:27:53] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I just said one question. And you talked about the quarterly reporting, and I wish I had looked at that, or known about it, um, and looked at it on the website, but does that show specifically for the funds that Mountain View gives an agency, what they spend it on, or is it consolidated?

[01:28:11] City Staff: This is the entire agency's resources, and this is how it's used. In the caper, each agency is valuated on its own merits based on what they submit as part of their application, let's say we'll help 50 people for the upcoming year. And so we will look at that and say, based on your quarterly reports, you exceeded your goal, or if they did not, why? And so it is on a agency by agency basis, not a consolidated.

[01:28:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right, but within an agency, if they're getting funding from, say, 5 different sources, does it match the money they get from one source with the activities that that money was spent on? So we could see for sure that the money we're contributing is being spent on the things that we think it's being spent on.

[01:29:08] City Staff: Um, we make sure that they spend the city's CDBG funds on those services that they ask that they have requested. In other words, if they get money for housing rehab and they're spending it on staff, then that's certainly not a, it's certainly not okay as part of the program. And so we try to tease out as much as possible, but sometimes some of these agencies do get multiple funding sources. So sometimes it can be difficult.

[01:29:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I would imagine it would be.

[01:29:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Any other council questions? Okay, seeing no one in the queue. Um, we will open this up for public comment. If anybody has any comments on this topic, this is the funding or the allocation of CDBG and home funds. Come on up to the microphone. So if, yeah, before you speak or after you speak, please fill out a speaker card and... And, um...

[01:30:34] Jordan Dancer: Good evening, members of the council staff and members of the public. My name is Jordan Dancer. I'm the grant's manager at Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence, where a autonomous nonprofit that have been providing services in Santa Clara County for 48 years. We are a specialized service. Our staff are trained, certified domestic violence counselors, which are required under federal and state law and order for us to receive federal and state funding to do domestic violence services. Also, with our shelter, where required by state law to provide very specific services and confidentiality, is a primary thing that we need to establish, which are why we are required to be trained in certified DVPer counselor. Advocates. Other people can counsel survivors of domestic violence, but they don't carry the confidentiality status that we do. So if their records are subpoenaed in any way, they may not have the protections under law that we're able to offer. I want to thank the council for considering our request, and for the commission and staff's recommendation for funding, this is our 1st request to the city of Mountain View for funding. And the funding would support approximately 50 Mountain View residents who come to us for services through 3 key programs. Domestic violence violates the human rights of women and girls, limiting their opportunities, full participation, and advancement in society. It is gender-based violence and requires specific efforts of women's equity, empowerment, and advancement. Our services are based on the survivor defined advocacy model, which positions us to work with survivors, so they can define their needs, and from that knowledge, we can move forward to assist them in addressing immediate, short, and long term goals, through specific services that address crisis, safety, stability, and self-sufficiency. Those receiving services shall gain strategies to increase their and their children's safety, increase resilience, knowledge, of supportive resources, and reduce isolation, which is key, and also to maintain their level of self-sufficiency, in particular, not to become homeless, and also maybe increase their level of self-sufficiency so they become less dependent on public services or on their abuser's income. We are on a mission, to end domestic violence in the moment, and for all time, by creating paths for survivors, from crisis to safety, stability, and self-sufficiency, and we hope that you will support the continuation of services that your residents already receive by approving our funding request. Thank you.

[01:33:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:33:35] Marcia DeLaurier: Hi, I'm Marcia DeLaurier, the executive director at check, we are the mental health provider for services for the residents of Mountain View, and I'm so happy to be here tonight to speak with you. I confess it has been a long time since I've been here, I think too long, a little bit too long. We've been very busy at check in these last two years, particularly in the last two years. And regrettably, I would say, at the price of sharing our accomplishments with the city and the leadership of the city. So I hope you'll allow me to rectify that in the near future. I'm having an annual update with you for an update on what check services are, and how we're impacting the residents. But for now, I just want to take a couple of minutes to talk to you about the CDPG grant for our capital expenditure for check. And on Thursday, I'll have the privilege of returning to talk to you about our general operating request as well. Our request for this one time capital expenditure for the CDPG funds is to partially fund an HVAC system at Shaq's Building on El Camino and View Street. The system is 30 years old. The compressors are not working. It was 85 degrees when I left my office. The building becomes unbearably hot in the summer months, and it really creates a potentially hazardous situation for our clients and for our staff. The system is at a risk for failure. We have no option, except for replacement, as it cannot be repaired because of the age of the system. We're delighted to say that the new system that is proposed will be environmentally friendly and expected to reduce our energy costs as well. And I might add that it's extremely difficult to hire and retain staff, as we know in the valley, and having a comfortable work environment, is really a plus to being able to make the work environment more pleasant for them, and it really goes a long way with them. So I appreciate your consideration for our capital requests. We are one of the three that, with the support of the staff, applied for this grant. And I look forward to your consideration, and I look forward to seeing you again on Thursday as well.

[01:35:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Before you leave, we have a question for you.

[01:35:51] Unknown Speaker: Question. Thank you. So you said partially fund. What other funding sources are you seeking to complete this?

[01:35:58] Marcia DeLaurier: At the moment, um, uh, we are, frankly, our reserves for our agency are only a two month reserves, so we don't really have a lot of options in that area with the county. There may be some county funds for the additional funds. There's approximately another 75,000 or so in additional funds that we will raise to do this work as well. But we will have that available to us.

[01:36:22] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you.

[01:36:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Just to remind everybody, be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak and leave it with our city clerk.

[01:36:31] Leslie Carmichael: Good evening. I'm Leslie Carmichael with Hope's Corner, and I'm here to speak in support of the amendment to the 201819 Annual Action Plan. This would redirect funds that were previously approved for ADA improvements at 748 Mercy Street to be used for fire sprinklers and a restroom remodel at that site. There are several activities that occur at that site. And the two that are most in alignment with the CDBG goals are Hope's corner, which offers free showers and meals. to homeless and low income people. And also the cold weather shelter that's operated by home first and funded by the county. And, in fact, the city required that before the shelter can operate for a third season, this coming fall, that fire sprinklers have to be installed in the building. So redirecting the funding and approving the Plan Amendment would enable that to happen. And Hope's Corner is proposing to manage the construction work so that that can happen. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[01:37:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[01:37:47] Tom Meyers: Good evening, Madam Mayor, and council members. Tom Meyers, Executive Director at Community Services Agency, CSA, as it's identified up on the screen, and in the community quite frequently. I won't go through all of the programs that we work with the city on. I will say that the most important part of any funding that we receive from the city is showing the partnership that we have with this city. Mountain View is very lucky to have CSA in our community. One of the reasons why I took the job years ago was because as a Mountain View resident at the time. I felt very strongly that, uh, this was an organization that I could believe in. As you know, our programs are all concentrated on two things, food, and roof over people's head, making sure that those things are there for everyone, those very basic needs, that are there for everyone. I would like to, however, quickly just address council member McAllister's comments. I appreciate the note that we have been very successful in our programs. All of the credit for that goes to our staff, but I will point out that no one agency can do it. It would be way beyond our bandwidth to even try. So the most important thing we do in the community is work with other agencies. And there is not a single agency on this list that we aren't in some sort of communication or collaboration with. And that's very important. Now, if you'd like us to step up that collaboration, we'll be more than happy to do that. If you'd like us to look at other things that we can do or try and do better. We'll be happy to look at that as well. But no one agency can do it all. So thank you very much.

[01:39:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[01:39:40] Director Theresa Johnson: Thank you, members of the council, for taking, uh, the time to hear from us. My name is Theresa Johnson, and I'm the director of Meals on Wheels for the Health Trust. And you've been very supportive of our program in the past, providing, um, meals for homebound, uh, nutritionally at risk seniors who are low or very low income. The health trust is a local nonprofit dedicated to providing health equity in Santa Clara County, so we serve every city in the county. Your contribution to our program is really, really important, because we leverage those funds in order to get other funding. For example, a couple of years ago, um, your generous donation to our program allowed us to more than double our, uh, the number of people that we're able to serve in Mountain View. And that is because we were able to leverage your funding with some private sector funding and a local foundation. So it really is important, and we thank you very much for that. Several years ago, one of the things that cities ask us all the time is, how do you know how many people out there need your service? We used to not be able to answer that question, but now we can. And so we did a food for everyone report a couple of years ago. expanded it from San Jose to all the local cities, and then we update that. Our most recent information I've just passed out to you, shows that there are approximately 386 seniors in Mountain View, who are homebound, nutritionally at risk, and low income. We're currently serving, along with other some other agencies, about 146 of those seniors, which is less than half of that number. But with your support, we'll continue to serve the seniors, and as well as expand our services. We are unique. We provide daily Monday through Friday hot meal deliveries. We also provide socialization for our seniors. Our drivers spend time talking with them, our staff visits them. We have bachelor of social work interns that make home visits and things like that. Not only do we provide hot and nutritious meals, but we also can provide free groceries for the clients who need additional food. We do wellness checks. So if our driver does not find someone at home, they will contact our office, and we will follow up and try to reach someone on their emergency list. There's been many, many times when our drivers have had to call for an ambulance, or have been there when someone's fallen and was able to get help for them as quickly as possible. Resources. We work with almost every single agency that's here today. Um, including the community services agency. If you can rent up. We refer our clients to other agencies for food equipment. Emergency housing, all kinds of things. Thank you.

[01:42:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:43:00] Associate Director Sharon Hudson: Hi. I'm Sharon Hudson. I'm the associate director at Vista Center for the Blind Abishly Impaired. And, uh, we work with a, luckily, well, I would say it was a low incident, um, population, but unfortunately, it's growing. The population of visually impaired is going to double by 2030, according to the prevention of blindness. One of the things with loss of vision, it negatively impacts the person's life. They both their health, their wellness, for all visually impaired, and especially for seniors. They have difficulty with identifying medication, which can lead to them either over medicating, under medicating, or overdose even. Fall risk because you can't see the obstacles in front of you. Cooking becomes difficulty even pouring a cup of coffee for yourself becomes almost impossible. when you're visually impaired and managing your home, your bills, things like that. It also leads to isolation, depression, with the loss of vision. And it also affects the family. And I don't know if a lot of people realize this, if one person is feeling uncomfortable, because of the vision loss, they don't typically want to go out, they're feeling depressed, they don't want to be with their friends, because they feel like they would be a burden. Well, they want to stay home when something social is going on. Well, typically, their spouse is gonna stay home with them, and it also isolates the staff, the spouse, or family members who feel like they need to take care of that person. Our organization provides the full services of social services, counseling, both individuals, and support groups, daily living skills, which covers the, um, medical management, home management, Uh, orientation, mobility, which a lot of people think of as white cane travel, uh, so that they can get out and about uh, cross streets. You can imagine crossing El Camino, when you can't see the traffic, it would be quite a effort. And we also provide social rec, and a low vision clinic, doctors who specialize in the devices that you won't find at your regular eye doctor, the magnification devices, video magnifiers, things like that that you wouldn't find otherwise. And, uh, so we appreciate the support of the city so that we can serve the people of Mountain View, uh, about 80% of our clients, our low income. And one of you asked about, uh, the funding. And yes, we make sure that the funding is directly aimed at the people of Mountain View and specifically for the services. Thank you.

[01:45:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else?

[01:46:04] Joe MacDonald: Joe MacDonald. I'm speaking for myself, as well as AAH, in saying every year, when counsel deliberates and makes the decisions about which organization's applications will be honored. I am hardened by the number of programs that the city actually does help fund, especially affordable housing, but all the other agencies that do that do provide services. And I'm also saddened by the fact that there aren't enough funding sources for all of the applicants, because it's a hard choice. I want to spend just a moment to add to Jack's executive director comments. And HVAC is... actually really needed when Mountain View gets hot, and today is a very important lesson about that, because it was hot today. And serving clients in an environment that is uncomfortable when they're already experiencing discomfort, just adds to the burden. If check needs to use other funds, that means that there are fewer dollars. for serving more clients, and presently, and this is very unfortunate, Jack has a waiting list, because the need keeps growing for mental health services, particularly among school kids, but also families, because the families are, obviously, affected by the students. problems. So, I hope an HVAC is in check's future. Thank you.

[01:48:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[01:48:37] Directing Attorney Georgia Basile: Good evening. I'm Georgia Basile, directing attorney of senior adults, legal assistance, and I'm sorry, I need to see how much time I have. Thank you. I have some low vision problems myself. We're a nonprofit law office, and we provide free legal services to older adults, that is seniors throughout Santa Clara County, and here in Mountain View, as well. We target clients that are very low income or at risk of abuse or loss of independence. We are the only legal aid program in Santa Clara County designated to provide these services, so we are truly a unique service. Our current funding for Mountain View enables us to expand our appointments at the Mountain View Senior Center, because that's the way we primarily provide services, and we do want to thank the city for that support. The senior center, schedules our appointments. They provide a private room for us to meet with clients, and they help coordinate our services there every month. We really do appreciate that. We could not provide services on site. without that pro bono support from the senior center. Last year, 65% of the Mountain View seniors, we served, were very low income. Almost half were 75 or older, and 30% had a disability, and these are factors placing them at risk of loss of independence. So, not surprisingly, we continue to see seniors with legal problems related to the public benefits. They rely on social security, SSI, Medicare, Medical, and again, these are legal issues, not helping them with applications. We continue to see seniors that are at risk of eviction, or whose housing is otherwise in jeopardy, including seniors that need reasonable accommodations, because they need air conditioning due to their disability, and we do many times settle those cases. We regrettably continue to see seniors that are victims of elder abuse, usually by someone living in their home or someone they know an adult child, grandchild, someone they rented a room out to, a caregiver, even their neighbors. And we are attorneys. We provide the full range of legal assistance from getting TROs all the way through getting the regular restraining order, doing whatever wraparound services are needed for our clients. And we do some very basic planning for incapacity with powers of attorney and advanced healthcare directors, and that's about the extent of our planning, because a private bar can handle other cases. We really do appreciate the support we receive from you. It helps us leverage other funding. It obviously helps us expand our services at your senior center. And I do want to assure you that we've been funded since 1985, '86, and I've been around since then, and every quarter, we have submitted financial reports, and service reports documenting how we're spending your money. We are very well monitored by the city of Mountain View, and we like that because it tells our story to you very objectively. So thank you so much for your support, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[01:51:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:51:36] Kathleen King: Hi, my name is Kathleen King, and I'm from Healthier Kids Foundation, and you might notice we all know each other really well, and do work well together, and I'm on the little kids' side, so that's where I'm interested in the funding. My belief is, if we can catch vision issues when children are very small, Three, 4, and 5 year olds, we help them with their vision before they go to school. So, um, the advantage of funding so many of us is we do use your funding to ask people for other funding. And especially helps us with other funders. We can say, well, the city already gives. So we think you should give. And so it's very helpful to get funding from all of you. I will say this in front of your city manager. When I used to work with him. He didn't have any gray hair. So he can probably guess, but I will say, but many of us have very young employees. I think 80% of my employees are under 28 and I try and keep efficiency high. We work on it continuously. But when the funds keep going down, it is kind of hard on our employees. We'd love to have them living in mountain view. So if you do have room in the general fund, I think all of the organizations that are here would really appreciate it. And I just want to thank you. been a great supporter for us for many years. And any of your children you want vision screened? We love doing it. We've put about 6000 children in glasses using their own health insurance, which is what our goal is. Thank you.

[01:53:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:53:24] Executive Director Karen Skusla: Good evening. My name is Karen Skusla. the executive director of child advocates of Silicon Valley. We are the court appointed Special Advocate Agency for Santa Clara County. We recruit, train, and support community members to work with children in the foster care system. So, these are children who've been removed from the care of their parents due to having experienced use and neglect. The children that we serve are ages 0 to 21. And what we do is we recruit a volunteer, train them so that they can speak up for that child. In addition to being a friend and a mentor. We actually have a court order. And so when the child's case is being debated by the attorneys and the judges to determine, where will this child live? What school services do they need? How are they doing in terms of their medical and dental services? Our advocates submit a court report, and the judges seriously consider all those recommendations. You asked about outcomes earlier. And if you've done any research on foster children, you'll realize that few of the 50% of foster children complete high school. For the past 2 years, 95% of the high school seniors that we've supported with the casa in Santa Clara County have completed high school. So by having the attention of that devoted adult, whether they're in pres going to preschool or 3rd grade readers, or making that transition from 8th grade and ninth grade, that critical age, when many children sort of drop out, we follow the children all through those stages. Not only do our children graduate from high school at a much higher rate, but 80% of our children continue their education. We do surveys of our children when they're 18, 19, and 20, and our children beat the odds. They are far more likely to continue their education, they have housing, they have employment, many of them continue on to get their associate's degree. And our goal is to ensure that they become productive healthy adults. So thank you very much for Mountain View. Our goal is to serve every single child in Mountain View. The funds that we request only cover about 20% of our cost. So we can assure that all of your dollars go to support Mountain View children, and we really appreciate the partnership, and you're helping us raise the visibility of the need for more volunteers and to serve all children. And then, lastly, just as one little reminder. I don't know how many of you still read the paper or subscribe to the Mercury News, but, um, you know that they have a wish book every year. In this past year, child advocate story was around a Mountain View girl. She was removed from her father due to having experienced abuse by her father and her uncle. She is basically on her own, and through the assistance and support of her mountain view casa, is not only graduating from high school, but is looking at college filling out applications, is determined to change the course of her life. So thank you very much for your support. Thank you.

[01:56:07] Millie Gong: Hi, my name is Millie Gong, and I've addressed this council on several different occasions, and tonight I have the honor of addressing you in my relatively new position as the development manager for parents helping parents, a nonprofit based in San Jose that was started in 1976. And I'm here tonight to ask for your support for some of Mountain View's very special residents. Today, one in 5 children have been diagnosed with some sort of special need, be it ADHD, a learning disability, dyslexia, autism, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, and unfortunately many, many more. Mental illness is becoming an epidemic in our schools. And we at parents helping parents are here to support the children, and especially the parents. So we help the parents navigate the labyrinth of services that are available out there. And if you can imagine, your child was diagnosed with a special need. Where do you go? Where do you even start? You call us and we answer the phone and we call you back in 24 hours or less. You come into our offices and meet with our education specialists, or you come to our website and actually 3000 unique visitors come to our website every month and download e-packets and watch our online videos of how to apply for benefits or how to even start this journey. And we have those available in multiple languages. Um, we provide one-on-one counseling. We provide trainings of how to apply for public benefits and how we're sharing the journey with you. We provide support groups, and all of this is free of charge. The majority of our families qualify for free and reduced lunch, and English is their 2nd language, the majority of our families. Annually, we serve 500, 5500 families, in addition to those 3000 unique visitors, and over the past 20 years, we've served nearly a 1000 mountain view families. And in 2018, 100 of those were just this past year. We at PHP, our program staff is uniquely positioned to serve our families because 95% of our program staff, our parents have special needs children themselves. And when we talk to our families and we say we have been there before we understand what you're going through and it is really hard. And that happened to my child as well. 99% of our parents report that they are very pleased with our services, and I would love to send you follow-up information of the testimonials, how parents helping parents really was pivotal, pivotal, in changing those parents' life, where she heard about this specific organization, um, Nami, the National Association mental illness, and she would have never heard about it unless she went to a support group in our offices. And I hope you will affirm the HRC's funding recommendation. And I thank you for supporting special needs children in Mountain View, and on a personal note, I have been here at 130 in the morning, listening to these council members, have reasonable, thoughtful debate, and make policies that will benefit all of Mountain View residents, and I thank you for your service. Thank you.

[01:59:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So anyone else who wants to address us on this topic? Okay, seeing none, we will close the public input portion and bring it back to council for discussion and a vote. Any comments from council members? Vice mayor Abbe Koga.

[01:59:38] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, yes, I just wanted to, um, thank staff and our HRC members for their, um, hard work. This is, um, you know, quite detailed, going through all the applications and hearing the, um, the testimonies. And so having been on the HRC, I understand the hard work that goes into this. Actually, I think we gave it to the HRC after I moved on to council because we just wanted some help in doing this. I know the CDBG funding is always a concern, it seems to be getting reduced. almost yearly from the federal government, you know, we do our best with what we have. We have increased our general fund. Um, uh, amounts, and somewhat in response to that. I know it's always difficult because there's never enough funding for everybody who wants it and asks for it. But, um, looking at the breakdowns, um, I think it's pretty, you know, well, well, uh, balanced out, um, I, um, appreciate that we're able to, um, accommodate new, uh, applicants as well. And so, um, I am ready to, if no one wants to speak, I'm ready to make a motion, any other, is that, I don't need to read all this, right? Okay, so I won't make a motion to move the staff's recommendation.

[02:01:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Can we have a motion bot, the staff recommendation by the vice mayor, and a 2nd by council member, come May. Any other comments on this? Okay, seeing none in the queue, we can vote. Some of us can vote. And the staff recommendation passes unanimously. Thank you very much. So, uh, before we get to the next topic, because it's a fairly, uh, substantial topic, we are gonna take a 10 minute break. So, um, if you could all come back a little bit before a quarter of, that'd be great. Thanks. Okay, we're gonna call the meeting back to order, and the next topic on the agenda is items 7.1, which is council goal setting for fiscal year 201920 and 2021. And this is our phase two of this topic. And we have as our presenters tonight, assistant city manager, chief operating officer, Audrey Ramberg, and principal management analyst Melvin Gaines. And since this is a study session, we're going to have the staff presentation, and then we'll open it up for public comment, and then we'll bring it back to council for discussion. Thank you.

[02:02:57] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Thank you, Madam Mayor. In addition to Melvin, who you've already introduced, I'd like to acknowledge that we have department heads or other senior staff from the departments here in case there are questions that they can help out with. And they've been part of the process up to this and we'll continue to be an important part of the process. As you mentioned, this is our biannual council goal setting process, which the council has been in the habit of doing for quite some time now to establish not only 2 year goals that help direct staffing and other resources and the focus of the city, but also come with the creation and adoption of a work plan of specific projects that will be implemented over that two-year period to support the accomplishment of those goals. That was... Oh, I guess I can do my own slides. So that's the purpose of our goal setting. And what's my... And so this is the 2nd of a step in a process that has had other items before it, which was the February 28th study session, at which council discussed the high level major goal areas, and also put forward suggested potential projects. Since that time, the advisory bodies and department staff have been asked to provide input on those potential projects and potentially to suggest additional projects to support the council goals. And that resulted in a list of projects that is now coming before council tonight for prioritization, taking the results of tonight's action. Staff will analyze those projects with the broadest support and develop recommendations for those items which are feasible to pursue over the next 2 fiscal years. Then that recommendation will come back to council for approval, discussion and adoption on May 21st. There are a number of considerations that staff will use in developing its recommendations of what of the projects that come out of this evening, in terms of what we bring back to you as a recommendation. Obviously, we will look at the projects themselves to identify the staffing impacts and interdependencies across departments and the timing considerations so that we have a sense of what we have the capacity to do. And that is in the context of what we have already as important commitments to the community in terms of our ongoing service delivery, and other major projects that are already underway or anticipated for 201920. Um, you'll see in the background, my not so subtle hint at the iceberg where that is our visual representation of the fact that, um, much of what we do is kind of the day in, day out that might not be as visible, um, in the policy setting area and the project reporting we do for major projects, but it does take up on average about 85% of our capacity. And all that does vary from department to department, that is kind of overall, leaving us 15% of staff capacity to take on these kinds of major projects. So our process for this evening. After I conclude my presentation, which is relatively brief, is to receive public input, as the mayor said, prior to any discussion by council, or any questions by council, when it does come back up to the dais, council will have the opportunity to confirm or modify the wording of the major goal statements, because council did direct at February 28th, that those were still very important, and deserved to be ongoing as goals, But there were some comments by individual council members about ways that the wording of the statements might change. So staff has made an effort to make those revisions for council's consideration to see if we captured your intent. Also, then we will review the project list. And we're going to do that goal by goal. And you'll have the opportunity to ask clarifying questions about the intent or scope of the projects and make any adjustments that might be needed. Um, and uh, I'm also going to be describing in a minute some adjustments that have already been made to the project list that was originally included in the packet last Thursday. And once the project list has been kind of discussed and adjusted as appropriate, each council member will have a number of votes within each goal again. We're doing this goal by goal. And I'll also note that there was a 5th category of projects suggested that really or what I might call miscellaneous or other, and that they don't relate to the council goals. So you'll have a certain number of votes for each of the goal areas and will be taking notes here between Melvin and myself and Melvin will be inputting the votes and then able to project the spreadsheet on the screen to show the results of that voting process. And I'm going to describe the voting procedure next. So what we do in our steps is 1st to generate a total list of potential projects, and these are, as we've mentioned, the ones starting at the very beginning, with the ones that the council put forward as part of the February 28th study session, That was 70 projects to begin with. And then advisory bodies following that February 28th basically had about the month the month of March, all of them meeting once, perhaps twice in the month of March getting this onto their agenda so that they could comment on what they saw as the priorities within those potential projects and also whether there were additional ones they'd suggest. Staff also had that time in the month of March to identify any projects that it had already planned to work on or would suggest to work on that would support the goal areas. And when we went through that process it resulted in a list of 90 projects. So we went from 70 projects to 90 projects. The next step that staff took was to reduce not the projects, but to identify those that would not need to have a vote as part of tonight's priority setting process, because one of 2 things, either there was already sufficient existing council direction to undertake that project, or a related project. And so there was some interpretation on staff's part as to whether the scope of what came up, excuse me. On February 28th was the same as those things that might have received council direction in a different setting. And then also there are a few, not a ton, but a few where staff said these really come within our capacity kind of operationally within our existing programs for us to undertake. And council would not need to prioritize this for us to be able to go forward with it. So taking those projects out resulted in a net list of projects that then had to be calculated for what number of votes each council member would get in each goal area to do a reasonably good job of winnowing the list down. And as the staff report described, There's a rule of thumb formula that we've used here at the city, and I've used in other settings that is n divided by 3 +one, which is the number of projects in a lists divided by 3 and then adding one to give a number of votes that's designed to neither be so few votes that the allocation of votes across the list is so dispersed that no priorities emerge. or so many votes such that everything looks like a priority. And so that's the way that the number of votes per category was developed. And, um, and we will vote on those by category. I'd like to note that there is one caveat, which is the last bullet on the slide, which is there is a project on the goal 2 list, which relates to housing, and that project is 2.15, the Shenandoah, the idea of the Shenandoah precise plan, which triggers conflict of interest restrictions for one of the council members who will need to recuse herself during both the discussion and voting on that one project. So we will do the discussion and voting on all other projects with the council as a whole, and that council member can then recuse herself, and the council will discuss and indicate the breadth of its support for the by the remaining 6 members. And then we will have to take that back as staff in comparison with all the other goal to projects as we analyze and come back with a recommendation. Before I do move on from this list, I want to acknowledge 2 revisions that have been made to the project list and since the packet was prepared on Thursday, 1st off with apologies to the EPC and the staff liaison for the EPC, they did provide input on the council goals, but that got lost in the shuffle and was inadvertently left out of the project list. And so on Monday of this week, we gave a revised list to the council as well as posting it on the website with the agenda, because the EPC added 3 projects to goal one, which relates to vulnerable populations, and one project to goal 2, which relates to housing. They also, as all the other advisory bodies did, indicated the projects that they thought were most important. And so that has been annotated on that revised list. But I guess we were not quite done revising. And today, we did a 2nd revision on the list after having received a number of questions from council members about whether some of the suggested projects could be considered to have already been prioritized due to existing council direction. It had been somewhat challenging for staff to do that as part of the process, because in some instances, we didn't feel we had sufficient understanding of the scope or intent of the item, if it had been proposed by a council member, and we were reluctant to remove it from the list if it was not, in fact, the same as council direction that had been subsequently given. And that's, I think, the other thing that was a challenge. Maybe it's not unique, given this council and your capacity to take on a lot of complex issues at council meetings, but actually since the February 28th study session, there have been a number of large items that have come to this council where direction was given on some of the topic areas that were put forward on February 28th. And then there was just kind of the turnaround time between that last study session and this one in order for us to kind of have a really careful filter and review of the project list. And so we took another pass at it with a more precise filter about existing council direction and identified some additional projects that do not need a vote as part of tonight's process. And I'm going to go through what those are, because there may be members of the public who are here, specifically to advocate for those, and they might be reassured and grateful to know that they won't have to comment on those tonight if they don't wish to. So what I would just say is that that has the implication of, you know, the good news, fewer projects to need to talk about this evening and to vote on, but it also will mean fewer votes. Not a ton, fewer votes, because given that way that formula works with the rounding up, it doesn't necessarily always reduce the votes. I would say, though, that the vote list that I'll show you in a minute is a maximum number of votes. It's not required that any of you take all of those votes in any given area if the things that you really feel strongest about, um, are a smaller number than the maximum number of votes that you're allotted. Then the other implication that I would note is that with 20, because that was actually 20 projects, as I mentioned, so that brings the list of 90 projects that might, you know, have been considered for the work plan down to 70 that you're voting on tonight, with 20 considered kind of already on the plate. That means that where we're going to be able to draw the line for the new projects we can add will be higher up. Our capacity to take on additional projects is limited by the things that we will already have on our plate. So I will just kind of, again, reiterate. I regret that we didn't have the list prepared in this final form when we packet it originally on Thursday, and I apologize for any challenges for the counselor, for the community, and kind of understanding and keeping track. So where did that leave us within the 4 goals? Um, excuse me, 20 uh, potential projects originally suggested and um, and with the input of our staff and our advisory bodies, when you subtract out those that do not need to be voted on, you wind up with 14, and that will mean that there are 6 votes for each council member for a goal, um, one. For goal two, the original 23 projects have 19 that will be voted on. 18 will be discussed and voted on as a group, and the 19th is Project 2.15, as I mentioned, the Shenandoah Precise Plan, which will be discussed and voted separately. Either way, 19 or 18 still gets you to 7 votes. So that's the number of votes maximum that you'd have for gold too. for goal three. That's the transportation goal. The 19 projects from the various sources included 3 that have already been received direction or that staff is able to do without prioritization and that results in 16 or 6 votes in sustainability. There was a number of the 12 projects that were on the list that received recent direction through council's consideration of the greenhouse gas inventory. and that has reduced the number of projects that need to be discussed this evening to five. And there are 3 up to 3 votes for each council member on that. And then the 16 projects that council put forward, not related to a goal, none of those are already underway or have already received council direction. We also did not give the counts the advisory bodies the opportunity to have kind of an open category where they could suggest of, you know, whatever projects were of interest to them if they were not related to the goals. And by and large, the advisory bodies found that something that they were able to keep their input within the 4 goal areas, but the EPC did want to put forward 3 projects, and we have not included those on the list, but they are in the memo of the revised attachment one. On the flip side of that front page transmittal memo from Melvin, or the 3 projects that, um, I'm sorry, 2 projects that the EPC wished to add, but are not related to the 4 goal areas. And I see that some of you are looking for that now. And so if it will be helpful, I will provide the, do you have that on the other side? Yeah. Those are installing fiber throughout the city and creating a multifamily design study and handbook. So if you have this, which was at places and also emailed earlier today, it's on the backside of them. As I said, after the public input, we'll have an opportunity, the council have an opportunity to review and decide whether these revisions to the goal statements are what you had in mind, but I'll just present it here. Previously, the goal statement was to promote strategies to protect vulnerable populations and preserve the socioeconomic and cultural diversity of the community. At the last study session. I commented that staff used kind of as a shorthand in our newsletter and other communications, the phrase community for all. Um, and uh, one of the council members suggested that that might be an appropriate inclusion into the goal statement. And so the revised goal statement is proposed to read promoter community for all with strategies to protect vulnerable populations and preserve mountain view socioeconomic and cultural diversity. So keeping the same intent, but slightly different wording. And in terms of the projects in this goal area that do not require a vote this evening, because they either are things that are already underway or can be incorporated within staff's capacity or have received sufficient council direction, include a goal, or rather project one. 7, um, to work on the Census 2020, project one.12, to declare a housing emergency and pilot, safe parking projects, 114, developing an oversized vehicle ordinance, I don't know, your project proposal that came out in February, had a permitting system, but the project that council gave direction on, does not include that component, and no vote is required as, with that scope in mind. The remaining 3 projects in goal one, that do not need a vote, are goal one.15, which is to continue providing outreach associated with unstably housed, implementing safe parking at shoreline lot, and the use of a city negotiated lot. And then the library has a programmatic idea for dedicating space in the library for resources related to immigration services in the library physically and also online. Moving on to goal two. There was a suggestion about this goal after considerable discussion around current efforts with housing and the needs for housing in the community to include the opportunity for subsidized housing. And so the goal statement, which previously read, improve the quantity diversity and affordability of housing, with an added focus on middle income and ownership opportunities, would now read, improve the quantity diversity and affordability of housing, providing opportunities for subsidized, middle income, and ownership housing. The 4 projects that do not require a vote in goal 2 are 2.14 regarding requirements that might inhibit condo mapping, affordable housing requirements. This is one that was suggested by a council member, but also relates to work in an existing project that's part of the 1719 work plan that if the scope of that new suggestion and the existing project are the same, then we already have that covered and no vote would be required. Two dot 16 is regarding the development of a gateway master plan for North Bay Shore, which council has provided direction on 2.21, is work underway around the development of affordable housing on a site that the VTA board has approved for negotiation with Mountain View for affordable housing. And then Project 2.22, which is to proceed in the next step of the process that's already been started at council direction for the development of Lot 12. And then we've talked already about the Shenandoah being separate. This moves us on to goal 3, for which there were no suggestions and wording changes, and this is the transportation goal, and there are 3, yes, just 3 projects. Thank you. being suggested that are not suggested to require a vote this evening, while there hasn't been explicit action on scooter regulations as the evolution of our other micro mobility device, the bike share program, kind of coming out of the learning from that and the next steps from that staff has already begun working on those e-scooter regulations and expects to bring them to council prior to the end of this fiscal year.. And then project 3.7 for consultant and landscape design of the transit center underpass, that I think was proposed with a scope by a council member, that is broader or a bit different than what subsequently council did provide as direction when the Castro Street grade crossing item was considered, and there was a project, a feasibility study, around looking at some aspects of that broader transit center, but not in the full extent that might have been originally expected under this, but the council has provided that direction. And so no vote is required on that this evening. And then, finally, 3.17 about conducting a shuttle study, which was direction that council has provided through discussions in the environmental sustainability items. So that leads me to the environmental sustainability project where there was a discussion by counselor, where goal, a discussion by counsel to look at the issue of sustainability related to the livability of mountain view, and the proposed language would change it from promote environmental sustainability with a focus on measurable outcomes, to promote environmental sustainability and the quality of life, for the enjoyment of current and future generations with the focus on measurable outcomes. And that was of interest to the council and also felt appropriate to staff because sustainability measures have what people that I'm coming to learn now that I'm kind of becoming part of the sustainability industry is the co-benefits around ways that how we spend our time and the congestion and the way we relate to our environment and the breadth of the kind of 3 E's approach to sustainability being about, the the well-being of the community more broadly than just greenhouse gas emissions. It felt like an appropriate fit to have those items together. The projects, there are 8 of them or I think 7 or 8 that have been identified that not that do not need a vote, that is 4.2, the opportunities to build and encourage additional EV charging stations. Obviously, there is a matter of degree for that. I mean, how much and how broad. We certainly know that's an interest of counsel, and we're already working on it, to determine which are the highest priority city facilities for where we could do that. And part of our sustainability strategic plan, which is coming to council next Tuesday, and which incorporates input from the environmental sustainability task force, and that will all be used to inform the next ASAP or the environmental sustainability action plan. We will have the opportunity to look at what might be higher levels of response, not just with regard to EV charging stations, but other sustainability strategies. And so we feel we have sufficient direction now to not require a vote this evening on the scope of the charging stations. We are working through the ESAP projects, that does not require a vote this evening. There was direct when the greenhouse gas inventory came forward to explore the concept of carbon offsets within the last couple of weeks. There was direction by council, for staff to develop drone regulations. And there was direction on 4.7 about revising the downtown precise plan for Area H, if the council's interest stays limited to Area H. Um, then that is not something that requires a vote this evening. 4.8, the yearly targets for greenhouse gas, was looked at in March, and we are working currently on a regular review and reporting as needed to the council on the public services study. So that describes the process and also, I hope, makes clear for the council and the public what the, you know, kind of how we came to the list of 70 and the things that will not need to be focused on this evening. And before we go to council or rather community input, I felt that if you had questions just about process, not about any of the projects or about any of the content, but just I want to clarify if the process is understandable, as I've described it.

[02:31:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[02:31:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So just to clarify, so first, reviewing the language for the goals, then reviewing the continuing projects, and then going through ranking through each goal successively.

[02:31:57] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: We will not be looking at the continuing project list. If there are projects that, as the staff reports commented, if it's our assumption that absent any direction from council, that the continuing projects would continue. So if there are any continuing projects that the council would like to bring forward, that would be an appropriate place within the process to do so.

[02:32:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, we are able to provide direction on the continuing project.

[02:32:27] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: You are, but we are not asking for a review of the continuing project list. It is our assumption that those will go forward unless you tell us otherwise. So if you'd like to tell us otherwise, then yes, please give that.

[02:32:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you.

[02:32:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[02:32:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. On the, uh, other projects of the council on 5 point, whatever those are. They're sort of a unique group of projects. What if we say we don't want to vote, I mean, some say you would zero any of those projects instead of saying you're vote, I don't want any of them, so it's not going towards anything. It's just.

[02:33:04] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: You may absolutely do that. Yep.

[02:33:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[02:33:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I noticed, um, there might be some, well, at least one project that is wasn't put in the appropriate category. So if we want to move it, at what point should we?

[02:33:28] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: We can do that. I did see that under the council question and answer and acknowledge that there was perhaps not a full understanding of what some of the projects were that we're suggested. I believe that would be something that the proposal might be to move up into goal one. So when we open the discussion on goal one projects, if one of you would like to propose that, that would be a good time.

[02:33:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you.

[02:33:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other process related questions? Okay, seeing none. Could I have a show of hands of how many people would like to provide us with input on this topic? Other people outside raising their hands? Okay, so, um, we will limit the time to one.5 minutes. And if you could be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak and leave it with our city clerk, We would greatly appreciate it. Let's start with the first one.

[02:34:42] Nancy Weed: Hi, I'm Nancy Weed, and I live in the Stanton Place townhomes at Linda Vista in Middlefield, across from Sterling Estates. Like them, our property abuts, the Terabella vision plan. I do not think the Terabella precise plan should be a priority at this time, because many of the residents' concerns still remain unaddressed. One example is, the plan includes a five to seven story mixed use building on shoreline that extends directly behind our two story townhomes, and would tower over them. Unlike our one story neighbors, we can't escape new structures, even when we're indoors, because we have second story windows that will face them. These structures will ruin our views that are now of terracotta, colored roofs, trees, blue sky, and sunsets, which will greatly affect the quality of our lives while in our own homes and our resale values. To prevent these outcomes, no structure abutting our property should exceed two stories. Another example is that ingress and egress to and from Sterling Estate, Stanton Place, is extremely limited. We can either go in one direction on Linda Vista, to connect to Middlefield, near Shoreline, or the other direction on Linda Vista, to Terabella, to connect to Shoreline, near 101. Both locations already can be highly congested during rush hours. No traffic study is needed to realize the existing traffic congestion and reliance on one block of Linda Vista, limit the population this neighborhood can support. Thank you.

[02:36:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, okay. Thank you very much. Next, please.

[02:36:22] Robert Cox: Hello, honorable council members, I'm Robert Cox, and I was coming here tonight to advocate for the inclusion of item 4.7, revised Downtown Precise Plan Prairie H, but I see now that it's a no vote, because you're already going ahead with it, so I want to thank you for going ahead with this into the future. And for the, thank you to the 6 council advisory bodies, the EPC, PRC downtown committee performing arts committee, senior advisory committee, and youth advisory committee, who endorse this as well. Because all of our past, present, and future hopes for our city converge in area H, which is the historic center of our community, and the downtown precise plan notes is the heartbeat of our city. So, beyond that, when you do this, I hope that you'll be looking at strong protections for using best ideas from other cities, and please include all of the council members in the decision making, including our wonderful vice mayor, and our historic reservation specialist, St. Allison Hicks. you.

[02:37:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Mr. Cox, we have a question for you.

[02:37:27] Robert Cox: Yes.

[02:37:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Could you put on your EPC hat for me, please?

[02:37:31] Robert Cox: Okay, as long as you understand, I'm not speaking for the EPC tonight.

[02:37:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I'm gonna ask you a question that you proposed, that EPC proposed.

[02:37:38] Robert Cox: Okay.

[02:37:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Install fiber throughout the city.

[02:37:41] Robert Cox: Yes, we did have a discussion about that. In fact, Mr. McAllister, I thought that was a great idea, and I was one of the strong advocates for it.

[02:37:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, did we get a... I won't go to Canada.

[02:37:52] Robert Cox: So you did get a thumbs up on that, so I guess I can use a little bit of this off time to advocate for it, as well. I mean, I really do believe that it's important for our city, you know, as a center and hub of, you know, technology for the world. I mean, you know, to be, um, not just building it for others, but employing it ourselves. Thank you.

[02:38:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Intel. Thank you, EPC.

[02:38:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:38:18] Jury Stage: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Jury stage, long time Mountain View resident. I'm gonna coattail on what Robert said here about committing you for the Novo decision on the Area H precise pan. It's very, very important. He'll conserve resources, the city, they're already very strapped right now. They've got so many projects underway right now, so it's nice to see that they won't be burdened with that. And also that it will focus those resources on the very specific needs of that section of downtown, which apply specifically there, not so much to the rest of the downtown. So thanks very much.

[02:38:52] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, Audrey, can you clarify that? So I think we voted on something different, but it's coming across differently? I think because we voted to look at the entire precise plan downtown. We don't need to vote on just Area H because we're doing the entire area. Whereas a lot of folks have been advocating to just look at Area H. Correct?

[02:39:12] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Advocating. Yes.

[02:39:14] Unknown Speaker: All right, thanks.

[02:39:15] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yeah, just to clarify the council had a discussion specifically about downtown, and debated whether or not to focus it just on Area H, but at the end of the night, council had expanded its scope to other areas, and everything was sort of inextricably linked, and therefore, the current direction is not to focus exclusively on Area H, which would prohibit the two downtown council members from participating.

[02:39:45] Unknown Speaker: Question on that, since the two of us were not participating. Are there parts that, well, it can be, will be segmented so that we can participate.

[02:39:59] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: We can take a look at that, but I think the crux of it was even if they focused on area H, some of the changes that were relevant to area H actually would require changes throughout the entire precise plan. So we're happy to take a look at it, but I'm not encouraged that we're going to be able to segment it.

[02:40:16] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Thank you.

[02:40:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:40:22] Public Speaker: Hello, uh, council members, I'm gonna be communicating for, uh, Steven today. So, yes, definitely appreciate everything that you're considering today. And I'm here to advocate for policy proposals that specifically will benefit, you know, vulnerable communities and protect housing opportunities for everyone in Mountain View. In particular for strengthening our vulnerable communities and raising them up. I think that there are a few policy proposals on the table that are definitely worth moving forward. In particular, I feel that the wage death protections will really be beneficial so that people have the paycheck that they can take home and make sure that they're able to afford homes and groceries and things like that. Um, in particular as well. Community workforce agreements, I think, would be very good for, you know, advancing labor protections here in the city, and in the wider region as well. And hopefully the country too, because they're definitely under assault. Um, and following up with that. You know, the know your rights workshops have been very instrumental in helping people understand a little bit more about how they can protect themselves if they are, unfortunately, contacted by ice in a way that's not very nice. Uh, and we also call on a divestiture from all uh, ice business. Also, item one. 9, one.2 and 2.13. Definitely want to make sure we're protecting residents against displacement, making sure they can sustain the residencies, and making sure that also extends to our mobile home residents. And, uh, so there's another item in there, uh, 2.one. So, uh, this is Stephen Margulis. I actually just met him today, maybe a few minutes ago, 20 minutes ago. He's been a resident of Mountain View since 1967. He's a military veteran who needs to be able to stay in this area because he's receiving care from the VA for some of his conditions. He has served in the U.S. Army from 1960 to 1963. and is a veteran who helped protect us during the Cold War. One of the, it was interesting meeting him because when he was talking to me, he couldn't even really name the law, the policy that was protecting him, but he was referring to measure V. It is, in his own words, instrumental for him to be able to maintain the protections of measure V, because otherwise, he would not be able to stay in this area, receiving the treatment that he needs as a veteran of our armed services, who kept our country safe. So, for item 2.one, I'm not exactly entirely sure what modifications are on the table or what, you know, is being considered. But if anything is gonna happen to the CSFRA, then I definitely hope that council only moves to strengthen the protections that help people like Stephen stay here in Mountain View and don't weaken them. Because we really need those protections. Thank you.

[02:43:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:43:34] Erica: Hi, everyone, my name is Erica. Escuelas en montebio, los parques, y las años, misijotes encanta.

[02:43:48] Interpreter: Yes. I very much enjoy all the parks and community spaces here, uh, in Mountain View, including the schools. My family has lived here for 10 years, and my children are particularly fond of the library. I would like for the council to consider changing policies that have to do with development. And so, as a resident of Mountain View, I candidly ask you that all the city planners use their experience, too. To study all possible solutions so as to avoid displacement, if at all possible. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me.

[02:44:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:45:06] Paola: Bueno noches.

[02:45:17] Interpreter: Good evening. My name is Paola. I lived here since 2005, and I have a child in high school.

[02:45:24] Paola: La mentablemente, una compañera de mija. Estas su friendo por, Bordes alojo, es la mejor amiga de mija. Entonces yo bengo nirme con grupo de personas, que bien na cambiar, atra tarde custedes del concidio, cambierna reelas?

[02:45:43] Interpreter: Unfortunately, the friend, the best friend of my daughter who's in high school, she's suffering as a result of displacement.

[02:45:52] Paola: Cambiel la regulas de desarroyo de montenbio para que no ten mas las demoliciones en montenbio. Um, yo no estoy affectada por momento, per no me veo en es caso. Porque mijo es satendido por estan for mijo tiene una conditionión medica, entonces trato de no esta en la misma, possibilidad, cerdes a lojada, porque seriamoy, huy triste?

[02:46:22] Interpreter: So I'm asking the council to please consider changing policies and rules that have to do with development. I particularly do not want to be displaced because my child is receiving very specific services from Stanford.

[02:46:38] Paola: pedirque estedelos professionales, tengan, una planificación en discreción completa para custedes estudiantodas las possibilidades, que no se am para de salojar.

[02:46:52] Interpreter: Um, And I would like to ask all of you as professionals to do extensive planning and to consider all options so as to avoid displacement. And I would like to thank you for the positive decisions that you have all made, and I'm also especially grateful for all the people who have come to advocate and speak on these. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me and my interpreter.

[02:47:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:47:44] Sandy Perry: Hi. My name is Sandy Perry. I'm actually the president of the Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County, and our organization supports Project 1.9. We believe that displacement is an emergency not only in Mountain View, but also all over the county, all over the Bay Area, large parts of California, large parts of the United States. Displacement destroys communities. It causes widespread and unnecessary suffering and hardship, Communities are more than just a business. They're more than just a stepping stone in a career. They're living and breathing entities, networks of relationships. My wife was born and raised in Mountain View. She was the oldest of 11 children. Her father was on the school board. Her father was a small businessman here. And out of all those 11 children, only one of them can afford to live in Mountain View today. It's one thing to move someplace for an opportunity, but it's another thing to be torn out of your community against your will. It's been disheartening and discouraging the last few months here, there's been a series of displacement votes, partly because the anti displacement rules and policies are not in place. So now is the time to start the studies and the processes necessary to put these rules into place. The physical, moral, and spiritual stability of the Mountain View community depends on it.

[02:49:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:49:28] Gaella: My name is Guy.

[02:49:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You could speak into the microphone.

[02:49:31] Gaella: Thanks. Sorry, thank you. Thank you. Uh, members of the city council. My name is Gaella. I've appeared before you in the past, and I'm here with many of my fellow community members to voice our support for item 1.9, uh, concerning displacement and redevelopment policies, I believe, I understand it correctly. And I am a member of the vulnerable community. I am a low income, low fixed income senior, and I have health issues, as I've mentioned in the past, and all of my medical care specialists are at Stanford. It's important that I remain in this area, for that reason and many other reasons. And I, you know, I like the area. It's a wonderful place. I'm born and raised in the area, and I like to be able to remain here in my older years. So, again, thank you for considering putting into place policies that would help people, such as myself, and also asking that you would give city staff broad discretion to study a wide range of options that can end displacement in Mountain View and protect our remaining affordable housing. Thank you very much.

[02:50:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:50:50] Philip Cosby: Good evening. My name is Philip Cosby, a member of the Capacito of St. Athanasius, and I've been here in the council chambers back in December, when we approved, demolishing 20 units on Rock Street. And again, at the end of March, we approved demolishing 34 units, on Montecedo, and in April, another 59 units on March, on Rock Street. And I've seen, you know, you get it. It's hard to be kicking long term families effectively out of Mountain View. And I saw you struggle with that. I come to the conclusion that you had no choice because the developers were following the rules. Now is the time to change those rules. Because when you look at what's happened, we're destroyed 20 departments on rock and replace them with 15 row houses and townhomes, the selling price of those new dwellings, $1.3 to $1.6 million. Now, assuming someone can cop up $300,000 for a down payment. You still need to be making $300,000 a year, $30,000 for the down payment. $300,000 a year to qualify for the mortgage. That's $156 an hour. That's a huge jump between the people who live here in Mountain View, and what we're offering residents of steel. And so I encourage you to make $1.9, you're right. you.

[02:52:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, purple. Next, please.

[02:52:38] Donna: My name is Donna, and I work as a substitute teacher, which is not nearly as remunerative as regular teachers, who are also struggling to stay in Mountain View. So I am here to ask council to empower your staff to work to consider many options that might be helpful to those of low income here. In the schools, I work in, I see a wide variety of children from different cultures, and I think it's really valuable from Mountain View to have so many people from different cultures here. It's one of the things I value from Mountain view. And to have children grow up, where they have contact with so many other people, will be beneficial for those children in the long run because, um, economically, we know that, um, um, people who have a facility with dealing with a lot of other cultures are very useful for the economy. And it's going to be a help for our economy in the future, to have a lot of people from different cultures living here and growing up together. So I would ask you to empower your staff to see what they can do to support lower income, people here who have, who, of course, many of whom are from other cultures and trying to make a life here.

[02:54:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

[02:54:11] Janet Workman: My name is Janet Workman. I'm a Mountain View resident and a homeowner. I'm here on behalf of myself, and also, um, 10 of my neighbors, uh, who have agreed to sign, uh, a letter, um, supporting the same position that I came to speak about today. We, although we are homeowners and not concerned ourselves about our housing security, we're very concerned about our community, because we consider this really a crisis for the community, the people who are being displaced, and the lack of any housing opportunities for people of ordinary means. You simply can't have a vibrant, diverse community, and you're creating a lot of hardship through a lot of hardworking people. So we hope you will consider this, the urgent priority that we think it is, and do something to put an end to this. Thank you.

[02:55:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:55:25] Jackie Cashin: Jackie Cashin, 2310 Rock Street, we've met before. Many times in this room. I'm here to speak about Project one.9. As you know, I have been displaced and from everything I've seen in the past year, the displacement juggernaut in Mountain View is just going to keep rolling over more and more people. Hundreds of us have already been displaced. 1000s more potentially going to be displaced. Staff needs to have broad discretion to come up with innovative and creative ideas, programs, policies that will prevent as much displacement as possible, protect people who are displaced, try to resettle them in mountain view, make sure that they can resettle without having to completely disrupt their lives. And also to the extent possible, help the people who have already been displaced and are facing. I realize we are working within time constraints for people like the Rock Street residents, Montecito, 777 West Middlefield, but there may still be things that staff can recommend that would help us with what we're facing and trying to uproot our lives and find some place to start them over again. And Mountain View has always been creative in what it does. It's ahead in a lot of things, and we need to keep ourselves ahead in protecting our residents against gentrification, against displacement, without some way of protecting them and whatever it takes, and we encourage you to make sure we have those options available. Thank you.

[02:56:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[02:57:11] Olga Melo: Good evening. My name is Olga Melo, and I've been living in Mountain View for over 16 years. So, yo siempres participado en en todo las actividadas de la communidad en las escuelas en el departamento. I've always participated in community events in school, even at the health department, always trying to give the best of me, really so that I can put my family forward. It's really saddening to be in the position that my family is in, like many other families, just waiting until we receive notice that we're going to be displaced. So I ask that, you, the council, please be conscious of the impact that this is having. And so you all have the power to put an end to this, and to add this to your strategic goals as a priority. Muchas gracias, por escuchamos. And I would like to thank you again for taking the time to listen to us. But I do want to say again, I'm sure that you all have a safe place to live, and you don't have to worry about the constant nightmare that we live in. Thank you.

[02:59:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:59:39] Irene Yoshida: Good evening. My name is Irene Yoshida, Mountain View resident for 38 years. I'm a member of St. Athanasius, and a Capacito Justice group. And please give, uh, staff wide discretion to study Project 1.9, the huge list of potential projects. Um, and please vote to make this project a top priority so that this work can begin immediately. Number two, measure V, what rent control is working, but other current housing policies are not working. And so these, um, policies that favor developers must be revised so that it's more fair to all. And again, 3rd, to stand up for liberty, justice, and equality for all in our mountain view community by prioritizing items one.2, one.9, one.11, to end displacement, prevent wage theft, and protect our sanctuary city. Thank you. Thank you.

[03:00:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next please.

[03:00:46] David Beanie: Evening council member, so my name is David Beanie. There are a lot of speakers here tonight, to speak on anti displacement, and I will say that I share that concern. Construction workers are often those that are displaced. But that's not why I'm here tonight. I'm here tonight to support the opportunity to have a community workforce agreement for Mountain View. And you've heard me speak before about the benefits of a community workforce agreement. It would be a partnership that protects the city's precious resources and residents, and it would ensure that city construction projects will attract the most skilled workers, and that every contractor will work on a level playing field. With a CWA in place, capital improvement projects are more likely to come in on time and on budget, free from labor disputes, with construction costs, escalating to the double digits annually. The city should take every measure to see that the money is spent on quality construction instead of change orders and delays. An additional benefit would be a direct pipeline for Mountain View residents into the construction apprenticeships, which lead to family supporting careers. The building trades apprenticeships provide family health care and real retirement benefits, which, as you know, are getting more scarce all the time. Community workforce agreements in other cities have been shown to nearly eradicate exploitation of construction workers on jobs which are part of the agreement. And it does so at no cost to the city. We have the building trace council asked that the council members place a high priority on implementing a CWA for the city of Mountain View. Thank you.

[03:02:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please. Oh, sorry. Um, Mr. Beaning. Quick question. Mr. Ramirez, Council member Ramirez has a question for you.

[03:02:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So you didn't speak about it, but we had spoken before this meeting. You had suggested that, uh, the wage theft ordinance and the responsible construction ordinance could be put together, and I just wanted to better understand, uh, sort of how they work together and what a responsible construction ordinance could look like.

[03:02:52] David Beanie: Yes, thank you for the question. I had narrowed my comments to fit into the time frame. I wanted to be respectful of the council's limits. A responsible construction ordinance, as a natural fit to add with the wage theft provision, a responsible construction ordinance, is a set of guidelines on contractors that really weeds out those contractors who are most likely to commit wage theft. And so combining the two does seem like a natural fit, and maybe would avoid duplication of resources of the city staff's time.

[03:03:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Are there examples of jurisdictions that have done that? Combine the two?

[03:03:32] David Beanie: You know, I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I think that may be just because they haven't been thought of at the same time or in the same terms before.

[03:03:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

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

[03:03:51] Jose Cabrera: Good evening, Mayor, city council members and staff. My name is Jose Cabrera. One of the field representatives of the Carpenters Union, Local 405. First, let me take you by placing this community workforce agreement as a priority for your constituents and to the residents of Bound View as a whole. As you may know, the current California administration left a position vacated, a position that is crucial for state compliance. That position is a labor commissioner of California, which Julie Sue, headed as the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement under Governor Jerry Brown. This vacancy leaves us Californians, with no labor commissioner, which now creates even more difficulties for compliance departments and other agencies, trying to catch dishonest contractors without a doubt. These type of contractors take away from honorable taxpayers and from our communities. Therefore placing a financial strain on mountain view's overall budgeting capabilities to allocate those limited funds. There are other field representatives present here. We can help by monitoring job sites and talking to workers by asking if they have been paid correctly. But we need to have laws and regulations in place in order to have these misleading contractors answer for their actions. I hope that we can continue to bridge this gap on this topic. Thank you.

[03:05:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:05:16] Catherine Hedges: Good afternoon, counsel. Good evening. My name is Catherine Hedges. I am a member of packed people acting community together, and I'm here to support the Mountain View contingent, even though I live in San Jose. It's important for all the Bay Area cities to act together in supporting affordable housing and trying to prevent the reduction, elimination of affordable housing, and displacement. And because the housing prices has, throughout the state, and throughout the region, and throughout our county, people can't just decide, Well, I can't afford to live a mountain view, live in Sunnyvale. Sunnyvale is having the same issues. So all those cities need to work together to prevent displacement, and preserve their communities, and also keeping sanctuary, city laws, strong, is regional commitment, that helps public safety, because immigrants are less willing to cooperate with law enforcement, and report crimes against them, or be witnesses, if they're afraid they're going to be departed at the courthouse or something. And I also support the white theft, and whatever it was, the previous two gentle Antardra. Thank you.

[03:06:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:06:43] Ruth Silver Toba: Hello, council members and mayor and vice mayor. My name is Ruth Silver Toba. I supervise a workers rights clinic at the Alexander Community Law Center, and I coordinate the Wage Theft Coalition. I'd like to answer your question, which is that the 1st 2 parts that we're advocating for city vendors, um, and also business licenses, that's been adopted in Milpitas. Um, and also in San Jose and Sunnyvale, they don't, they have a business tax, so they ended up with permits. And the business, the building permits came after, so retowers with the labor trafficking. And it's now a priority in San Jose and Sunnyvale. It's also been adopted in other cities. And the 3 will work together, to eradicate, hopefully, wage theft and labor trafficking. Also, the community workforce agreement will help as well. Wage theft, those ordinance will require minimal staff time because they require the bitter business or contractor to self disclose. And so there won't be much for you to do, and that's what makes it attractive. Um, I also, uh, and it, it will also, uh, end the, you're waking up one morning and learning that there's been trafficking like Silvery Towers. I also support anti displacement and sanctuary food. Thank you.

[03:08:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:08:27] Felicia Gershberg: Hi, I'm Felicia Gershberg. I live in Sunnyvale, and I'm speaking today as a member of the Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition, an organizer with Together We Will, San Jose, and as your neighbor. I appreciate and support your goal of protecting vulnerable populations in our community, and to that end, I strongly urge you to rank the deterrence of wage theft, high in your priorities. Specifically, we ask that you combine and prioritize the wage theft ordinance that covers all industries and a responsible construction ordinance. The neighboring cities, as Ruth mentioned, of Sunnyvale Milpitas and San Jose, have all passed and or prioritized ordinances and policies that deter wage theft, and Mountain View should follow suit so that workers are protected throughout the South Bay. Wage theft impact all of us, whether directly in the paychecks of workers, in diverse industries, from fast food to construction to tech, or indirectly by making our community inhospitable to working people. Again, I applaud your goal of protecting vulnerable populations. And I urge you to prioritize these wage theft ordinances, as well as the other projects under Go One, for preventing displacement and providing sanctuary and services for immigrants. Thank you.

[03:09:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:09:49] Eugene Dong: Good evening, counselor. Good evening, council members. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Eugene Dong, and I'm a member of the local 104 Chief Metals worker, and also a longtime Mountain View residence, and riding on the coattels of David Beanie. I do support the community workforce agreement, specifically wage theft, and I hope the council will also, too. Thank you very much.

[03:10:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:10:40] Lupita Gomez: Good evening. My name is Lupita Gomez, and I'm a Mountain View resident, and I'm here in support of siren. I'm here to speak in favor of Article 1.11, which would continue workshops that siren has been providing to the community. It's very important to know our rights, as well as protect ourselves against immigration or ice. and also to protect our families. I would also like to ask the city to consider adopting an ordinance in which? And I would like to ask the city to consider. To adopt an ordinance that would prevent companies that communicate with ice from doing so. Thank you.

[03:13:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, please.

[03:13:57] Katiuska Pimentel: Hi, everyone. My name is Katiuska Pimentel. I am a community organizer with siren, and I'm here to speak in favor of item 111. Um, so we have been conducting know your right presentations, and we truly believe that this is important and meaningful for the community. I'm also here to also ask you to consider passing an ordinance to divest from corporations that contract with ice. So we do know that there is big business in deportation and incarceration of immigrants, and we believe that it is important for the cities to divest and do no contract with businesses and corporations that have been having relationships with ice. So we want to ask you to uphold your sanctuary values and as a protector of immigrants, to truly consider this ordinance. Um, I don't have it with me right now, but I will be submitting it to the clerk. And so it's going to be actually scheduling meetings with a couple of you to review the ordinance. But we truly believe that this is important in order to protect immigrants and ensure that we're not fueling this deportation machine by divesting from those corporations. And I'm also in solidarity with all the folks here. and the displacement, the wage test coalition, and many other issues. So we want you to consider the sanctuary investment ordinance. Thank you.

[03:15:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:15:30] Adriana Garcia: Buenos noches. Good evening. My name is Adriana Garcia. I'm actually a resident of the city of San Jose. I'm here as a proud member of the Santa Clara County Wage Step Coalition, asking that you do support policies that do that protect the maintain the protection of workers' rights. We do feel that the 3 pillar approach will do that with having policies and ordinances that prevent wage theft to begin with, and at any one point looking at how business license and city vendors do business with the city, and including building permits as well that are aligned with the values of respecting workers' rights. I want to trust that as city council members, as public servants, you have the core values of maintaining the residents, the human rights of residents in Mountain View, and those basic needs that have been mentioned here by my fellow community members from making a healthy economic livelihood to making sure that they have a roof over their head, right? And to ensure that when, you know, as they're not just working and economically contributing to the city, that they get to play, feel safe in the places that they play and have joy and enjoy their families. Um, and in doing so, we hope that you can also trust, trust on the community leaders present tonight, trust the workers themselves, the residents themselves, to work with you, and draft these policies, and study in the different ways that it can benefit all of us, uh, not just economically, but again, in a way that it involves a healthy livelihood in the city of Manave. Thank you.

[03:17:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:17:17] Stevie Nukasha: Good evening, Mayor, city council members and staff. My name is Stevie Nukasha, and I am rank and file member of the Pipefitters, Plumbers, Steve Fitters, HVACR local 393 for the past 2 years, a community workforce agreement will leverage the resources of the construction industry to bring superior construction to Mountain View city projects. CWAs ensure projects are completed on time. They prevent serious delays by providing the alternatives to work stoppages and attract the most professional of contractors who know how to properly plan and execute a project. CWAs provide open competition and bidding. And high road contractors are not pushed out by bad actors who get a foot in the door with a low bid, but end up costing more than the long run through cost overruns and change orders. CWAs attract the most skilled and qualified craft persons to city projects. The best workers know they have choices and they choose to work on projects where they are sure to be free from exploitation. A community workforce agreement will save the city money, not only in the short term, but also in the long term. As the high quality construction will extend the usable life of the project and reduce repairs. Thank you.

[03:18:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:18:36] Public Speaker: Hi, good evening. My name is Edie Hugo. I own a light industrial office building located at 922 San Leander Avenue. I was here before you 2 weeks ago. I'm here tonight to encourage you to move forward on the Cherabella project. For a precise plan. My building is 12 units with 10 tenants. Some of my tenants walk to work, some of them bike, and some of them have a 5 minute drive on city streets, not freeways. They all, they all are tenants at the building because they live in this area and they want the quality of life would be able, being able to have their business, which they've developed as a small corporation, in the same city where they live. The proposed plan has really put a pall over the whole area. The residential areas are in strife. The commercial buildings are in strife, there's a cloud over the whole area because we're uncertain as to what the city council is going to do. So I'm asking you to please move forward on a precise plan and give us, give us some details about what you want to do. The area does need to be redeveloped. I agree with that. So I'm asking you to do that. Are there any questions? Okay, thank you.

[03:19:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:20:03] Public Speaker: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and the city council. Um, I am here today. I'm a representative of one of the Mechanical Crafts for the Residents for Responsible Development, Santa Clara County Residents for Responsible Development, and I request that the city give a high priority to the wage theft responsible construction ordinance, request that we combine the wage theft and the responsible construction ordinance. It makes sense as a responsible construction ordinance also covers wage step for construction. It'll save staff time and resource. Responsible construction ordinance targets general contractors and subcontractors that are a part of the underground economy, NSU such as tax evasion, uh workers comp fraud, OSHA violations, working without a license and wage debt. The ordinance should include private and public projects, a business license should not be issued or renewed if contractors have any violations included in the ordinance. It creates a level playing field for all contractors that are trying to contract the proper correct way. Not adopting the ordinance, rewards bad contractors. I'm here to just suggest or request if you guys can follow through with that. I appreciate you guys' time. Thank you.

[03:21:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:21:35] Jill Benitez: Good evening. My name is Jill Benitez. I represent a partnership that owns 909 San Rafel. It is a small and industrial building, um, in an area that it would be impacted by the Tarabella vision plan. And I'm here to urge you to put priority to item 2.17, which is the vision plan precise plan, for the same reasons that Edith mentioned a few minutes ago. The only value we have there is this real estate, and the uncertainty of what might happen with the vision plan puts a definite damper on what our future might be and what the value of that property might be. The precise plan would enable more specific information that we can use going forward and would enable planning for future ownership as well as our own. So I urge you to consider a priority on 2.17. Thank you.

[03:22:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:22:32] Heather Phipps: Hello, my name is Heather Phipps, and I'm with the Mountain View Tentac Coalition, and I'm here to speak on their behalf. Um, We, in the tentaclealition, request that the council prioritize project one. from the staff report to be analyzed by city staff as the highest priority project to address this placement and a no net loss of affordable housing. We believe the current housing crisis in Mountain View necessitates a no net loss of affordable housing policy that establishes a clear limit on no net loss of affordable rent controlled units, not bedrooms, and also includes displacement prevention programs such as tenant opportunity to purchase, which is part of the tenant protection law in Washington, DC, where I'm from, community land trusts, as well as exploration of state and private funding to purchase naturally affordable housing. And I do want to just mention that there are some really great community land trust programs in Oakland. There's 2 right now. that can be seen as examples. We also demand that the council does not enact any changes to the CSFRA because our community needs more tenant protections, not less. And the CSFRA has been a great small step in the right direction, and it has proven to be a very successful program for stabilizing rents in Mountain View, as the Del Medio manor case is a clear example of that. We also demand that the mobile home residents be included under the CSFRA. Thank you.

[03:23:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. X, please.

[03:23:59] Debbie Chin: Hi, my name is Debbie Chin, I'm a Mountain View resident. Thank you all for accepting input. Really appreciate that we actually have an opportunity to speak today. I know that you all have a hard job, balancing all the conflicting goals of the city and of also, of course, of all the residents and the businesses that work here. I'm here today to ask you, as a resident, that you do not allow a monstrous San Antonio style development to take place at Terabella. Um, I agree, it needs, it's a great place to have some development, but, um, I'd like to see modest transitions, respectful of the neighborhoods and especially the middle school and the traffic around the middle school. Not just car traffic, I mean people, as well. There's already so many development projects, approved, underway, somewhat underway in Mountain View, I feel that there's plenty going on. I don't think multiple 7 story buildings are necessary at Terabella with everything else that's already being has already been actually approved, let alone all the things that will come down the pike later. Stuffing 8,800 people into Terabella, neighborhood isn't really a solution. Stopping apartment demolitions is a more viable and practical solution and a balanced solution. Um, Thank you. I see my time is up. Thank you all for listening.

[03:25:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:25:37] David Meyer: Mayor, vice mayor, members of the council. My name is David Meyer, represents Silicon Valley at home. I'm also a mountain resident. I just wanted to thank the council for its continual leadership on housing issues for continuing to put housing at the center of your work plan. I'm here tonight to express support for Project one.9. I think it's a great opportunity to allow staff to really investigate all the policy options for the city to consider related to what you can do to prevent displacement in your community. I think it's also just great that Mountain View has taken a multi-proned approach to housing issues. There's a whole lot of great ideas under goal too, related to zoning tweaks related to helping improve ability to build ATUs, to provide more produce for missing middle housing types, also some specific plans to potentially produce more affordable housing, and really take focus on public land to make sure that that's being used for the best community benefits. Also really appreciate the interest in improving relationships with destination home and the housing trust, who are to organizations. We work really closely with and are instrumental in combat and homelessness and providing opportunities for 1st time home buyers. So, I guess the last time I just mentioned is we're excited to find ways to partner with you, to make these goals and actual reality, and find ways that we can help you implement those things. So thanks.

[03:27:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Before you go.

[03:27:09] David Meyer: I'm sure you know what's coming next. Hi, John, long time ago, sir.

[03:27:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Hi, Dave. No, Dave and I are getting along good. So, Dave, you recently sent me an article of what's happening in San Francisco about, uh, nonprofits having first rate of buying buildings. Could you give us a little synopsis of that article that you sent to us to me?

[03:27:30] David Meyer: Uh, sure. I'm not a complete expert, but I think it was two weeks ago about the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved, I think it was maybe just the first reading of a policy that will allow nonprofit developers a kind of advanced notice window when a naturally current affordable housing building is going to be going up for sale or to be demolished. the idea of which is to provide at least a certain amount of time for those nonprofit developers to cobble together financing to potentially purchase the property and rehab it and allow it to continue to be an affordable, affordable building.

[03:28:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, just so other cities are buying properties and rehab in them and keep them naturally affordable is what you're saying.

[03:28:18] David Meyer: Uh, yeah.

[03:28:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. Well, the other city's not this, it's not the city, is it?

[03:28:23] David Meyer: In this case, it's nonprofits. It's allowing nonprofits to be able to...

[03:28:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. They're working with the city, though.

[03:28:30] David Meyer: Yeah, they're they're certainly getting money from the city to help with that.

[03:28:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:28:37] Arose Sylvester: I'm trying. Good evening. I might arose Sylvester representing Carbon Free Mountain View. On Saturday, I have the honor to support Mount View's first ever Earth Day event, along with over 500 community participants. I'd like to thank the mayor for opening up our event and speaking on the importance of vegetarianism and smart diet choices, and council member Kameh for attending. And I'd be remiss without thanking Melvin Gaines for his support throughout the entire event. It was a wonderful day. One thing is abundantly clear from this event. People of all walks of life in our community, all backgrounds, all ages, from toddlers to the elderly, care about environmental sustainability in this city. When they talk about environmental sustainability, they mean core concepts like food choices, energy use, waste and recycling, smarter and better transportation, water usage, and the natural environment. How do we know? They told us so. Many people spent time telling us about their commitments to make changes. And also by the questions they asked. They want us to reduce consumption. Stop using disposable containers. Begin healthier eating, driving less and walking more, and driving more sustainably. Fundamentally, our community sees sustainability as the foundation of a better life for all for the long term. Carbon free Mountain View shares this vision. We see all environmental sustainability is the foundation of the future, and we will be back next week looking forward to talk to you a lot more about it. So thank you.

[03:30:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:30:17] Conor O'Brien: Hello? Uh, my name is Conor O'Brien. I am a Mountain View resident and renter, and I wanted to add to the folks asking that you vote to prioritize Project one. The study session and work plan on displacement. I think other folks have articulated better than I can the harm happening now due to displacement. And the only thing I would add to what folks have said already is that we've heard from multiple council members in the past that they're not comfortable trying to counter displacement on a case by case and project by project basis. And I think this item represents an opportunity to take a more comprehensive approach in terms of the policy as other folks reference, like tenant opportunity to purchase, no net loss, et cetera. So I hope that you vote to take that opportunity. Thank you.

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

[03:31:06] David Watson: Hi, I'm David Watson. Since each of you can only give one vote each to item one. I was going to mention some items in goal number two. Uh, one. is a really great start towards addressing our housing crisis, but the question of housing production is also important. And I really like items 2.2 of the missing middle income housing. If it was used as a way to allow duplexes and triplexes in R1, because I think that's a really good opportunity for missing middle housing. And then also kind of addressing missing middle housing, the townhome guideline reform is an opportunity to move towards something besides townhomes, perhaps stacked flats is kind of something that is uses space more efficiently, and because of that ends up being more affordable. I think that that would be an improvement over all the development of townhomes that don't actually increase the number of homes in Mountain View. And so don't do as much to address our housing crisis. Finally, item 2.9 is a great opportunity to add housing on public land. Also an opportunity for more production of housing. So it's great. Thank you very much.

[03:32:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:32:26] Lauren Mitchell: Good evening, Mayor Matthew Check and Council members. My name is Lauren Mitchell, and I am a member of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and its Environmental Action Committee. Um, I am here tonight to support 3 environmental priorities. 4.6, 4.10 and 4.11. Projects 4.6 and 4.10 can be treated independently or they could be combined into a single policy that integrates sliding guidance with bird safe design requirements. As migrating birds travel at night, a single policy that studies outdoor lighting, location related hazards, and structural building elements would be of great benefit. We strongly support all 3 projects, but we feel that 4.11 is the most important of the three. Shoreline at Mountain View is the largest open space in the city, and it has regional importance for many native wildlife species, including 29 state and federally listed species. 180 bird species have been observed here in the past 10 years. This area provides habitat for several bird species that have been experiencing population decline and breeding habitat for several species of concern, including the burrowing owl. There are also rare plants in a variety of native animals besides birds. At the same time, the park provides a rare opportunity for the community to explore and experience nature within close proximity to mountain view employment and residential centers. A new comprehensive wildlife management plan is needed to review, update, and consolidate existing plans, with increasing population at North Bay Shore, and with adaptation plans and levee construction to protect the city from sea level rise, the risks of habitat loss fragmentation and disturbance are increasing. Thank you.

[03:33:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:34:00] Louise Arahan: Good evening, Mayor Council members. I'm Louise Arahan with working partnerships USA, and I also coordinate the Trades Orientation Program, which takes members of disadvantaged communities and populations, people with barriers, people who are homeless and struggling to stay in this region, and worked with them to get them into good family supporting careers in the construction industry. careers that our region desperately needs in order to grow our own local construction workforce and be able to build all these new houses and other structures that we need. I'm here to support several items, the 1st of which is the community workforce agreements, which is five. I lost the number here. 5.15. Community workforce agreements are a tool that can ensure when the city is investing its public money and construction that it is helping to create those career pathways into apprenticeship, into good jobs, for local residents, for those who most need them. And at the same time, is growing our local workforce rather than having to import expensive local workers. I also strongly support the wage theft and responsible construction items, and believe those should be combined responsible construction is an approach to wage theft specific to the construction industry, the other 2 pillars will help prevent wage theft in other industries, and finally, echo what everyone said on one.9, anti-displacement is extremely important. I have colleague lobbying in Sacramento to protect renters and tenants. We need local action as well. Thank you very much.

[03:35:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:35:41] Forrest Peterson: My name is Forrest Peterson. I'm a resident of Conkow, California, which is a small community that used to be outside paradise. I'm also a student at Stanford. So I'd like to speak on the 3 topics that you've heard many people speak on, which is equity, justice, and liberty. My coworker, she spoke earlier about equality, which was one. Paula. We work together in the same building at Stanford. I see her actually every day, so I was surprised to see her here. I'd also like to mention 0.one. one, which is uh, the Sanctuary City. My grandfather, Mr. Peterson, was an illegal immigrant, and I know that a lot of us have stories in our background. Our families about immigrant, um, intimidation and uh, racism, uh, that goes back and has different different framing than what we experienced today. And I'm also speaking today for the Laborers International Union of North America. I'm a member of local 185, I paid for my college pushing a wheelbarrow in San Francisco Airport, barrels of concrete, which are pretty heavy. We had one here. I could probably push one and show you. It's pretty cool. So... I now work with the Wage Chef Coalition as a volunteer, providing data science. And so you probably have some of the data sets that we provided, and I just like to point out, employers like LinkedIn have a $3.30000000 judgment, Lozano Car Wash, has 163 employees, and Listia. Thank you. I don't know what it is, but 61.

[03:37:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, please.

[03:37:27] Shani Kleinhouse: Good evening, Mayor Amanda Chak, city council. I'm Shani Kleinhouse with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. In the 7 years since the borrowing our preservation plant took effect, staff has done a beautiful job of trying to save the owls, and that has impacted beneficially a lot of other species. There's a lot of good stuff going on at shoreline, but we've been doing mostly defense, in face of a lot of projects, a lot of increase of encroachment, other things. So even those stuff is doing everything they can. When I look at what is happening there, I think it's time to do proactive work again and try to plan. There are things that are coming, like the sea level rise, and all the mitigations that come with the mitigations that come with other projects. If we always do only do mitigation, and we don't look at how we can actually do more than that, and consolidate all of that, and plants that already exist, then we continue to do defense instead of proactive work. So, hopefully, they'll support 411. Also ask that you support 4.6 and for maybe I'm mixing them up. Yeah, 4.6 and 4.10. These are good for urban ecology. People want to see nature. It's an environmental justice thing, going out of your house and seeing a bird sing. That's worth something. So I think those are important. The lighting is important to a lot of people that come to ask us, what are we doing about too much light with the new LED lighting, is there a way to attenuate some of that? Hopefully, you will do all those, right? Thank you very much.

[03:39:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next... Oh, Shani. I'm sorry. Council member Ramirez has a question for you.

[03:39:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: This is one of the more challenging goals, because we only have three votes, and so we have to pick carefully. I want to make sure I understand that there had been a suggestion to combine the light pollution, item 4.10 with 4.6, the comprehensive bird safe design requirements. And I just wanted to... So the reason they can be folded together is because the bird safe design requirements include a lighting component.

[03:39:33] Shani Kleinhouse: Yes. It will be narrower for the lighting, but it will be a more robust bird safe design slash lighting, and it will help people too. Not only the birds, because it will probably have a light off component, light outs component, which turns light off at a certain time. Let people sleep better, they can open the drapes and, you know, breathe it deeper. So it has, you can create a combined, it won't be as broad, but it will be good.

[03:40:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Oh, okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.

[03:40:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you.

[03:40:05] Albert Jeans: Good evening, council members. Albert Jeans, longtime resident of Sterling, the States. I would like to recommend that you not prioritize the Terabella precise plan. And the reason is, I've been involved in this since the very beginning, we've had three workshops, two study sessions, you know, both for the EPC and this council, seems like every meeting we have, there's more and more resistance to the existing division plan put forward by the planners. In fact, you know, at the last council study session, a lot of the small business owners came forward, said they didn't like certain parts of the vision plan. You just heard from Nancy Weed earlier from Stanton Place. She's in the townhouses right next to the mixed use development. Now they're finding out they're going to put 5 and 7 story buildings in their backyard. So as a result of this, as some of you pointed out at the last council meeting, there is no coherent vision for that area yet. And we seem to be getting no closer to it with every meeting we go to. And that's why I really don't think that at this time is the wise use of city resources to pursue a vision plant, which is very, I've read some of the old ones. They're very, you know, detailed documents that obviously require a lot of work. And so I would rather just go back to the old gatekeeper process and limit things that way. As far as small business owners go. You know, that takes the uncertainty out of, they know the process where gatekeepers, people can come forward as they wish to suggest new development projects. I just don't have confidence that a precise plant will give us what we want. Thank you.

[03:41:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:41:44] Susie Krisimmanya: Good evening. My name is Susie Krisimmanya. I am an associate director of real estate development at Eden Housing. Eden Housing is an affordable housing nonprofit, based here in the Bay Area, and as I'm sure, you're all aware, the affordable housing crisis here is quite acute, we are fielding 100s of phone calls a day, just from people who are not residents that are looking for an affordable place to live. We do have one property here in Mountain View called Studio 819 at the corner of Renkstorf and old Middlefield Way. Um, the waiting list there is actually even closed, um, because the people, uh, because the, the list is so long and even those that are waiting for an apartment will have to wait um, for several years. So as the city considers its priorities, um, I'd urge you to consider ways to increase the stock of affordable housing here. I'd like to particularly highlight goal 2.18, which is a goal to highlight. Sorry, the goal to update the city's density bonus ordinance, to facilitate implementation of the city's precise plans and affordable housing goals. The city has a density bonus ordinance that includes density bonus provisions. But in the precise plans, There are also density, bonus provisions, and in some cases, we're finding that it's not exactly clear how they work together. So as, you know, if this does become a priority, and as the density bonus ordinance does get updated, we ask that the city clarify that the city's density bonus ordinance applies to affordable housing projects that are in precise plans as well. Thank you.

[03:43:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister has a question for you.

[03:43:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. So, as a housing advocate that actually builds projects, do you ever buy current affordable housing?

[03:43:37] Susie Krisimmanya: Yes, we do. So do you mean like naturally occurring affordable housing?

[03:43:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, like we're talking a lot of people were talking about displacement here. Do you buy those and rehab have those?

[03:43:48] Susie Krisimmanya: We do, but typically, to make the economies work. They are pretty large projects, so maybe they are at least 60 units or larger.

[03:43:57] Councilmember John McAlister: You said 16.

[03:43:58] Susie Krisimmanya: Sixty?

[03:43:58] Councilmember John McAlister: 60? Okay. Do you ever manage properties owned by other entities?

[03:44:06] Susie Krisimmanya: We do, rarely, but we do that. There are other companies, management companies that will manage affordable housing properties without owning them. We don't do it as much, but it is possible.

[03:44:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you.

[03:44:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:44:28] Eric Stabelle: Hello, counsel, my name is Eric Stabelle. My house backs up Terabella. Um, I'd like to mention some concerns I have about making the Terrabella precise plan of priority over the next couple years. A precise plan would seem to be the logical thing to do, but my concern is that all the vision plans we have seen so far have been unacceptable to almost everyone. And if the vision plan is to guide the direction of the precise plan, I'm afraid things might not turn out very well. My thought is that before even starting a precise plan, we need more comprehensive overview, with much more detail beyond that of the current vision plan. Looking at the big picture is critical. We need to consider transitions to residential, open space, traffic, and transportation, bike trails, parking, plus demands on schools and other infrastructure. Without a more thorough and widely accepted vision, I would be very hesitant to see a precision plan get started. I'd like to 1st see a more detailed and well thought out vision plan, something really great that most of us would be excited about and proud to see in our neighborhood. But if that's not able to get done first, I don't think we should force the precise plan to be a priority at this time. Thank you.

[03:45:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:45:49] Be Hanson: Be Hanson from the mobile home alliance, Mountain View mobile home alliance in Santiago Villa. I'm coming up just personal. I'm coming up to the end of my two-year contract. And I'm starting to wonder if I'm going to have to live on social security again. Uh, my, a couple of my neighbors who did show up here, uh, reminded me that there are a lot of seniors in our complex and in the entire mobile home alliance, it's, uh, I think, uh, 80% of us are seniors. Um, and I, you know, I'm starting to worry about that and being in that position again and being off work for a year and uh, I, I'm bringing my personal experience as one that is common to many of us. Um, but, uh, so I'm here to speak on, uh, number, uh, project number 2.13, uh, which thank you for the 4 members of the council who have already considered that as a goal setting, uh, in the goal setting, uh, as a project that they would support. I hope that the rest of you will also support that. We have had several years of trying to get mobile home space rent control, as you all know. And we've come to a point where we're hoping to find an ordinance to support us and all of the people in the alliance. I hope you'll consider it. Thank you.

[03:47:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:47:27] Alex Brown: Alex Brown, Santiago Villa, North Bay Shore, Mountain View. Like the echo, her appreciation for the council members who proposed the rent protections for mobile homeowners in Mountain View. And also thank you guys who have come out to meet with us and hear our concerns and see the community. Really appreciate it. And I hope that we can make some solid progress soon. It's great to see. Thanks.

[03:47:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. 2.13. Next, please.

[03:47:58] Trey Borman: Hello again, Trey Borman, president of the Mobile Home Alliance. I'm here again. I would like to thank the courageous council members who have put us in the position to have other council members, vote for us, to be a priority in Mountain View. You've heard once again, you know, we're over 80% seniors. We have vets, we have disabled people. When rents go up 10%, SSI does not, and we need to start taking that into consideration when you protect the citizens of Mountain View. One thing I don't know if the city staff has told you, I know in the past, um, us being in mediation has been an excuse for certain council members to have no action and to be inactive, that uh, mediation was unsuccessful. The appeal will be filed in the next few weeks. So that's not an excuse for inaction tonight. Um, so 2.13, hopefully 13's not unlucky. Thank you to the 4 for your support, and I hope we get something unanimous. We've been kicking this can down the road for over 15 years now. So at least give us a vote for being the longest item in front of you tonight. Thank you very much.

[03:49:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:49:16] Public Speaker: Good evening, city council members. Um, I am representative of the Mobile Home Alliance, cafecitos, and atreaches in St. Joseph's Community. I am here to support one. 9 and then 2.13. Um, I am, will ask that, um, you give uh, a broad range to, to our uh, staffers at the city so that they could really take a look at what's happening in our neighborhood. And I also wanted to finalize, I want to thank you for supporting 2.13. I'm really happy to hear that. Thank you.

[03:49:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:49:59] Megan Fraley: Hi, my name is Megan Fraley. I am here as part of the Wage Theft Coalition, a Mountain View resident, and a supporter of all things, social and economic justice here in Mountain View. I want to thank the council for putting such great projects on the list tonight. Um, and want to particularly sort of echo what I've heard from the audience. Um, the under the goal number one of protecting vulnerable communities, um, standing together that we prioritize one. combined with the other one. Um, one. to prevent wage theft here as a follow-up from the minimum wage work that we took leadership on, to really give it teeth, so it has meaning, to also prioritize a comprehensive analysis of a broad range of options to prevent displacement and protect affordable housing. And also to continue one.11, I think, um, continue knowing your rights, workshops, and increasing awareness of available resources. And just speaking to that we, these are the 3 things that I think, um, we, a lot of us here stand in solidarity together on prioritizing these 3 things in the name of liberty, equality, and justice. We really need to have strong wage policy for justice, housing policy, for equality, and be a sanctuary city for liberty. So please stand up for our continued leadership as a city. with these 3 things. Thank you.

[03:51:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:51:34] Josue Garcia: Good evening, Mayor and city council members, um, this is the 1st time this happened to me, I was asking 2 ladies to ladies 1st and they said, no, we're going to have that last word. Okay. So they sent me first. Thank you for your time. My name is Josue Garcia, and I'm representing the Santa Clara County Residence for Responsible Development, and we want to ask you to give us the highest priority in the world to the wedge step in the responsible construction ordinance. Uh, we are, um, Sorry, I'm coming from Sunnyvale and I didn't have a time to eat and I grab a power bar real quick. Uh, The responsible construction ordinance that we step targets contractors that are part of the uh, construction constructors that are part of the underground economy, on issues like which the uh, workers come fraud, tax evasion, uh, OSHA violations, working without a constructor license. And so that's who we are targeting. But you approving the ordinance, you give a level paying field to all contractors, and by not approving it, you are giving a, um, You are rewarding bad contractors, and I'm sure you don't want to do that. Uh, contractors are cheating in the cities, are sitting in their residents, uh, community members, by not paying their taxes. They are cheating the workers, people are getting hurt. And so we want to ask you to please, uh, uh, approve these ordinance. And if you, it'll be very, uh, we think from our point of view, it will be nice if, if the, um, if you combine that ordinance, it will make sense for city staff and for us and I'm running out of time. Please also support anything to do with this placement. Thank you very much.

[03:53:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:53:24] Mavel Barra: Dear city council members, thank you for your time. My name is Mavel Barra. I am a Mountain View resident since 1986, and I am also a resident of the Santiago Villa mobile home park. Tonight, I ask you 2 things. Uh, number one, to please consider increasing the tree canopy goal for our city, especially in the North Bay Shore area. As you know, planting trees is a cost effective way to take urban air pollution, which is becoming a growing problem and concern in our city. Please make 4.9 and 4.11 as one of your priorities. Also, please, please support item 2.13 to develop an ordinance that controls mobile home park space rents in our city. Thank you.

[03:54:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:54:21] Joe McDonald: Joe McDonald again. And I realize that I am very privileged. That my late husband and I were able to buy a home in Mountain View in 1960. We had to stretch our finances to do that. And we chose Mountain View not just because it was $3,000 less than the exact same home, a mile down the road in Palo Alto. But because we learned that Mountain View was a city that cherished diversity. And diversity of socioeconomic levels. What we really need now is one.9 and all the affordable housing issues. And I want to thank both Chris for his insistence on fairness and his initiative to change the rules. And also, Ellen Kumay, for abstaining with one of the demolition projects. We need all the protections that we can give to all of the vulnerable groups in the city, including those potentially victims of wage theft. I hope you'll agree. Thank you.

[03:55:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So anyone else who wishes to address the council on this topic. Okay, seeing none, we will close public input and bring it back to council. You guys don't want to break. Let's do a few of these before, or maybe one, depending upon how much we have to say. before we take a break. Oh, right. So the first item is to consider the wording of the major goal statements. You've got two of them in front of you. We can start with the first one. The general kind of straw thumbs, thumbs up, nod heads. Okay.

[03:56:54] Unknown Speaker: Are we on 2 yet? Are we on 2 yet?

[03:56:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Number two. Well, I think Council member Ramirez.

[03:57:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Oh, sorry. Pushed. I'd want to make a suggestion. So I'm not opposed to the wording for goal number one, but I do feel like there's a little bit of mission creep here. My preference would be to keep it narrowly scoped to protecting vulnerable populations and preserving the socio economic and cultural diversity of the city. sort of the original language. But if a majority of the council prefers, including the community for all, then I'm not opposed to that.

[03:57:32] Unknown Speaker: So I also agree. I was the one who sent in the question. I didn't hear any of us really talk about changing the wording of this when we talked about this a few weeks ago. And I would prefer to say focused on protecting the vulnerable populations. A lot of the projects that we put forward, do that. And I'd like to keep us focused. For me, community for all is a very, very broad topic. and could have a lot more projects in it. I'd like to stay focused.

[03:58:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Oops. Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[03:58:08] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. And perhaps if we changed it to promote a community for all with strategies focused on protecting vulnerable populations and preserving, blah, blah, blah. That way, at least we, I think it's, I like the community for all. We've been using it. I think we, it is one of our, you know, our mission, it's part of our mission. So I think it's fine to leave it in there, but if we add the word focus, then we know that we're focusing in on those the rest of the vision. Goal.

[03:58:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member come in.

[03:58:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. I'm comfortable with that change. I too like the incorporation of the community for all. It seems from the discussion that we had with staff a couple weeks ago that if that's what we're unofficially using as our city, It would be important to incorporate, I think, and capture in writing as a goal. That's just, I'd like to see that consistency come forward. So I'll support the vice mayor's change. Yes, with focus in there.

[03:59:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Is that acceptable generally to the council as a whole?

[03:59:48] Unknown Speaker: Yes

[03:59:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Chris, did you want to comment on gold too?

[03:59:55] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, it's really, really minor. I was just gonna suggest it would read better if you put the word by in front of providing. So improve the quantity, diversity, and affordability of housing by providing opportunities for subsized middle income and ownership housing. Okay.

[04:00:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. That was two. There's three. Oh, look at that one. Okay. Any comments on goals, three or four? Three is for my... On page 11.

[04:01:00] Unknown Speaker: Oh. Put your... side out. There we go. Thank you.

[04:01:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. It's up on the screen, if that's helpful. It's fine. One of the challenges this system is, you either get a choice of looking at the slides or saying you want to speak. fine. What do you want? You like it, John? You know, like it?

[04:01:29] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no, it's fine. I just want to add something about Johnny, Mike. Build us to get us to the 21st century. You know, if we're talking transportation strategies, mobility, connectivity, let us for all ages, but also get us to the, you know, the future. And somewhere in there would be nice to say that that's would be nice for me. So if anybody had a thought, but, you know, that's what we are trying to achieve, is something for the future. And there is no... Because the new technology, 5G, connected vehicles, et cetera, et cetera, are they incorporated in there or just at least we're advancing ourselves to push ourselves to build for the 21st century.

[04:02:16] Unknown Speaker: One suggestion would be maybe just add the word innovative, so it could be comprehensive, coordinated, and innovative transportation strategies. Or you could just replace coordinated with innovative. Instead of adding words. It can all be coordinated.

[04:02:35] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. I go with lows. Yes, that would be better.

[04:02:41] Unknown Speaker: Innovative. Suzanne, I don't know, but innovative words could be a good word. And takeout coordinated? Yeah. Or, you know.

[04:02:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, I got two wordsmiths, Stanford versus Cal, so we'll fight it out over there. So I'm hearing that comprehensive and innovative transportation strategies. All right. No? Hmm. 20 seconds, there I appreciate the audience. It's like... Go for? Turn off this. Okay, good. Let's move on. Right? Everybody's good with that? Okay.

[04:03:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. We did bring up our project list. So we'll start with goal one, and Melvin's gonna bring up a spreadsheet that will show the projects under goal one. The ones with the black, intimidating looking bar across them are the ones where no vote is required. You'll see that there are columns down across for each of the council members alphabetically listed. When we are feel that there's been adequate discussion and understanding of the projects on the list, what they mean, whether there's any changes to be made to them, then you will each be asked for your vote. If the total number of projects stays the same as what's there, the votes that you'll have for goal one are six, I believe. And if there's any change, then we'll recalculate that and give you a new number. So this would be an appropriate time to talk about whether there is, um, I want to acknowledge that there was a desire that perhaps there were some continuing projects that might be um, not continued. So I think we talked about having that discussion in the context of each goal. So if there's any goal, a continuing goal in a rather project in goal one, this would be also a good time to give feedback about that if there's council direction to suggest not continuing. So, with the list that you have here. Are there any questions that you have of your colleagues or of staff about the content of those projects?

[04:05:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes, I do.

[04:05:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We've got council member Ramirez.

[04:05:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I wanted to... I'll respect that process, but I was thinking we would do the continuing projects first, just dispense with that, but if the preferences to go by...

[04:05:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Go, go, Bible. Okay.

[04:05:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um... All righty, I'm planning to be first, but just because I'm in the queue.

[04:05:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Now you are.

[04:06:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so, uh, I am I just list the ones, and then... I don't want to belabor this too long. There are a couple of additional projects I'd like to propose. Are we also going to do that goal by goal, as well? Okay, thank you. So, just going through it. So I will be supporting 1.2, the wage theft ordinance. I have a preference to fold that into 5.14, the responsible construction ordinance. There appears to be a lot of overlap. So that would be, I think, a good opportunity to explore the two concepts in tandem. I will be voting for one.9, the study session on...

[04:06:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'm sorry to clarify. I think we need to make sure we have the right project list first, and that may, it would include things like the input you just gave about combining 5.14 into one.2. If there was anything that you were wanting to add to this goal, if there was anything that you wanted to take, you know,

[04:07:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: yeah. So we're doing this goal an entirety, but getting the project list.

[04:07:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, correct.

[04:07:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, my apologies. Okay, so then the modifications that would make the goal, I'm sorry, to goal one would be combining 5.1, 4, and one.2. And then including 5.15, the community workforce agreement as a goal one project. And then adding as a potential additional goal, a narrowly scoped discussion or study session on gaps in service related to homelessness. So one of the frustrations that I think many of us share is this is a challenge that is regional in nature, that there's a county component, there's a state and federal component, but a lot of the impact falls disproportionately at the city level. And I would be interested in evaluating the programs and investments that we've made so far and determine where we could have more effectiveness, where additional investment may be useful. So, for instance, in homeless prevention, and where maybe things are not as effective, other kinds of programs that we've explored. So I don't intend that to be, you know, comprehensive. is just more what how effective is our strategy, and are there additional things that we can and should include that could help us address the impact of homelessness? And in particular, I'm not thinking about folks living in vehicles, I'm thinking about the people who are unsheltered. So those are the modifications I would suggest.

[04:09:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Vice mayor, Abbe Koga.

[04:09:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, following up on council member Ramirez's comments, I do support the combination of 1.2 with 5.4. Um, in addition to that, I think, um, we can actually roll one.3 into one.2. Um, it may not, and yeah, a human trafficking policies are happening at the county. And I think there's just, when I was brought this up the last time, maybe I wasn't clear, but, um, it is tied together and we are doing the county food permitting, um, pilot program. So I think we can, for now, put it together with theft and combine everything in that way. And then the other one, what was one. 5 prevailing wage reform, I think I thought it could be combined with 5.15, which is the CWA.

[04:10:11] Unknown Speaker: So, um, I think CWA Community Workforce Agreements. Uh, 1.5 prevailing wage reform. Do you have ideas on what has to be reformed?

[04:10:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, from my understanding, I mean, there are folks in the audience who could probably better explain this, but, um, there's some challenges with enforcement is what I'm hearing. with prevailing wage, the current policies. And so a CWA could potentially provide more enforcement tools. And then, let's see. I just had a question, a couple of questions. So a lot of folks spoke about one. 11, the Know Your Rights workshop. So, um, like, what, was it the intent that, because that's, that happened the last 2 years in our last school setting, it would end now, and so we would have to prioritize it as a goal, or was that something that we were just planning to build into our day-to-day operations?

[04:11:26] Unknown Speaker: Um, the former, um, the way that we operationalized that project was through the community for all grant process, which had a very specific appropriation from the council and a fairly intensive administrative process by staff to put out the request for, um, applications and for the HRC to do the review. And that is considered, will be considered completed at the end of 2019 when all of that grant activity has been, you know, the work has been done, and the agencies have reported back on the work. So we would have to allocate funding for it to continue.

[04:12:10] Unknown Speaker: And yes. That's true, and it could be just a funding issue. less than a project depending on how it would be administered. So community for all was broad in its scope, whereas know your rights is more specific. Um, but they're also, you know, there's likely more than one organization, one has come forward to talk about their work and doing those kinds of workshops, but I believe there are other organizations in the community. So there would still need to be work to kind of scope what it was that the city was looking for and how much funding and what expectations.

[04:12:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Is there any possibility of rolling it into our what we just did earlier with CDBG and general fund projects?

[04:13:11] Unknown Speaker: Uh, in terms of increasing the funding amount or making the existing agencies compete with different new agencies for the same pot.

[04:13:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I think if it would just be a separate category and then attach the funding to that. But just do it.

[04:13:30] Unknown Speaker: I mean, it would still be the work, I mean, because right now, the, um, housing division administers that notice of funding availability, and it's because of its tie to the consolidated plan and the requirements of CDBG and home. So this would be a different process.

[04:13:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. And then one question on one. examining partnership with Destination Home, is that we do we not work with Destination Home already in our homelessness efforts? It seems like it would be a natural, you know, outreach of what we're already doing. If I could ask community development, if they're able to respond to that question.

[04:14:23] Unknown Speaker: I think it may also be helpful to ask the proponent of the item of what exactly the intent is. We certainly work with the county and all sorts of non profits on homelessness issues. The question is, is this providing funding to destination home? Is it creating a new program? You know, it's a little unclear because it's not fully defined at this point.

[04:14:42] Unknown Speaker: Right. Okay. Yes. What is a good idea? Sure. Yes.

[04:14:45] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. So, one of the things that Destination Home has been doing is doing the housing ready communities. Um, and I don't know if, I don't know what our participation is in that. Um, but I know that that's something that, um, different cities, and I know the county, um, has been joining destination home in, um, to, um, not only work on homelessness prevention, but also uh, rapid rehousing, um, efforts there. So I am not sure what our involvement is with them right now, but I thought that that could be an opportunity. That could also be rolled into maybe, if we're looking at displacement, our displacement, efforts, and some combination there, but I'll let staff come forward.

[04:15:41] City Staff: Thank you for the question. So, we are in the process of getting a meeting set up with Destination Home to understand how we can work with them, going forward to address the issues of homelessness.

[04:15:52] Unknown Speaker: Great, so do we need to keep it on then, or do you?

[04:15:57] City Manager Dan Rich: I think, honestly, until we know more about what that means. It's unclear. My guess is it's really as much a budgetary issue as a programmatic or workload issue, depending on how they're structured and what the partnership is. Is us funding something they do, or, you know, it's still a little unclear, but maybe we deal with, we get a little bit more information, and we deal with it in the budget process.

[04:16:21] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Okay, and then the last one was 1.20, the diversity fair that the APC recommends. Um, did, was there a discussion with them about the multicultural festival that we already conduct and whether we can just expand that to include the tabling. Or did was it just taking input from them?

[04:16:50] City Manager Dan Rich: I don't know that we have the staff liaison, who was with them, when they had that discussion, to comment.

[04:16:58] Unknown Speaker: Okay, well, that would be my suggestion, then.

[04:17:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks Council member McAllister.

[04:17:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, you guys. Okay, I'm trying to understand. We're not. We're just sort of consolidating these projects, and then, at a future time, we'll vote on them, or...

[04:17:17] City Manager Dan Rich: Right. Uh, future as in a few minutes.

[04:17:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh. I'm looking at...

[04:17:22] City Manager Dan Rich: But the goal is not to consolidate. I'm hearing a lot of, let's roll, this one. And the thing I want to make sure that staff is clear about is what is the scope of what we're doing, because things might be similar, but they're not exactly the same, and we need to make sure we do know what that scope is, and if combining makes the project bigger, it does allow fewer votes, you know, the, you know, it allows you to go further with your votes, but it, but it also means that the that those projects would take would be more because they have become bigger.

[04:17:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so a lot of this is all under the constraints of staff availability, or productivity, or, you know. And so when it says gold ones, six votes. I mean, there's a lot of items, there's 20 items on that, but let's say... I look at some of these, and I say, well, there's already options or current laws that can address a lot of these issues, but I want to go focus on all my votes on number three. Goal 3 or something, goal 2, whatever. How is that working out? I mean, I'm still under, am I still understanding the press because it says I get 6 votes, but if I feel that everything under gold one hypothetically is has options, but I want to spend all my capital, vote capital on something else, does it work that way?

[04:18:48] City Manager Dan Rich: That's not the way the process is structured. If you didn't feel there were six items in goal one that you wanted to support, you wouldn't be required to vote for six, but the number of votes in that goal are related to the number of projects in that goal. So to give extra votes in another area, um, kind of, you know, doesn't.

[04:19:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, this is sort of, okay, I guess I'm getting used to the, in prior years, we put up some boards, we see the projects, and then we voted. Here's it's sort of a force vote on something, or if you don't vote, then you're not in, it doesn't count towards anything, and yet, it's moving forward, and you're saying, well, I don't think that's a high priority. And yet.

[04:19:35] City Manager Dan Rich: In my view, it's not that different than having dots. It's just that, you know, and you wouldn't necessarily be given unlimited dots if you were putting them up, putting them up.

[04:19:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, no, before you'd have 4 goals or whatever projects and each goal, and then you went to that particular goal and say, okay, I feel this goal is more important than that goal. I, you know, I have limited capital of staff resources to do it. And so I think we should do it. Here, you're sort of spreading the votes or the the process so that it's sort of diluted and it doesn't really help us concentrate on what's really what's really important. We have 4 goals, we have 70 projects. And my impression is that we take those 70 projects and we determine what's the most important that are beneficial for the city of Mountain View and other resources. Here, you're going, well, we've got some resources over here and over here, not necessarily focusing. In other words, the word that we just said, focus and it doesn't appear to me that we're focusing on anything. It's just broad base.

[04:20:39] Unknown Speaker: Just to respond to that. So I think the process, there's sort of an inherent recognition that different departments are going to be working on different projects. So if you choose not to vote in anything in goal one, that doesn't necessarily free of capacity for goal three. which is what I appreciate about this. You know, I think transportation is an important goal, but it's not mutually exclusive with protecting vulnerable communities because different staff members are going to be handling different projects. That's the way I'm interested.

[04:21:11] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. But we still have limited capacity. And yeah, so, you know, the 1st couple here, they're very important, but there's existing laws out there that they have options. They can remedy them. So do I want to have my staff, work on something that's already potentially have remedy, and work on something that the displacement, which is very important to Mountain View, is more important time, you know, and they can't do all these things. So that's what I'm looking at, is saying, and that's why, I think.

[04:21:41] City Manager Dan Rich: I think the best way to achieve what you're articulating is simply not to use all your votes. If you don't think there are six things in goal one that we should be spending time on, then don't vote for six things.

[04:21:53] Councilmember John McAlister: So then how do you accumulate? Okay, so then help me get to the end. So once all this voting's done?

[04:21:58] City Manager Dan Rich: And so, yeah. I mean, once all this voting's done, it frankly doesn't, I don't want to say it doesn't matter how you vote. Of course it does, but at the end of the day, we're only going to be able to do as much as we have resources for. Right. So you may have, you know, 7 things in goal one that a majority of you want to do, probably not, but since you only have 6 votes, but hypothetically. But we only have resources to do 3 of those. So we're going to go back after you do your voting tonight and analyze how far down the list we can get. So it may be only the top one, it may be the top three, it may be one, 3, and 7, because 7's an easy, one done by some of the different than 4 and 5. So it really will depend. But again, if you want to focus on a limited number. The best way to do that is simply to vote for fewer.

[04:22:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, but if I'd say so, what does it mean by six votes and gold one? Each council member gets six votes?

[04:22:59] City Manager Dan Rich: Six projects.

[04:23:00] Councilmember John McAlister: But if I don't say I, okay, so maybe out of the 20 of 1.9, I like one, I would put all six votes to that.

[04:23:08] City Manager Dan Rich: You would put one vote to that. It's like voting for council members, John. You don't have to vote for all of them. You can use as many of your

[04:23:17] Councilmember John McAlister: That's why I say... Eventually, at the end of the day. Well, we would have, it says six votes. So there's seven votes in this.

[04:23:26] City Manager Dan Rich: The way it's currently structured, you cannot put multiple votes on one item. So if there are not six things you want to vote for, you simply vote for however, one, two, three, or four, whatever number you think are worthy of study. Within this one goal.

[04:23:40] Councilmember John McAlister: So when we had the little dots, you could put all yours into one thing.

[04:23:45] City Manager Dan Rich: You could. You could put them all on one and say, okay, this is important. The numbers, actually. Yeah. Okay.

[04:23:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[04:24:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so some of mine were taken, a few of the combining ones. Let's see. Yeah, I, I, I, very much like and agree with the addition of a project gaps in service related to homelessness. Um, I think there's been a big, at least when I've been out recently, there's been a big jump in homelessness just in the past several weeks, more than I've seen in the 20 years I've lived here, and I don't know, particularly in the downtown area. Although a little in the San Antonio area as well, and I don't know what to attribute that too, but other neighbors have come up to me and said that as well. And it's not vehicle residents. It's people sleeping in doorways and so forth. Um, and I hope that can be a little comprehensive, because I'm somewhat frustrated with the, the, um, uh, rapid rehousing and the, oh, I'm forgetting the name of it now, but the total housing thing, I think we may need some quicker, some emergency or Band Aid solutions, but that's what I hope this will encompass as well. The 2nd thing I wanted to say is that one.9, um, I'm wondering if 2.6, which is, uh, identifying organizations that could partner with the city to purchase rehab and manage older apartment complexes to preserve affordable housing, if that's in, if that's a part of that one, because I should say, This is one that if I could, I would vote for it twice. But also, I took the fact that this was up for our review as an opportunity to call some of my colleagues at UC Berkeley, who went through the planning program with me. And, uh, a lot of my people I worked with when I studied housing are working on just this, and there's actually, there's actually quite a broad menu of possible options, and some of them are, like the, um, the tenant opportunity to purchase and, and, um, modifications of that that seem to be exactly what we were talking about in 2.6. So that's another comment. Let's see if I had... And then, um, I wanted to ask, um, council member, Kame, the, um, provide city led, sponsored, know your rights workshop, then staff's input, was that, um, we're already providing such workshops, if there was something more that you had pictured as a part of that.

[04:26:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sure. Um, so, uh, some of the feedback, community feedback that I received about, no, you're rights, um, are that, um, that could be more robust in terms of the services, um, at the Spanish language academy, um, volunteer for that I attended last week, a community member, let me know that, um, you know, they went through the training, they called the, um, rapid response network, but they had a real difficulty actually connecting with an attorney to answer the phone and provide them with the services they needed, which is that we got public comment, maybe a month and a half ago about somebody here in Mountain View, that was detained by ICE. Um, and that, you know, luckily, through the, through their own network, they were able to get them legal assistance, but something that the city and county participate in, in terms of the rap response network and, um, wasn't able to, um, provide them with what they needed in that immediate instance. And so, perhaps making sure I know your rights clinics are more robust, or perhaps partnering with our Spanish language leadership academy and them coming. I just think that there could be, or engaging with the county, um, and letting them know the feedback that we receive from residents, I think, as an opportunity, um, you know, whether that's as a goal or maybe that's more as an administrative type of thing, um, is something that I think is of interest.

[04:28:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so I would be interested in hearing comments from staff on whether that same, those seem like good improvements, whether those could just be incorporated, whether that's something staff could just do, or whether we should take it on as a full project.

[04:28:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And so I think one of the conversations that I had with staff, not to speak for them, was that some of that fundy, some of the community for all grants that came out, would fund it until the end of 2019, but after 2019, that there is no longer any funding. So that's why I also wanted to bring it forward as a more concentrated goal, calling out, know your rights, because one, I think it's a program that the community specifically has said is of use, and two, with the funding running out, by December of this year, it's something that I'd like to see continue on.

[04:29:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member commit.

[04:29:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sorry, now it's my turn. Okay. So, something that I had put forward as item 5.16 was to conduct a youth survey to determine how city can better serve youth. And I thought with the EPC suggestion, item 1.19 to increase awareness of mental health issues among all ages, particularly youth. I thought that perhaps if we were able to do the survey, we could actually hear directly from the youth, if that's something that they're interested in. Um, and get the feedback directly from them. So I don't know if it's a combining item, but I thought that there was some connect... I thought there was some connection there, so.

[04:30:21] City Manager Dan Rich: So, that could be a project to do a survey, and then, upon doing a survey of mental health issues were something that rose to the top, then that would generate another project, but wouldn't necessarily be one based on what I think I just heard you say, that would be prioritized at this point. And that is, um, not an uncommon way that sometimes the projects that come up now do work and that they are explorations of things that once explored could lead to recommendations to do something different or could lead to just information that doesn't result in a new project. So that would be one way that that could work. would not, in fact, be a combining. It would just be how you determined your own priorities between those.

[04:31:16] Unknown Speaker: Okay. I mean, I think it'd be interesting to hear directly from youth, on what they're, you know, on ways that the city can better serve them, and see if mental health rises to the top. I think it's a good recommendation, but I think it's also important to get the direct feedback from the, you know, community we're trying to serve.

[04:31:51] Unknown Speaker: Okay, I had a few questions or comments on this. On item one. one. I was wondering, I guess, more about what that is. And is it just getting the information, or is it doing something with that information? Thank you.

[04:32:11] Unknown Speaker: Thank you for the question that's been a quiet item. Um, So there's, there's quite a few gun safety laws at the statewide level, um, but some of our neighboring cities in particular, Sunnyvale has recently, um, passed ordinances to, um, I think to kind of tighten up or fill, there's some gap is my sense. But, and I, but I've also read about how some of those state laws have been tied up in court, and that might be why, there are these gaps. And so, and I'm just looking for an overview of what are our state laws existing. What are some of the city ordinances that other cities have passed, especially ones nearby us? And, um, looking for those gaps and seeing if we need to fill them through city ordinances. And this is really in light of, um, you know, the, the school shootings that have happened and shootings everywhere, but, um, last year, our high schools, um, had a walkout and, and, and had a rally and, you know, really, you know, asking us to do more, asking the cities to do more in terms of gun safety. And so I just wanted to respond to the young people and their activism. But, you know, I mean, it's an increasing issue, unfortunately. And so I just wanted to see like what, yeah, what's out there, what's not out there, what is the, what are the things maybe the city can do? Thank you.

[04:33:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That is very helpful. Um, I think all of my other questions have been asked in this section, but I do kind of have a comment. And when we did this goal studying a couple of years ago, and we talked about projects, I was trying to wordsmith some of them, and I was told not to do that. But this time I'm gonna, because I feel like that came back to bite me. So, as a general comment. I would like these to be, in some ways, less definitive, because we really need to explore some of these things before we decide, yes, we're going to do this. So that was probably a perfect example, you know, explore, you know, gun safety rules and see if there are gaps that need to be filled. Um, There's like, uh, one. 88. I would say we should explore whistle districts if there's a way to enhance after school programs, rather than say, okay, we're going to do this, and this is how we're going to do it. And I'd say the same thing about when we say, let's have a study session. To me, that means let's explore the topic. And, you know, get the information we need to decide if we want to do something about it. I'm kind of curious whether folks, if without the information, we don't really know. Well, we... But there are some...

[04:35:25] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Right, right. There are some that we've already decided. So we've already tried to do that to some extent where either based on our level of understanding of what the intent was or based on the breadth of possible different options and how well we feel we could move forward with any one individual option project one. being an example of that, where we've kind of put that forward in a way that is looking at what are the range of options. If this is a project that council wants to do, we wouldn't suggest honing right in on one particular strategy. So I think if that's an interest, it would be helpful actually to pinpoint specific projects, like the example you just did with one. 8, where you think the language is too specific.

[04:36:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, just on the 1st page, I would say one. 2, one.4, one.6, one.8. Like, one.2, develop and consider a wage theft ordinance. wouldn't it be consider a wage theft ordinance? And then once we know all of the elements of it, and including that with responsible construction, we would then decide, okay, yeah, we want to go ahead and develop the ordinance.

[04:36:54] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yes. I mean, I mean, if the council really said, you know, we want to wage theft ordinance, then we would go and figure out what would be the considerations of that. We might need to come back to you with the study session 1st that says, well, are you, you know, are you really, are you looking at construction trades? Are you looking at just the things that we regulate through our business licenses and our contracts, and then we'd get that direction and then we'd go? I mean, if we didn't have enough direction to do it, we'd still be doing some exploration, but I think it depends on the certainty of counsel that that's a thing that we would want to do versus is that a thing that we would want to explore and then decide.

[04:37:48] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I guess for me, I'd like to know more details before deciding, yes or no.

[04:38:01] City Manager Dan Rich: I mean, I think that's really about how you define the project. For things that are sort of new policy oriented, generally, what we would do is bring you, you know, the options, the pros and cons is something, but again, there are some instances where do a precise plan. You know, you're gonna do it. You're going to start the work. There are some things, as Audrey says, if you're definitive that, you know, we want x, no matter what, then we'll go straight to x, but in most cases, if it's developing a new policy or ordinance, we'll say, this is the range of options, these are the pros and cons. These are different ways you can approach it, you know, best practices, et cetera.

[04:38:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I'm not going to go through all of these, but if my colleagues agree that they would like that approach. I would say we would, you know, tweak some of these in terms of how they're, um, listed. or phrased, maybe a better term. And I agree there's some that we're very certain on, or we're very certain we don't want to do them. And there's others where we need more information before we can say, yes, we're gonna do this. And maybe next time, um, with a little bit more tweaking, or I can go through and list the ones that I think should be changed, um, if folks are in general agreement that that would be the direction. I heard John.

[04:39:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I think, particularly in terms of the ones we've combined, I don't know what the implications of doing all of them are. So those are the ones that, in particular, I think it's explored doing. I can't remember a single one. Explore developing wage theft ordinance and responsible construction. Was that an ordinance? You know, I, look at, maybe we do both, maybe we just do one. That's, I think, adding Explorer is good for those that we've combined. Okay. Also, in section one... No, I think everyone else. covered my other comments already.

[04:40:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[04:40:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: So most of the ones that I was gonna, I had my six allocated to either end up being no vote needed or, um, or, um, yeah, luckily for staff, they either end up being no vote needed, or... or they ended up being, you know, something that I could, I think that we could address administratively. So, for example, You know, I agree with the used survey, I think that's the perfect sort of work plan item for the council use services committee to actually do that as opposed to doing that, and then, because we've done, they've actually proactively done some surveys like that, and mental health actually is one of the things that close to the top. And then we work with, we, you know, work with Czech or other organizations that are focused specifically on that to highlight those specific needs because they're already in the school. So I think that's important to do. I'm not sure it rises to the level of, you know, being a two-year sort of resource allocation, but I think it's absolutely something that we should suggest to, like, the council use services committee, and I'd be, if that requires one of my votes, then I'm more than happy to put that there. I think the other places where I, I mean, if I could put all my eggs in, or the majority of my eggs in one basket, it would be for one. 9 in the for displacement and net loss and having that study session, just because I think a lot of the items in goal one are going to require the city's attorney's office. And so I'm sort of sparingly allocating my other votes on things that I think will take quite a bit of effort there because I really want to focus on a really, really broad set of options to explore a broad set of options for one. nine. I think, um, I think it also makes sense if we can do, um, separately if we can identify, um, a few folks mention gaps in our, um, either homelessness strategies or enforcement, I think that that could easily be a separate item from one. that I'd be willing to support. I think to know your rights workshops. I think that's more a matter of continuing the funding than it is, you know, having study sessions about that, but I do think it's important that we get reports back on what's going on there, but I would support continuing that funding. So if that requires a vote, then that's fine too. But I feel most strongly about one.9. I don't have an issue, as the mayor said, exploring sort of the extent to which we would look at something like a wage theft ordinance, especially if, you know, Sunnyvale or others already have a really good model that we can work from. I have a little, I have more reservations about wrapping everything else under the sun in that category into that. But if we were looking at, um, you know, addressing gaps that maybe the county doesn't fill or where we're actually solving problems by solving specific concerns within the community by adopting these things, um, like a waste theft ordinance, then I'm happy to support it. I think some of the other things that have been identified are probably more difficult to enforce and are probably more taking a box than they are actually having an impact on a city by city basis. But I'm open to having that discussion. So that means having a study session on a wage theft ordinance in some of the some of the other things that folks have talked about. I'm perfectly open to that. I just don't know. I'm just sort of hedging that I don't think, it'll be difficult for me to sort of put this at the attorney's office and the other offices behind a really, really expansive effort there when I think we really should be focusing in the next year on displacement. So that's where I'm at on item one. I want to focus most on one. nine. I'm willing to support, you know, the continued funding of know your rights or increase funding there in terms of, you know, putting the draft budget and everything there, destination home, um, and, you know, maybe a council use services work plan either this year or next year item, you know, just emphasizing surveys and trying to figure out what gaps, how we can better serve the youth in our community.

[04:44:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sounds like you're voting.

[04:44:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: I was. Are we not supposed to be voting yet?

[04:44:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right. Because it's 10:30, and we haven't voted on one, and we're gonna be here for a while.

[04:44:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Right. So I will start the voting. those are my votes.

[04:44:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, well, hopefully, I'll be able to remember all of those when we are at that point. I want to make sure that I understand the moving and combining, and the things that might be considered kind of budget issues, and, you know, things that could be done operationally. And so I'm going to take a 2nd to collect my thoughts on that. Okay. In the meantime, vice mayor.

[04:45:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No, we're just doing goal, we're just doing goal one, and we're going to vote on goal one. Once I can put forward what I, where I think we are,

[04:45:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uncle one, one more question here.

[04:45:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, I'm sorry, Ice Mayor.

[04:45:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And I, um, it's following up on Councilman Clark's comments, but and then sorry, I'm going to go beyond just goal one, but overall, there were some items that were recommended by our commissions or advisory committees. And, for instance, I think the youth services one is a good example. But, um, like the visual arts committee, recommending public art on our community shuttle, you know, BPAC with their, um, pilot bike projects. I guess we've never really, I don't know, maybe when you guys did when I was gone, but we've always struggled with, you know, what we do with our commissions. They come up with their work plan. We approve it, but some of these things, like, I would actually just like to send it to the committees or the commissions to do. And I know it would probably come up with a price tag, and I understand that, but that's how I, you know, I don't think these are big enough to be to your goals, but they're a good ideas that I think the commissions and the committees are there to do for us. So how can we facilitate that, is my question.

[04:46:50] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: So I think that perhaps similar comments as the ones that have been raised about the goal one projects that might be seen as, you know, budget issues or operational issues. And then, you know, if staff has a perspective about whether it's it is a minor, I mean, even if it's something that becomes part of a commission work plan, it may or may not be minor in terms of the impact that it has on staff. So we'd want to make sure that we understood that. But, you know, when we get to those projects from the BPAC and visual arts committee, then that would be good input to provide.

[04:47:29] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I mean, I don't think anyone disagrees with the premise that, you know, they can roll up their sleeves and do more projects, but I want to be very blunt, that there's an impact on staff, or anything they do, you know, it's got to be agendas. Staff does a lot of the work behind the scenes for what they do. I mean, if you're truly going to empower them to do it all, that's fine, but there are usually significant impacts on staff, even to do a survey, who's going to distribute it. How's it gonna get done, who's gonna collate it? I mean, there's just, you know, there's a lot of details involved that do impact us.

[04:48:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And I understand that. So I know there's a budgetary, you know, peace to this. But when you all did the, you know, the utility boxes, the art art on that, I think we allotted, I don't know, some amount of funding and that happened through VAC, right? Or, yeah. So that's what I'm looking for, is like, how can we just do that, you know, instead of making it.

[04:48:37] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: But that was a project that was prioritized as part of the goal setting and it had a heavy staff involvement in addition to the budget allocation and the work of the commission. 4 goals. It was a project support. Under a goal.

[04:48:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah. Okay. Yeah, it was. Okay.

[04:48:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, what I would, um, I'm gonna make some comments and ask for Melvin and, uh, to chime in if I've missed anything. Several of you made suggestions about ways to combine different projects that relate to labor rights and labor protections. There are a couple of those that exist in goal one right now, how they're listed, and a couple that are in goal five. It seems generally that people wanted to include the ones that, I mean, whether they get prioritized or not or combined or not, that the ones that were under goal, or Area 5, you know, miscellaneous 5, it would be appropriate to move them up to goal one, and those were 5.14 regarding responsible construction ordinance and 5.15 community workforce agreement. So if there's general agreement or acceptance on counsel's part to have those be considered as part of the goal. One list, we can move those up now. And then my next question would be around the combining because some of you had different ideas about which ones to combine. And I want to make sure that I understand because it seems like I'm not sure the fit for all of them, and I want to make sure I understand the scope. So 1st off, is it okay to move 5.14 and 5.15 from section 5 up to goal one. Okay.

[04:50:38] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: So, Melvin, we'll do some cut and paste as we continue. And the combination that I heard that seemed to be more consistent was 1.2 plus 5.14 together, 1.2 being wage theft, brought more broadly across different types of employers, as enforced through the city's business license and contracts. And 5.14 being a specific ordinance adopted by the city that would address wage theft within construction. So that, I understand more than I understand, a fit of 5.15. I did think I heard from at least one council member that 5.15 might be related into those. And then 1.3 in 5.15 being the community workforce agreement, and then 1.3 being human trafficking. So that I'd like to hear a little bit more about those ideas.

[04:51:49] Unknown Speaker: So if I may, um, 1.5 human trafficking, um, that, so through a wage theft ordinance, um, that should cover the issues around human trafficking. So essentially, we wouldn't need to do a separate policy. The Human Relations Commission has heard from human trafficking advocates, and there are other things that we've heard them talk about, maybe not policy as much as awareness raising and other things, so I guess I don't really know what a human trafficking policy might involve that's not about wage theft. So, um, That's why I was proposing to combine it. Or just...

[04:52:36] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: So the focus really would be around the wage theft aspect of people who are being trafficked.

[04:52:47] Unknown Speaker: I think essentially when you do wage theft enforcement, you also are able to capture human trafficking violations.

[04:52:57] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I see. What I'm hearing you say is one.3 can go away.

[04:53:01] Unknown Speaker: Basically, essentially. Yeah, yeah. And for this year.

[04:53:05] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: That has been... Well, as that project had been put forward by you, I think that that is your prerogative, unless any of your council members have another comment. Okay, so we can strike one.3. Do a strike through on that one. Uh oh. And we have fewer phones. Okay. And so is there general agreement around combining 1.2 and 5.14?

[04:53:40] Unknown Speaker: I mean, I think those are two different ordinances, right, that we would need to create, so we would scope it in that way, but you would want both of those things to go forward and not have to choose between the 2 of them.

[04:53:58] Unknown Speaker: Well, so my understanding was what Lisa had said, that, um, what the mayor had said, that we would be exploring them, not, and then deciding whether to do both, or one, or none, or that's, in fact, I would think we could explore all the labor issues, and that have been brought up, and see which ones we want to deal with, but maybe you don't want to combine them quite that far. So we could have 1.2 and 5.14 combined with the language of Explorer. Okay.

[04:54:40] Unknown Speaker: Does explore imply a study session, basically, so here's what they are. Here are model ordinances, and then we would, okay, thank you.

[04:54:57] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. All right, there was a suggestion and a couple other council members who seconded it to add a project around assessing the gaps in homeless services available in Mountain View and determining whether what we're doing is the most effective. approach. Okay. So I think we don't need to vote on that now, but it seemed there was enough support to add it. And then the council members, you we'll kind of do a new tally on how many votes you have and you can choose to include it amongst your votes and prioritize it or not. I would suggest that as an approach.

[04:55:52] Unknown Speaker: And I'm happy to incorporate my item about looking into working with destination home to address homelessness into that. Yeah, into that. So happy to X out another one.

[04:56:09] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Melvin's just really empowered to strike through today. All right. Thank you. Okay. Okay.

[04:56:20] City Manager Dan Rich: Just a cautionary tale on the gaps in homelessness one, not to say it shouldn't be on the list or it shouldn't be done, but we are spending an inordinate amount of staff resources and has spent years, you know, exploring a number of services and options and alternatives and 73 items and a work plan. I don't honestly believe we have the skill set or the capacity to determine what's working well and what's not working well. So if this is something you want to do, frankly, I'm going to be looking to outsource it and get an outside consultant to look at, you know, best practices and examining what we're doing and what's working and what's not. Homelessness is not. It's not our skill set, we're doing a lot, and to continue to do what we're doing, and then to ask us at the same time, to be evaluating how we're doing, what we're doing. Frankly, I don't think we're capable of doing. So all I'm saying is, if you want to do this, it probably will be something we would outsource to have an outside expert look at.

[04:57:25] Unknown Speaker: Nice, ma'am. Um, I guess my interest in this is more, I don't, I still don't feel like I understand completely what the county is doing and, you know, no disparagement, but like you said, the city has done a lot, I think. Um, and then my question is, yeah, where does the county or where should the county be coming in? How do we partner maybe more closely with the county? So I don't necessarily think we need to take it on. I just would like to have a better understanding of what resources are out there and how they leverage it.

[04:58:04] City Manager Dan Rich: I mean, what I'm hearing you say might be a different scoped project, which would, and, you know, they're not mutually exclusive, but I think what I'm hearing you say is essentially invite the county, have a study session, to talk about everything they are doing. You know, what they think might be the gaps, where we can or can't partner better. But that's very different to me than us doing an analysis of what our gaps and how we can get better at it. So I just, I want to be real clear what the scope is here. It's not our wheelhouse. It's not our... That's really the county, so let's invite them to come talk with us, is what I would say on this one.

[04:58:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[04:58:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, that's where, basically, what I was going to say too, that I don't, I think at this point, when I sensed, when I was campaigning, that there was some concern in the community about RV residents, and when I talked to people who, you know, when I talked to various people, including the county, and various Silicon Valley at home, and different people, I developed some concern about the way RV residents and, uh, non RV residents, people residing on our streets. Um, the way county programs address that, basically, they seem to be lacking Band Aids solutions. It was, it's the, um, maybe I can think of the name. It's like the housing first solution, which is, you get people a full house with wraparound services, and, frankly, people were flowing into our city faster than, like, maybe 100 vehicle residents and 10 people were being housed. And that's the kind of thing I think we really need to talk to the county about, because I think, so I don't know if that's what you meant by gaps and services, but I really think it is, we need to have a discussion with the county, I think.

[05:00:05] Unknown Speaker: Did we ever put that up? Could we change it? So I didn't come in with a fully fleshed out idea. It's just more I'm frustrated with waiting for the county to do something. The reality is we're held accountable for the county's failure. And if there's something that we can do to make an impact that is meaningful, then I'd be interested in exploring what that might be. And if it's if it's a study session involving representatives from the county, I think that's a good idea. It helps gives us a sense of what they're doing and maybe helps us get a sense of where we can be helpful, what are things that they are not doing that we can do well. So I, if it's more informational in nature, I think there's a lot of value in that. I'm not intending to be prescriptive. It's just, I'm very frustrated with sort of the state of things.

[05:01:03] Unknown Speaker: And I would, I would like to, I agree. The way you put is, I think, is really on point. Just, you know, what is it that they're doing? You know, because I don't feel like I know. Explore. How that?

[05:01:21] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: This may be one that the mayor's suggestion around the explorer language is good and a good 1st step of that could be having other providers in this realm help engage in a conversation with the council around what the resources are and what they view as the gaps, which isn't the same thing as a consultant study or a staff driven analysis. And then, you know, one of the the, questions, you know, thought questions coming out of that is, you know, what would be the appropriate role for the city in addressing any of those gaps? Um, and I, um, I'm trying to remember if we had this model here around affordable housing where we actually put together a panel, does that sound familiar? Am I merging another city's experience? Um, where there might be a way to structure something that includes different points of view, um, or you know, different resources, not points of view, but different resources, because, obviously, there are community-based organizations who are very active in this, that mission. So I think we can add that in, you know, on the same line item as destination home as an explorer, working in, you know, with and learning from the county, another provider. So then I think the last of the combined that I heard raised was the 1.5, which is prevailing wage, reform, and 5.15, which is the community workforce agreement, which I heard to be encompassing a whole lot of different things that weren't about just prevailing wage. And so I'm wondering if you'd like to comment more on that as a combination what you had in mind.

[05:03:27] Unknown Speaker: So, um, my understanding, as I've studied this, is that the CWA would help to enforce prevailing wage laws that we have now.

[05:03:43] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: So does one. 5 do a similar go away as the one point.

[05:03:49] Unknown Speaker: I think it would be encompassed in CWA. So you can take it off as a single item. Or just combine it, or it's in part of CWA.

[05:03:59] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. And did we move CWA to goal one? Yes. Okay. Okay. Then there were four other items, actually, only three of which, in one in goal one, one was in goal, in category five, that council members raised questions, whether they could just be done, within current resources, or maybe with a budget allocation, but current staff resources, and that includes 1.11, the Know Your Rights workshop. Um, 1.13, which actually, we've just moved that up, so that goes away, and one point to the diversity fair, um, with mental health resources, and that, I'm sorry. 1.20, sorry. Um, that, uh, we do have, uh, a practice now that was limited period funding, but I, um, could be built into the, um, 2021 budget would be the next biannual to do the multicultural festival again, and it includes resources, that table around that. And so that could be a resource definitely provided at that. So that, you know, wasn't put forward by staff or any of the council members, but I think that's a reasonable one to operationalize as part of the multicultural festival. So we can strike through one.2. And then that leaves one.11. I mean, sorry, one.20, which I keep saying one.2. Um, will strike through 1.20, and then 1.11. I'm not sure that that is just a budget issue, because we don't have a mechanism for administering that unless you have a particular organization. If there was just one organization doing it, and the council wanted to include funding for them in the budget, then that's something that, well, the council could talk about on Thursday. But if it is kind of a grant program, it feels like something that should be prioritized.

[05:06:40] Unknown Speaker: I guess I don't know enough about how many providers there are. I know Siren, and I know that they have that. They have a program. So, I don't know, you know, if we have to do like an RFP type of, um, process to choose, but if we don't, I mean, I would be comfortable with continuing with sirens, um, programs.

[05:07:07] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I mean, I would suggest, I mean, my guess is there are multiple providers, but we could probably do a very simple requests for proposals. You know, it doesn't have to be a big, huge process, and just say, We have this much money, you know, tell us what you can have. I mean, there would be staff implications to evaluate an award, but, um, I think it's probably absorbable, if that's all we're doing, is finding a provider to provide the service.

[05:07:38] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: So we would take that off for now, and we would put it on one of our many different versions of lists for narrative budget direction.

[05:07:49] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Okay. Yep. Okay.

[05:07:59] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: So, I think we're now ready to recalculate how many projects there are in goal one, how many votes you get, and have you do the voting.

[05:08:10] Unknown Speaker: Actually, I'm sorry, I had 2.6 moving into 1.9 on my notes.

[05:08:15] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Oh. I missed that one. Is the right one?

[05:08:20] Unknown Speaker: Oh, yeah, the older apartment complex purchases.

[05:08:24] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Oh, yes, thank you for that. That is a strategy that's already listed as a possible one in the council member notes for Project one. 9. It was suggested separately. as part of the goal setting process, but if that is something that could be explored as one possible strategy in council member Clark, I think you brought that idea forward, and we certainly know council member McAllister has an interest in that, if it's okay with you to have that be something explored as part of one. 9, then let's do that. Okay, so you can strike one.6. 2.6, correct? But in the meantime, let's see what we've got for one. So 11 projects for that remain in goal one, which would be 5 votes. Okay. So if council is ready, you will be able to see here, you might need to, and we'll go in alphabetical order, so maybe you can, to your screen, um, instead of your, your vote, um, the projects to prioritize are one. one, one. 2, one.4, one.6, and 8, and 9, and 10. And 13...

[05:10:07] Unknown Speaker: Can't you just hide the rows that we've crossed out and stuff so we can see them all?

[05:10:12] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yes. We have that technology. Thank you. Yes, 20 Yes, it's highly innovative. You're good. You're doing great. Uh huh. One more. Okay, and then maybe can we... Oh, no, we can make it smaller. Oh, we couldn't see it. How about we actually hide the, or those part of the header, the goal one to, okay. Okay. I can scroll down, it's easier at this point. But no, but your problem is that you've got so many things in your title pain that... Well, actually, we can see them all, right? Only one? Okay.

[05:11:17] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Wait. Where's where's 5.15. Okay. It's right there. Okay. Yeah.

[05:11:38] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. Okay. So, we now have the list. We'll start with Vice Mayor Abby Koga. You have 5 votes. Okay.

[05:12:01] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I may miss some, and I hope I reserve the right to go back since I'm starting first. Number one. one. Uh, one.2. One.9. 5.15. And...1.....3.................. Yeah, 1.13.

[05:12:46] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Counselor Clark?

[05:12:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: So let's start with with 1.9. Sorry, I'm gonna jump around on you. And, um, 1.13. If 1.19 is sort of what we talked about in terms of working with the youth Services Committee and things like that, you can put me, put me, put one there for me. And then, um, And then, uh, one. 2.2. Okay. For after, sorry, where is this? I saw it, and now it's gone now, my head can't handle it. Um. Oh, point, thank you. Thank you. Jones after school. Um, I'll leave it at the 4 for now.

[05:13:51] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Council rigs?

[05:13:52] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, 1.9. Uh, 1.13. Um... I'm a little confused. The, uh, 1.19, didn't we roll that into a survey before seeing whether... or we didn't do it that way?

[05:14:19] Unknown Speaker: Well... That was what Council member Kame was suggesting, so we could not prioritize that.

[05:14:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'll go with her suggestion then. And which is rolling it into the other, if I understood it right.

[05:14:43] Unknown Speaker: To that one.

[05:14:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, well, we can talk about that later. You can change my votes. Um, uh, and then... Okay, 1.2. Um... I'll stop there for now.

[05:15:12] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Council Wimber, come in.

[05:15:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, uh, 1.2. 1.9., um, 1.1., 1.3. And one, or sorry, 5.15. Okay.

[05:15:36] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Mayor Madachek?

[05:15:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I have too many votes. 1.2. 5.15. 1.9.

[05:16:09] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: How many is that? Three?

[05:16:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Mm hmm. Um... 1.8. Now, wait a minute. My spreadsheet, my... notes must be different. Um... I've got 1.2, 5.15, 1.8, 1.9. Oh, that's right. We added one. I'll do... That's what I'm debating. Come back to me. Okay.

[05:17:14] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Councilman, Ember McAllister.

[05:17:16] Councilmember John McAlister: I know the old one, yeah. Okay, so, again, I said there's a lot of very important things here, but I'm gonna vote for things that are very local, very specific to our community. So I'm going to go 1.9. I think it's important. 1.8. I think education is very important. I think mental health is very important. One.19. And again, we got other things with limited resources. But... Yeah, I sort of like to get 1.13 resolved someday, so that's where I'm gonna hold off on.

[05:17:59] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: So, 1.13 was your final vote? Okay.

[05:18:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Last and least. Um, 1.2, 1.9, 1.10. That's a community that we've been seen increasing engagement from, and I'd like to continue that. One. 13. And 5.15. Okay.

[05:18:38] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: There were a couple of you who did not expend your...

[05:18:41] Unknown Speaker: I'll support one.8 after I read through them. You can have my 5th vote to one.8, right? Okay.

[05:18:49] Unknown Speaker: We got a roll there, guys. Okay, I'll add, um... Community work, 5.15. Did I talk on top of you? Sorry.

[05:19:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I just wanted to correct mine. It's not 1.1, it's 1.10. Sorry.

[05:19:08] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. And I'll add 1.1.

[05:19:21] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Mayor Metachek? One point one. Okay. Okay. All right. One, one, one, one. So, what I see here is... majority support around 1.2, 1.9, 5.15 and 1.3? 1.13, yes.

[05:19:57] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Can I change my vote? That was the first one I reserved the right to. Um, can I? I'd like to actually move 1.13 to 1.8. Uh...

[05:20:19] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: So, what a coincidence. That just happens to knock one.8 into... votes. Yeah, so just to be the Grim Reaper. Majority vote does not necessarily mean it's gonna get done. We still have to go back and look and see who's involved and how big it is, et cetera, et cetera.

[05:20:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right. But these are the ones that we'll look at, right?

[05:20:43] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. All right. So are we ready to move on to go to... It just feels like more than one item. Okay. So this is the place where if you have anything you want to add, or merge, or ask about. Also, if there's anything from the continuing projects that relates to gold 2, that you would want to propose for discontinuation, These will be where you would make those comments. Correct. What? Oh, you're welcome.

[05:21:51] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Madam Mayor, are you gonna call on people, or would you like me to do that?

[05:21:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. I couldn't see anybody in the queue. Sorry.

[05:22:00] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Thank you. Got some rivercorn.

[05:22:05] Unknown Speaker: Um... I think, um, in the interest of consultant, so only do this if staff says it's okay, but, um, 2.7 could probably, it's, um, the live workspaces could probably fit in with 2.2, like, strategies for middle income persons, different housing types. Because it's talking about different housing types and allowances for different things. But if you feel like that's a specific zoning thing, then we can leave it out.

[05:22:31] Unknown Speaker: Could you describe a little bit more what that is?

[05:22:34] Unknown Speaker: So it's, San Jose, I think, has this in San Francisco does too. It basically allows some of the things that Councilman McAllister has talked about where you have, you have live work spaces within a single building. So a lot of times you'll have ground floor, I wouldn't call it retail, but service businesses. So maybe ranging from small daycare facilities to small retail shops to um, pet facilities to all sorts of things. And then above that, you have places where folks can actually, who are part of those businesses can live. So it allows like really small retail or basically less expensive rents for sort of service related businesses or retail related businesses. And then you also have, you know, smaller living spaces. up above. So it's all kind of combined in a single building. And I think there are models of this in San Jose, I think, in particular, addressed this fairly recently in San Francisco has had it for a little while. But that's what I was thinking, is just sort of allowing that use. I'm not sure it's allowed today. Yeah.

[05:23:42] Unknown Speaker: Is that, yeah, is it not allowed today? I recall a project over actually by your neighborhood that had businesses and then housing. It just never came up to fruition. Except it was more, I think, um, like a loft style. The ground floor was, yeah, they could use as an office, but it was all individual. This is your office and you live above it. This is your office and you live above us.

[05:24:13] Unknown Speaker: I see. Yeah, this is more what I'm thinking of is more, um, the developments that I've seen are sort of larger, um, and they basically allow for a combination of all sorts of different uses, and it's target, it's less like, you know, businesses on the ground floor and residents is above, it's more like they're all integrated, like those who work there are sort of allowed to live above in their sort of restrictions, which ends up having lower rents and things like that.

[05:24:46] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I just want to say, I've seen that used. I mean, we talked about it a lot when I went to Berkeley. I've seen it used since then, not, I don't know if it fits in with the moderate income housing because, or middle, missing middle housing, because it was also used in some areas for low income people, and I've also talked when I've talked to Google about North Bay Shore. I've told them, you know, it might be nice to reserve some, some places on the ground floor, and they, when I talked to them, they said, well, maybe we could make them flexible, instead of make them devoted to live work, I also think it would have been far nicer if a lot of our housing on El Camino, because that used to be, you know, I don't want to walk in front of that housing when somebody's out in their pajamas, on a deck, and I don't think they want me walking there. Live workspace, still gives that commercial interface. And so, I'm actually really supportive of exploring live work, for affordable housing and missing middle reasons, and also livening the streets. I don't know if it fits into 2.2 or not. I'd put it in there if it got more votes that way.

[05:26:03] Unknown Speaker: Okay, well, we'll leave it separate.

[05:26:13] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Anything else, Chris? Council member Ramirez?

[05:26:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So I'm gonna do a little bit of board smithing. For 2.3, the explorer consolidation, or in reform of rowhouse and townhouse standards and guidelines, if the council is amenable to it. I'd like to expand that to an idea that Council member Kumay had introduced in the last goal setting meeting, and that's exploring the R3 zoning district more broadly, and specifically to encourage stacked flat development. So I think there are certainly things we can do with...

[05:26:56] Unknown Speaker: Actually, I had a question about that. What is the condo ordinance? Where do I find that? I couldn't find it. It's... There's a condo conversion. I wish the folks who are here earlier, the project earlier.

[05:27:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So we have, we have, I'm not talking about conversion. I'm talking about just the, basically the standards for stack white condos. Ours are quite outdated. They have like obscene storage requirements. And basically all sorts of things that sort of limit the number of units that you can get in. I think when Randy was here, he was telling me it was like last update in the late 70s or early 80s or something like that.

[05:27:33] Unknown Speaker: So it's actually the stack flats.

[05:27:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, it's it's basic. not talking about condo conversions. I'm talking about just sort of the requirements for building stackpack condos. They're pretty out of date. For my benefit, with that basically, so that's looking at the R3 zoning district specifically, which I think is probably the only, aside from, you know, precise plans and that kind of thing, that would be the only that and R4 would, I think, be the only 2 zoning districts, the conventional zoning districts that would allow for stack flat development. Perhaps. I assume that's true. Okay, I don't know.

[05:28:10] Unknown Speaker: Well, order than R2. and we have stack plats in my in my development, but they're older. Maybe you can't do that anymore.

[05:28:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, like 2 worlds would probably, I don't know what, well, that's all community precise quam, but... No, I'm not, uh, now I have less certainty about this. I feel like 2.3 and 2.5 are related, and I would be interested in looking at the R3 zoning district where we're seeing a lot of rowhouse and townhouse development just to see if we can encourage more of the stacked flat product type. And then, and I don't know if this would go into 2.3. And now that I understand what 2.5 is, I had intended what is now 5.9 form-based zoning to be among the things that are explored in that context. And what I'm specifically hoping to achieve is what we saw with 2005 Rock Street, 1950 Montecito, and 2310, is there are limitations on the number of units you could limitations on density. And I feel like rather than having sort of a limitation on density, it would make more sense to look at the building envelope, which has the greater impact. As long as you are meeting the requirements within a given building envelope, it doesn't matter if you have 19 units or 20 units or 21 units. You still have to meet the parking standards. You still have to have the same setbacks, the same, you know, massing. So it's that's that's the modification that I think could help address the net loss issue. with those kinds of with those kinds of projects. So that's that's where that's that was the intention of 5.9. And I don't know if that's if that makes more sense in 2.3 or 2.5, but that's something I'm hoping we can wrap into that. And then 2.10 and 2.11, I think, are the same thing. Those are both intended to address concerns about aging in place.

[05:30:21] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I would agree with that.

[05:30:22] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yep. So combining those two.

[05:30:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And that was all... Oh, actually, 2.13 is pretty narrowly scoped to mobile home park space rent. And I was hoping that we can, because we've heard other concerns about mobile home parks that may not be addressed with this nearly scoped project. So maybe, you know, exploring other kinds of regulations that address some of the other concerns and not just restrict ourselves to mobile home space rent control.

[05:31:02] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Oh, Council member Hicks.

[05:31:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, um... 2.18 and 2.19. Do we not? No, wait. 2.19. That's the one I mean. Do we just have to do that? I'm a little... I guess that's a question for staff. Um, 2.19, update the housing element to implement new housing laws. Do we get to, can I opt not to ever do that?

[05:31:44] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: To comply and make sure the housing element is updated. I think the intent with this item is that there are so many new housing laws that we need to track and monitor and stay on top of, that are either recently passed or that are currently in the process, that it's just likely going to take a substantial amount of increased staff capacity to interpret, understand, and make sense of it all.

[05:32:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: But I guess I'm just wondering, like, if none of us vote for it, don't you have to do it anyway?

[05:32:20] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I think so, so. So I think similar to some other items that we might be doing anyway. I think it made it onto the list in terms of calling out the staff capacity that we would be thinking about in sort of a new way. So I think that's correct. as we were thinking about our workload and the items that we would be addressing next year, that this would be something that we would need to do, but I think approach in a new way.

[05:32:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So my inclination is to say that it's something you have to do, and we recognize the tremendous workload, but that maybe we don't vote on.

[05:33:06] Unknown Speaker: Right. We would categorize that as no vote needed. We just, in the efforts of preparing for tonight, weren't able to confirm that it didn't involve things beyond the scope of what was required through the housing element and other legislative requirements. So we'll mark that as no vote needed.

[05:33:26] Unknown Speaker: And then my other question is, 2.18, update the city's density bonus ordinance to facilitate development, implementation of city's precise plans. Can somebody explain that one? to me?

[05:33:42] Unknown Speaker: An affordable housing goals and being,

[05:33:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, it sounds like another one we have to do.

[05:33:46] Unknown Speaker: Be in compliance with new state requirements.

[05:33:51] Unknown Speaker: Do you have to do that?

[05:33:53] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Not necessarily, because if our ordinance doesn't comply with state law, then state law controls.

[05:34:01] Unknown Speaker: I see.

[05:34:02] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: But there are some, and I won't stop Mr. Chen from speaking, but there are some advantages to updating the density bonus to put the city in a better position to take advantage of some of the aspects of density bonus, something that you might be interested in exploring and considering.

[05:34:22] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Maybe I need one sentence explanation more. before I vote.

[05:34:33] Senior Assistant City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Well, for example, the density bonus law is extremely complicated, and difficult for us to completely understand, but one of an interesting thing that we've learned about recently is that the city is not required to give an FAR bonus, but could structure it so that you can give an FAR bonus, and that you could ask for the developer to provide certain things in exchange for that we could create our own provisions in our ordinance. So that's something that you might be interested in having staff explore, that's one component of a density bonus, because, you know, density, the number of units is different than the FAR. So it's complicated, but it might be something that when we have more time to look at and present to the council, you might be interested in being able to utilize that to obtain certain benefits from developers. And Wayne looks like he has something more to add.

[05:35:38] Wayne Chen: I think the city attorney covered it really well. I would add that we're seeing a lot of projects that are seeking or are in the process with density bonus, and through the process of speaking with developers, going through the entitlement process. As the city attorney has said, it's really complicated and the laws around destiny bonus have changed. There are replacement provisions, there are part of density bonus that we need to flesh out. What that means? how we are working with developers to implement those aspects if they're applicable. So I think there's a lot of review and analysis that we need to do to make sure we understand the complexities, density bonus law, in the context of all the changes that are going on, and all of the various projects that we're seeing that are seeking to apply density bonus in new and different ways, and how it interacts with our precise plans as well, because there are opportunities there. for taken look at projects in a different way with regards, precise plans. So the ability to really understand it to clarify how we interact with precise plans, I think that was some of the intent.

[05:37:07] Unknown Speaker: Vice mayor.

[05:37:10] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, thank you. So, on that item, actually, that was part of the impetus for, um, my proposal and the 5 category 5, um, which I can't find now, um, about federal and state laws, but the mayor and I, um, brought that forward and just, you know, saying that we need uh, more resources to help us, whether it's outside consultants or whatnot. to monitor and evaluate all these new laws that are being introduced, especially around housing at the state level. So, that in five? Yes, I've heard, I don't have a number, it's five, let's see. 5.3. Take a proactive proactive role in addressing issues that are occurring at the state and federal government level. So, um, so yeah, so that would be the other option is to include it there. Um, but I had some questions, um, on 2.20, the employee housing assistance strategy, um, we looked at that at procedures committee, and my understanding was that was gonna be brought forward to council at some point. So is that, is this more than that, or it's more than that?

[05:38:42] Unknown Speaker: Okay. We did talk about, um, talk a little bit with the committee about what might be some more um, creative strategies around addressing employee housing needs above and beyond the revisions to the loan program.

[05:38:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[05:39:00] Unknown Speaker: And so that's what this would be.

[05:39:02] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay. Well, that's helpful. Thank you. And then, um, the, oh, so 2.23 study session on Rina. I was going to suggest that we hold on that or take it off at this time because at the cities association level, we are talking about Arena subregion that may actually address and we're starting, we're going to be meeting this Friday to start off, kick off that process. I know the city hasn't committed to whether we're going to join in or not. But I think in light of that, that we're looking at a countywide subregion, we probably don't need to do this at that time. That's just my suggestion. And then I had a question for the maker of... Sorry. Oh, 2.12, the home buyer empowerment program. Um, the notes about partnering with the housing trust. So the housing, I know the housing trust has a program. I was on the board there, but the problem with that program is that the income levels are too low and the housing prices that qualify don't Mountain View's prices are too high. So are you looking at that program? Are you looking to create a new program? Mountain View specific?

[05:40:30] Unknown Speaker: Um, so they, uh, my understanding, um, is that the housing trust Silicon Valley has been partnering with different entities, for example, the Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara County, Office of Education, to host workshops about the different kind of homebuyer programs they have. And one of the things that they've tried to do is kind of in relation to your point is, um, Target more home buyer, um, programs for the missing middle. And I think, for example, like the study session project that we saw earlier today, would be something that people could leverage, you know, a loan for and be able to afford something within that price range that was mentioned in that project. And so I think the housing trust has recognized that with the high cost of housing, they'd need to be more creative and innovative. So, this can be anything from, you know, just hosting a workshop with them. Um, you know, I'm happy to maybe include this in the, in the item I put forward for um, 2.2 on develop strategies for um, middle-income persons, for different um, housing types. I think that might fall nicely under that. I was kind of thinking about that the more that the conversation has gone on. But I didn't want to do more combining, but I could see some synergy there, so.

[05:42:10] Unknown Speaker: Okay, any other clarifying questions, comments before we do the summary of what's changed? Council member of Ramirez. Did you have a?

[05:42:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, quick question. I'm still struggling with 2.3 and 2.5. For the proposers for each of those. Are you are you suggesting very different things? Or is there, is there some overlap that we're all, we're all trying to achieve, you know, greater or some kind of, you know, program for stack flats. So help me sort of understand the difference between those two.

[05:42:54] Unknown Speaker: They're sort of related, but they're different. So the rowhouse, the purpose behind the rowhouse townhouse standards in revisiting that is we've been needing to do that for a long time. Basically every single one of those projects at this point comes to us and it's really unnecessary. Frankly, and the condo ordinance is, I mean, it's related to a goal of increasing sort of ownership opportunities, but it's also addressing something that's, I think, old and outdated, but it's different from row homes and townhomes. It's specifically addressing the stack flat condo requirements ranging from storage to who knows what?

[05:43:34] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I would call it the stacked flat ordinance, rather than the condo ordinance, because it's the 3 forms, 3 different forms of buildings, townhouses, row houses, stacked flats. So if we're interested in, in particular, encouraging, you know, ownership stacked flats, then 2.5 would be the project that we would support.

[05:43:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then, sorry, just to clarify, so what is sort of the desired outcome of 2.3.

[05:44:05] Unknown Speaker: We constantly have. I mean, it's part of it is a lot of it comes to us, but the bigger thing is that basically all those projects require exceptions at this point in terms of lot line adjustments and all sorts of things where, you know, back when those guidelines were developed, I think most people were looking at larger plots of land, and now basically every single one of those comes to us for one reason or another.

[05:44:29] Unknown Speaker: Okay, I would just add to that, I mean, my recollection is there's some kind of subtle nuances between them, and I think there's really a question whether you need 2 different standards as a matter of the garages in the front or the back or 5 foot setback or 10 foot setback, and maybe we can come up with, you know, one standard that really incorporates it.

[05:44:51] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I don't think we've seen any townhouses in 10 years, at least. We've seen a lot of row houses.

[05:44:58] Unknown Speaker: Well, there was... Yeah, there was the one project recently, remember, there was a combination, and it was out of compliance on one, but it was compliant with the other, but it was because of the shape of the, you know, so that's what raises these kinds of questions, as it really makes sense.

[05:45:12] Unknown Speaker: Got it. you. Those are pretty big projects. Those are pretty big projects to review the guidelines, aren't they? No? On what we want to tweet. Cancel my book, May.

[05:45:32] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so, um, thinking about it more, I'd like to, um, remove to point one, two, and try to incorporate that into 2.2. as a potential as a potential strategy. That's thank you.

[05:45:58] Unknown Speaker: Okay, any other comments before we summarize the changes, or we summarize what's left that we're voting on. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, I heard a suggestion to combine 2.10 and 2.11, which are both related to senior housing, could be more generally described as exploration of how to assist aging in place, um, and that seemed to get some nods. Is that acceptable?

[05:46:38] Unknown Speaker: Uh huh. Okay, so we can combine 210 and 211. A council member suggested broadening 2.13 mobile home protections to not just be about space rental, and I wasn't sure what those other concerns were, so I don't know if that needs more clarification before council members would agree to that scope change. You okay? People need it? Okay. I think we got clarity, the 2.3 and 2.5 are different, and would be listed as separate projects for prioritizing.

[05:47:27] Unknown Speaker: Yes, and just to clarify, in that one, all the stuff I said about 2.3, I think, would more appropriately be incorporated into two...

[05:47:36] Unknown Speaker: So looking at the R3. That was a broadening or a suggestion to broaden that to look at R3. zoneing. I want to respect where the proposer's coming from. Would that include sort of a broader review of R3 to encourage stacked flats, and then other strategies, or Chris, whatever, Council member Clark, sort of, what would your preference for that scope?

[05:48:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think this is one of those things where staff needs to tell us what the workload and time and effort is for each of those. And maybe they can look at those, both of those under the auspices of the R3 zoning, but I still think they're, I think, at the end of the day, very separate things.

[05:48:24] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. Okay, so we would be keeping 2.5, as it's currently written. Um, there was a support by the suggestor on 2.2 and 2.12 to merge those two. If that's okay with the council, we'll do that. And then I heard a number of comments where somebody was suggesting that we not vote on something, or maybe just one, the arena numbers, and I don't know if that's something that the council needs to agree to or just not give priority votes to. Okay, so, um, I think that was everything that I heard. Where does that leave us?

[05:49:21] Unknown Speaker: Can I have that escort question? So. Ooh. No. All right. Just kidding. It's, like, 11:30. Um, this is Shenandoah's in there here at 2.15.

[05:49:32] Unknown Speaker: Yes. My question is, is that vote is a part of the total vote, or is it?

[05:49:38] Unknown Speaker: No, we're not going to vote on that one. Thank you for the reminder. that you should allocate your votes not counting that project. We'll calculate the votes that you get. And then, um, uh, council member Kameh will recuse herself and we'll talk about 2.15.

[05:49:59] Unknown Speaker: Great. Thank you. Okay. Shouldn't we talk about 2.15 first?

[05:50:07] Unknown Speaker: No. No, we shouldn't. Okay. Our thought process is that she will not be influencing the governmental decision if you rank all the other ones independently of that, because it won't impact what you do with us. That's the solution we came up with this afternoon. And then she... You'll vote on that independently as its own separate, and then... Right.

[05:50:43] Unknown Speaker: Not in counting Shenandoah. Okay. Okay, so there are now 14 projects in goal 2 not counting Shenandoah, which we're not talking about or voting on now, and that means that there are 6 votes that each of you get on the housing projects. So, Margaret, you're kind of getting always hit. So let's start with, you want to go the other direction? Or start with the next one. Oh, yeah. We just go down the road. All right, Chris. Thanks, Chris.

[05:51:18] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, I'm gonna skip around again. So, I think start at the bottom, I think 2.17 is important. I think... I think we combine some of those. I think, um, 2.7. Um. 2.2. Um, 2.3, 2.5. And I think we're... going to need to talk about the CSFRA at some point. So, tentatively put my fifth vote there. Wait, we get six votes. Oh, sorry. six v? That's it. Oh, right. The other one's off the screen. Never mind.

[05:52:23] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Counselor Hicks.

[05:52:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, um... 2.13. Um. 2.2. Uh, 2.3. 2.4. Um... 2.7. How many have I done? I get only one more. That's five? Oh, my God. Yeah, one more. It shows at the very top. Yeah, I know. I wanted four more. Um.. Uh... Let's see. Okay, 2.18.

[05:53:39] Unknown Speaker: Counselor ever come in? Okay. Um, uh, 2.1. I think it'll just be interesting to hear the discussion, and I'd like to incorporate the administrative changes that I believe the city attorney had mentioned at a prior discussion. Um, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.13.

[05:54:19] Unknown Speaker: Mary Matterchick?

[05:54:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh. Uh... I have too many votes. I was trying to figure out where to, um, cut back. Okay. Um... 2.18. 2.2. 2.5. Uh... 2.10. How many is that?

[05:55:10] Unknown Speaker: Four.

[05:55:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'm going all out of order. Um... 2.1.... and one more. I've got three choices and one vote. Um... Yeah, come back to me for that last one.

[05:55:49] Unknown Speaker: Council member McAllister.

[05:55:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, two, five, two, seven... Uh... 2.one. See, 2.1 encompasses 2.13, so... I can take care of that, so... Develop an approach, he was public perfect for Maxim. He was his housing, park space. Can somebody... Who did 2.9?

[05:56:36] Unknown Speaker: Allison.

[05:56:43] Councilmember John McAlister: More details.

[05:56:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, you want details?

[05:56:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I want to know... More clarity.

[05:56:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Clarity. you. So, I've gotten comments from community members that sometimes we don't use the property in a, for maximum public benefit, um, and that, so there, there's all sorts of upcoming properties, like the police property, would we develop a more, um, you know, consolidated, uh, police, um, station, whatever, somewhere else, and then use that large lot for housing or for something else. So it was, it was those kind of conversations, which I didn't vote for because maybe we have them anyway, but sometimes I felt that we didn't.

[05:57:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thanks.

[05:57:36] Unknown Speaker: You can go to the next person, I'm still thinking. Next person.

[05:57:43] Unknown Speaker: I'll be the next person. Uh, 2.4. 2.5. 2.1.3. 2.10. Uh, scroll down. I'm interested in 2.17. And 2.7..

[05:58:28] Unknown Speaker: Wait, 2.17? Yeah, I never saw that one before. I thought, where'd that come from?

[05:58:36] Unknown Speaker: Family shelters? Yeah, it's not my list. Yeah. Well, if 2.17 is not... then I'm not gonna vote for it. No. So, remove... I'm very interested in that. But I'm not interested in Terabella right now, so we can remove that vote.

[05:59:09] Unknown Speaker: What did you vote on? Terabella? This Terabella? What's on here?

[05:59:14] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Alrighty. If you could scroll up a little bit. 2.2. It's not on my spreadsheet. Oh,. And can we change 2.5 to say stacked flats instead of condo? So it's really clear what we're talking about.

[05:59:45] Unknown Speaker: Sure. What's the common of a vernacular, though, for most people? They would think of condo versus...

[05:59:54] Unknown Speaker: Well, I think our official document is stack flats.

[05:59:58] Unknown Speaker: I think we have the gist of it, well... Rascal flats, either way.

[06:00:05] Unknown Speaker: Vice mayor, Abby Coco.

[06:00:08] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sorry. Uh, 2.1. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. Um... And 2.13. And then could you scroll down, I get one more? Uh. Um. Let's see. Oh, uh, the dense 2.18.

[06:00:52] Unknown Speaker: So, um, Mayor Metachek, you have one vote remaining in Council member McAllister, you have three. Would you like to add anything?

[06:01:16] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Are you mad at trick? Are you thinking?

[06:01:42] Unknown Speaker: Oh, I thought John was gonna do more.

[06:01:43] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Um.. Oh, poor. I already voted for that one. voted for that one.

[06:02:02] Unknown Speaker: No, I'm good. Yep. Well, I figured if something is already gonna make it, there's no point in voting for it.

[06:02:12] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Me, too. Are there more?

[06:02:21] Unknown Speaker: Um, okay, so... Scroll, we want to see the top. The... is the top where we have the total...

[06:02:34] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Well, that's for your votes, but this is the far side is where we have, which ones received majority.

[06:02:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so if we are done with those, if... Maybe we should take a little break. What do you think?

[06:03:02] Unknown Speaker: Do you want to do the last thing on goal too with the recusal?

[06:03:09] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Oh, sorry. Would you like to do that?

[06:03:11] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Yes.

[06:03:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, Jenny, is there something that needs to be said other than what I said?

[06:03:18] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Council member Kameh will want to disclose that she will not be participating in this item because of a financial interest in real property. At least hold interest in real property, at least hold interest, leasehold interest.

[06:03:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I will be recusing myself because of a lease hold interest that I have.

[06:03:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Sorry. I keep on forgetting to go back to the other screen.

[06:03:58] Unknown Speaker: You and I are the only ones who could vote.

[06:04:00] Unknown Speaker: What? No, we don't count this as a vote.

[06:04:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, nobody's in the queue. Does anybody have any questions about this?

[06:04:10] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, tell me more about this. Actually, well, the vice mayor.

[06:04:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, the Shenandoah parcel or property is about 20 acres, um, on Middlefield and Moffat. It's owned by the army, and there are currently some residences there. About 3 years ago, the army came to the city council at that time in a study session. I think Kristen John was here. And they had the interest, they have an interest in either leasing, but to be honest, more likely selling the property, to pay off some debt they have in another project they have in Southern California. Since then, it's been 3 years. And we've been told that the army has approved that process or project, but it's sitting at a, I think it's the Department of Homeland Security or I forget which, it's sitting on some desk, in another department, and there's no telling when there'll be movement. Um, but in light of what the um, the parcel and where it's located, um, and the the project proposal that that time was looking at about a thousand units. I thought it might be of would be useful for the city to move forward with the precise planning process of the parcel. With, to me, I'd like to have affordable housing as a priority. So, you know, there's that. There's, um, they, I think they would have to put a park in because of the size of the parcel, but I think it's an opportunity for the city to begin the precise plan process and really lay out what we think is best for the community, um, in light of the fact instead of waiting for the, you know, the army to whenever they get to it, um, move to, they would probably sell it to a developer and then they would come in with the project. So I just think it's an opportunity for us to maybe get some good affordable housing units in there and other community amenities.

[06:06:34] Unknown Speaker: Is that? Are some of the buildings there on the national register of historic places or is that somewhere else?

[06:06:41] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, that's somewhere. I think that's probably more on the inside like the Moffatt that character. Because it has the same name. The ones that... Can I do it? Yeah, I think so. Or I'm remembering it wrong. So, we went to D.C. We met with Congresswoman issue. Her, you know, primary concern is the residents there. They are at risk of displacement. So that would be a concern issue, too, that we should, you know, address in light of the other topics we're talking about tonight. But it just seems like a great opportunity to do some, you know, housing and affordable housing if we go ahead and move forward with the precise plan ourselves.

[06:07:25] Unknown Speaker: So by address the danger of displacement, you mean zone it properly, so that doesn't happen. Okay, good.

[06:07:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments or questions about that one?

[06:07:37] Unknown Speaker: I have questions, comment. Well, is it a moot point to even spend time on a precise plan until we find out what the army's doing?

[06:07:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So it's clear that they either want to lease it or sell it, most likely sell it from the conversations we've had for how to build housing. They have debt to clear. So they just want to be able to maximize, frankly, the parcel for to be able to pay off their debt, but they have specifically said they planned good housing there. So the question really becomes what kind of housing.

[06:08:12] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, but if they still own it, and lease it.

[06:08:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: But we could precise plan it, and then whoever comes and develops.

[06:08:18] Unknown Speaker: Why could we? Because the army still owns it, though.

[06:08:20] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Because we always have the power to do a precise plan. Our process has always been to allow a developer to come in with a project to start the precise plan, but you can actually do the precise plan first, and then the developer has to conform to the precise plan. So it's just a better way for the city to

[06:08:40] Unknown Speaker: No, I understand that, but I'm just... Army still owns the property and leases it out. It's still federal land.

[06:08:46] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Do we have authority to do a precise plan on federal land?

[06:08:51] Unknown Speaker: Absolutely. Yeah, I believe we have the authority to do the precise plan.

[06:08:54] City Manager Dan Rich: I think the real issue is, nothing will change there until the army chooses to change. And so, you know, we can do a precise plan, but they may not choose to implement it. That will be up to them. Only they can do it, but as the vice mayor is saying, if we set the parameters, then we tell them and any future owner, or at least see, this is what we expect for the land. And the other piece to it is, we have to annex that into the city, but... So...

[06:09:28] Unknown Speaker: Is that a high priority? I mean, it's something that, yes, we should do, but is it something that's a high priority?

[06:09:34] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I think it's a great opportunity. It's a, you know, big, an ideal location and a big parcel.

[06:09:41] Unknown Speaker: No, I agree, but I don't like it.

[06:09:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We could zone it to really try to maximize some good, affordable...

[06:09:45] Unknown Speaker: I agree with it.

[06:09:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, that's the intent.

[06:09:47] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, but I don't know if it's. And we don't get that. A priority on time, a resources right now.

[06:09:53] Unknown Speaker: So, I want to make sure similar question. I wanna make sure that I understand it. It sounds like the downside is adding it to the list of projects when we already have a lot, and the upside, it sounds like it's preventing displacement by getting ahead of the game and making sure we zone it right. And as well as making sure we have a strong, affordable housing component to it. If we waited for the developer to come in, most likely they would come in, and they would, you know, meet our minimum requirements. But this is our chance to say, well, you know, like with North Bay Shore, precise plan. We said our goal is 20%. We could put in a goal for this area. I just, I... I think there's merit to this. I just want to be very clear that it's highly unlikely that a precise plan process would prevent displacement, because they have the ability to evict everyone they want before we even have the chance to annex it. So those folks are gonna be, by the time we go through an annexation process and all of our rules and everything apply, Those people are going to be long gone, unfortunately, for better or worse, or obviously for worse. So, um, I just, I don't see how a precise point helps this place. I think it really would help with setting affordable housing goals and things like that. I think it would, but it would require a lot of federal pressure and everything like that, which maybe they're willing to provide, but I don't think there's really anything that we can do to to sort of, you know, apply our eviction rules and everything on that land. Maybe I'm wrong.

[06:11:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I mean, I think you're right and that we can't, you know, if they close down, they close down. We can't stop that. But in theory, we could set up criteria that, A, there must be sufficient affordable units to, um, cover current tenants, we could have requirements in there, that preference be given to existing tenants or federal employees. So there may be some tools that could be built in. Again, ultimately, it's dependent on them or a future owner of that property to develop it. But I think we could put in some tool.s.

[06:12:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[06:12:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thanks. So, I support proceeding with this, I think, the vice mayor makes a good point that there's a level of urgency, because a precise plan is an 18 24 month process, and if we want to exert any influence over the evolution of the property, we really have to start thinking about it right now. And given the fact that there is a staff capacity impact, I would be interested in potentially deprioritizing or dropping some other things. So, you know, Council member Clark and I may disagree, but I think I think this is a, I would proceed with this ahead of the Terabella visioning, which I have expressed, you know, strong opinions about previously, and if there are other things that we made, so long range planning oriented things that we may want to deprioritize, then I'd be interested in that conversation.

[06:13:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice spare happy coca?

[06:13:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, thank you for that comment. I would agree. I originally was doing it in the context of all of our projects, and it had a higher priority for me, but the other piece to answer, um, customer Clark, um, in addition to what the city managers comments. The other piece to it is if we were to include like a land dedication for affordable housing, then depending on who takes ownership of that, there would be opportunities. Thank you.

[06:13:51] City Manager Dan Rich: No, I was just... Just... The site will require a precise plan, no matter what. The way it came into us was they came in with an application and said, We want to develop it, and we said, Well, that's fine. You will need to fund a precise plan. Ultimately, we control what the precise plan is no matter what. But the issue is kind of who starts it and who drives that process. So this got initiated by them, saying they wanted to redevelop it at a certain density, and we said we're willing to consider that. We'll do a precise plan on your dime, and your timeline. They then sort of pulled back and said, well, we're not really moving anywhere. So the vice mayor's suggestion is, sort of, we take the lead and do the precise plan on our own on our terms, regardless of what they want to do. The difference is, though, it would be on our dime versus their dime. First, like we're looking at for gateway. Yeah, we could probably see if there's a way to get reimbursed by the ultimate developer of it.

[06:14:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, anything else on that one? Uh, should we just do a show of hands that those who would like to do a precise plan for Shenandoah? Raise your hand.

[06:15:11] Unknown Speaker: I don't mind doing it. We'll prioritize it. You know, we will be... After, um, staff has a chance to look at capacity, we're gonna have some of this discussion again.

[06:15:22] Unknown Speaker: Well, city manager, we have East Wisman, downtown, we're gonna hire somebody else to do another precise plan, so where does this fit into a timeline? Or is that to be different?

[06:15:34] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, that's the assessment we'll do between tonight, and when we come back to you in May, is whether or not we have the capacity, whether at all, or whether it has a capacity to start it in a year or whatnot. We don't know yet.

[06:15:45] Unknown Speaker: Well, doesn't the army also want us to annex it because it makes the property more valuable to them? So shouldn't they be eager to contribute to the precise plans because it adds value to their property?

[06:15:58] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, it has to be annexed no matter what. Nothing can happen there until he gets annexed. But I think, as the virus mayor said, they've sort of been sitting on it for a while and it's unclear if and when they will move forward.

[06:16:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Now are we done with? Item two?

[06:16:23] Unknown Speaker: Yes, we are. Yeah, are... Are we going into three?

[06:16:30] Unknown Speaker: I think that's the mayor's problem.

[06:16:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: think we're gonna take bay. I thought... Yeah, folks on a break? Yeah. Yeah. We'll probably end up taking 10. But we'll shoot for five. All right, how you doing? Okay, we'll call the meeting back to order. And we will move on to goal three. And we're going to change the process here a little bit. So I can focus a little bit more on my votes. Oh, no, no, no. Audrey's, since I have the choice of looking at the queue or looking at the spreadsheet, Audrey's gonna call on folks, so I can focus on what I'm voting on. Thank you.

[06:17:17] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: If you'll just, yeah, use your lights, then I will, um, call on folks.

[06:17:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we are now on to goal three, the transportation goal, and this would be the time to ask questions, um, add, um, adjust, combine as appropriate.

[06:17:42] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Three, three, go ahead, Counselor Clark.

[06:17:49] Councilmember Chris Clark: So 39 and 398 Stevens Crew Trail. So with the staff input, it made it sound like you're already planning to You both said that after the study, you're planning to reach out to Sunnyvale, but also you were hoping to reword this, to explore opportunities to partner. So is that 3.9 A?

[06:18:11] Unknown Speaker: Um, yes, they wouldn't be 2 separate projects. If staff wants to comment on that wording and the degree to which that's already operational or within capacity.

[06:18:23] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Yeah, Mike Fuller, Public Works director. We are going to include Stevens Creek Trail in the CIP with some city match funding and then continue to reach out to Sunnyvale. Theyve expressed some interest. And so basically what we're going to do is just reword and focus that a little bit. We will be working on Steven's Creek Trail. So we're just trying to redefine that goal.

[06:18:43] Unknown Speaker: So does this turn into a no vote needed or is it still a vote needed?

[06:18:48] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Well, it being included in the CIP doesn't guarantee that we do. we would do it. No, we have city funding for a match. to the extent to which we reach out to the other cities, you know, direction on that would be helpful.

[06:19:02] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Can I speak to that point? Sorry, since since it's 9 was me. Um, I'm happy to, um, remove mine and just have it be 9A. I think staff articulated much better than I did. Um, so I just wanted to note that to know nine, but we can go forward with 9A.

[06:19:28] Unknown Speaker: Very good. Just to clarify, Mike, are you saying we are already working on partnering and securing? you know, to the extent that we are aware of options that we would move forward, or we need counsel direction to do that?

[06:19:42] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: But, um, we have some city match funding in the CIP. So we can actually move ahead without Sunnyvale. But our presumption is that you're going to want us to reach out to Sunnyvale and continue to get their support. I think we may be successful at that. And so that's why the direction on that would be helpful. We don't have any of their funding in the CIP at this point because we've been unsuccessful at this point. My presumption is that we should continue to do that and direction on this would be helpful.

[06:20:15] Unknown Speaker: But in the CIP, we have, I think it was 600,000 for the next fiscal year, right? And then it was several years after that, it was 2 million, I believe, or maybe it was the next year. But it certainly was not the total cost.

[06:20:28] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: No, we're looking we're looking at that as a city match. We're hoping for some competitive measure B funds. And I think I think with Sunnyvale, as we kind of develop a grand application or a specific funding opportunity, like we had talked to the state briefly, based on from their mayor to the state legislator, then I think they'll get on board with that. If we continue to coordinate with them on it. Or we could go on our own and just apply for the competitive measure B funds.

[06:21:00] Unknown Speaker: So, question. Just for information purposes. The measure be BIPEC competitive program. The call for projects is coming out this summer. And it's for 10 years to get on a 10-year list. So with the 600,000 that is in the CIP, which would be the minimum match that VTA requires, staff would apply for that grant. Now, ideally, we would also approach Sunnyvale to say, If you will partner with us and throw more money in, we will get more points in the scoring. You have a better chance of making the list.

[06:21:40] Unknown Speaker: Is there a new water district money in there? I thought that was involved with prior Santa Clara County water, or...

[06:21:50] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: There's a river parkways grant program that we've used for a couple of reaches of Stevens Creek Trail. We'll certainly keep our eye out on for that as well. It's far less funding than measure B, but we'll keep an eye out for opportunities there too.

[06:22:05] Unknown Speaker: And didn't you say last time we talked about it, I asked the question that we could proceed to the high school without it dealing with Sunnyvale?

[06:22:14] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: I believe we can. That was the original plan back when we did the EIR. But we're so close to Sunnyvale at that point once they reverse their policy against the trail, we thought it made sense to add that piece. But yeah, we could.

[06:22:30] Unknown Speaker: So it's sounding like this is something that's well enough underway that there's ways for staff to proceed without council, including this as a...

[06:22:42] Unknown Speaker: We could, we could, we could reach out to Sunnyvale and consider this a no vote either way.

[06:22:48] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Let's do that.

[06:22:52] Unknown Speaker: Yes, okay. All right. Mr. Novo. Okay, so Council member Ramirez?

[06:23:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, so... I... I have a strong suspicion that 3.12 and 3.13 are... our identical, or at least intended to have the same outcome, um, I guess if there is a distinction, uh, when I was thinking about this, I was thinking about looking at the residential parking permit program citywide, as opposed to just within the context of downtown. But I would, you know, defer to the mayor and whether they should be...

[06:23:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I think they should be combined. I was very focused on downtown, but I think it's the same issue throughout the city.

[06:23:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Yep. Thank you. And then the only other one would be, I'm not sure about 3.18, develop a citywide transportation demand management ordinance. Isn't that something that the council has talked about in other contexts? Is that a new project?

[06:24:08] Unknown Speaker: This would be to create an ordinance. We have TDM on a project specific basis, or precise plan basis, but we don't have a citywide TDM, so this would be coming up with mechanisms to incorporate it in those areas that aren't currently covered. Is that a fair statement?

[06:24:27] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Good answer. And I would also note that there's a proposal in the narrative budget to fund the consultant study to create that ordinance, and that it's also a strategy. Is that, isn't that correct?

[06:24:45] Unknown Speaker: There's a allocation in the limited period for funding a TDM ordinance. I know there's something for TMA funding. I don't know if that's TDM. I had to, sorry, I have to check the our budget, but I know that we had a certain amount in there for a TDM ordinance. So it could very well be on our work plan in addition.

[06:25:09] City Manager Dan Rich: Correct. So it's up to you to decide if you want to make a no vote on it and assume stuff is going to work on it and just count it as a resource item. And this is a significant staff resource issue, so it should be prioritized. If it's not a priority for counsel, we will not spend time on it, nor will we budget for it.

[06:25:28] Unknown Speaker: Well, Dan, will that be under our comprehensive little plan? Would that somewhere fit in there?

[06:25:36] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, the comprehensive plan, we'll look at what our gaps are. A citywide, TDM, ordinance could be a tool to help, support those, and fill those gaps. So would that be part of the? It will not be part of that study. It could be something that comes out of it. as a follow up step, or we could do it separately and concurrently, but it's not part of the comprehensive plan.

[06:26:04] Unknown Speaker: Should be. What I can say is that it is part of the environmental sustainability strategies that will be coming forward around reducing single occupancy vehicle travel.

[06:26:22] Unknown Speaker: Anything else, Council member Ramirez? Okay, council member McAllister.

[06:26:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Nope. Let's just try to make this city moved into the 21st century. That's all I'm trying to do.

[06:26:35] Unknown Speaker: Okay, we got it. Senior management said, It's fighting, but we're trying to get us to the 25st century.

[06:26:41] Unknown Speaker: Got it. Uh, Mayor Metachek?

[06:26:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: On 3.15? I might have sent a questionnaire. on this, but um... What was the answer? About why this is... this doesn't seem like it's part of transportation. Should that move to five?

[06:27:04] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. 3.15? If that's the case, then if we're gonna be consistent with the EPC's interest in adding things that weren't related to the council goals, we didn't include those on the list under Section 5. I think this might have been, you know, without the input of the liaison, and I didn't read the answer to that question. I don't know if you have it there.

[06:27:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think as a sidewalk, maybe. you know, a bit of a stretch, trying to have that be improving the pedestrian experience. I don't know.

[06:27:39] Unknown Speaker: The council question answer was input from the VAC is that it would like to expand the sidewalk studio pilot program to consider targeting key intersections, but if more appropriate, this item could be moved to a different section for council considerations. So it's really up to you whether it belongs there or not.

[06:28:05] Unknown Speaker: Anything else? Mayor Meta check?

[06:28:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Nope.

[06:28:09] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I don't... If you will turn your light on, then I can... cancel my room, McAllister.

[06:28:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Isn't 3,12, and 313, just sort of an extension of one or the other?

[06:28:28] Unknown Speaker: Let's talk, then. We already talked. Where was I? Okay. Never mind.

[06:28:33] Unknown Speaker: In the 21st century. You were advocating for fiber or something, I don't know.

[06:28:42] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Oh, come on. Council member Kame, did you have your... It went on and then off again. Did you have anything? You're ready to vote? Okay. Council member Hicks?

[06:28:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yo, so I didn't, I also didn't hear where we rested with one, two, and one, three. Are they covering the whole city, are they downtown, and do I have to recuse myself?

[06:29:06] Unknown Speaker: Citywide. City. It got merged.

[06:29:11] Unknown Speaker: If I might, there's seems to be two difference between these two. One has to do with the geographic scope, and the other has to do with strategies that seem to be perhaps under 3.12 broader than looking at the permit program as a whole. I mean, it would be potentially a relatively big undertaking to look at the residential permit parking as a whole. And I.

[06:29:37] Unknown Speaker: Well, I think there have been a number of comments over the last year from both residents and council members with frustrations with the program. What I would suggest this would be, you know, probably be a study session to understand what those issues are, but the result could be, you know, looking at the fee schedule, looking at the voting requirements, the steps in the process, that sort of stuff, and deciding whether or not what if any fine tuning of the program would be appropriate.

[06:30:05] Unknown Speaker: Mhm. And if I might, then make sure I'm clear about the mayor's intent on the downtown, um, is that just looking at the, the, um, residential parking permit program, or were there other strategies that you had in mind? that could be explored as part of that.

[06:30:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Now that you say that, um, I think my original intention was just the residential parking permit program, but, um, we do have issues with parking downtown. Um... The staff note for 312 says staff is planning to have a study session later this year to look at downtown parking demand management. So that, I think, that addresses kind of the spillover issue, and we can deal with a global look at the residential parking permit system separately.

[06:31:14] Unknown Speaker: And then perhaps the issue regarding looking at downtown parking demand, at least a study session wouldn't need to be prioritized, but potentially projects coming out of that could be. On the other side, it could also be, we increase the supply of parking. And I don't know that that's part of what the parking demand management strategy would include.

[06:31:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No, I feel like a lot of these are at reducing parking versus adding capacity. For, um... So maybe, so now that we've talked about it more. Um, I guess I leave it separate. And...

[06:32:02] Unknown Speaker: Should we have to use? It could be for 3.12, to also increase the split of parking, increase valet parking, any other strategies we have to increase the amount of capacity. Is that right now included in the proposed scope for the downtown precise plan, or is this above and beyond that?

[06:32:29] Unknown Speaker: Well, number one, if we're talking specifically to downtown, 2 members of the council have to recuse themselves. But my understanding of the precise plan will look at parking standards and issues like that, it's not going to be looking at a precise ban, doesn't look at increasing capacity. That's a, that's a CIP and land use and funding issue, really. So right now, the way 3 dot one, 2, is written, it wouldn't be expressly about increasing parking supply. So, preventing spillover could have a broader set of strategies. So is that how you'd like to leave it?

[06:33:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, that's how I'd like to...

[06:33:19] Unknown Speaker: Any other changes to this list, um, vice mayor?

[06:33:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I just had a question about the 3.2, 3.2, the parking app. Um, I recall us talking about it and I know I just got an email from someone who has an app they want to show us, but this is something that, is that IT or some, like, Roger or somebody can just take care of? Or does this have to be a full-blown, again, another full-blown goal? Because we get a lot of, um, you know, requests from, companies or offers. Um, So, yeah.

[06:34:07] City Manager Dan Rich: We get solicitations on a regular basis from tech companies who have products they want to sell us, and there are things out there, but it would be a work plan item to assess them, determine what makes the most sense. There's a lot of different ways you can do parking technology. So I don't think this is a just do it.

[06:34:29] Unknown Speaker: One of the, if I can just, one of the easiest ways is sort of like with the real-time shuttle data, if you just make that available, um, Google Maps and all sorts of different, um, you know, parking apps or whatever can just display that. So what you need is the, so you could take, for example, if you if you had parking availability data from the centers in like the garage. Um, I don't know if we have that, but if we did have that, you could just make it freely available and then any of those apps could access that and incorporate it. If we, yeah, you weren't here for the discussion, but if we were to happen to do a downtown parking program or a parking program in like San Antonio, if you have those sensors in and those meters in, indicating whether someone's there or not, that can all be freeway available data that all of these app providers can incorporate. If you think it has to be a goal, then do that. I think it would be more of a data transparency goal in terms of, you know, when we have shuttle. If we have shuttle data or we have real-time parking data or any data that the city has access to and those that would make life better for folks, we could just have a policy that we, instead of choosing like a single provider and only going with them or developing our own, we would just make it freeway available to anyone who wants to use it.

[06:35:47] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Great, thank you. Council member Hicks.

[06:35:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I have a question about 3.5 Examiner Regional TMA. Does staff's input make it, I mean, staff says, make it something that we shouldn't considers, or, so staff says that we're just a member of the TMA, and we can't really make it do anything. So does that mean that, you know, that there's a way of doing it anyway, or that we should disregard this one, pretty much.

[06:36:28] City Manager Dan Rich: Which one of us wants to answer that one? I was gonna defer to the mayor, but I'll... So the mayor has been convened through Joint Venture Silicon Valley with some meetings to explore regional cooperation and collaboration related to transportation, demand management, and potentially collaboration and or a regional TMA. So those informal discussions just started and are supposed to occur over the next 6 months or so. So, you know, I think this can be done in a short term, kind of as a just do it, if it evolves into something more significant, that's a significant workload, which it might, it probably would need to be prioritized or balanced out at a later date.

[06:37:20] Unknown Speaker: So should I vote for it or not? What are you telling me?

[06:37:25] Unknown Speaker: I don't think we need a vote on it at this point.

[06:37:27] Unknown Speaker: At this point, I don't think we do. Um... No vote on 3.5. So...

[06:37:38] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, I'm sorry, yes. Going back. Going back to that item, I've been talking with Council member Clark, and then I know Counselor McAllister proposes, but if we could include 3.2 into 3.1, the transportation smart city, that seems like that could make sense.

[06:38:02] City Staff: Okay, so when you see, or when you discuss the budget narrative tomorrow, you will see a recommendation for funding to develop a smart city strategy of sorts, that this could be part of, but I agree that 3 2, you know, could be combined with 3 1 in terms of looking at the concept of smart technologies. Is that okay with you, Councilman McAllister?

[06:38:34] Councilmember John McAlister: He always taught me to trust staff, so I... I'll trust him on this one. But it does make sense. I mean, you know, so, yeah, I think there's... And along that line, somewhere along the line, the city's gonna have to start looking at, you know, the, uh...

[06:38:55] Unknown Speaker: 5G?

[06:38:55] Councilmember John McAlister: 5G. We are, I believe, all the major providers are talking to us about small cells. So, one, I know it's sort of a side note, but if we're gonna be talking 5G's technology, we might have to have a, you might have to have a study on it. I know it's under transfer. Well, it is, because Fight 5G will be the way cars are being connected, and as they move forward, to whatever 5G is determined. But we need to have a, unless the staff has already started looking at what actually is the 5G hardware that's going to be put on facilities. And I've been gone to conferences where they said, we need as a city to start defining that now so that we're proactive versus reactive to the design or what's going on poles.

[06:39:44] City Staff: We've been reactive. We've been taking in permit applications and working on an agreement for them. We haven't been doing what you're describing and proactively researching the technology. It's been more of a permit issuance function.

[06:39:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Right. In engineering. So to get us into that new item of the transportation of the 21st century, the 5G is going to be very important. So do we need to give you some kind of direction or money or to say, well, 1st of all, legislative wise, if we want to make sure we know what the hardware is going to be throughout the city, we need to give them. We need to say, we have to have a policy in place for an ordinance to sort of define what the equipment's going to be, what's it going to look like, where it's going to go, and what type of ride away it's going to have.

[06:40:36] City Staff: You know, our traffic operations center is going to look at some of those issues. I'm not sure it's going to look exactly at 5G the way you're describing.

[06:40:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[06:40:47] City Staff: I'm just not sure. It might be, but I'm not sure.

[06:40:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So. But that will be coming out in your the study that you're the narrative, possibly the...

[06:41:00] City Staff: Well, there's some money and the narrative for exploring smart city technologies broader than just necessarily transportation.

[06:41:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[06:41:09] City Staff: But I think as reworded in 3.1, A, the 1st step of the process related to transportation is to get the traffic operation center study done and figure out. I mean, that will look at kind of what the options and needs are.

[06:41:23] Councilmember John McAlister: So where's 5G? Is that not a pair applicable to what this is, even though it is important to future transportation?

[06:41:32] City Staff: Spec 5G is a specific issue is not, no.

[06:41:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. I'll bring it up later. I have one more... Oh are you going?

[06:41:42] Unknown Speaker: Um, so, 3, 3 and 3, 4, staff said it won't be feasible in the next two years on 3, 3, and 3, 4, seemed like, uh, both of things we might want to put on goal setting goal in projects setting in two years. So should we take them off? I don't want to make you do something you can't actually do.

[06:42:11] City Staff: Staff would agree that both of these are more appropriate for maybe two years from now.

[06:42:19] Unknown Speaker: Well, how quickly?

[06:42:20] City Staff: Monitor, we can monitor the regulations, we can monitor the developing technology, uh, but actually trying to implement an autonomous shuttle route on San Antonio Road is not likely to be able to be done in the next two years, just because of the state of regulations and the technology. And then, as we wrote for the next one, uh, it's going to be a year from now before the shoreline reversible transit lane is open, and we really need to operate it for a full year, just with the buses and shuttles, and making sure it's working the way we want it to work before we say, is there even capacity to open it to autonomous vehicles, or what that would look like if the atomous vehicles or shuttle vehicles, that type of thing. So, it's something we'll keep an eye on, but we don't really consider either one of these too feasible to try to develop over the next two years.

[06:43:25] Unknown Speaker: Can I ask a question?

[06:43:27] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Okay, so let's go near term. So, we are sort of combining TMA of Los Altos, Palo Alto, Mountain View, doing a shuttle, along that line, not necessarily autonomous at this particular time, that could go back to when we were talking about CDB funds go into various sets. We could have some kind of a transportation signals to handle to help the schools and retail and so forth along that line.

[06:43:54] City Staff: Oh, yes. So, based upon council direction, from last December, and the funding council provided, we are initiating a citywide shuttle study. We are just about ready to execute the contract for that so that we can kick off that study. That study will naturally include looking at the possibility of a shuttle route along San Antonio Road, and as part of that, of course, is reaching out to Palo Alto, Los Altos, other possible partners, because that's part of creating not only the demand for a shuttle route there and its possible routing. But you know, some of the funding options for it. So we will be looking at San Antonio Road as a shuttle service need. Actually, in collaboration with the TMA, because the TMA has its 1st member in San Antonio, precise plan area, and expects a couple more to come online. And because of that, they automatically initiate a shuttle study, as well, to new areas whenever they get new members. So we'll be collaborating with them on that as well.

[06:44:57] Unknown Speaker: Well, with Palo Alto putting in a couple of new hotels, Have you reached out to them to have them sort of say, Hey, why don't you join a subset of our TMA along San Antonio?

[06:45:08] City Staff: Um, we had an initial meeting with Palo Alto. Dan Rich and I attended with Palo Alto's city manager and staff. And one of the things we discovered is our TMAs are very different in how they're funded, how they're composed, what their priorities are. And at this point, Palo Alto didn't feel that they had the financial resources, or even the ability to condition, like those hotels or something, participate in a shuttle program mandatory. So again, I think we're going to need to just do this study to see what the demand is and needs are and then reopen that conversation with Palo Alto. or even private entities in terms of if they could benefit from it. Oh. you.

[06:46:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Counselor Franks. I more.

[06:46:02] Unknown Speaker: You know, I'm sorry, I must be tired, 'cause I'm reading these. I should have asked this last time, but it looks like staff is recommending, again, 3.11 and 3.14 as well, saying, uh, 3.11, that, um... that, uh, I don't want to read the whole paragraph. That, uh, a PCI of 7.5 maintains... So, sounds like you... I don't want to vote to make you do things that you don't want to do, that just, you know, it just seems like there'd be a better use of time and money than that, and you're the professionals here, if you say, We shouldn't be doing this, then we probably should...

[06:46:47] City Staff: Well, what we were saying here is, first off, with this new infusion of money from Senate Bill 1, as well as measure B, you're going to see the conditions of our roads improve over the next few years, because we're going to be able to get a lot more road pavement work done. And that should help us meet what is the current city goal of what's a 75 pavement condition index. And at another time, if you want, I'll explain what pavement condition indexes are all about. But 75 is considered good to very good pavement condition, and it does require that some of your roads have been freshly paved and are 90 and 100% because it's a scale of 0 to 100, while some of them might fall to 70 or mid 60s, but then you're going in and doing your preventive maintenance and you're getting them back up there. So that average is 75 is a very good average, very few cities actually meet it because of lack of funding. So to achieve what's the current city goal, you will find our roads will be in much better condition than they are today. I am not counting El Camino Real. I really have to make that disclaimer because that is a state facility. I am talking city roads, but the state is planning to come in in the next 2 years and do an overlay of El Camino Real. It is in their program, maintenance program to do that. So, that road is going to get some service soon.

[06:48:11] Unknown Speaker: Well, soon, 2 years. Okay. So, and oh, sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead.

[06:48:16] Unknown Speaker: So similarly, well, I was gonna, I had raised 3.11 and 3.14 as things that seem to be projects that were recommended against. So if you wanted to, I was going to move on to 3.14. But if you want to talk...

[06:48:31] Unknown Speaker: Well, I just want to follow up on that, the PCI. If we get to a certain PCI, then we have freedom of funds that, even though we're given them, we don't have to time into the roads, that we do have discretion.

[06:48:41] City Staff: For the measure, B, local streets and road program, once we hit a PCI of 70 or higher, we could choose to use measure B funds for other congestion relief related projects for the road system. Um, Whether we would want to do that. And whether you'd want to do that is a major policy consideration, because if you divert those funds to other types of improvements, you are affecting your, you know, the amount of money going into road maintenance. Also, to keep in mind, when we talk about both measure B and SB1 projects related to road maintenance and pavement, it's actually more than pavement. You can use those funds for any part of the infrastructure of the street that needs rehabilitation or repairs. That means sidewalks, curb, and gutter, putting down new striping or refreshing things for bicycle facilities, all and drainage.

[06:49:38] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, it sounds like there's better use than something you don't think is a good use right now.

[06:49:42] City Staff: Well, and again, back to, you know, what was proposed here is its example of something that's already going to happen, so it's really not necessary for the council to vote on it tonight. It's happening on its own with the funding coming in.

[06:49:58] Unknown Speaker: And then 3.14? Oh, if I might let the mayor speaks, I think you're wanting to speak to this project.

[06:50:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I do, yeah. So one of the questions I'll be sending in this morning, when I get home, is specifically about that, because I have started going through all the material for our Thursday meeting. And with the exception of, and I think it was SB1 that was broken out, I can't really see where the increase in spending is on, uh, making our roads more um, pleasant to ride a bike on, drive a vehicle on, walk on, um, I hear this is, besides parking. This is the 2nd highest topic that I hear complains about from residents, is the state of our roads. And I say to everybody, we don't own El Camino. Be sure to let Caltrans know your concerns. Um, but the rest of the roads, I feel like they've dramatically deteriorated.

[06:51:06] City Staff: Okay, understood. So I would suggest that on Thursday, tomorrow as part of the CIP presentation, maybe staff can point out the investments, the measure B and SB1 investments that are going to be made into real pavement. There's one other category we've added. I think we added it last year as kind of an annual, and that's a reconstruction project because an overlay is one thing, but once the PCI falls to the 40s or 50s. We did this in Rex Manor. We did those one street a year for 10 years and it's very expensive. It's almost a $10000 for a residential street. So we can't do that with the overlay funding. So if you look in the CIP, we do have an annual reconstruction and the street is TBD. And so between, that's another increase, the SP one is an increase, and then we've maintained our older funding too. Also, there are some streets like Miramadi. that are badly in need of an overlay and we've had to wait for other reasons. We waited for McKelvie because we didn't want to overlay it, then the trucks drive on it, parts of Shoreline, out by Charleston East, and so on, they're in really bad shape, but there's major construction going on there, or the bus lane is going to provide overlays. So there are other major projects that you won't see in the overlay list, but they do include a big overlay component. So they're a little hard to tease out sometimes and we can provide you.

[06:52:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: They are hard to teach Thursday. Fairchild, because I live in that area, all my neighbors complain about it to me.

[06:52:32] City Staff: And there may be some that aren't what I'm talking about, and they are, they, that goes to your concern, but we can provide some more information and explain all that.

[06:52:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That be great. Great. Thank you. Um, Councilman Ramirez, is it also regarding pavement?

[06:52:46] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: .11, yeah. So, um, I was gonna suggest, um, maybe modifying the scope a little bit. I think to the mayor, so I agree with the mayor. I hear a lot of concern about this as well. And I think part of the challenge that we had corresponded about is there really isn't a public facing module that shows the schedule of pavement maintenance and what streets are going to be paved. And at the very least, having that information publicly available will go a long way in assuring the public that, yes, we're going to, we're going to repair these roads. Is that something that, you know, so you had shared with me that there are some things that are going to facilitate that, but is there is there some language here that could that could help you, you know, make that more of a priority.

[06:53:29] City Staff: Well, um, what we discussed was, um, we have our major CIPs update. It's kind of a quarterly thing, um, that we started that last year, the year before, um, and what we talked about was adding a component to that that is about street resurfacing. I think we could do that pretty easily. One thing I'm concerned about is we might plan a road a couple years out. And then for some reason delay it because another project comes in. There's a water main that needs to be done or there's another development that comes in. And so publicly stating we're going to overlay your street in 2022 and then we have to delay that and then we've given bad information. So we do need to be cautious of that. But that isn't to say we can't have that outward facing. information information. The other thing is, in year 2 of the CIP or no, it's in next year, the CIP. We have a project for a capital improvement project management program. And I think that could probably have a component with centralize schedules and so on. I think, you know, San Jose's got a very sophisticated one and some of the larger cities do, and we may be able to do something there. So there's a there's a easy can-do thing, and then there's that other thing that we're going to be funded next year. So I think without further direction tonight, we will be working on it, but if what I've described doesn't satisfy you, then you can give us some other input.

[06:54:54] Unknown Speaker: Would that be helpful, Mayor, just as...

[06:54:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Absolutely. Um, Council member Hicks?

[06:55:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Then 3.14, it also sounds like that's one staff recommends pointing mountain view to these other established apps rather than developing one. So it seems like maybe we shouldn't have that on the list.

[06:55:26] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah. Staff is simply pointing out that there are other, you know, the transit agencies, the shuttle operators, already have apps that provide the real time shuttle information, or bus locations. And I talked with both shuttle operators in Vico, as well as community shuttle, and they make their data available for others that produce mapping systems, for public transit purposes. So, this is something, you know, in terms of an integrated, Can you see everything at once? We weren't feeling that maybe this was something the city would take the lead on, but just continue to encourage that the data be provided so that in the private sector, the organizations developing these apps can use the data. to push this information out to the public.

[06:56:18] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So my thought was on this was that it would be integrated. So if you get off a bus, you know what the other connection's gonna be. And I know, VTA is not actually a cutting edge on the light of this stuff, but that was the thought, was, if you got off a shuttle, you could catch the bus, or if you get off the train, you would know what bus to get onto, or et cetera, et cetera.

[06:56:38] Unknown Speaker: Sounds like a great project for MTC to take the lead on.

[06:56:41] Unknown Speaker: Right, and there are private developers who are doing that.

[06:56:44] Unknown Speaker: Yes. With the MDC in Mountain View? boat.

[06:56:49] City Manager Dan Rich: I don't think it's realistic to think the city of Mountain View is gonna come up with an integrated transportation app for all these systems that we don't have any control over. I mean it would be challenging. But where are the later? So many other areas. And if that's your priority over everything else we do in transportation, we will work on it. So playing the main facilitator, I'm wondering if we can just let that one be up to individual council member votes with regard to your preferences and priorities and see if we can wrap up this part of the discussion and move on to voting. Okay, with that, let me try to summarize where, I think, we are with goal 3, 3.9 and 3.9 A would be a no vote, which Melvin is captured, similarly with 3.5. Um, 3.15 I think we're calling not transportation, so we are...

[06:57:59] Unknown Speaker: Well, I was not suggesting we move it to 5 in that we did not allow the EPC non goal related items to move into...

[06:58:09] City Manager Dan Rich: So, either leave it here and choose to vote on it or not or strike it.

[06:58:18] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Or add the EPC ones to section 5 as well. But we didn't invite the other advisory bodies to do that. And so.

[06:58:29] Unknown Speaker: Well, I feel like we should have treated all the advisory, we should treat all the advisory bodies the same. So, I guess for me, I would say, um, you either don't give this one any votes or you take it off, because to me, it just doesn't fit with what we're focusing on here. My suggestion would be to strike it. And then you'll have a truer list of transportation projects for this goal. is coming up. Mm hmm.

[06:59:06] City Manager Dan Rich: Um, I'm sorry, Council member Ramirez. What was your question?

[06:59:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: With 3.16 isn't really a transportation project either, so are we removing that as well?

[06:59:21] City Manager Dan Rich: It does not create a transportation solution, so by that definition, it would also be struggle. And then there were comments around 3.3 and 3.4 with regard to staff's assessment of whether those fit within this, um, goal cycle. Is it okay with the council if those also be struck? 3.3 and 3.4.

[07:00:05] Unknown Speaker: Still like to see us work on some kind of a shuttle along that line. It sounds like you're working on that, Don?

[07:00:10] City Manager Dan Rich: Yes. Mike, thank you. Okay. So we can talk at a staff level of whether or not that rises to a project that should be part of the work plan, even though it doesn't need your vote tonight. So, Melvin, are you in a place to...

[07:00:36] Unknown Speaker: Also, 3.2, can you roll that into 3.one?

[07:00:40] City Manager Dan Rich: Oh. Oh, yes. Thank you. Thank you. 3.2 becomes part of 3.1.

[07:00:52] Unknown Speaker: Is it 81 or 1A that we vote on, or...

[07:00:56] City Manager Dan Rich: It's just, you just have one vote for 3.one ish. Okay. Okay. Do you have a... We're getting there. And how many projects do we have on the list now?

[07:01:25] Unknown Speaker: We should have 12.

[07:01:27] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay. Let's count and confirm. Nine projects, so that would be four votes. All right, so we would now be starting with council member Hicks and our rotating start. You get four.

[07:02:14] Councilmember Alison Hicks: 3.

[07:02:18] City Manager Dan Rich: Correct. 3.1 and 1A are don't need 2 votes. So whichever...

[07:02:24] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, Oh, sorry. Um... So 3.one, that one. Um, 3.8. Uh... And... I did that one already.

[07:02:55] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay, that's it. All right. Counselor, we're coming.

[07:03:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, three... I want to start from the bottom. 3.18 3.13. Uh, 3.1 A. And 3.10.

[07:03:33] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay. Celts member, I'm sorry, um, Mayor Mattachek.

[07:03:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So you're telling me I really don't need to vote for 3.11. That's the one on the road improvement program. Because tomorrow, I'll be convinced that our roads are gonna improve, right? Let me get there. So, 3.10, 12, 13, and 18.

[07:04:24] City Manager Dan Rich: 3 dot 10, 3 dot 12, 3.13 and 3.18.

[07:04:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Correct.

[07:04:42] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay. Council member McAllister?

[07:04:45] Councilmember John McAlister: 3, 1, 3, 1, A, 3, 1, B, 3, 1, C. Okay. So, 3, 1, is one vote.

[07:04:53] City Manager Dan Rich: Yes.

[07:04:59] Councilmember John McAlister: I could challenge you on 3.14, so what the hell? That is a swing vote, okay?

[07:05:07] City Manager Dan Rich: Swing boat, yeah.

[07:05:11] Councilmember John McAlister: 3.12. So that's 3.1, 3.14 and 3.12.

[07:05:18] City Manager Dan Rich: Uh... What's that? Three point one. RPP. So... We did not wind up combining those two. So are we having a need to do a recusal? A couple of recusals, even though we just had some voting. Yeah, we need to start over. We need to take out the... if we wanna... if they're not gonna be combined, then impact the whole city, then we need to take that one out in its entirety and vote on the other ones first, and then they'll recuse, and the rest of the council can prioritize that. Okay, let's just keep the votes there soon.

[07:06:13] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so, um... So, if those were combined, we would look at more than the residential parking permit program is what I would want it to say. across the entire city. So, um... there's several areas where parking can spill into residential neighborhoods, besides just downtown. Right? San Antonio area.

[07:06:46] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I mean, I mean, the residential parking permit program is intended to address spillover impacts into residential, so whether it's downtown, San Antonio, community center, I mean, it could be anywhere. The issue is the criteria, and the process for that program.

[07:07:08] Unknown Speaker: Well, but there might be other ways, besides just the RPPP, to address spillover parking. More capacity.

[07:07:20] City Manager Dan Rich: So, yeah, I mean, you're suggesting a broader scope to look at a range of tools for spillover.

[07:07:30] Unknown Speaker: Oh, okay. To me, that is different than refining the RPP, making, can do them both, but... I think it, to me, it might chime in. I think it'd be... I think they're different. I mean, the RPP has a process, and there are complaints about that process, but we want to re look and revisit it. If you want to look more broadly at tools. It's sort of a difference.

[07:08:01] Unknown Speaker: I think if you're looking at the larger spillover issue, RPP is a tool in that spillover issue. And so refining the RPP as part of discussing that tool and looking at the larger issue, I think it's possible, which I'm arguing for combining them actually.

[07:08:20] Unknown Speaker: Except I wouldn't want, I wouldn't want that to be the only tool we look at.

[07:08:25] Unknown Speaker: No, and I think that's why the I would view the spillover issue as a larger issue. And the RPD is one tool among those issues. And discussing that tool, you discuss the criteria, then you've combined them.

[07:08:39] Unknown Speaker: That's fine with me.

[07:08:40] City Manager Dan Rich: Right? Does that work for the...

[07:08:43] Unknown Speaker: I think we're talking citywide.

[07:08:46] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay. So, we're combining... That work for her. Lucas? Sorry, Council member Ramirez?

[07:08:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The only concern I have with that is I don't want the broader analysis, bless you, to delay modifications to the residential parking permit program. I feel like the complaints that we've heard are pretty clear, and I would want to make sure that we prioritize that above anything else, just so we can get that through. And then we can look at other strategies, but that's that was my priority.

[07:09:18] Unknown Speaker: I'm fine with that. It can be a phased approach. where we do we look at cleanup to the RPP as one part of a broader study, but that could be the 1st phase of something.

[07:09:31] City Manager Dan Rich: And just to be clear, staff's, um, staff's vision for that is, I mean, there's certain criteria. There's the, how do you define a parking problem, okay, at 75% during the peak. How many blocks do you need to set up a zone and so on? These are all things we talked about as we were setting up the program. So staff's vision is kind of an early step would be to kind of lay those out and tweak them, but not start over with the program. That's a much bigger effort. If it's, yeah, 75% is too high or 5 blocks is too many. Let's make it 3 blocks and 70%. That, I think, could be done pretty easily. I mean, it's all very subjective. It's what do other cities do? What are we hearing from the community? We can tweak some numbers and try it. That's a pretty straightforward thing to do. If it's a much bigger effort than that. I would think it's a different animal. So if I can ask the city attorney, do we need to restart the voting or...

[07:10:32] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Well, you're going to combine those two, right?

[07:10:36] City Manager Dan Rich: We're going to combine those. So I guess the people that have voted, whether that changes their vote.

[07:10:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, it would change mine. I now have one more vote. Because I voted for both of those.

[07:10:46] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay, so why don't we, we, um, but we don't need to do it based on... recusals. So, um, can you, do we need to recalculate the number of votes? Well, I mean, there might be a different total number of votes. 3 So... If you're down to... you still get four... you still get four votes, and I think that it's just then, um, the mayor, if you voted on both items, you'd free up one of those votes.

[07:11:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I'll move one of them to three, one. Are you paying attention? Well, I just voted for three, one. 318.

[07:11:59] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay, and that... John, you had...

[07:12:07] Councilmember John McAlister: So I'm still on 312, so that's fine. Okay. You know, I had a thinking about, with this SB 50, or this casa, all this stuff coming down, that right now, we may now be concerned about it, but in 2 or 3 years, if legislation comes lying, and we're going to have all this development along transit centers, that it would be nice to have a process in place to, you know, answer the question. So, hopefully, the parking, you know, 50. All that parking right along El Camino, so...

[07:12:40] City Manager Dan Rich: So, John, you had John, you had three votes. Was that the end of your votes?

[07:12:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah.

[07:12:46] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay. Council member Ramirez?

[07:12:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um... So, 3.10. And then 312 is combined... And with 313?

[07:13:03] City Manager Dan Rich: Right. But it's no longer just downtown either. Correct. Okay.

[07:13:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, 318.

[07:13:16] City Manager Dan Rich: Did you put a vote on 313, 312 combined?

[07:13:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: 312, yes. Okay. And then, uh, 3.1 A.

[07:13:27] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay. Council member, um, I'm sorry, uh, Vice Mayor Abby Koga.

[07:13:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: 3.1 A? Um... 3.12... and 3.18.

[07:13:51] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay, Council upper Clark?

[07:13:53] Councilmember Chris Clark: You can just copy and paste Council member Commise. Okay. On to mine. 3.1, 3.18, 3.13 and 3.10.

[07:14:03] City Manager Dan Rich: 3.10 is the one you're missing?

[07:14:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: 10, yes. Oh, Kame, sorry. Yes.

[07:14:12] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay. Okay. All right. Congratulations. We now can move to a much, it's a much shorter list. Which my hope is, that means there isn't as much need for discussion. If you take out the no vote required. Um, there are 5 projects. I mean, combining? Are there any questions or adjustments to the go for projects?

[07:14:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I had one. I have one. Okay. 4.6 and 4.10. The birds, safe design, and lighting. And then I... 411. And 411 on here should be the wildlife plan. Consolidate and update existing plans in a comprehensive wildlife and habitat management. My guess is that kind of spilled over from an old... an old project list.

[07:15:48] City Manager Dan Rich: So, if I might ask, Vice Mayor Matachek, I did hear that from the a couple of the speakers around combining 4.6 and 4.10, with the design, the project around bird safe design, that's new and refurbished, does that mean that the lighting review is just for new and new developments also. Because the way to accomplish 46 is around development, review, and requirements for that and the way to accomplish 4.10 would seem to me to be different.

[07:16:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I guess that wasn't so much focus on how you accomplishment as what the standards are. So, um, I think they can be combined. And then if we just need to tweak the wording of it.

[07:16:55] City Manager Dan Rich: I mean, my sense is you can combine them, but you're not necessarily saving resources and doing, so I think they're fairly different in terms of what you're doing to do them. But they can, you know, just like we talked about RPP being phase one of a two phase project. You can do it in two chunks, but again, it's all a matter of resources, and if we're doing really two different things, and potentially even different people involved between land use and building issues versus lighting issues, you know, it's just a bigger project.

[07:17:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Although certainly lighting has an impact on birds. So, I do think there is at least some overlap.

[07:17:41] City Manager Dan Rich: Um... I mean, there's certainly similarities and intent of what you're trying to achieve, but, you know, all I'm saying is, it makes a bigger project that... There's not... a ton of economies have scaled. There may be some overlap.

[07:18:04] Unknown Speaker: So if you took out new and refurbished buildings, and it's just the comprehensive bird safe design requirements, and it's comprehensive plan for lighting throughout the city, does that address the issue?

[07:18:17] City Manager Dan Rich: No. No. Um, because it's the mechanism of how you would not just how you set the standard, but how you would enforce the standard, and, um, whereas 4.6 focuses on birds, it seems that 4.10 and light pollution is around residents and other things. And so it's, there's a lot of different issues you'd be looking at other than development review standards for design. So, um, they seem to be um, serving a little bit of overlap and objective, but not even the objectives are completely consistent as I read them. But it's up to the council as a whole, if the council would like to combine those, then have the votes that are according to that, then we will just do the analysis around the work that's required as we bring back our recommendation.

[07:19:18] Unknown Speaker: Well, I guess the area of light that you wouldn't be addressing if it was around development or refurbishment would be like street lights. We don't think we have any say in that, do we?

[07:19:33] Unknown Speaker: We are athletic. He wants out there, Shoreline. So.

[07:19:40] Unknown Speaker: Okay, then I think there's a little bit of overlap, but yeah, they have a lot that's not overlap. Can I ask the mayor a question?

[07:19:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[07:19:50] Unknown Speaker: So do you... I'm looking at 4.11. What would be the difference between that and your the bird one?

[07:20:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, the 4... Well, there's more wildlife than just birds. So, out in the North Bay Shore area, we have other wildlife besides birds, that it would be nice to have a plan for making sure we keep that diversity of wildlife out there.

[07:20:21] Unknown Speaker: So, are you just talking North Bay Shore, or it could be along the Stevens Creek Corridor, or? Along the Stevens Creek? Could your birds be incorporated in that?

[07:20:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So you want to put...

[07:20:33] Unknown Speaker: I was just asking. 'Cause I wasn't sure what you wanted on 4.1, 3, and I was thinking, or 4.1. And that, I would say, when it says comprehensive, or consolidating and update existing plans, comprehensive wildlife. But birds?

[07:20:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, birds are a subset of wildlife.

[07:20:53] Unknown Speaker: But, um... I can... I'll support you. Let me look at the exact wording again. Um... No, sorry. One is the design requirements, and the other is about the... a management plan. The themselves. Yes.

[07:21:13] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: All right. Mayor Madoch, did you have other adjustments to our questions about the projects?

[07:21:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I did. So on one of the ones that Steph said we didn't need to vote on was 4.5, and that is drone regulations, and I was not referring to government operated drones. I was referring to private drones. And some cities have implemented policies to protect privacy and address noise issues of drones that, um, people own, delivery companies might start using. They could have a big impact on privacy and noise in our city. So I don't think that one should be not voted on.

[07:22:07] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay, I think as the maker presenter of that item, that sounds appropriate, so we would make that one for prioritization.

[07:22:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, let me see if I have anything else. No, that's it.

[07:22:29] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. Okay, so, uh, for... We've added back 4.5. And that keeps it still at three votes. For this list of one, two, three, four, five, six. No. Yes, six projects, three votes, yes. I know, that's all. All right, so we'll start now with council member committee.

[07:23:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: 4.6. 4.9. 4.10.

[07:23:16] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Um, Mayor Manachek.

[07:23:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: 4.9 4.11. And 4.5.

[07:23:38] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay, uh, Counselor McAllister.

[07:23:42] Councilmember John McAlister: 4.1. Oops.

[07:23:49] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay, we'll come back to you. Um.

[07:23:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Four point. 6 and 4.11. I'd like to go back to Counselor, we're coming. I'm so sorry. It's not... Um, can I do the, instead of, um, 4.11.

[07:24:26] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Thank you. Okay. 4.11.

[07:24:30] Councilmember John McAlister: 4.1. Yeah, 11.

[07:24:34] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. All right, Council member Ramirez.

[07:24:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, 46, 49, 411.

[07:24:43] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Say that again, please.

[07:24:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: 6, 9, 11.

[07:24:47] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Um... Vice Mayor Abby Koga?

[07:24:54] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Four... four... four... I gonna go backwards 4, 11. And four, nine... and... 4.6...

[07:25:17] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. Um, Council member Clark?

[07:25:21] Councilmember Chris Clark: Just 4.9.

[07:25:24] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. Council member Hicks.

[07:25:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: 4.9, 4 11.

[07:25:32] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: So that was without your mic on 4.9, and...?

[07:25:36] Councilmember Alison Hicks: 4.9411. 0.11.

[07:25:38] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. So those of you who voted under the number three, are you good with your votes?

[07:25:46] Councilmember John McAlister: I'd like to change a vote.

[07:25:47] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay.

[07:25:49] Councilmember John McAlister: I like to take off 4.6 to go 4.9. I want the trees. Because I know when every time we had a remodel, and if you had a two story, you had to put a tree in, but if you did a single story, you didn't have to put a tree in. So. Okay. I like to get some trees out there.

[07:26:11] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Very good. All right, so that leaves us with our very last category, which is other. I think these are all, if I'm remembering correctly, distinct enough that they probably aren't combining, you may have questions about what these entail. Um, and I would just query whether or not, how deep your level of understanding needs to be at this point, if you have a clear sense of your own priorities, um, with the uh, 6 votes that you're allotted here. If we can get to voting sooner than later. All right, Mayor Mattercheck. Oh, yes, we now have two fewer projects because we moved two. And Melvin has confirmed that that's still six votes. So, Mayor Matachek, did you still have your light on? Okay, um, council member Ramirez?

[07:27:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, I'll try and keep as sure I did have a few suggestions for modifications in additions. Well, first, so 5.9 form based zoning, I was thinking of that in a very narrow context, and I don't know if we included that in 2.3 or 2.5, but if we did, then we could remove it from here. Or I don't know. So that may or may not need to be included here. For 5.2. I was thinking about broadening that to a greater discussion about noticing, um, And then, uh, for 5.5 Parkland dedication ordinance, one of the things that we had, we discovered with 2310 Rock Street was that the, it doesn't apply, uh, when you have an increase in bedrooms. So I would be interested in broadening the scope of that to include looking at making the parkland dedication ordinance apply when you have an increase in bedrooms even if the unit count is the same or reduced. And then, So these are broader conversations, and if there's no interest, then I'll understand, but so an additional project, we've had a lot of discussions, sort of, in an ad hoc way about adding new change areas and that kinds of that kind of thing. And I'd be interested in looking, having a more comprehensive, but narrowly scoped discussion of a general planned review. So sort of like a periodic review for years, 5 years, whatever it may be, but thinking about the general plan more holistically than just, you know, we're interested in the redeveloping this area. So that is a distinct item. And then, I floated the idea with a couple of folks from staff, but looking at a two-year budget cycle and seeing whether that reduces the staff workload and the preparation of the budget and whether that's a meaningful, whether that meaningfully provides relief for staff capacity. Thank you.

[07:29:48] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. Cal temper comet?

[07:29:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. Um, so I would like to remove to of mine, um, 5.11, uh, staff clarified our policy. Um, and then 5.one to, I think I'll try to bring that up on Thursday as part of a budget item.

[07:30:10] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Thank you. Okay. I'm seeing no other lights on. Are there any other questions? Oh, Council member McAllister?

[07:30:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I was wondering if, uh, so the EPC was thinking about fiber. I was wondering, we looked at the 513. I know that you said we have these private companies that are providing service for low income people, but I don't know, would fiber be a, something I put in there, or that would just be too big of an ask. Secure or install, you know, fiber broadband service for the whole city. Again, fiber is going to be the future. And so we're going to try to move this city forward. It's a thought that I'm trying to figure out.

[07:31:07] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I'm not sure how to respond to that. Can you clarify exactly?

[07:31:15] Councilmember John McAlister: 5.13. So... It could be a standalone deal about, you know, CPC, had a program to install fiber throughout the city. And if we're going to get to the 22nd century fiber or broadband, it's going to be the ticket.

[07:31:36] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: So is that a standalone deal or...

[07:31:38] Unknown Speaker: That is a standalone, massive undertaking, yes. How old has been trying that for 15 years, and it hasn't worked, so...

[07:31:45] Councilmember John McAlister: But Valeo's got, and Santa Monica has it, so, and so, I just, it's a goal, maybe not tonight.

[07:31:55] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Uh, Cats over Hicks?

[07:31:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just wanted, um, somebody who proposed 5.5 review and update the Parkland dedication ordinance to give me, like, a couple sentences on why that was important to them at this point. I think.

[07:32:12] Unknown Speaker: Well, uh, I might... Others might... Our job might want to chime in. The reason that I had flagged that is because we have, you may recall, right now, it's, the idea was that the fee is determined earlier in the process, so that if a project drags on two, three years, because I think right now it's based on the land value at the time, everything is approved, or it's, so the idea was to give the folks certainty at what point it would be, and it might be a little higher than it is now, I don't know, but the idea was that, um, I think Sobrado was a really good example of this, is where, you know, we requested a number of changes to it over a period of years and the park fee increased to the point where we ended up making concessions that we probably didn't really want to make on other things. And so if that is set earlier in the process, even if it's higher a higher rate than it is now, they at least have some certainty as to what they can do on other things, like school contributions and other things. That was my idea behind it. Others may have a different idea behind it.

[07:33:24] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Council member McAllister?

[07:33:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, that was one of the components. Lucas alluded to the one other one when we were looking at it. I noticed that you lost units, but you had the bedrooms, but there was no net change, even though there were gonna be more people living in the project, that that did not trigger parkland dedication fees. So that was one thing. Another thing that there's a cap on how much land use. So if there was 20, I don't know, if there was a cap, and how much land could go, or dedicated feast would be included in. And so that was one of the deals. And also, Sunnyvale is also looking at 5 acres per thousand people were at 3,000 per acre. So that's another consideration we could look at. So there's 4 items there that, you know, it definitely needs to be resolved. So there was the density. So, yeah, you could go to a density of 26, and that maxed out the amount of, but yet, we're going in higher densities now, and yet, you're not paying any more money other than the particular, the low density.

[07:34:32] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: All right, seeing no other lights on. Shall I confirm the list of projects? I think these are mostly removals. There were two that moved up to goal one, which were 5.145.15, two that got removed by the suggestor, which were 5.11, 5.12. And I think that is what I have. There were two new ones suggested. Oh, I'm sorry, the two suggested for adding with regard to... a process for a periodic review of the general plan, and also looking at a two year budget. And then I do also have here the suggestion that 5.2 be broadened to look at noticing, and I'm assuming that the commoner was not trying to change that, but make sure that it included noticing, or...?

[07:35:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so, again, be deferential to the folks who propose this, but, um, I think, uh, including not just, uh, development, so that the mayor and I spoke briefly about this. So I'll look to you for some help, but including things beyond just develop and proposals. expanding the scope of noticing requirements and that kind of thing.

[07:36:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right. Noticing when it comes to, yeah, parks. or other changes that might be occurring. Besides parks. Now I can't think of. I knew I thought it was more... Yeah.

[07:36:39] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. Um, so with that, does that, how does that change? Okay, so you have 14 projects and 6 votes. We'll start with Mayor Matachek.

[07:37:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, I have 51. Five, five. The general plan review. Does that have a number? Um. Did you give this?

[07:37:25] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: 517 for general plan review?

[07:37:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And... Five three. I can't believe I almost forgot that one. And I've got how many more? Two more?

[07:37:46] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Uh two more.

[07:37:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You like 5'4, but I haven't heard anybody talk about it. So, uh, I think I would add 5, 8, and 510.

[07:38:08] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: All right. Counselor McAllister.

[07:38:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, five, five, one. 5, 2. You know, I was having discussion with the mayor, but I just thought the EPC was supposed to review the general plan, and so that's why I was hesitant to do that one. We review the implementation items, our general plan on an annual basis, which, I think, is not the same thing as what Council member Ramirez is suggesting. Oh, no, I'll go with my own 513. Broadband, because even though it's available, so people can't afford it. So I think broadband is going to be important for this city to move forward. And that's it for now. Council member Ramirez.

[07:39:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: 517. 510... 5, 8. Uh, well, since it's still on there, 5'9. Um, 518. Just for good measure. And five tube.

[07:39:48] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Thank you. Um, Vice Mayor Abby Coco?

[07:39:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: 5.1, 5.3, 5.5, 5.16. Wait, sorry, yeah. And the 5.17.

[07:40:13] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: All right, um, Council member Clark.

[07:40:18] Councilmember Chris Clark: So... Um... 5, 3, 5.5. Um, 5.16. and 5.10. I think that's it for now.

[07:40:49] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. Um, Council member Hicks?

[07:40:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: 510? Oh, Jesus, I do that every time. Sorry. Um, five... I may come back and do more later, but 5, 10, 5, 3, 5, 2, and 5, 1.

[07:41:15] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay, thank you. Counts wherever come may.

[07:41:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, one, three, five, ten, 16.

[07:41:33] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. Thank you. Um... So, Councilman McAllister, or Council member, Clark, or Hicks, anything to add?

[07:41:46] Unknown Speaker: Can you scroll up? Yeah, sorry. Thank you. I think I'm good. I would just add, um... Sorry, back down. There was one down there that was... Yeah, I think I'm good. Okay.

[07:42:19] Unknown Speaker: Oh, I'm gonna vote for form based zoning. Just put it over the edge there.

[07:42:24] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Thank you. Okay. which project number is that?

[07:42:29] Unknown Speaker: Five nine, sorry. Okay. Wow, I'm the only one who used all of those books.

[07:42:44] Unknown Speaker: No, you didn't. They're hosted. Oh, no, you worked inflicted out of Shenandoah, that's why. Yep.

[07:42:53] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay. I believe that takes us all the way through the goals. Can we go back to the presentation? I think all that's left at this point is the next step, which you know by now is for us to prioritize and come back on May 21st. And then the formal adoption will be with the budget.

[07:43:21] Unknown Speaker: I totally forgot. I wanted to see if there was interest in deferring or dropping a couple of continuing projects. Um, okay. Okay. So, not to belabor the point, but, um, we still have the Terabella visioning on the agenda, even if it's pushed out until after the break. I'm wondering if there's, especially if we're going to prioritize Shenandoah, if they're still interested in dedicating time to that. And then the other one is we have a gatekeeper review in June, and realistically, I'm not sure how much staff time we can dedicate to any of those, and I'm wondering if we can push that out until after the break.

[07:44:08] Unknown Speaker: Well, I think Steph will tell us in the gatekeeper report. if they'll have time for it. Um, and, yes, I think we should at least, even if it's a short discussion, close out the terrible visioning plan. Um, one way or the other, I think that would be very strange not to, but... that's just me. I'm okay pushing out the gatekeepers.

[07:44:37] Unknown Speaker: I agree, we don't have a lot of staff time. We've added a lot of long range planning, or updating things, and I'd rather focus on that than on gatekeepers. So I'd be happy to push that out.

[07:45:04] Unknown Speaker: Well, yeah, comments on those would be, you know, good to see if there's consensus. Um, the gatekeeper, I would be fine to push out. I actually heard from some developers that they didn't know that there was a deadline coming up, so, um, just to give them time, and then give us time, that would be fine if we wanted to push that out. But the, um, Terabella visioning process. I do think we need to have one more discussion because based on what we decide as next steps. I think we have some next steps that we need to decide upon. So, I think another session would be helpful to do that.

[07:45:48] Unknown Speaker: Got a clarification on the gatekeepers. So, I guess Friday, there's a deadline for gatekeeper applications to come in. So is this what the one you're referring to, that would be kicked out?

[07:46:01] Unknown Speaker: That is the item that had been put on the tentative agenda for June, was to bring back those applications that, this Friday is the deadline.

[07:46:15] Unknown Speaker: Yes, that's my understanding. I believe there are 17 or so proposals that have been submitted so far.

[07:46:24] Unknown Speaker: Wow. Okay. Do you know how many of those gatekeepers in, sorry, I couldn't send this one in beforehand? Are ones that didn't get approved last time?

[07:46:43] Unknown Speaker: I don't. Yeah. When was the last gatekeeper? Now that I say that, when was the last gatekeeper?

[07:46:58] Unknown Speaker: It's been a considerable length of time. Yeah. I don't remember exactly, but.

[07:47:02] Unknown Speaker: So when would it come back to us? If we're pushing it out till June. When would we would staff determine when it comes back, or would council determine if we accept gatekeepers?

[07:47:14] Unknown Speaker: Well, it's up to you whether or not you want to take another round of them. You know, if you're just pushing it out, then we can schedule for the next quarter or whatever. If you're saying you don't want to deal with gatekeepers at all, that's direction you need to provide.

[07:47:32] Unknown Speaker: Oh. Okay. I mean, somewhere along the line, I'd like to see some gatekeepers, 'cause I know there's some movement in Terabella with a master plan that I'd like to see come forward, so...

[07:47:48] Unknown Speaker: I feel like, given all the workload, we have. I'm comfortable pushing it out till after the break.

[07:47:56] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I agree. But you'll see... But I'll see it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[07:48:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I heard four people say that?

[07:48:08] Unknown Speaker: Mm hmm. Did not hear four people... Terabella.

[07:48:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, are we done with this topic? Okay, we will close. I, um, I think this was 7.one. And... we have item eight. Council staff committee reports. Vice mayor, Abbe Koga.

[07:48:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, we had a cities association meeting two weeks ago. Yes. Um, and, uh, part of that is the legislative action committee, and, um, we voted on several of the housing bills that have been introduced. But in light of the time, what I'd like to do is I was going to type up a report and we have the minutes from the lack meaning ready. So I will do that and then, um, send it to all of you, um, unless you'd like to hear, hear them now. Um, there were 6, there were 6, um, 6 bills that we voted on. And I can give you the numbers, but if you want to get more detail, I just thought it would be easier to send you a written summary.

[07:49:36] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I'd like the details on why the different positions were taken. Why you're foursome and not for others.

[07:49:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Do you want to... Intermittent. Oh, okay, it's fine. Okay, thank you. Yes. And then we will continue to take on more at the next meeting. Um, and then I was also appointed to the, um, a bag MTC casa, housing legislation committee, and we had our 1st meeting last Thursday. Um, we are, it's 28 members, um, county supervisors and city council members in the 9 counties, and we are basically providing input on the bills that, um, we are, similar bills, and, um, we are, we will not take a vote at the end. We're just providing comments that they will transcribe and submit 1st to the A bag, MTC legislative committee, and then that will go to the state legislators. My concern is that any committee, any bill that need, that can make it, has to make it out of committee by the 30th. And so I'm not quite sure what the timing, our comments will probably be provided more like in June. So I'm not really sure how relevant they're gonna be at that point. But, um, I think it's good to be there, but I'm not really sure how much the outcome will matter.

[07:51:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Council member McAllister.

[07:51:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Um... Just to give you a heads up, so I'll report next... tomorrow on VTA and SR 85. But I did want to make a point, sort of, proves tonight, is that the workload that we've been given. I'm concerned about that, we've got late hours. lately. We've got a lot of meetings, we're gonna take a lot of information, and I think council needs to sit down and have a discussion about how much priorities that they can handle, how much work live they can handle, to, and I'm concerned about that. So I figured 2 o'clock, and I'm a little short, but we need to, as a council, determine that, uh, for pushing out other projects that we should be able to sort of, uh, influence the agenda. So maybe for another night, but this is a mid 2 o'clock, I know 1 o'clock, and so it's concerning. Thank you.

[07:52:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: A couple things. We did send a letter in support of AB 302, which is safe parking at community colleges, um, that Mark Berman authored, and then we did send a letter in opposition to SB 50. I know a lot of people have been talking about that one, and we sent that today, right?

[07:52:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yep.

[07:52:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, opposing SB 50. And you heard a little bit about the regional TMA, the manzanita talks.

[07:53:01] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah.

[07:53:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, I think, um, I'm skeptical about what's gonna come out of those, but, um, it's an interesting, uh, topic to explore. We also had, as the vice mayor mentioned, the city's association meeting, and at the meeting, we did hear that there's potential funding for a youth teen, actually, mental health clinic in Mountain View. So, um, we're gonna find out a little bit more about that. And I did attend the VTA PAC meeting, and the biggest item there was talking about the service level changes. And, you know, they had their service level and then they were going to go to the next level. And That never happened. So we were really just talking about small changes to the existing service levels, in terms of coverage. And then, I know this isn't exactly what we're supposed to cover here, but I do want to say the Mountain View Earth Day that we had last weekend, for the 1st time holding that event, I thought it was really, really good. And I really appreciate staff time and all the volunteers who worked on that. You know, as we heard there were about 500 people there, very engaged. And I thought it was really, really a nice job. So congratulations to everyone who worked on that. Um, and I think that is it on my list. Anyone else? Okay, if not, you find this. We will adjourn the meeting to the next city council meeting to be held on Thursday, April 25th, 2019.

[07:54:51] Unknown Speaker: Do you want to know if there's a closed session?

[07:54:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, I'm sorry. I do want to know if there's a closed session report.

[07:54:55] Unknown Speaker: Danny empowered me to say it tonight. There is no closed session report.

[07:55:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'm so sorry, I forgot to ask. So now that we've heard that there's no closed session report, we can adjourn the meeting to the next city council meeting to be held on Thursday, April 25, 2019, at 5 p.m. in the council chambers, 500 Castro Street.

• ← Previous
• Next →