October 1, 2019 Joint Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sure. And the 1st item is the pledge of allegiance. If you will join me for that.

[00:00:34] Unknown Speaker: of the United States of America, and to the Republic, or which is that? One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for God.

[00:00:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next is roll call.

[00:00:52] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[00:00:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. So the next item. Not sure if everyone got the updated agenda, but we added a presentation in recognition of breast cancer awareness month. And during the month of October, Mountain View firefighters and police officers participate in national breast cancer awareness month by wearing pink on their T shirts and uniforms. And the firefighters and police officers have raised thousands of dollars for this worthy cause to the sale of T shirts and patches over the years. Breast cancer is the second most commonly occurring cancer in women, about one in eight women in the United States will develop breast cancer over the course of their lifetime. The good news is that many women can survive breast cancer, if it's found and treated early. National Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a chance to raise awareness about the importance of early detection of breast cancer. We are very proud of our police officers and firefighters, who have taken part in this worthy cause, to honor those who have been diagnosed with breast cancer, and to bring attention to the need for early detection, through examination, and timely treatment. Today, we are joined by many members of our Mountain View firefighters and police officers, and we thank them for their support in this ongoing battle against this disease. And I would like them to come up in front of the daist, so we can take a picture. And I think this year, we're going to have the council stand here, back here, or you want to see standing here? We stand here, and we'll put firefighters, simply officers in front of us. They can kneel there. John. Thank you very much for all that you do. Okay, next item is the consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council or audience wishes to remove an item for discussion. Are there... Okay, Council member McAllister.

[00:04:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I like to pull item 4.1, or is it 4.1? Yeah. The, uh, minutes of the 24th, I believe.

[00:04:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Are there any other council members that wish to pull an item?

[00:04:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'm just going to comment, so...

[00:04:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Are there any members of the audience that wish to pill an item? Okay, say none. Chris, did you just have a comment?

[00:04:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes, so I, um, will address the reconsideration item later, so I just wanted to state that, um, from my perspective, the minutes sort of are an accurate reflection of the jumble that came out of my mouth. So I don't, I don't think we need to amend the minutes. I think we can address everything as part of the reconsideration piece of it.

[00:05:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Council member McAllister?

[00:05:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just want to clear. All right, just to clarify, I think Council member Clark, you were talking about the September 10th minutes, and...

[00:05:24] Councilmember Chris Clark: Right, not last week. Right, sorry, I should have said that.

[00:05:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I knew what he was talking about. Yes, the September 10 minutes. Yes. And Council member O'Callister's talking about the September 24th minute.

[00:05:35] Councilmember John McAlister: 24th. Okay, so I would just like to clarify that my motion was the staff report. The staff recommendation.

[00:05:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Staff recommend, yeah. The staff recommendations. With the substitute change that you made, too.

[00:05:51] Councilmember John McAlister: With the substitute change, that the effective date would be June 30, 2020.

[00:05:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: For the narrow streets. For the narrow streets. Right. And that actually is my recollection, as well, or at least my interpretation of what John said. Um, council member Ramirez.

[00:06:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, I don't want to belabor the point, you know, my recollection was that it was council member Clark's motion, which I think the specific language you're seeking to address is the center line, right? So that would be the clarification you're making. just so everyone knows what the practical impact of the modification will be. Council member Clark?

[00:06:34] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, what I understood that night was that you were basically making a substitute motion that was identical to my motion, except instead of tying it to the expiration of the shelter crisis, that it would be just the date, June 30th. And so, what I was hoping for, or what I had made in my motion, was just requested a list of the streets with centerline, so we could decide whether or not we wanted to include them or not. Um, But if your motion was just the staff report, then I don't think that, well, will even be, uh, I'm not sure that, well, maybe staff can clarify, but I don't think they'll call out any specific streets with center lines.

[00:07:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, my recollection is that, yeah, council member Clark made the motion. Council member McAllister made the substitute motion. He was asked to clarify that it included the balance. And I believe, I mean, I heard the balance of, like, the staff recommendation, but I think you actually said the word motion. But I took that to mean the staff recommendation. Instead of just focusing on the date of the implementation of the narrow streets portion.

[00:07:57] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, Madam Mayor. I did say, does that include the balance of the motion, but if it is now a majority of the council's different recollection that it was the staff, if what you interpreted was the staff, the balance, meaning the balance of the staff recommendation. That's something a majority of the council can decide on tonight for clarification.

[00:08:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um, do we need to take, do we do a show of hands or...?

[00:08:35] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: I think a formal motion? Motion would be in order. Do you want to do it again?

[00:08:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. I make a motion that... We follow staff's recommendations.

[00:08:48] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: The word town, the bicycle lane had its own... Actually, you could refine your motion more specifically, to say, to clarify the minutes, to reflect.

[00:08:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. My intention was the balance of the motion was referring to the balance of staff's recommendation. And you expect me to remember?

[00:09:06] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: No, you can just say what I said, yeah. So you just refer to what I said.

[00:09:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay. So everyone's on the same page so we don't have more confusion in the future. What you're proposing is the original staff, recommendation with the substitution, that it's a hard June 30th date, but everything else is the same.

[00:09:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Correct.

[00:09:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And I believe I originally seconded that motion. I was just looking at the minutes... I'm happy to second it again. Okay. Do you want to hit the... Okay. Okay, so we have a motion by Council member McAllister, and I seconded it. All those... I guess we should vote.

[00:09:50] Unknown Speaker: Yep. You might want to share, can see if there's any public comments on this item.

[00:09:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did we ask you? I think we are.

[00:09:57] Unknown Speaker: I think the mayor has already asked, but you can ask again. I think you've already asked though. Yep.

[00:10:18] Unknown Speaker: Specifically happen. Usually, it doesn't allow you to end it unless all the votes are in. Sorry about that. Sorry about that. Just one moment. So did Nay.

[00:10:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay, so that passes four to three. We'll count your vote. Thank you. Okay. So, again, so everyone's on exactly the same page, including the viewing public. There will be no return with any information about center lines as a result of this. Okay. Thank you. And actually, we need to vote on the balance of the consent calendar.

[00:11:00] Unknown Speaker: Was there a motion, though?

[00:11:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No. Okay, so we have a motion for the balance of the consent calendar by Vice Mayor Abi Koga, and a second by council member, Ramirez. If there's no further comment, we can vote. No, I already could ask if they wanted to pull anything. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, the next item is oral communications, and this portion of the mating is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. So, is there anyone who wishes to address the council on an item not on the agenda tonight? If you could be sure to fill out a blue card and leave it with our city clerk, either before or after you speak, and the first person can come up to the microphone.

[00:12:18] John Cortis: You going to load it here, or how do we get the presentation up? Okay, I see it. Thank you. Assume that once this loads up, it'll show.

[00:12:33] City Clerk: Mayor, can I confirm the time, the speaker time length with you?

[00:12:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'm sorry, did you...? Uh... Could I see a show of hands of how many folks want to speak on items not on the agenda? So, is everyone in line there wanting to speak on items not on the agenda? Why don't we do, uh, let's see, each speaker will have two minutes.

[00:13:00] John Cortis: Thank you, Mary, Mary, Jack, and team council members, John Cortis, I'm the Santa Clara County advocate for Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition. I'm speaking before you tonight to invite you to our infrastructure rides and announce our beat pack effectiveness training. Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition. Our mission is promote healthy communities, environment, and economies through bicycling for people who live, work, and play in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. We want to create a community that values, includes bicycling for all purposes for all people. We do that through two main ways. We try and get better built environment, and we try and change behavior, and speaking, I'm talking about tonight is about changing behavior by educating people. So, um, we'll get into that in a second here. So we've been organizing a series of infrastructure rides. We are doing 13 of them in the year to encourage city council members and staff members and members of beat packs and other commissions like planning commissions to experience city infrastructure on their bikes. So we've been putting these on. We did the one in Mountain View here. Thank you, in August. Sun SEM, we've done Morgan Hill, Santa Clara, and last weekend when we did Fremont. The next coming rides are this Friday in Cupertino, where they'll be showing off the McCullen bike path. And then October 25th will be Sunnyvale, and that's the last one we'll do until the spring. So this is just an open invitation in case you happen to miss my emails that I've been sending you to join us on these rides. And if you have any questions, contact information is there to come, just call me or sign up. So this is the details. I won't read this all, but this is where you're going to need to be if you want to join us for the Cupertino ride this Friday. And this is the details for joining us for the Sunnybale ride on October 25th. So that kind of covers what I wanted to about the rights. The next thing I want to do is announce the beef beef pack effectiveness training. We're encouraging any credit that's interested to sign up for these training sessions. So far, no one in Mountain View has stepped forward. We'd like to have some representation from Mountain View on our training class. Thank you.

[00:15:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place. against me.

[00:15:32] Marianna Grossman: Screen. Anyway, hi, I'm Marianna Grossman. I live in Mountain View, and I have been finding walking on our city streets to be not pleasant like it is in other cities, and so I want to invite you to consider thinking about how to reinvent how we own our city streets. And their public assets that you control largely. There's an opportunity of creating a sense of there there, a place people really want to be, and we can meet many, many goals if we get out of our silo thinking. This was a library designed by the world redown architect. I am Pay in Columbus, Indiana, back in 69. This is a downtown public space in Rotterdam in the Netherlands, a pedestrian mall in Boulder, a street in Vienna, EV charging in The Hague and lovely crosswalks that are exciting even in San Jose, Dallas, and Detroit. So you can see what you can do with public art. supporting bike infrastructure. Here's an example of bikes separated from traffic, with using also creative swales and foliage to help improve the quality of life and also make biking safer, and reducing noise and heat island effect, and making habitat that makes people happy. So I think also we could think about as we're reinventing our Bay Shore, that it could be a climate positive action, and an opportunity to have more public space, more interaction, and a better quality of life in Mountain View. So please challenge yourselves to unleash your creativity and vision as you do this important work of reinventing Mountain View. Thank you.

[00:17:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:17:18] Public Speaker: I was in line to cede my time to Mariana if she needed more time, so I have nothing to say tonight. Thank you.

[00:17:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:17:31] Tim Mackenzie: Hi, my name's Tim Mackenzie. I live on Rankstar Fav. I have been a Mountain View resident since 2015. And I recently visited family in Massachusetts, and I learned that the city of Brooklyn, Massachusetts, became the first city and nation to provide tampons free of charge in all public bathrooms in the city. I'm proud of my home state for making this step, and I think that we in Mountain View can and should be leaders on this as well. Um, about half of our population has a period every month. So it's broadly felt public sanitation and health issue. So, in that light, I request the city perform and make publicly available the results of a Nexus study to find out how much it would cost to do that in our city and just as a quick back of the envelope, calculation. Brooklyn has 17 public restroom facilities compared with 50 in Mountain View. So multiplying by a factor of 3 is a reasonable estimate of costs, which would give us one time anticipated costs of $120,000 for installation, which could be phased out over several years, then ongoing costs of about $20,000 per year after that. And as a last note, the business tax that we just passed, a couple years ago, is expected to bring in $2000000 this year, and that's going to increase as the tax continues to be rolled out. So we have the resources to do it. It's just a matter of whether or not we will. So I ask that the city council seriously considers this.

[00:19:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, uh, Council member Kamei, uh, brought this up earlier this year. Did you want to give an update?

[00:19:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sure. This came up as an item I brought forward as part of the budget process this year, and actually, I was bugging our city manager, Mr. Rich, wondering when we were going to be implementing it, but if you go into the restrooms here, They're free of charge and it's also free of charge for all city employees in all facilities. And we're going to be looking at other buildings as well.

[00:19:34] Tim Mackenzie: Is it just this building or is it all public bathrooms in the whole city?

[00:19:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I believe at this point, it's just City Hall.

[00:19:42] Tim Mackenzie: Okay. So, I, I, that in my request is all encompassing, all public bathrooms under your purview, whatever that may be. Thank you.

[00:19:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[00:20:00] Kate Boynton: My name is Kate Boynton. I live here in Mountain View. I want to bring to your attention, and I know you all know this, that today is October 1st. Council members, do you hear the bells tolling all over Mountain View? They are tolling for renters who received their 90 day notices of rent increases by January 1st. Hundreds of teachers, first responders, minimum wage earners, seniors, longtime residents are in despair. How will we afford to stay here? Will I be homeless? Will I live in an RV or car? Where will my children go to school? How did this happen to our great city? Big tech, greedy landlords, property managers, real estate moguls, have taken advantage of the 99% of the citizens of our fair city. We are being driven out of our homes and our livelihoods, while debate after debate of past and present consoles, the rental housing committee, and the CSFRA, argue and propose ideas. Nothing has been passed or voted on. Now you will live with your non decisions, as renters flee to other cheaper communities, 2 hours away, or other states. concert members. Take off your rose colored glasses and see what you have wrought. If a moratorium on rental increases had been passed in the last 2 or 3 years, you would have had the time to pass rent stabilization, and negotiate with all factions.

[00:22:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:22:09] Joseph E. Wald: Before I begin. Ladies and gentlemen, the council, thank you for hearing us today. I just wanted to say thank you to all for hearing us out. My name is Joseph E. Wald. I'm a veteran who lives in Mountain View. I served in Afghanistan. I served in Korea, and throughout several different countries in the Middle East. I came to California because I wanted to make change and I wanted to find a way for people to live in peace together in happiness. And ever since I've come to the city of mountain view, I've lived under a constant cloud of fear. Fear that my home could be taken away from me at any moment. Fear that my entire world can unravel before my very eyes. And I'm one of the lucky ones. I've got a stipend to carry me through, so if my block, Gamble Way, which is currently set for transfer and by the looks of the signs in the neighborhood, inevitable destruction, it's hell to have to live through that. On top of that, I've grown to become friends with many of the people in this community, including a vibrant Hispanic community, a proud, large family that celebrates quincineras, that celebrates parties in the streets, building real community, offering real value added to the city of Mountain View, and they face having their entire family destroyed. Many of them are here with me today and they plan to speak to you all. I come to you to ask one simple message. The system has to find a way to place value on life over wealth. The acquisition of wealth, while important. If it becomes the sole driving focus sucks the livelihood and community out of a city. And I say that as a person who grew up around the city of Detroit, Michigan. I've seen what happens when big business can come in, dominate a market space, and then leave when the market space dries up. You're sowing the seeds of your own destruction if you don't get ahead of these guys. Please, I implore you, I beseech you. Please place life over wealth and please protect this vibrant community on Gamma Way. Thank you.

[00:24:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:24:25] Carmen Montiveros: Buenas tardes. Good afternoon. My name is Carmen Montiveros.

[00:24:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Got it, Monte. Sorry.

[00:24:57] Carmen Montiveros: The same as my neighbor who just spoke in front of you. Um, I hear that the, on my street, there's gonna be demolition and that we're gonna be, um, that we're gonna be asked to live. And that's very sad for me because my children grew up in Mountain View. And donce semos decidido for mar, nosotros una, pecque union, para veniren formales, austedes, que sison, tana mables de pasanos algune formación de lo que vaso se der con nos tradiviendas. So, we made a small group to come to ask you if you will kindly inform us what is going to happen to our homes on Camel Street. coming? Gamel. Gamel Street. nosotros comola, podriamos hablar con algunos estedes, se parado para para vercioses, pollen rescatar nos trabibienda. So, through our small group, we want to see if there is a way that we can talk to you on, like, on a different day, to see different ways that we can, you can reach to rescue us from losing our homes. El motivo, de quesoi para, que amo, la ciudad. Gracias, ustedes, tenemos bonitas, es, es, es, es, es, es, es, es que So the reason I'm here talking to you tonight is because my children grew up in Monteville, and really, thanks to all of you, we have beautiful parts, we have a lot of amenities, good schools, and it would be really, really hard for us having to leave the city. [non-English speech not transcribed] So that's the reason I'm here today to ask you to use your power to help us because you are the ones who made the decisions and have the power to help us. Muchas gracias, por escucharnos. Thank you so much for listening to me.

[00:27:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:28:00] Miriam Aguilera: Thank you for, my name is Miriam Aguilera, my husband's, uh, Jorge and Jonathan. Um I'm sorry, I'm very nervous. Um, I just wanted to say thank you for listening to us. I feel very sad that our apartments are gonna get destroyed. Stop, Jonathan. My son is eight years old. And I'm very sad that we might have to move. He grew, um, he was born in Montville. I'm sorry. I'm really sad because it's very hard for me. to find a childcare at school, he's been getting some childcare since 6:30 in the morning, and to find that it's very hard at school, he goes to Castro elementary school. He's a very smart boy. Um, and it's getting a lot of help from the school. If we have to move in the future, it's gonna be hard for him to adapt to a different school. He is a high function and. He has. Autism. So he's a high punctioning kid. So at school, he's getting all the help that he really needs, and if we have to move, it's gonna be hard. It's gonna be really hard. And I really love Mountain View. It's very safe.

[00:30:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Before you leave, council member Ramirez has a question.

[00:30:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for your comments. Just really quickly, do you also live on Gamble Way?

[00:30:12] Miriam Aguilera: I do live in Gamble Way?

[00:30:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[00:30:15] Miriam Aguilera: And I'm very afraid that we might have to move.

[00:30:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I appreciate that. Quick question for staff. At this point in the application or the development review process, have the tenants been notified about tenant relocation assistance and the development review process?

[00:30:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We're gonna have a staff person come up. If you could let, um, RT, use the microphone.

[00:30:46] Community Development Director Randy Tsuda: Thank you. Our teacher of Rostovo, Community Development Director. We don't have any information. They haven't made a formal application at this time. So we can certainly get back to the council, but I don't believe the tenants have received anything yet.

[00:31:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[00:31:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:31:16] Cindy: Oh, um, good afternoon. My name is Cindy. I live on Gamma Way Street, and, um, I went to Gabriella Mistro Elementary School, which is a school nearest to Gamma Way Street, and, um, my sister is currently going there. Um, I think it would be very sad if we had to move, um, it would be really hard to adapt somewhere else, um... I hear something about you, you, uh, the gamut was going to try and 1st to, uh, I don't know, but we went to know what happened with, uh, our street. If, uh, if anybody of you guys want to talk to us, separate about this meeting, we, we're going to concern about this happened on this street. Thank you.

[00:32:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I will add, you know, anyone is welcome to reach out to the council members individually if you have something you want to talk to us about. Next, please.

[00:32:39] Gail Sisic: Yeah, good evening. Members of the city council. My name is Gail Sisic, and I'm a proud renter resident of Gamma Way. I've lived on Gamma Way for eight years now. I've lived in Mountain View for 10. I've appeared before you in the past. If you recall, last winter in particular. And there's so many things I could say, but to start off with, I have a strong sense that Gamble Way is probably one of the last affordable rent, community neighborhood streets in Mountain View. Most of us are either working poorer or low income, fixed income seniors such as myself. And there are five small complexes on our street, and several families in each complex. They're rental, they're considered rental units, but there are smaller complexes, but still, those are five different buildings on both sides of the street. And most of us, to be uprooted, including most of my neighbors who have, as you've seen, a lot of them have children in schools locally, there are several special needs children, several, not just one or two, and they're all, of course, receiving services from the local, from the secondary schools and primary schools, for those conditions. And to have to uproot and move to a more affordable area, which is probably, at this point, would be somewhere in the Central Valley. It's just not, it's not doable. And I would say from my experience there, my neighbors are the salt of the earth. I've never lived in a more supportive, uh, kind, generous community in my life, and I've lived in some several upscale neighborhoods when I had wealth. I no longer have wealth. Unfortunately, I made some mistakes in my life, and I'm living very simply, not very frugally. And as I mentioned to you in the past,

[00:34:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

[00:34:51] Donna Hughes: Oh, there, thank you for your interest in helping, um, avoiding displacement of low income people in Mountain View. My name's Donna Hughes, and I also live on Gamble Way. I came to Mountain View when I came to San Jose in 1980 to go to San Jose State, and I worked in for GTE here, in a building called the Bubble. If any of you remember that, over on Highway, Highway 237 and Central Expressway. And then, after completing my degree, I worked for an agency called Social Advocates for Youth, they had a house here for teenagers, and their families, we provided counseling services for them. Um, and, um, then eventually, um, I did other things. I worked for a Stanford researcher. And I moved here. I moved here because my agency was here, and then my agency folded, but I continued to work and live in Mountain View, rather, for the last 12 years or so. Um, I've been working in the last, well, about eight years in the Palo Alto school system as a substitute teacher. And one of the things I really like about my location is, if my car is not working, I can take either the 22 bus, so the 35 bus, and I can get to practically within walking distance of all the schools that I work in. So it's a very valuable location for me. If I have to move, Um, I can't, I think it's unlikely. It'll be anywhere near as convenient to do that. At least I am at an age where I can start, I can think about retiring, but I would rather do it at my own pace rather than have it forced upon me. Um, I really like the neighborhood I live in. Um, the people are, they're very warm people. They're working class people, and the people who are going to replace them in Mountain View will not be working in the same jobs and providing the same support that we do. We are the gamble tennis, gamble way tennis unit, and we will be contacting you more in the future to talk with you. about our situation. Thank you.

[00:36:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

[00:37:08] Shani Kleinhaus: Good evening, Mayor Matichak, City Council, Shani Kleinhaus, speaking for Santa Clara Valley, Audubon Society, and I want to speak about trees. There are two things that I learned in the last couple of weeks. There was a study in the journal, science, that showed that in 50 years, we had a net loss of 30% of North American birds. 30% are gone. They're not... Hopefully we can find a way to bring them back, but it's a devastating blow to bird populations. There were also studies on insects, on butterflies, to bees, to everything else that shows devastating devastating losses of insects, and they call it the insect apocalypse. So when I say that we're looking to continuously urbanize, I think keeping the trees in place is exceedingly important, and that they should be as many of them native trees as possible, because that's what supports what birds and bugs need. And when I look at plans that propose to remove trees, and at the same time, talk about quality of life, I question the quality of life of a city where the trees are being lost. So my hope is that when you consider any type of plan, you will also consider how to preserve trees, how to add trees, and how to create corridors, not only for people, and mobility, but also for birds and bees, and butterflies, and everything else. Thank you.

[00:38:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on items not on the agenda? Seriously? Yeah. Counselor McAllister.

[00:38:54] Councilmember John McAlister: I have one, uh, comment. Today is my wedding anniversary. So I would like to say to my wife, I love you. Thank you for your understanding and patience. And I'll be home soon.

[00:39:07] Unknown Speaker: Aw. I don't know about the suit. You gotta do what you gotta do. Yes, dear.

[00:39:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, on that note. That was very nice of you, John. We will move on to item 6.1, which is a public hearing on the downtown business improvement area, and we will... We'll do it next. Oh. We have had, before we get to that, just bear with me one minute here. We have had a request to move item 7.1, the El Camino Street skate plan, to the end of the meeting, since some folks have to recuse themselves. So could I see a show of hands of how many folks are here for that item? Okay. So I think what we'll do is, um, we will take public comment on that item at the appointed time, and then we'll just move, uh, the discussion till later, uh, in the meeting. Yeah. We'll just move it to the end. Right now it's 7.1, but we'll move it to the end of the meeting. So. So we'll move to item 6.1, which is the public hearing on the downtown business improvement areas, and we start with the staff presentation.

[00:40:49] Staff Presenter: Good evening, mayor and city council. Tonight we are holding the first public hearing in the annual renewal process of the business improvement areas, where city council may discuss the BIAs, receive any comments or input from the public, and identify additional information needed, and set a public hearing for November 5th. As a reminder, there are two business improvement areas. BIA number one outlined in the red boundary was formed in 1983, and it includes businesses along Castro Street and side streets. BIA number two, highlighted in blue, was formed in 1991 and includes businesses in the 100 to 300 blocks of Castro Street. The BIH fee structure is used for specific programming to support the Central Business Association and the downtown businesses. Any changes to the area, including fee structure and boundaries, require a majority vote by the BIA participants. In the BIA annual report, prepared by the CBA. They project revenues from both areas to be approximately $42,000 for 2020. The CBA is also undergoing leadership transition due to the recent departure of the executive director, and the board of directors are currently discussing staffing and programming options. Tonight, there are 4 recommendations for city council. Hold a public hearing on the BIAs, preliminarily approved the CBA report, and adopt 2 resolutions declaring the intention to levy assessments for BIA, number one, and two. Staff along with the Central Business Association are here to answer any questions. Thank you.

[00:42:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. What was your question? The CBA is here. So, um, are there any council members who have questions? Council member McAllister?

[00:42:47] Councilmember John McAlister: I have a question for the CBA.

[00:42:49] Unknown Speaker: Sure.

[00:42:54] Tamara Michael: State council and mayor. My name is Tamara Michael. I am on the border of directors for the CVA. I'm here on behalf...

[00:43:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You raised the mic.

[00:43:03] Tamara Michael: I'm here on behalf of Sarah Astles, who is the president of our board of directors.

[00:43:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. What's your question?

[00:43:10] Councilmember John McAlister: My question is, it's not my usual question. But we have no control over the fees, you have to vote on that. Has there been any discussion among your members to increase the fees, to provide more services to your business area?

[00:43:28] Tamara Michael: There has been discussion of that, and we are taking that into consideration right now. but also trying to understand the process involved in doing that.

[00:43:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. That's my question.

[00:43:42] Tamara Michael: So we are talking about that and taking it into consideration.

[00:43:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any other questions from counsel? Okay, um, this point, I'll open it up for public comment. If there's anyone in the audience who wishes to address the council on this item. If you could be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak, either way. Um, and, um, I'm guessing there's not going to be a lot of people speaking on this item. So you speak about 3 minutes.

[00:44:11] Public Speaker: Okay, I will be speaking in possibly Sheena, who is our vice president. So I'm just here to thank the council for reviewing the BIA assessment and wanted to also point out, as Tiffany mentioned, that we are in transition. We made a decision to eliminate the position of executive direction. Um, for several reasons, but moving forward, we are looking forward to focusing more on increasing our membership, and doing outreach, and also trying to use the funds that we have to improve visual impact on the street. So that is where we are at the moment, and we are going to, by the end of this year, have a plan on what we are going to do moving forward for 2020. Thank you.

[00:45:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any questions? I don't think we have any other questions. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this item? Okay, saying none will close the public input portion and bring it back to council for discussion and action. Council member Clark.

[00:45:38] Councilmember Chris Clark: I move that, I move this staff recommendation is printed in the staff report, which includes that we adopt a resolution of the city council dequariing its intention to levy assessments for the downtown Mountain View Business Improvement Area number one to be read entitled only for the reading wave, instead of public hearing date of November 5th, 2019, and that we adopt a resolution of the city council decariing its intention to levy assessments for the downtown Mountain View Business Improvement Area number two, to be read entitled only for the reading waved, instead of public hearing date of of November 5, 2019.

[00:46:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we have a motion by council member Clark and a second by council member Hicks. Is there any further discussion? Okay, let's call the question. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, at this point, we will begin to address item 7.1, which is the El Camino Street skate plan, and before we hear public input on this topic, council member McAllister. Did you have something to say?

[00:46:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes. Because I own a business on El Camino frontage, I need to recuse myself to avoid any concern of conflict of interest.

[00:47:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Clark?

[00:47:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: And I will also recuse myself due to interest in real property along El Camino, or in the area under consideration, and to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.

[00:47:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, so, um, we're gonna defer the staff presentation until after item, I think it's 9.1. But we will open this up for public input, because there are some folks who showed up. And we want to make sure we hear from you. So if those folks who will open up the public input portion of item 7.one, 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, that would be great. And we're ready for the 1st speaker.

[00:47:55] City Manager Dan Rich: Matter, mayor, maybe if I can just clarify, since this is a little unusual to do it this way. My suggestion would be, allow anyone who wants to speak now to do so, there could also be public input later, but you wouldn't be able to speak both times, but if somebody wants to speak after the presentation, they could, but not both times.

[00:48:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Absolutely. Thank you for that. You can either before or after, yeah.

[00:48:22] April Webster: My name's April Webster. I've been a resident of Mountain View for nine years, and I'm really excited about the prospect of the safer streetscape on El Camino real. I currently bike from my home on Moffat, near Central, all over downtown, to the restaurants, on the main street, to the pool, to go lap swimming, to the library, for the knitting class, here. And it's just really liberating and just so much more enjoyable than sitting in the traffic, especially in the evening, and trying to circle the fine parking. So, um, I'd love to be able to expand that and to be able to bike along El Camino Real, you know, to go to the restaurants at San Antonio and ECR, um, But I don't really feel safe right now crossing anywhere along El Camino Real, and I bike a lot all over this, the whole bay, um, in the hills, in the Los Altos Hills and whatnot. And El Camino is one of the places that just, to me, does not feel very safe. So I'm really excited about this. And I think it would benefit not just cyclists like myself, but also pedestrians and drivers as well. And I think, for the businesses along ECR, that it would make it, um, I think it would make it much more of a community, have more of a community feel and a nicer place to walk along. Um, and I'm originally from Vancouver, um, and I saw, I lived there before. They introduced all of these sorts of urban planning, sort of, streetscapes, and protected lanes, and it really transformed the city, and made downtown more of a community, and more of a destination. So I'd love to see something like that here. Thank you.

[00:50:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to address us on item 7.one?

[00:50:20] Lada Adamik: Yes, hi, my name is Lada Adamik. I've been a resident of Mountain View for 8 years now. I also like to bike as much as possible, but that's mostly along Stevens Creek Trail, and Bay Trail, on Shoreline. And El Camino is particularly frustrating, because even if I just want to go across to Clark's Burgers. Once I cross, what do I do? I take my bike and I walk on the sidewalk, or if I want to go to Walgreens or Office Depot, all of these errands that can be made. by bike, because I'm coming from old Mountain View. There just isn't a way to do it without, like, walking my bike and trying to figure out how to cross El Camino. Another thing is, I know for a long time, we've been looking for other north south routes, and... church and Latham. You're mixed with cars. I mean, it's better than El Camino is now, but you end up doing a bunch of zigzagging, and it really is a deterrent to making more bike trips. So I think that adding bike lanes to El Camino would be a great and very welcome improvement. For years, I thought, oh, it's never going to happen, and now that it's within sight, I'm just very excited about it. Thank you.

[00:51:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to address the council on this item at this time versus later?

[00:52:09] Ken Kirschner: Good evening, Counsel Ken Kirschner, with Silicon Valley bike coalition. I'm also excited about the streetscape plan, and I want to encourage you guys on three specific asks. One is to build it quickly. I know we've waited a long time for this. This is a catalyst for the Grand Boulevard initiative in the mid peninsula. I think could inspire our neighbors to connect, and that's the 2nd ask, which is to reach out to our neighbors nearby and make it a connected network. I know it's been difficult, but once we get started, the momentum really needs to get accelerated. So I want to encourage both quick and connected. And then the last thing is a notion of induced demand. So we know that bike lanes carry 4 to 5 times more people per hour than car lanes, and if we build bike lanes will get bikers. And if we build cars, we'll get cars. We've got plenty of them. Thank you.

[00:53:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council on this item?

[00:53:19] Public Speaker: I'm resident of Mountain View, and I probably won't stay for the long discussion later, so I just want to speak in favor of this again. I think I spoke in favor of the streetscape the last time it came before council. Having driven down El Camino recently. I would really appreciate the landscaping and the bus pockets that are included in this plan. I do ride on El Camino with my bike, and it's maybe not even worse than driving down El Camino, but having the bus pockets would make cycling a lot safer, having bike lanes would maybe slow the traffic down a little bit. So, I just want to say, I'm in favor of what you've come up with so far, I didn't get to read the latest staff report, but, um, it's good as it is. Thank you.

[00:54:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, well, yeah. Congratulate. No.

[00:54:22] Kathleen: Hi, I'm Kathleen. I am a resident of Mountain View, and a bike cyclist of Mountain View, and I don't drive, so Mountain View is very difficult to get around as a non-driver, and I'm very thankful for my bike, a lot of the times, but just this week, there are 3 times where I had to take lift, where I could have taken my bike, to access essential services, like, that are just on El Camino. So, my pharmacy, my doctor's office, and the grocery store. I could have taken my bike, all 3 of those times if there was a protected bike lane, but there wasn't, so I'm really excited about this plan. Anyway, thank you.

[00:55:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, well, close the public input on this item, and as our city manager said, we'll open it up again.

[00:55:12] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, actually, we'll keep the public open.

[00:55:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, we open it?

[00:55:15] Unknown Speaker: We keep the public hearing open and allow for...

[00:55:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Open it up again, but we just leave it open. Okay. And continue that. And I'll go get... Thank you.

[00:55:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we'll move on to item 7.2, which is the Mora Ortega Park, approving the conceptual plan and selecting a name for the park. And can you stay for the staff presentation?

[00:55:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes, I was just surprised to give.

[00:55:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay. Go ahead.

[00:55:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So, I'm using Christian's language here. So, uh, I am recusing myself from the naming portion of this item to avoid any appearance of bias, and just to clarify, um, it is, uh, not because, so, it's because my brother submitted one of the name suggestions, and, uh, I need to clarify that there is no family relationship between my family and the suggestion with the same surname. So I don't know if you want to do that first or second, but I'll leave whenever.

[00:56:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you. So we will start with a staff presentation.

[00:56:29] Mary Chris Gabon: All right. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the council. My name is Mary Chris Gabon, and I'm here to present the More Ortega Park and recommend a concept and approval for your consideration. Um, and I also have Ray Rodriguez from the public works department sitting beside me. The park site, highlighted in Blue, is located along Ortega Avenue at Mora Drive, at the .45 Acre Land was dedicated to the city for a future park by the developers of the 2296 Mora Drive Development. The site is surrounded mainly by residential housing, including the row homes that are currently being built at the development. The project site's current conditions can be shown can be seen here in these images. The developer is currently using the park site temporarily, but will vacate the site when the city is ready to construct the park next year. Fire attention areas, new sidewalks, and new trees have been installed by the developer's contractor per plan, and a short fence was also built on the east side of the park, as seen on the bottom right image. Communities? Oh, sorry, city staff held two community meetings for this project earlier this year. In January, the community was invited to provide input on the park amenities. They wanted to see using an online polling exercise. The consultant gathered the community's input and prepared 3 concept designs. We met again in April and presented the 3 concepts, and the community was able to vote on their preferred concept. The meeting attendees also suggested changes to incorporate the features that they liked from each of the concepts. The concept was revised based on the community's input, and staff presented it to the Parks and Recreation Commission in May. The commission unanimously approved the preferred concept and recommended it for counsel's consideration tonight. The preferred concept being recommended proposes a lawn area, made of natural turf, a play area with structures and equipment, and shaded courtyard, along with picnic tables and benches, and a small fitness area. The city will install a good neighbor fence along the north side of the park, along Town Circle, and a short perimeter fence will also be installed along Ortega Avenue and Mora Drive. Design will also include the addition of an ADA parking stall and a park sign along Ortega Avenue as well. Here are some examples of play equipment that may be installed at the park. The details of the play structures will be finalized during the design phase, but the intent of the play area presented in the preferred concept, includes seesaw, colorful turf mounds, which are shown on the left-hand side, a post-in platform structure, as shown in the center, and spinning elements shown on the right. Other park amenities will include public art, because the construction budget is over a million dollars. Following tonight's meeting, staff will take the recommended part concept to the visual arts committee to start the public art process. The public art component will follow the city policy, which involves council's visual arts committee to select the artists and art. When staff returns to council for approval of plans and specs and authorization of bidding, we will also bring the VAC's recommendation for public art. The 2nd recommendation for council tonight is to name the park. Staff initiated the park naming process at the 2nd community meeting, following the criteria of council policy K17. The community was invited to submit names in order for staff to provide suggestions to the PRC. The policy also requires Parks and Recreation Commission to submit at least 2 names to city council, and the PRC recommended 3 for this future park. A total of 11 different name suggestions were received and are listed here. At the PRC meeting, the commission, in no particular order of preference, recommended the, um, recommended the 3 highlighted names above. Frank Ramirez Park, Moore Ortega Park, for city council's consideration. The Frank Ramirez Park was a suggestion submitted by a nearby resident. The residence research in a San Jose Mercury news article found out the library's history center was included in the council report. The next 2 names provide wayfinding to the park based on the adjacent street names. And it was brought to staff's attention that Ortega Park is the name of a park in the city of Sunnyvale. The next steps following council's approval tonight will be to complete design for construction plans and specifications by next spring. Staff will return to council to authorize the bidding at that time. The construction phase will follow and is estimated to be complete by spring of 2021. Presented here, the 2 recommendations for the city council's consideration. And this concludes my presentation and staff is available for any questions the council might have. Thank you.

[01:02:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any questions from council members? Council member Hicks.

[01:02:46] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Just a quick question. I really like the Orchard theme, and I'm wondering what, maybe I missed it in the staff report. What kind of trees will they be?

[01:02:55] City Staff: Oh, um, so currently what's being proposed is um, ornamental pear trees. Um, and I think the consultants are considering 2 options for evergreen trees, um, one being the southern live oak and, uh, the marina tree.

[01:03:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member McAllister?

[01:03:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, with a budget at approximately $1.6 million. Is the 1%, um, for public art? Has there been any discussion, say, is it sufficient, or how appropriate it is for this particular park? Do they need more, so forth? So, is there's been any discussion at this point in time, on the public art piece?

[01:03:45] City Manager Dan Rich: So, the one% is a city policy approved by the council, so that's our standard. You can always add more or change the policy to something different, but we don't determine whether what's sufficient or not, we take that percent, and then craft the art around it.

[01:04:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, thank you, city manager. I understand, but sometimes, to get actually a good product, it might cost a little more, and so that's why I was wondering if they had just had that to start at that discussion. I'm familiar with the policy. I appreciate that. But sometimes, you know, I know the mayor likes to have artsy type lawn furniture there or something, something along those lines. So it may, you know, 16,000 might not get as much, but a little more wood. So that's why I'm bringing it up early in the discussion phase.

[01:04:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any other questions from council members? Okay, if not, we will open this up for our public input. Is there anyone who wishes to address the council on this item? And if you could remember to fill out a blue card before after you speak, That would be great.

[01:04:54] Marianna Grossman: Mariana Grossman, and I live not too far from this area. I just want to encourage you to have a magical bridge playground design that's universally acceptable. It looked like the examples you had would work for normally abled kids, but not for everybody. And if you've ever seen the Mitchell Park Magical Bridge playground. It's amazing. There are all kinds of kids swarming over it. And it might cost a little more, but I think it makes a better park.

[01:05:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Did you want to?

[01:05:22] City Staff: Okay, if I can respond to that comment, the city has an agreement with magical Bridge Foundation and is moving towards a design phase, I think early next year, for a very significant magical Bridge Park at Rengsdorf Park, but other parks would be more traditional in nature.

[01:05:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this item? Okay, seeing none will close the public input portion, and why don't we address the first item first, and then council member Ramirez can recuse himself, and then we'll talk about naming. So are there any comments on the conceptual plan?

[01:06:14] Unknown Speaker: Well, I'll have I do have one comment. Um, I, um, do appreciate the sort of whimsical nature of the play structures that we're shown. And I would, um, be open to having the Visual Arts Committee, um, perhaps go above and beyond what might traditionally be the budget for art, and then we could make the decision if, uh, we want to do that. Similar to what we did with the other park. So I'd say, show us what we get for the budget, and then, you know, show us what we could get for a little bit more. I need to include that in the motion. I do need to include that in the motion.

[01:07:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor Abbe Koga?

[01:07:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, you can include that in the motion. All right, so then I will go ahead and make the motion to approve the Parks and Rec commissions recommended conceptual plan for the Park project 1746. I'm not gonna name it yet. Um, and include, um, the, um, art piece to... How do you...? How do you wanna...

[01:07:35] City Manager Dan Rich: You could say, bring back options with the 1%, and also an enhanced option to see what additional art you could hand identified funding sources for.

[01:07:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, and also, I guess I should ask, is there an amount you're looking at? I don't want it necessarily be a $10 million item, frankly. So, what are you thinking of, 2%?

[01:08:01] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I would say, like, double the traditional amount is what did we do with the previous park? Um... All I could think of was chicken. I can't remember what the budget was, yeah.

[01:08:18] Unknown Speaker: You did double it. We doubled it. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And from 18,000 to 36,000.

[01:08:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Then 2%. Okay, so that would be the budget, then, up to 2% for the public art piece. And, um, yes, I, I, that's good, right?

[01:08:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by vice mayor and a second by council member, Hicks. Council member McAllister. Did you have...

[01:08:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Sorry that I didn't get in before the, uh, motion, but, um, we have two parks sort of close to each other, and I don't think either one of them has a restroom. So, could you refresh us on the, that you need an acre, or so, what's the requirement to have a restroom on site?

[01:09:05] City Staff: The standard is a park that's three acres or larger.

[01:09:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Have... we review that and see if it's still applicable. I mean, I've been here for eight years, and I keep hearing three acres, but is there something that has it been reviewed lately?

[01:09:23] City Staff: I believe it was reviewed and actually lowered. I think it used to be five acres. Is that correct? And council directed it that be reduced to three acres?

[01:09:32] City Staff: It has been a conscious decision not to have restrooms at smaller neighborhood parks on the assumption that they're generally not parking associated with them. There's generally not organized sports associated with them. Most people are expected to walk to the park, and that's why there aren't restrooms. But as always, council can re look at the policy, if it so chooses.

[01:09:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay, then we can call the question on this part of the... topic. That passes unanimously. Thank you. And now we can move on to the second part, which is the name of Burke. Council member Hicks.

[01:10:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I don't have a strong preference for the names, but, uh, for any of the names, except to, I, uh, have a strong, um, lack of preference for Ortega Park, because I, uh, when my children were young, we frequented Ortega Park in Sunnyvale a lot, actually, we really like that park. Um, and I think it would be confusing to have two parks with the exact same name. Um, I guess I lean towards the Frank Ramirez Park, in part, because it's so distinct from the, the name of the Sunnyvale Park. I also do like the reference to a historic figure, even if the person is not famous.

[01:11:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:11:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'd, uh... I'm gonna make a motion for Maura Park. Um... I'm a big believer that Parks should be identified by their locations, and if we had gone, if you look down on the other side of California, there is Ortega on Ortega, you will see Klein Park, and I think that would be confusing to people, whereas more a Park will give you a distinct location, and so that if you're throwing a little birthday party or a small event for the locals there, they will be able to find it. So, I would, I've second. I mean, that's why I'm making the motion for more of Park. I think it's descriptive of where it is, and it will cause less confusion.

[01:11:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Clark? Whoops.

[01:12:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I I generally agree, I think, um, as as much as, you know, I have no issues with honoring, um, Frank Ramirez. I generally think that unless there's a really, really good reason that park names should reflect a location, um, because that way people sort of know immediately, generally where they are. And I was gonna suggest more or take apart, but if folks are more comfortable with just more a park, that's fine too. And just, for consistency's sake, the only times that I think we, you know, I've deviated from that or think, parts where there's a clear theme, like Heritage Park, I thought, um, and you're not going to have another ring store park. So, I just think in this case, it just makes sense to have something that reflects the location.

[01:12:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. The other council comments.

[01:12:53] Unknown Speaker: So I agree. I think it is important to make it obvious where the park is. While I like Heritage Park, I find I am explaining to a lot of people a lot of time where it is. And so I prefer parks that describe where they are. I appreciate you bringing up, um, Klein Park being on Ortega, because I was originally thinking more Ortega, similar to Mercy Bush, but I think more makes more sense. So thank you for bringing that up.

[01:13:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'm here for you. there any other discussion? Okay, let's call the question. So that passes 61 with Council Medler Ramirez recused. It is Mora Park. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:14:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, the next item is... item 8.1, which is reconsideration of... sobrado condition number 190 at 1255 Pear Avenue. And we will start with the staff... Actually... Actually, we don't have a staff presentation.

[01:14:39] City Staff: Yeah, I just have some slides that might be helpful if you need them, but, um, I wasn't planning to present.

[01:14:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member Clark.

[01:14:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so I can just give an overview and then we take public comment and discuss, um, basically, um... In coming up with a motion, I said two different things, and I want to, and basically what ended up in the minutes was, um, basically the outcome that I understand from staff is, is not originally what I intended. So, my intention, just so everyone is queer. My intention was trying to solve the issue of, okay, if, if, you know, we're granting an exception in this case, the risk here that we're, the primary risk that we're taking is that we, um, either the off ramp is, you know, the off ramp isn't done. We're in some, you know, we're in really bad shape on the trip cap or, you know, or something like that. And so we need to figure out some way to mitigate that instead of just saying, oh, sure, you can occupy the space and create more of an issue than we already have today, right? And so, um, you know, there was in the staff report, and if you watch the video, you know, I did say, you know, unless the off-ramp is done, in which case we don't need to worry about this, what I meant at what I meant that night was, um, staff seem pretty confident that if the off-ramp is done, that we were unlikely to be in a trip cap violation scenario. And so, what I was trying to do was say, okay, if the off ramp isn't done, then we need some tools in our toolbox, we need, um, we need the study, um, and we need to make sure that the housing, which I think most of us are at least part of the impetus behind housing in our Bishore was to help mitigate some of the traffic, um, issues by having people live there, you know, ensuring that both of those housing structures would get built in that scenario. And so that's a very long way of saying, what I intended was that the conditions apply if the off ramp isn't done. And if the off ramp is done, then those conditions don't apply. So I hope that's, I hope that's more clear than I was that night. But basically, if the off ramp's done. Um, then we don't need to worry about the, you know, paying the fee or the construct, you know, being under construction on the 2nd housing piece. If the offer isn't done, then basically what staff had captured is accurate, those conditions.

[01:17:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:17:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I was wondering if anybody from Sobrado would like to have a comment on this, if this is going... Do you have any comments? Thanks. And also, while he's coming up to the director of public works. You assured us that this on ramp would get done in time. that there was enough cushion or buffer along the line. What gives you that feeling of confidence that this will get done before?

[01:18:04] Public Works Director: I don't know if I assured you. Basically, the offering project has been delayed. And it's delayed because it's an unusual project for a number of reasons. There is a bus queue jump lane on the off-ramp, which is something very new and interesting to Caltrans, and it took them a while to work their way through how to position that on the ramp. And also, we have another project, the Shoreline Boulevard transit lane, and we had 2 different traffic studies going on for those, and Caltrans wanted to treat the bus lane as an existing condition while reviewing the off-ramp. Um, traffic analysis. And so coordinating those 2 delayed us a little bit. I think we're very close to getting Caltrans to approve the design concept based on our last round of comments. I think we'll have that in the next month or two. And I don't see any unusual issues like that coming up again. I think our biggest challenge is going to be how to keep traffic moving during construction and so on. But I think we have plenty of time to figure that out. So, I think our schedule is good. I can't guarantee it. But I think based on the things that have delayed us so far, I don't see those types of issues coming up again during design.

[01:19:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Has VTA signed off on it?

[01:19:19] Public Works Director: No, but we've been in conversations with them about the right away acquisition for the bus yard for several years now. We are just waiting for a Caltrans approved concept to actually do a very detailed plat and legal description and then go back to them and do an appraisal and negotiate. But we've talked to them extensively. There are some existing facilities like there's an antenna and some other things we need to miss. I mean, we've talked to them in great detail about where we need to be with our right away take and so on. We just haven't done the final documents yet until we get the Caltrans approval.

[01:19:55] Councilmember John McAlister: And do we have our source of funding?

[01:19:58] City Staff: We do have funding for design and construction. We may be a little short on the right away. I'm not sure. I haven't had it appraised yet, but we do have funding for design and construction.

[01:20:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. Mr. Steele?

[01:20:14] Mr. Steele: Thank you, Council member McAllister for inviting me up. My understanding of the discussion, someone coined the phrase sausage making that night, was, as Chris has articulated tonight. I think the way it was written down was I had some unintended consequences that weren't thoroughly discussed that night. Essentially, I have two phases of development that are about equally valued, about 250 million in the first phase and 250 in the second. What is driven that two phase project is the fact that I have an existing building occupied with surface parking, where the first phase is planned? What the first place is planning for is a parking structure for both office buildings in all of the residential in the South? For me to build that, I have to move all the parking to the north face to the north site, uh, to accommodate as a temporary parking lot. And I'm not driving the fact that I'm having two phases because of financing, but it turns out when they are in two phases like that to accommodate the structural setup of the site. I can't borrow the money or get commitments for the money for both phases at the same time. And the unintended consequences, I believe, of how the motion was written, is it's making me have to commit to the second phase, even before I borrow money on the first phase. And when you borrow money, the lender borrows will lend it to you, secured on the kinds of income, and the leases that you have on that property, both for the residential, and for the office building. But when they see a condition like this that says, We don't know, when and how you're going to borrow money for the second phase, and what kind of market there's going to be three years from now, the first lender won't lend you money to even start the first phase. So the unintended consequences, the motion that was written down and passed, had essentially put me in a position. I can't even borrow money to start the first phase. So I can't do anything with that condition. So. Thank you.

[01:22:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: I want to let the vice mayor go, but I don't want... I had a question for him. So, I mean, I think you understand the concern that we're trying to address here, which is, there's a possible scenario where, um, you know, years from now, um, we, whatever transportation improvements haven't happened. Caltrans gets delayed. I don't know what happens, but we're in pretty bad shape, and the last thing that we want to do is, um, you know, allow occupancy of additional office, without some sort of levers, like, assurance that the additional housings happening, and that we can, um, you know, implement some of the, the, I think, the bigger hammers that we have in terms of, um, adjusting the trip cap, um, with the study and those sorts of things. So, um, are you confident that if those conditions are in place, because I think they should be, but if they're only in place after the off ramp, if the off ramp isn't complete, that you'll be able to get the financing that you need and do what you need to do, as long as it's conditional on the offer.

[01:23:35] Mr. Steele: Yes, the way you read off your clarification at the beginning, we're comfortable with, I can work with Mike, I can time when we borrow money based on the assuredty that the off ramp is under construction, and with a sure date for finish. Whereas the way the condition was written, I can't even start.

[01:23:53] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. Thanks. Vice Mayor Avi Koga.

[01:23:57] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, I just wanted to have staff, um, I should have tried to pull this up before, but do you have a timeline that you had shown us at the last meeting of what...

[01:24:09] City Staff: Unfortunately, I didn't have that on a slide, but I have it in front of me.

[01:24:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, okay.

[01:24:12] City Staff: It's in the staff report on the September 10th. Staff report is an attachment.

[01:24:20] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. And they're on page five. Oh, look it up. Thank you.

[01:24:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Did you have questions about that timeline?

[01:24:34] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, I was just trying to refresh my memory because I recalled that the 2nd housing development I thought was going scheduled to start before occupancy of the office anyway, but I just wanted to confirm that.

[01:24:54] City Staff: The 2nd phase of residential start construction is July 21. Office occupancy is June 22. So, yes, the 2nd the 2nd phase residential is to begin approximately a year before the office occupancy. For the current schedule.

[01:25:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: A year before the office occupancy, the 2nd housing development.

[01:25:23] City Staff: Begins construction.

[01:25:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So. All right, great. Thank you. That's what I thought.

[01:25:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[01:25:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And the other thing I think I remember, Mr. Steele, you can clarify is that, um, when I spoke to you, you also said that the office tenant would have to do tenant improvements, so that day, although you maybe can't promise your experiences that the occupancy would be even later than that.

[01:25:50] Mr. Steele: That's right. Um, there's somebody in the room from Google, so hopefully I don't offend them, but, uh, we've set up about nine months in the schedule right now, from when the shell of the building is completed, until the tenant has, uh, permitted contracted with the GC and completed his improvements and ready to move in. On the first building, it was over a year. And a typical tenant is about nine months from getting the facility ready for their improvements. And that's what we carried in the schedule. Takes about 2 years to build the building from to the point we turn it over to the tenant. And just to clarify the date I gave you, that was for completion of the tenet improvements.

[01:26:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, it was. Thank you. Yep.

[01:26:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Okay, this point, we'll open it up for a public comment. If there's anyone who wishes to address the council on this item, if you could come up to the microphone. 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, that would be great.

[01:27:09] Public Speaker: Hi, I, uh, sent an email, uh, earlier today to all of you, uh, explaining why I would like you to move on with this project. And basically, Santiago Villa is right in the target zone, and we know that we're going to be suffering from construction pain for a long, long time. And the sooner it is over, the better. Um, we appreciate your being aware of the trip cap, uh, and your, but these two things go together, as you know, housing and transportation, there's always going to be some problem there. And as soon as it's over is what we're looking for. We've been treated very well by the Sobrado organization. They've been very straightforward and honest with us, and we appreciate that. And we just like to get this off of our plate, and so that we can move forward. So please consider that when you make your decision. Thank you.

[01:28:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[01:28:16] Public Speaker: What she said. Thanks.

[01:28:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this item? Okay, saying none will close the public. I see. Input portion. And bring it back to council for... discussion. Vice mayor, I'll be coke up.

[01:28:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I voted for what I thought I voted for this time. Um, and the motion reads exactly as I intended. Um, and so, uh, you know, I understand, I guess I was looking at, at this, maybe, Council member Clark, as you reconsidering your vote, which, since you're the maker of the motion, you wanted to change the motion, but I actually supported the motion as is, and that is to, in fact, require that the second housing development begin, um, before we allow occupancy. It sounds like that's gonna happen anyway, based on the timeline that we've been provided. So I actually don't see what the problem is here. My concern is that this project has been sold to us as really, you know, the first housing development in North Bay Shore, um, that, you know, everyone has been emphasizing the housing piece. And when I look at how it's the tube developments, 2 housing developments have been bifurcated with an office in the middle, it just gives me pause for concern about the 2nd building, which I think is larger anyway. You know, I've been around a while. I've seen projects, not in Mountain View. Well, I've seen projects in Mountain View that sit for a long time and not get developed. I've also, I know, we've also, remember, Ramirez works there, but through VTA, have seen projects where, you know, that have been approved, and the housing never gets developed. And that's my real concern is that I just want to ensure, in light of everything that, you know, we've been discussing about housing in North Peashore, that we make sure that it's at least it gets started. Like, I'm not asking it to be done. I'm saying, let's just get it started. So it looked like that, you know, timetable was showing that anyway. I just wanted to codify it. So I'm very comfortable with original motion as stands, and so I will be voting, depending on how that motion gets presented tonight. That's my intention is to vote for the original intent. Council member, Clark.

[01:30:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, and so, and that's a very fairest dance. I just think that the whole impetus of this discussion was to address the issues around transportation, not about whether or not the housing gets done, and if we wanted to talk about requiring both phases of the housing you get done, we should have done that at the application approval and not, um, and not be tying that, making sure that basically saying that that has to be done, regardless of whether we're having any transportation impacts. So that's, that's the way that I see it. And, um, I'll just, I don't know how I am supposed to do this, but I guess, do I make a motion to clarify condition, that condition 190 should be...

[01:31:29] Unknown Speaker: I think the public works director has prepared a slide of an alternate motion, which I believe captures your intent, but just so there's absolute clarity on this. Perhaps we could put that up there, and we can also toggle back to the approved condition and the alternative. And then if there's something else than the alternative, you can, you can propose that.

[01:31:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: And then before I read that, I'll just say that I'm not changing my mind on this. Like, literally, if you read the adopted resolution that I spoken. You know, I said, If the off ramp is complete, then we don't have to worry about that. I just was very unclear about what that applied to at the time. And so I sincerely apologized to my colleagues that were having to do this a 2nd time. It's my fault, and, you know, I want to, you know, I take full responsibility for that. But let me read the alternative. If others want to speak, that's fine. Let me read the alternative condition before I read it again.

[01:32:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I think we'd all need to read the alternative condition, but vice mayor, I'll be Koga. Did you have something else?

[01:32:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I just wanted to respond that, um, I did not look at this as, you know, I looked at this as, you know, the developer asking us for, again, another exception. And so, um, you know, that's fine. But then, it's open, then it opens it up for us as a council to determine what we want to get for it, for that in return. And so that was why I tied the housing to, to the, and I was looking at it as the office occupancy. The way I read your original motion was, you know, you wouldn't have to worry about the study if the off ramp was done and the trip cap was met. So that's why. I stand with my original vote. Thanks.

[01:33:28] Unknown Speaker: So, I have a question for staff. Reading this, it doesn't say anything about the off ramp completion. So, it's tied, it looks like it's tried to, oh, maybe, if it occurs prior to the completion of the offer amp re alignment, and, okay. This makes sense to me then.

[01:33:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I will add that I felt like the motion was very clear last time, and I also wanted to make sure we get the 2nd phase of the housing. So, I feel like it was very clear to me, um, and I wasn't interpreting anything, um, but I guess if you felt like it wasn't clear to me it was, and I supported that, um, I would like to see the housing get built. And, you know, if there was an alternative to make me feel more comfortable that it's actually going to get built, I could feel good about that. Um, but I'm also open to potentially another um, motion. If this is what you're looking at. Council member McAllister?

[01:34:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just want to get clarity that, since I wasn't on page 3 of the staff report, there's the motion that was presented at 11:49, Is that... So, we're comparing the alternative conditions on the screen to this motion on page three?

[01:35:08] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I can toggle back and forth if that's helpful.

[01:35:11] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, probably confusing. That's why, I mean, that's why, 'cause I can read it, and then look here, and so, so, in the original motion, after the off ran alignment, there's the word and, and then the parentheses, too, not allowed occupancy, office building till phase one of the residential, one of the project is completed. That phase, so, the word and is taken out, and then... So, yeah, it would have been nice to sort of send a red line sort of a deal through there. And then the phase one of the construction must be completed in phase two of the projects. So I'm sort of reading out loud just to see if I following along with this. So the word and is was important. There was components.

[01:36:01] Unknown Speaker: No, actually, the white font there is unchanged. Right. The yellow font, basically, I just started, I was silent about any conditions, if occupancy occurs before the off ramp is complete, and moved directly, which the previous motion, basically said that the residential had to be complete for phase one under construction for phase two, regardless of the status of the off ramp alignment. And so that's really what I changed, is to be as long as the, um, I was silent about occupancy after the off ramp is complete, and only put a condition that, if, in fact, occupancy does occur before the off lamp is complete, then these two things apply. So that was the change. And if it's easier to toggle back and forth, I can, or if it's easier to have the paper in front of you, and locate, I can do that too. Thank you.

[01:37:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments?

[01:37:01] Unknown Speaker: Well, I got a question for mayor and vice mayor. So are you saying you're gonna vote... No on this motion because it's not what you had thought about earlier? The vice mayor.

[01:37:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No, and then... No, so I said I was very clear from my perspective on what the previous motion was, and I supported that, but, um, this alternative might have addressed, um, actually I want to read it one more time. You know, I was open to an alternative that does... sort of guarantee that phase two of the residential will be built. So I'd actually like to take a moment to read this. Because this one does say, And phase two of the residential component of the project must have initiated construction. The difference is that it's only if the op framp isn't done. Right, right.

[01:38:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[01:38:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then, I was gonna ask Mr. Steele a question about whether this, uh, presently, the alternative condition, whether this creates any problems for getting the, uh, second phase of the housing, or any of it, um, the loans?

[01:38:41] Mr. Steele: The way that this is written, I believe, is what Chris's intent was, is acceptable to me, as far as being able to get financing for the first phase. And considering what the market is at the time we go to pull a loan on the second phase, we'll build a phase immediately thereafter. I do want to make this statement, we really do want to build all of it. It's not a fact that we don't, and we're willing to make, you know, as much of a commitment to that as we can, but if money's not available in the second phase at that time, I can't guarantee, and I don't know how to guarantee that. We value the entitlement. We value the 3.5 years it took us to get the entitlements. We don't want to disregard all of that work. We're making a lot of commitments up front for the whole project, including the BMR parcel on a street. So we have every intent of moving forward. It's just whether we can get the financing for the 1st phase.

[01:39:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member come in.

[01:39:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Mr. Shield, don't go anywhere. Thank you. So, um, you know, this, I guess I'll disclose that I took a, took a phone call from the applicant and had this discussion, which is, I have been voting for the different, um, different aspects to help bring this project to light. in the spirit that we're trying to get this project and housing built in North Bay Shore. And I have voted for the exemption to park fees. I, you know, voted for this when it came forward. This is the 4th time that this project has come forward after the last time, being told, you won't see me again, we're going to get going. So, you know, I think that there's just, I just, I say all that to put it out there that I really try to honor the spirit of this project and the vision of, um, building in, in North Bay Shore and transforming that into a community. Um, but I will say that I'm disappointed that we're here talking about it again. Um, and I understand, and I hear where my colleagues are in terms of really wanting to stress the residential component and wanting that assuredness, which I felt like we heard a couple weeks ago, but now are hearing not. And so I think, you know, we're just looking for some clarity, um, to continue to move forward with the project. And so Council member Higgs asks the question. I think the timeline is promising in that, you know, the phase 2 of the housing is supposed to be completed. But, you know, I feel like we're still here discussing the financing. And it wasn't financially feasible with the park fees, so we took care of that, and now we're here, talking about the, you know, this. So if you could help maybe illuminate for council, Should we, again, move forward and with this amendment? the progress that we can see on the project.

[01:42:01] Mr. Steele: First, I'd like to say I really like you guys, and I'm disappointed you don't want me back in front of you. I didn't plan to be here four times. I didn't plan here necessarily be three times, but I do want it, just for history's sake, when the motion to approve our project in October of last year was in front of you. It wasn't complete, you actually asked me if I would be patient for you to make amendments to the park fee, and then bring that part of the project back. So that was all really part of the concept of the approvals in October last year. Last one where we talked to the idea of allowing us to move forward, was actually baked into 190. And it was that not necessarily come back to council. It was the propose our project directly to staff and to staff satisfaction. I can appreciate why staff wanted to bring that back to you. But I love you guys. I really do. And I just want to make sure that you appreciate that I didn't plan to be here four times as much as I like being here. We've been processing our building permit. We've gone through three sets of plan check comments. We've spent an exceptional amount of money to move the project forward so we can be ready to pool a permit based on the schedule that Mike has shown with you. I don't have any reluctance to move forward with that. We've just been having these little pieces along the way that need to be cleaned up.

[01:43:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll bake coca.

[01:43:38] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I just have a comment, so, um, as it's been mentioned many times already, this project has continued to come back to us. It was a park fees, then it was a school strategy, and now we're talking about housing. And, you know, projects come and go. I've seen many. I know, we've all seen many. We've voted on many. And there's a point where, maybe, you know, a project's not meant to happen. It's not meant to happen, and that's okay, too. Um, I just will contend that, you know, we set the the rules, if you want to call it that. in the precise plan, um, we've, you know, set the conditions and, um, everybody knew the rules. And so it's very, you know, it's, it's, yeah, it's challenging for me to then say, well, okay, let's change the rules, because, you know, I always also look at everything as a potential precedence for the future. And when we start down, it can become a slippery slope, and that's my concern. You know, we approve this with these exceptions. How many other projects are gonna come in with exceptions? And then, all of a sudden, I feel like, you know, the many years that we spent creating these plans, we're not worth, and they're not worth anything, or they're not being regarded, and that's my real issue with this, is that we had a transparent open process on, you know, and putting the plan together. And I just expect, you know, folks to adhere to that. Sure, maybe if there's a little, you know, hiccup or whatnot. We can make an exception here or there, but this is 4 exceptions. And I just think there's a limit. And so, you know, I'm going to stay with the original motion. I would hope that my colleagues would do the same. I'm kind of surprised that if, because the other way, then, you know, really kind of brings to question what our council meetings are about, if we're gonna just change our mind every other week. So, you know, I hope that folks will stay with what their original intention was. I mean, I will say I didn't hear from everyone, so I don't know what you thought the motion said, but reading it, I think it's pretty clear.

[01:46:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark?

[01:46:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: Again, I'm not changing my mind. I'm sorry if my intent wasn't clear, but that's all I can say. I'm not lying when it comes to that. And we all knew that Serbado was probably gonna be the first to go. We all knew that we'd have to make exceptions along the way to make this work. We didn't have a school strategy. I think they've been very willing to work with us along the way, in ways that I think many others wouldn't have been, and probably would have just pulled out. And, um, you know, I'm eager to see the 1st housing coming in North Bay Shore, and I think these are reasonable exceptions to make in order to make that happen. And we've made it exceedingly clear that we don't expect to make these sorts of exceptions for others. So, I move that, I'm going to make a motion and, um, that we adopt a resolution amending exhibit A of resolution number 18259 to amend condition number 190 of the Planned Community Permit and Development Review Permit, PL 2017 dash 380 for 1255 Pear Avenue to one allow building permits to be issued prior to completion of the Plymouth Space Park realignment and Shoreline Highway 101 off-ramp realignment. If occupancy of the office building occurs prior to completion of the off-ramp, and the trip cap is exceeded after 2 consecutive monitoring events, phase one of the residential component of the project must be complete, and phase 2 of the residential component of the project must have initiated construction, and the applicant shall fund a congestion pricing study up to $1 million or make an equivalent contribution to the city for the transportation improvements. And, um, I assume it's understood that adopting this resolution, this resolution supersedes the one adopted at the prior meeting.

[01:47:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member Clark and a second by council member Hicks. And we have a couple people in the queue. Council member Ramirez.

[01:48:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor, not to belabor the point, but just for whatever it's worth, my understanding of the original emotion was what is reflected in the alternate language here. My understanding of the problem is it's sort of predicated on the trip cap being exceeded because of the timing of the interchange improvements. And if the interchange is complete, prior, you know, the timing works out, you know, the way we're describing here, then the trip cap issue goes away. So I'm comfortable with the motion on the table.

[01:48:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:48:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, this has been a fun project for me, because I've always seemed to be the odd man out on the approval of this project as it keeps going along. And I've always been on principle that certain things were inappropriate. I mean, I didn't think they were fair to the city. This is another motion that I still don't think is requiring a developer to rely on projects that are outside of their control. I've been grained for seven years to trust staff. And when the director of public works says, yes, we are going to, I feel comfortable getting this done. I always look to his boss and say, confirmation, and he always says, whatever they say is true is true. So, um, But when he brings in Caltrain and VTA and a lineman and right, you know, purchasing right of way, I've seen that go sideways too often. And too easy for a, um, price to come up. I just recently were working with VTA and they sort of dug in their heels. so that took a little bit longer. So, This concerns me, and I'm surprised that the council does, does not bother them either, that we are doing the particular deal. was not one that was in favor of giving away or crediting Parkland money, and I still feel confident in that one. This one, though. I am going to trust staff. And hopefully I don't have to come back and say, I told you so. But I will support the motion. Even though there are items in this thing that I don't feel are realistic, but if we need to get this housing going, because we're going to have another item come up. Immediately after this one where housing is going to be a big component of an area of concern for me. So, We got it, someone has to be the 1st one to build the housing, and so I will support the motion.

[01:51:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I will add that I do have concerns about this. I also did take a call. I'll disclose from the applicant this morning. And, you know, I was very clear with what the motion was last time. It's kind of difficult to just count on people saying, yeah, trust that this will happen. But I do appreciate the comments about, yes, we do want to see some housing in North Bay Shore. I guess I would say that I really do not want this to be a precedent for any other one who might be considering building housing in North Bay Shore, either the previous exception that we made regarding the park phase or this one. So I guess at this point, I'll say I'll cautiously, um, almost reluctantly support this, um, just because we want to get some housing going, but I really don't want to see this happen again.

[01:52:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member come in.

[01:52:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you, Mayor. I think that you summed up my sentiments exactly, which is why I want to publicly disclose it, and Mr. Seal, as much as you like seeing me in person, I'm sure you'd like to see me on TV from the comfort of your home much better, um, than being here with all of us. So, um, I do want to move forward with the intent, which is to get housing built in North Bay Shore, but I do agree with the mayor. This has been except many exceptions, and I don't want this to be the precedent for North Bay Shore. I'd really like to see a clearer, lest windy path forward. Um, and hopefully won't have to uh, be here again. Thanks.

[01:53:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other discussion? I'll call the question. So that passes 6'1. Thank you. Okay, we will move on to item 9.1, which is the Google Landings Development project. And since this is a study session, just to let folks know the order of things, we'll have a staff presentation, and then we'll take public comment, and then it'll bring it back to council for questions and direction. So we'll start with the staff presentation.

[01:53:56] Staff Presenter: All right, good evening, vice mayor, mayor, and council. Tonight, we're talking about Google Landings. Right here, you can see just given its context in the North Bay Shore precise plan in the general character area. It's two sites, including an office project here, as well as an off site garage connected by a Greenway connection. The office side itself is about 800,000 square feet, one FAR, and five levels, over one level of parking. The garage is about 520,000 square feet, with 10,000 square feet of retail, and it's 4 levels, and has a max capacity of 2054. spaces. The project also includes improvements to Permanente Creek, including naturalizing it, as well as a Greenway extension and connection connecting the 2 sites. And just for some background, in 2015, Council allotted Google the necessary square footage in North Bay Shore to reach that one.0 FAR, through a bonus FAR process. The planning application was submitted last year in October, and there was a council study session on December 11, 2018, to discuss initial design direction, offsite parking plan, height, setback exception, true removal and mitigation, and office site access. And plans have also been reviewed at the Development Review committee meetings on January 16th and September 4th of this year. So just for some brief project updates, Google continues to work with staff to respond to this design direction from the DRC meetings, as well as our project reviews. There's a sequid document being prepared at this moment for the project, which includes traffic utility and biology studies. And these studies are still needed to be completed and reviewed by staff at this time. And Google is also working with staff to plant 298 new offsite trees per council requests, which came up at the previous study session. Council had asked Google to get ahead of their true removal mitigation and look into providing offsite tree planting, which they have been working with staff on. And so to get into offsite access, another item that came up at the previous council study session was accessed through the site, and this was a topic that staff wanted to bring back to council. As you can see in the North Bay Shore precise plan, the site itself, which I'm pointing to right here, includes a conceptual new street through that site to break up that large block. At the previous study session, Council supported some flexibility with that, including it not having to be a street and it could be a public pathway instead. And so as you can see here, a closer up of the site. This would be where that North Bay Shore precise plan line would be through the site itself. This is their current. This is Google's current plan, the private portion of the project is in blue. So as you can see, that access is not provided at this time. Now they have a current proposal on your far right where they are providing some access through the site, but in a different way than the precise plan calls for. This would be a public pathways through the site. And one thing to mention as well, there is an office site access alternative, because this site right here at 1875 Charleston is being leased by Google, and that lease expires in 2057 with 2 10 year options to extend that to 2077. So this landscaping portion isn't being included in Google's landscaping calculations, but it is located in the area where the site access would be going through it. So there would have to be an alternative plan in the future, should that property not be a part of this project anymore. And so at this time, we really don't know what that exact plan is and what the impacts to access and project design would be at this time. And so the discussion questions for this topic are does council support the proposed public access plan? And question 2 is, does council support the proposed alternate access plan? Should Google's lease of 1875 Charleston not be extended? Then moving on to community benefits. Google's original bonus FAR proposal in 2015 included $35.55 million in community benefits. And this amount was adjusted for inflation to 41.59 million at this time. And Google's current proposal is 11 projects totaling $44.6 million. As you can see on this here, there's the 11 projects. A majority of them are transportation improvements, public space improvements, as well as off site tree planting, and a park nearby. And so as I had mentioned before, there was a traffic study that's ongoing to look at what transportation improvements are currently proposed, that should be considered project requirements. But staff does believe that one of the community benefits specifically mentioned in the proposal, which is the Permanente Creek and Green Loop connection, valued at $2.3 million, should be considered a project requirement at this time. And that's because this connection is shown in the precise plan. And also, this connection is a key, a key linking between the office site and the offsite parking garage on this project, since there is an offsite parking component, we feel this connection is necessary for the project and should be a requirement. And so I do want to mention one thing, a correction in the staff report for this. We initially had talked about net 0 water as being a project requirement, and I would like to, to remove that, uh, support, staff does feel that this should be considered a community benefit. And just to go back on that a little bit, in order to receive that FAR bonus in 2015, Google was required to provide a few different levels of community benefits to achieve multiple tiers of this bonus FAR, the highest tier being to provide net 0 green building or public benefits slash district improvement project. Google ended up providing both in this application, and these were viewed as a whole, without net 0 water or public benefits being separated out, and this amount of benefit per square foot was calculated together. So given that, staff supports requiring that 0 water as part of the project, because it was something that was proposed in the original bonus FAR proposal, but we do feel that it was actually intended to be part of a community benefit for that bonus FAR acquirement. So with that, the discussion questions have changed just slightly. I apologize for that confusion, but I'll try to read them as they should be read. So question 3 is, besides the one proposed community benefit in question, does council support the other proposed community benefits, and a total benefit value of at least $42 million? And question 4 is, does counsel agree with staff that the bicycle pedestrian bridge project should not be considered a community benefit? And so again, here are the 4 listed as a discussion item. And this concludes staff's presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[02:02:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I forgot. I did hear that the applicant also has a presentation, so we can do that now, if you're ready.

[02:03:18] Development Executive Drew Wenzel: Good ee. Good evening, Mayor Council and staff, and thank you for having us back. My name is Drew Wenzel. Google's Development Executive leading the Landings and Huff Project. I'm joined by a few of my colleagues who will be able to help us answer questions when we get to Q&A. But we're going to go through a quick project overview and update and then dive into the questions that staff just presented to you. So since this project came before you in December last year, we've added this one component in the middle of the project, we're able to acquire 900 alta, and that allowed us to add that portion of the green loop between the making the connection between landings and half complete. And just to remind you, the reason why we have this one project spread across several different sites is because the need to repark Charleston East and a little bit of overflow from landings. So we are then, this is becoming a consolidated parking solution for both of these projects. So the design, to remind you today, there's about 250,000 square feet, surrounded by parking on the site. Our intent is to raise that, tuck the remaining parking that we can fit on site underneath the building, return all that area to open space for the public and for the natural environment, and then have a blind canvas to build on top of. And that results when we kind of really consider what is a good building to be designing for this region, for this climate, in this shed like structure, that we have been working with staff and DRC, as Matt mentioned, to kind of push, pull, refine, over the last 9 months or so. This is a quick view looking northward along the new portion of the Green Loop Trail on the west side of Permanente, right where the new bike head bridge will land. There are a lot of really great sustainability stories. We're going to be able to tell about this project. The one that I wanted to highlight here is that we've been able to eliminate combustion entirely. This is going to be an 100% electric building that is going to help us all achieve the city's goals in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Moving over to Huff. This project has changed a bit since the last time you saw it. It's still a 4 4 story parking structure with 2 roughly 5000 square foot retail spaces on the ground floor. We've been working a lot with staff and DRC to make the kind of spillout areas from the retail, really kind of accessible and hopefully they're going to be really highly used. We've also been working on this facade system, which is going to be a kinetic system that will kind of move with the wind and we're working on the artistic expression of it as well. But we're hoping that this really does create a great experience at the ground plane along the green loop here. And also to respond to one of staff's questions. There's now a megawatt of PV installed on the top of the structure as well. So moving on to staff's questions. We'll address these 2 together, the site access and how we've been working with our adjacent property owners. Carla and Sandra are here with us from the Molinari family of our adjacent property owners here. As Matt mentioned, and you will recall, we had a hard time figuring out how to make this access work with our security concerns. And eventually, uh, we figured that we just needed to come up with a better solution and staff pushed us really hard on that. We came back to them in DRC and we presented to staff, I think, at the beginning of August. The solution where we really pull the security perimeter back, returning a large amount of space to that public realm and creating a new east-west access across the site that we believe is going to be very useful. Comparing the 2 side by side. The original intent of the precise plan would have created about a 3rd of an acre with that north-south connection, we're giving back about 10 times that with this move here. in addition to that additional connectivity. And we're really working to make all of these publicly accessible spaces, a really amazing experience, and we feel that we'll be able to do that. not just in the public space, but also in the secured space by kind of spreading this out a little bit further. Here's a quick look at the 1st public entry area at Landings Drive, and then once you're in the thick of it. But staff did make a good point that some of these improvements that we're showing are on the Molinaris property. We have a long term lease on that ground, 38 to 58 years. Um, And this solution that we floated as one option, we still have some concerns from a security perspective, we also think this compromises the experience for both the public and the private realm quite substantially. So we think we do have a solution. We have a deal on the table with the Molinaris right now to rent this one acre parcel right next door, align the business terms and the end dates of these leases, which will give us the opportunity to do a land swap with them. Scoring up their parcel, making it a lot more useful for them in the future, and also giving us this sort of hockey stick shaped piece of land here, which gives us a lot more room on the south side of the site to be able to, if this situation occurs in the future, Move that east-west connection a little bit further south without great compromise to either the public realm or the secured space. So, the Molinaris are in support of this, but they're very much thinking about their future as well. So if we're able to create condition language that protects their right and ability to remove that landscaping in the future, if that happens and burdens Google to replace it elsewhere and move that path, we hope that that is, if an unconventional ask, still a reasonable one. for something that we could get a lot of benefit out of for a long time. All right, questions 3 and four, community benefits and housing. So as Matt mentioned, in 2015, staff valued our community benefits package at $35.5 million. That jumped to 41.6 after we escalated it. And we think we're above and beyond that at this point too. I'll just touch on a couple of projects here to this funding for North Bay Shore transportation priority improvements. Think of this as an extension to the TIF. We know that there are a lot of studies in progress right now, and we are looking to enable staff and council to get going on the ones that come out of those studies as being the highest priority to start working on. This is a fun to help you do that. Three, we understand staff's position that they don't believe that the permanent date by Pedbridge should be included. I wouldn't want to note that it is extended in better since 2015 with the addition of the Green Loop portion along 900 Alta, which is part of, I think it's transportation project 6 in the precise plan. So there is a benefit, a portion of this that is called out as a transportation project within the precise plan. And we hope that it could still be included as part of this package. We'll move over at 0 net water in this case, and we'll go right to the bottom here. We did move from some of our conversations, about 2.5 million dollars from that transportation fund, to a fund for homeless services and programs, through some of our conversations recently, with some of the nonprofits in the area, where hearing that case management is a really strong need. And there are lots of other things, I imagine, that are going to be important for staff and council to start addressing immediately. again, want to make these funds available for your use. And so this is kind of a quick look at housing in a little bit more detail and specifically what we are doing and have done in Mountain View, above this kind of dashed line. In the last year, we've contributed almost 4 last, since 2016. We've contributed almost $4000000 in grants to not in view NGOs. The landings project, specifically, we'll have this $2500000 associated with it. And then we have recently had a few conversations with housing trust to Silicon Valley where there is an immediate need they have to acquire some property right here in Mountain View that would allow them to deliver 70 affordable homes at 30 to 50% of the area median income. And so we're proposing, um, prepaying about $5000000, which is about a 3rd of our housing fees for this project, um, and getting them over that hump to be able to start that project as quickly as possible. Other noteworthy items here, the regional housing fund that we announced a few months ago. There are 2 projects in the pipeline right now that are also right here in Mountain View. one to create about 160 affordable units and the other working on permanent homeless shelters and navigation centers. So while that may not be tied to the landings project specifically, this is just a snapshot of overall, what Google is doing right here in Mountain View, with more opportunities that could potentially come from this regional fund as projects continue to roll in. So, That is the update of our project and hopefully a little bit of overview for you on each of these questions. I mean, we're still really excited to bring what we think is another kind of amazing high design project that is going to contribute a lot to the public realm, the natural environment and do a lot for the community. We look forward to your questions. Thank you.

[02:12:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Since this is a study session, we will open it up for public comment now, so if there's anyone who wants to address the council on this item, if you could please come up to the microphone, be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak. And can I see a show of hands? How many folks want to speak on this topic? Okay. Each speaker will have two minutes. The first speaker could come up.

[02:13:23] Public Speaker: Um, Santiago Villa was very, uh, reluctant, um, to even start, uh, approve any Google Projects for a really long time. It took residents a very long time to get used to the idea that we're living in an area that is changing rapidly, and either we get on board, or we move out, and people have moved out. Those of us who are left, have seen the benefits of Charles Denise, or it looks like Charleston East is going to be done by the end of next year. Um, and, you know, when we look at other, um, cities with these challenges, uh, like Cupertino, Cupertino, and, uh, we're very thankful we don't have Apple in Mountain View. Or IBM or Hewlett Packard or any companies that do not value their surroundings and the people who already live here. At the end of the Charleston East, approval, you might remember that actually the entire audience stood up and applauded, because Google worked so hard to get every single stakeholder into its, and ask, how are we doing? What would you like to do differently? Google is quite different from any other company, and that they do have the right values for our city. And we would like to see this one go forward. I ride my bike every day. Uh, in the LandAids project. It is an eyesore. And I'd really like to see it be in a very pleasant place to ride. Thank you.

[02:15:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[02:15:26] Alex Brown: Alex Brown, San Tacavilla, North Bijore Mountain View. Uh, what you said? Now, uh, landings is terrible, and we should burn it to the ground. It's a rat infested monstrous place right now, and this looks great. I'm very excited to have a green loop where we can get out of the park and into open spaces full of trees in nature. I think that's going to be awesome. And I'm very excited for it. Thanks.

[02:15:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:15:56] Amanda Cole: My name is Amanda Cole. I, uh, am part of a group called SOS in San Jose, but I also live in Mountain View. Which, um, stands for Survivors of the Street. I have a few suggestions for the homelessness fund. We need a van that goes between shelters because right now people, when the shelters get full, They have to stand out in the rain. I think that building, like a Mary Poppins land on top of a lot of sorrow, and before the homeless situation is solved. might not work. Um, Well, we do have definite, uh, there's a lot of agencies that can contribute a lot of ideas, uh, towards what would be needed and we would love to have some funding for those things since we're all volunteering our time and having more and more and more responsibilities on trying to solve this problem. the volunteers and people that have survived this. Uh, okay, that's all I'm going to say right now. Thank you.

[02:17:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[02:17:10] John Betts: Hi, my name is John Betts. I'm also a member of the SOS group that's under the umbrella of Sacred Heart in San Jose, the nonprofit down there, and this group is empowering homeless people to be able to start having what they think about these things, enter the conversation. So, seeing all these plans you have here. I'm not sure if such elaborate considerations for mind blowing visual effects on the buildings and landscapes. is as important as, put more money into actually, like, building housing and shelters for the lowest income people, and the some width income, some don't even have income, of the lowest badly affected, disenfranchised people in the homeless community. We could do a whole lot more if you were paid a lot less attention to all these fancy aesthetic things that seem kind of like frosting on a nonexistent cake, in my opinion. Thank you.

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

[02:18:22] Serge Bonte: Good evening. Sergemont, Montagu residence. So, first, I wanted to command the new access plan. I think it opens the blocks, you know, better, and I think it's more in line with the vision for North Beshar. I also had some comments on the community benefits. So I agree with staff recommendations that that back pedestrian bridge from the parking to the office is pretty much project requirements. I mean, ours, would you go from your parking to the office? Right. And then I'm also questioning some of the community benefits such as the signage and the tree irrigations. If you look at those, I mean, those are pretty much in North Beshar and I feel that some of it should be covered already by the special tag district, that we have. As you know, there is a special tax district and the property taxes kind of stay within North Bay Shore. Don't go fully to the schools, don't go to the rest of the city. And it's really what, you know, better signage, better trees, better irreguration is really what the business district or the tax district should be covering. Finally, I appreciate all the work of, you know, all the commitments towards, you know, helping the homeless and so on. There is one more thing that Google may want to consider is to provide some parking for a safe lot, a safe parking lot. throughout all these constructions. I sure there will be some time where some land is available for staging and so on. So I'm sure, you know, there should be some possibilities to have one or 2 parking lots for helping people right now. Thank you.

[02:20:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. Oops. Sorry.

[02:20:27] Gita Dev: Good evening, Mayor Vatachek, and council members. Um, my name is Gita Dev. I am here representing the Sierra Club Loma Prieta chapter. Uh, I want to say, first of all, that, um, there are many things about the landings project that, uh, the Sierra Club really likes. It's a very important bicycle connection to North Bay Shore, which is an alternative transportation mode. And what is being planned around Permanente Greek is quite awesome. I think that's wonderful. I do, I'm somewhat concerned about not being able to get through this extremely long building. If we start hardening all our schools, and then we start hardening all our churches, and then our synagogues. And now we are starting to harden all our office buildings. I'm not sure if that's the direction that community should be going, in response to terrorist threats. That's just one comment. What I really wanted to bring up was the very large half parking garage is, transportation is something that Sierra Club's extremely concerned about has been from the very beginning in North Bay Shore. That's another 2,000 cars coming through those gateways, which already quite impacted. And we haven't really seen an overview plan of how we're supposed to get more cars in here. I realize that 1,200 of them are supposed to be ones that are already here. However, with landings, and the parking requirements that the city is requiring of Google. I wonder whether we have any plan for how all these cars are supposed to come in here. I thought we were going to try to make this more of a pedestrian oriented bicycle oriented place. Thank you.

[02:22:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Miss Deb, before you leave. instead of... Gita.

[02:22:32] Gita Dev: Yeah.

[02:22:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister has a question for you.

[02:22:35] Gita Dev: Excuse me?

[02:22:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, could you further explain when you were at the hardening of buildings? I didn't... didn't quite get that concept.

[02:22:42] Gita Dev: Oh, that's a term that's in the press these days of, like, not being able to get into school complexes, putting fences around schools, making sure that no one can enter a school, same thing, you know, because of shootings.

[02:22:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, social security.

[02:22:56] Gita Dev: Security. Okay. Yeah, now that, if you're going to start securing all our office buildings, All our community buildings. I mean where are we going to stop?

[02:23:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[02:23:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this item? Okay, seeing none will close the public input portion and bring it back to council for any other questions you might have. Um, and then we can dive into the questions that staff asked. Council member Ramirez.

[02:23:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Just, uh, questions for now. Um, so, first, uh, I'm not sure I understood. Staff's concern with the proposed design for public access. So can you help me understand why status recommending this alternative from the get go rather than allowing the flexibility in the event, the lease issue necessitates a change in the public access.

[02:23:58] City Staff: Yeah, so since we don't have an exact plan in front of us as to how this, how this access would work, this alternative access, we don't exactly know what that condition is going to look like for the public walking through the site, whether there's going to be a wall right against it, because right now it's currently lower than where the building is and would be up against the parking lot podium. So we don't know what that condition looks like. We also don't know how those changes might also affect the project itself and its design of the site. So for those reasons, we would feel that going with that alternative to begin with would prevent those unknowns from taking place.

[02:24:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Got it. Thank you. That's helpful. And then for the proposed 2.5 million in funding for homelessness services in programs. Um, I asked a question about this, um, in the, uh, in the written questions kind of more generally, but we don't need to decide tonight, how to allocate that funding, we can keep it separately as a reserve, and then figure out how to, how to disperse that funding later is appropriate.

[02:25:17] City Staff: Correct.

[02:25:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great. Thank you for the clarification. And then for the transportation improvements, if you wouldn't mind. So I have sort of, I feel like there are 3 different buckets here, and I just want to make sure I understand these buckets, and then if staff has a figure, the aggregate value of these improvements. So there are the project specific mitigations, like the bridge that staff is recommending as a project specific mitigation. And then there's the tiff for district wide mitigations identified in the precise plan EIR, a separate set of projects. And then there's the community benefit proposal, which would fund projects that are not included in the project specific mitigations, or the district wide mitigations identified in the precise plan. Is that a fair summary?

[02:26:12] City Staff: Correct.

[02:26:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then what's the aggregate value of all of those improvements if we have that available or something close to that?

[02:26:34] City Staff: And you're looking for the total value?

[02:26:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, well, if you don't have that available, it's okay, but...

[02:26:38] City Staff: Yeah, the, the, for instance, the Rangsdorf bicycle pedestrian bridge over 101 is estimated between 20 and 30 million, so we don't know exactly how much it would be at that time. as well as, um, And then the fund, the $15000000 fund would just go towards general improvements that come about with the project and potentially some of those based on the traffic study, could go towards project requirements. We don't know at this time with the traffic study, not being in place yet.

[02:27:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Just to clarify that last point. So if some, I'm not sure I understood. So my understanding of the community benefit proposal for transportation is that that's a discretionary pot, that we can use that funding for any council identified transportation priorities. Is that fair?

[02:27:40] City Staff: Correct.

[02:27:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so we don't have to identify a particular project right now.

[02:27:46] City Staff: Correct. And then there are other project specific mitigations and then the district wide mitigations from that will be paid for using the TIF.

[02:27:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, sorry, I'm just making sure I've got each of these understood. What are, if you have this figure available? What are the parking requirements for each of the project and is the total number of spaces proposed in the parking garage? Is that is that reflective of a significantly reduced, or even modestly reduced parking requirement that the office space would otherwise be required to provide.

[02:28:35] City Staff: As you can see here, we've also been working with Google on a master plan document. That includes showing how this parking would actually work over time, and so you can see the dispersion of the parking spaces. The parking spaces themselves were generated by the North Bay Shore precise plan guidance, in terms of what those spaces were, along with the amount of spaces required per the Charleston East entitlement, which was 1,200 spaces. Those 1,200 cars are currently parked at the shoreline amphitheater surface lots through an agreement with the city. And those spaces are set to sunset at 2025, I believe. And at that time, those spaces would migrate into the huff structure.

[02:29:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: My understanding is the precise plan, as a parking maximum for office space, is this, sorry, parking, like, ratio, maximum, maximum. So is this reflective of that maximum or does it exceed the maximum?

[02:29:52] City Staff: It's lower. Yeah, is below the maximum. So with a maximum, they have to developer would have to do studies to see kind of what is the appropriate number of parking spaces, with their TDM program and their office population density and all those factors and put those together and then they should exceed the precise plan, which they're not.

[02:30:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: It looks like a big number, but it's actually a reduction from what they could otherwise provide under the parking maximum in the precise plant.

[02:30:28] City Staff: That's correct

[02:30:29] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great. Thank you. I'm almost done. I have a question for any representative from Google. in the slide listing housing related contributions, you reference a navigation center. And just to clarify, that's separate from the community benefits package. That's something that you're exploring and not proposing to use community benefit funding for.

[02:30:58] Google Representative: That's correct. Okay, so... Let me just clarify a couple things on this slide. So under, um, and I'll answer your question first, but just to take them in order under the regional housing fund, um, That actually says the housing trust of Silicon Valley applied for 2 Mountain View projects. We actually received requests for funding through the $250 million investment fund, affordable housing investment from 2 affordable housing developers in Mountain View. So that's incorrect as stated on this slide. Um, separately. We are proposing, as Drew stated, prefunding commitment of $5000000 out of our housing impact fees. that would go to the housing trust of Silicon Valley for the gap funding for a 10,500000 land acquisition loan for a project in Mountain View to deliver 70 units at 30 to 50% AMI. Separately, we're proposing that 2.5 million dollars be provided to the city for homeless services, which could include a navigation center, temporary and or permanent, and we've had very preliminary conversations with affordable housing developers as well as service providers around that idea, but we didn't want to presuppose what the city wanted to use that funding for. So just to clarify, those are kind of the 3 components.

[02:32:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, I think I understand. Makes sense. I'm happy to clarify with it. So before we move, were you gonna move to a different topic?

[02:32:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, because we have, I think we have more questions about this topic. Thank you. Thanks, my Abby, Kogan.

[02:32:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, thank you. Um, if we, I was hoping to get more clarification on the regional housing fund to the two Mountain View project applications, so, um, are you saying that they will be funded, or are you just saying that they're just, right now, under review?

[02:33:00] Google Representative: They're currently under review.

[02:33:02] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, and when do you plan to, or when do you think it will, you'll make a decision on this?

[02:33:13] Google Representative: I would like to say we'd be able to get to a decision in the next 30 days?

[02:33:16] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So, but those are not included in your package.

[02:33:23] Unknown Speaker: Correct.

[02:33:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So those are in addition.

[02:33:25] Google Representative: Outside of that.

[02:33:25] Unknown Speaker: Correct.

[02:33:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. Thank you.

[02:33:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did you have a question on this one, too? Counselor Mr. Hicks.

[02:33:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, and you don't have names or locations to disclose it this time. Is that correct?

[02:33:35] Unknown Speaker: That's correct. That's correct. Once we get through the selection process, then we would make those projects known publicly.

[02:33:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Mr. Rich?

[02:33:44] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, I think everyone understands this, but just to make sure we're all clear, the $2.5 million for community benefit, the first, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, Michael, but that is coming from what was originally money proposed to transportation, so it's not a net increase in total community benefits. It's just transferring it from transportation to housing.

[02:34:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I have a question about the 3.75 million. Because there's two bullet points below that, that don't add up to 3.75.

[02:34:19] Unknown Speaker: So we just wanted to, and I might need to lean on Javier here, but we wanted to highlight, two, of the most recent grants that we made, the million dollars to hope corner last year and 150 to CSA that we made just last month for case management services.

[02:34:36] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Do you know what the other, like, roughly $2 million was used for?

[02:34:41] City Manager Dan Rich: Javier... Can you answer that?

[02:34:43] Javier: Thank you. We could certainly, uh, circle back with a more detailed list, but another one that comes to mind is, uh, project we helped. They were building a shower unit so that they can serve the Mountain Vee population. That was one, and I think that was for $150,000. Um, and then the other one was $100,000 that went to, um, CSA during the inspire Mountain View, um, program, grant that we, uh, we did, um, And then, but we could certainly circle back with some of the other projects. I could probably get that at the end of the meeting. I have a list. I just need to look it up.

[02:35:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Okay, so, uh, cancel member, Hicks. You were in the queue. Did you have other questions?

[02:35:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Actually, a lot of my questions have been answered. Just, can we go back to... I am a little unclear on some of the parking. Can we go back to the parking master plan?

[02:36:00] Unknown Speaker: That's what you were looking for, Counselor?

[02:36:01] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No, it was a very recently, it was a staff slide, okay?

[02:36:06] Unknown Speaker: This one?

[02:36:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Yes. I'm just unclear on what the low and high of the structures. So, for instance, under the huff structure, there's a low of 855 stalls and a high of 1,310. What's the low and high?

[02:36:25] Unknown Speaker: Both of those parking lots have a phasing approach to them, where there would eventually be stackers integrated into the parking structures, which would take that low to a maximum high level, once full occupancy set.

[02:36:45] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. And then, in addition to that, so we have surface parking that is being restructured. And what are, for the current amount of parking, the low amount of parking, and the high amount of parking, do you know what each of those are?

[02:37:01] Unknown Speaker: Let's see if I can, uh, so it's really tied to if and when the lease at the amphitheater lot expires. So when that expires, that's when we will at the end of 2025, that's when we need to move those cars from the lot just north of Charleston East here to Huff. And that is why these ranges are here. So I'm not maybe I'm not completely understanding your question, though.

[02:37:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I'm wondering, the current number of parking spaces, and then they're rearrange what the different numbers at the 3 different phases, because they're moving, am I not being clear?

[02:37:47] Unknown Speaker: There's nothing on Huff right now. It's a gravel lot at this point. Right. And we use it for a number of different storage teams. And then there's about 950 spaces at landings right now that surrounds the existing buildings. So that about 1150 will be tucked underneath the building and landings and then what isn't really a structured surface parking lot at this point will become all structured parking. at Huff.

[02:38:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So it goes from 950 now? Is that what to the next phase? 1150 to a lot more in 25.

[02:38:33] Unknown Speaker: Is the max at 1145 is the max at Atlantics. And like Matt said, we may not put all those stackers in at once. It'll depend on how we balance kind of the parking load across both sites, as well as get more efficient with how we're operating that as we go.

[02:38:52] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. And then I just wanted to know a little more about the shed structure, you said it was appropriate for the location and climate, a little more detail in this. Um... If we could.

[02:39:07] Unknown Speaker: So, the, um, we started with a basic building block, and actually, we have a couple members of our design team here, uh, as well. But this basic building block is, um, a northward oriented building that, um, shades itself. It's going to protect against the solar heat gain from the south while allowing good daylight and views across northeast and west. That southward orientation also allows for what I had on the sustainability side, the entire roof being a architecturally integrated and high efficiency photovoltaic panel system. that provides about 28% of the building's total energy needs. So that orientation and how we started with that right building block, really determined a lot of the performance of the building and the comfort and experience within the building. So, That's kind of the highest level of it. And if we've had Francis Eng from Heatherwick's studio. If you have some more design related questions, I would rather him answer those.

[02:40:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No, thank you. I think that's enough. Thanks.

[02:40:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abi Koga?

[02:40:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, before you sit down, I had one question about the parking garage. Um, you mentioned when I met with you, you mentioned, um, that it will be built in a way that it could potentially be converted down the road into officer housing. And if it were to be housing, yeah, an estimate of how many units, you could build in that structure.

[02:40:44] Unknown Speaker: We have not done a study on that yet. Well, we can't. But you're right. The precise plan does ask very qualitatively, like, how can we reuse structures as we go forward? So we've given a lot of thought to that here from Florida floor heights to loading structural loading of the building itself? So, you can take a look at that and get back to you.

[02:41:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. And then my other question is for staff. Actually, my first question is for Director Fuller, if you don't mind. It was part of one of my questions in the council questions, the list of priority transportation improvements. I guess I was trying to match this up with some of the descriptions of other projects, and, I don't know, some of it looks like it's worded differently. So, I don't want you to go through each item, but could you, could you identify, after, after this project, if it were to be approved, what would be remaining on this list?

[02:41:55] Director Michael Fuller: You mean of the, um, priority transportation improvements?

[02:41:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[02:41:59] Director Michael Fuller: Just off the top of my head, so I'm probably gonna miss a couple. Um, we do have two way cycle tracks on Shoreline Boulevard. Okay. From the, we're building them from the realigned Plymouth Space Park, um, South, and then from there north, the only ones that will have been constructed or on the Charleston east frontage. So there's a big gap there and a lot of those properties are not yet redeveloping. So, and we don't have those funded for design or construction. The, um, Google through a reimbursement agreement right now is designing the Charleston Transportation or Transit Corridor Improvements Phases 2 and 3. But we don't have construction funded for those yet. They're interested in talking to us about building those in a reimbursement agreement. We don't have those funded through the capital improvement program yet. Um, Those are the major ones I can think of, and then don't forget the shoreline, um, circulation, uh, the North Bay Shore circulation study work that's currently underway. We're going to be looking at the feasibility of a bridge over Stevens Creek, the Charleston undercrossing over on the other side and possibly some other improvements. Um, possibly improvements to the ring store of interchange and some other things. Those were not all part of the original North Bay Shore precise plan, though. And so they are not on this list, but there will be some other projects likely come up from that.

[02:43:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Will you be revisiting all of those projects at some point? Or are they...

[02:43:31] Director Michael Fuller: The ones I, the ones that were looking out through the North Bay Shore circulation study.

[02:43:35] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: The under Charleston under crossing.

[02:43:38] Director Michael Fuller: Oh, yes. the bridge.

[02:43:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[02:43:41] Director Michael Fuller: Yeah, we're in early, early feasibility work on that. I'm sure we'll be before you at least a couple times with that study.

[02:43:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great Great, thank you. And then my last question is for Staff, again. So, do we need to decide these on the project, the community benefit projects. Do we need to, you know, thumbs up, thumbs down on each of the projects, or are you looking for an approval, not on the total package of $42 million tonight? In light of the possibility of some of them becoming requirements, versus community benefits, it looks like there's some to be determined, you know, the moving of money from the transportation plot to the housing pot, like, I don't know, if 2.5 million is the right number right now, but, um, yeah, so do we need to decide that, or can we just say, oh, guess or no, thumbs up or down on the 42 million.

[02:44:55] Unknown Speaker: Uh, you could do either. A majority of these projects were originally proposed in the bonus FAR proposal. So they could say similar to that, but council does have discretion to move some of those around. And it doesn't need to be decided now. Council is welcome to, yeah, voice suggestions and it could come back at an entitlement.

[02:45:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So when will you, um, be able to come back to us with a determination of, or your recommendation of what should be, um, requirements? Is that what is included here or it, or are there other items you're still looking at?

[02:45:40] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, depending on the traffic study, mainly, it's possible that some amount to these community benefits could be a project requirement, we don't exactly know how much that would be. So we would, after that study is completed, staff would be reviewing that. And at that time, we would probably work with the applicant if there was a discrepancy between those to fill those in in some way and take that to council at that time.

[02:46:13] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So there's still potential movement on these projects.

[02:46:19] Unknown Speaker: Potentially, yes.

[02:46:20] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: If we don't determine them individually tonight, what we want and don't want.

[02:46:25] Unknown Speaker: Correct.

[02:46:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Thank you.

[02:46:27] City Manager Dan Rich: Just add to that if I could. I think we don't need specific direction on every single one. What we would be helpful tonight, is the overall total. The few that are in kind of dispute, so to speak, that we want clarity on. And then some overall direction, you know, do you want some shifted to housing and homelessness, or do you want it all in transportation, kind of the broad buckets, and then the details can be worked out as we go forward?

[02:46:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[02:46:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, thank you. These community benefits. So we determined a dollar amount, approximately $41 million. Did you work in conjunction with Google or did this is, they came up with these proposals as their community benefits?

[02:47:18] Unknown Speaker: The original bonus FAR community benefits proposal, that Google submitted to the city in 2015, we staff reviewed that proposal, which was originally at $52 million, and determined that $35 million of that could be considered a community benefit. And that was the number that was put forward. So there was some amount of reviewing of the numbers and determining what would be a requirement versus a community benefit. But beyond that, I'm not sure if there's more, you know, further research into those exact numbers.

[02:48:01] Councilmember John McAlister: So when you review these community benefits, did you look at the population that was served to help determine that this was part of the project versus a community benefit?

[02:48:14] Unknown Speaker: So in determining whether or not somebody is a community benefit versus a project requirement, we would look at, would this item be required as part of the project, just pretending there was no community benefits offered. For instance, like the bridge over the creek. We see is that's necessary, you know, a necessary access point to get from the garage to the project itself. So that would be required anyways. So it would we feel it wouldn't fall into the community benefit bucket.

[02:48:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Well, what about, where we were looking at public open space, accessible open space on some residential units, there was that one of the 1st questions they're asking us is the proposed public aspects plan. Well, that, I mean, does will that benefit the majority of Google employees versus the public? And then the follow-up question is, they have an existing greenway. Do we know how much the public uses or is it pretty much exclusive? I mean, used basically by Google employees?

[02:49:22] Unknown Speaker: So we have a lot of anecdotal information, but a lot of the public does use the greenway from what we know. Obviously, a lot of Google employees do as well. But it is open and accessible to everyone.

[02:49:34] Councilmember John McAlister: So is there a time frame when that's used by the public versus, I mean, are they using a 24-7? I'm trying to get a sense, because Google has so much land, uh, controls the land there, how much really public goes there and what it, you know, they do. So if it's like, you know, is it like a 70, 30 split or something like that, to help me to understand the community, you know, if it's more of a benefit for their employees overall, and it's just a consequence that the public gets to use it. So that's what I'm trying to get an understanding on.

[02:50:05] Unknown Speaker: Well, being that there's not a lot of residential up there yet, I would say that a majority of the people using it are during the day, during business hours.

[02:50:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Would be Google employees.

[02:50:16] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[02:50:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. To be clear, I think the public access is not. Is there a community benefit value to that, or is that part of the project? Are they placing public benefit on that?

[02:50:31] Unknown Speaker: Correct. The access through the through the office site is part of the project and not a community benefit?

[02:50:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, good. That helps. Do we have any idea? Or maybe Mike could help us there? The number of employees that potentially could be employed by 2025?

[02:50:53] District Development Director Michael Timeoff: I want to apologize. I did not introduce myself when I came up here first. So Michael Timeoff District Development director for Google. Thank you for having us. In terms of an estimate on landings itself.

[02:51:06] Councilmember John McAlister: No, just all the north, you know, general,

[02:51:09] District Development Director Michael Timeoff: I don't have an estimate for you right now, I think, is we've discussed in the past.

[02:51:13] Councilmember John McAlister: I was just told to say 30,000. That's total, but okay, so Bay Area. Bay Area.

[02:51:24] District Development Director Michael Timeoff: Okay, no, there's currently a headcount cap in place until certain transportation improvements are in place. And so right now the plan is to move, folks, once landing is landings is open. move folks over from the shorebird campus to allow for the redevelopment of shorebird.

[02:51:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, I understand, but do you expect to see an increase in amount of employment in the North Bay Shore from Google?

[02:51:49] District Development Director Michael Timeoff: It's hard to speculate at this time. I think there's a lot of a lot of factors at play, right?

[02:51:56] Unknown Speaker: The trip cap is one of them.

[02:51:58] Councilmember John McAlister: How much? So in the last 5 years, how much of employment has increased over time, I've been there?

[02:52:05] Google Representative: I don't have that number at mine. But we are below the headcount gap currently. And we'll stay below until the cap is lifted.

[02:52:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. Going back to staff. The, um, There was a question, I guess it was the vice mayor's question about that there was $28 million in proposed community benefits that could be considered project requirements, and that you will be getting back to us to see how that filters out. And so, therefore, out of the 41 million dollars, there will be uh, more of, you know, approximately some $20 million to, or $17 million for us to determine down the path if these projects are determined part of their project.

[02:52:50] Unknown Speaker: Correct. that is a possibility.

[02:52:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. On the, I asked the question about housing, can... Is there any reason that Google cannot build housing over the parking lot or any other part of the landings? And the comment came back is that it's allowed if we changed the precise plan. What would be would an EIR be required to change the precise plan?

[02:53:26] Unknown Speaker: We would certainly have to do some additional environmental review as well as some assessment as to, um, you know, we wouldn't want to just have residential allowed out there. We want to see how it would be more contiguous with the areas that already allow residential.

[02:53:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So was there any discussion with the applicant as they're building a parking garage to bring in more people to the area. But was there any discussion that if we put housing over over at Huff, then then we wouldn't have to have so many transportation demands because people are living on site. And so it seems that we're, are we valuing parking more than housing over in this particular area?

[02:54:13] City Staff: So the North Bays are a precise plan, the most recent version, did take into consideration, the number of housing units, in the entire area, and the landings project was considered its square office course footage was also considered in that overall calculation. So we felt that the number, the initial number of housing units proposed to be allowed in North Bay Shore was appropriate to offset the amount of office.

[02:54:42] Councilmember John McAlister: So the proposed 6,000 units that are going to be over off a shoreline were to cover the 3,200, Well, they, I mean, the people that are gonna be working in the landings.

[02:54:56] City Staff: Yeah, landings was considered part of the...

[02:54:59] Councilmember John McAlister: So that housing was going to be covered there. Okay. Okay. Was the... The building design under lead. I mean, lead, not lead. Uh, lead, were... there, and I noticed you took zero water off because that was considered part of the project. Were there anything in there, or when they come up with this new design for this building? Would those be in the long term, um, cost reduction or would that be, uh, beneficial to the applicant as those new technologies and lead items come along that would sort of self pay for themselves over time?

[02:55:47] City Staff: I certainly think there are a lot of um, there's a lot of cost benefit to these um, improved, you know, building mechanical and other, you know, things, they do also have environmental benefits.

[02:56:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So when we talked about, um, They're allowing us giving us funds for housing. Which is part of their requirements. I keep going back to thinking that why would we want to house this population off site, if then we've got to provide transportation back into the site. So that, this housing element, could that be done or built on top of Huff?

[02:56:40] City Staff: So it can add this time, because the precise plan does preclude housing, being from this area, but that could be something that could be considered in the future.

[02:56:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Let's see what else did I have on there? So tonight, we're not approving their community benefits, we're just sort of getting a sense of them.

[02:57:04] City Staff: Giving directions.

[02:57:05] Councilmember John McAlister: We're giving directions?

[02:57:06] City Staff: Yes, direction.

[02:57:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, 'cause I noticed there's some that are not related to North Bay Shore, but there's sort of a feel good type of development, and that's what I was concerned about that. Are we trying to concentrate all of the benefits that will directly apply to North Bay Shore versus some that are outside of the Bay Area, out of the North Bay Shore area zone? We have two, you have the magic bridge, and then you have the permanent Netty Creek enhancement design south of those. Have those ever been, when you talk to them about that, it says, hey, those are nice, we would appreciate it, but maybe you do those independently of the project.

[02:57:50] City Staff: So, community benefits don't always have to be necessarily in proximity to the development project itself. That certainly is ideal in many cases, but with the magnitude of community benefits like this. We thought it would be, you know, it would be appropriate that they might not all be focused in the North Bay Shore area.

[02:58:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, last question for the moment is, with this development coming in, I need Charlestonise, where have we thought about putting our transit center? Where is our transportation over? I mean, I know we're working on a transportation overlay program. So where, how would this, the landings and huff tie into Charleston East, in a way of a transit, major transit center, or central transit center for this area?

[02:58:42] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Oh. Dueling banjos here. Dawn Cameron, Assistant Public Works Director, as part of the North Bay Shore circulation feasibility study, we are looking at where there could be key transit, transfer points. One obvious area is the Charleston bus transfer area that's already been built, or is in construction right now, and we could look at whether there are other key areas in North Very Shore, where there would be a good transit area for transfers.

[02:59:20] Councilmember John McAlister: And Joel, do you have it? Because I have a follow-up question on that, but maybe he'll answer it on this one.

[02:59:26] Gerald Posky, Google: Yeah, Gerald Posky from Google. The, the Charleston Shoreline area, that's an intersection where we have... The 3 of the 4 corners that are not developed, Charleston in one corner, but the other 3 are there with redevelopment potential and potential for transit site.

[02:59:41] Councilmember John McAlister: I apologize for calling you Joel. It's Gerald. But Gerald, okay, so... No, no. So, Dawn, you said we will be considering other spots, but we're approving projects. So why wouldn't we have that transit center? We know where these projects are going to be placed. Why can't we say this will be the area that we want this transit area to come? Because the Charleston East bus transfer station? It doesn't seem, you know, right now adequate to handle a large number of people like that. So when you say we're going to look at others.

[03:00:17] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Well, part of what we're doing with the VISIM modeling and the whole look at circulation, we are also looking at the projects that are being approved, the precise plan, what the land uses are there. And if we can if we see that there's another area where transit, what should come together, that would be an area we would work to designate. But we may very well find that the Charleston shoreline area, although you may say it may not be large enough, it may be adequate as a central point as a transfer area, because the rest of the transit service in that area may be just going and directing servicing its destination points, and we may not need an area that everything comes together to create some kind of transfer point. So that's part of what we need to look at into the overall circulation in the area.

[03:01:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. And I lied to you. Not for you, but I have a question. So when I was talking to one of our Google executives here, they were talking, I was thinking, well, can we put any kind of housing along shoreline, and it was brought up maybe potentially over at the area that we were taking over for the realignment of pair? Has that been discussed with you guys, or is that even a potential ability to put housing in over in that small section?

[03:01:38] Unknown Speaker: Where?

[03:01:38] Councilmember John McAlister: The realignment of... Or T-shirt. I'm sorry.

[03:01:44] City Staff: I can answer a little bit. I think the council will be looking at some other projects, including the gateway, master plan and the subsequent shorebird area. And at that time, you can take a look at the best way to layout sites, where to get housing. So there's going to be opportunities in the future.

[03:02:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And I spoke again. One last question. So we were talking about safe parking, and I know someone was very concerned about it. But had the city decided that if somebody was willing to do safe parking, that we would hold them or provide liability insurance somewhere.

[03:02:23] City Staff: I believe the way the program is structured right now, the operator provides the insurance and a assumes the liability, but it's certainly something the council could explore, if there was a willingness to explore alternatives to that.

[03:02:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, city magic, because I thought...

[03:02:46] City Manager Dan Rich: Just to follow up, we did get a clarification from Kimberly, who's our resident expert, and was out of the office today, but he said, Yes, the safe parking provider does get insurance, and that covers the operations of the lot.

[03:03:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Because one of the concerns I heard from Google was the liability, and I know we can't require it, but... So, Michael or Javier? That was one of the concerns was liability. How can we move this conversation forward if you one of your concerns was liability and the city says we will cover your liability?

[03:03:30] Google Representative: Just to be clear, Google will not be participating in the safe parking program. However, we are committed to working with the city and service providers, as well as other landowners, to fund homeless services programs, deliver much needed affordable housing. And part of the offer today on the 2.5 million is to, over the next six months, work with the city, to find areas, whether it's city owned lots, or property that's owned by affordable housing developers, that could potentially provide homeless centers in safe parking areas, either on a temporary or permanent basis.

[03:04:09] Councilmember John McAlister: But you have a large area that's not going to be developed four or five years, shoreline, commons. And you say you're not, can, and Javier was gonna get me some answers of, hopefully, we're down the path of why you're not willing to participate, and maybe we can address those issues and come to a working agreement. So, uh, I know you say you're working with other peoples was outside of your Google Eric, but land is a very tight commodity, and you guys know that very well, but so it is for the city of Mountain View. And I continually hear, well, we'll be glad to do anything outside of North Bay. I'm fair phrasing. I mean, you do a lot of great stuff, but you're doing it outside of that, and it impacts our community, but if you have space on the North Bay Shore, that would begin, reduce the transportation for those folks, the homeless, provide them safe areas to live. I think that would be a win win. And for you to contribute, land would probably be a better benefit than giving us dollars at this particular time. So, if we can continue to open discussion, or potentially start an open discussion, knowing that we will take care of the liability, I would hope that Google would be willing to participate in opening up their land versus moving everything south from them. Is that a possibility?

[03:05:34] Google Representative: We're open to discussions with you all, but I'll just reiterate. We will not. participating in the safe parking program.

[03:05:41] Councilmember John McAlister: And do you have a reason that you can give us?

[03:05:45] Google Representative: I think the reasons that have been raised already, um, are sufficient. There are concerns over safety, security, and liability. And we'll just leave it at that. We are open to continuing conversations with you all on finding alternative solutions.

[03:06:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, those are my questions. Thank you.

[03:06:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[03:06:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, well, good questions. I'm glad they were asked. Um, So I wanted to ask a follow up question on the number of people, uh, Google employees in North Bay Shore. You said there are 30,000 Bay Area wide, but in Mountain View, and can you be a little more specific in North Bay Shore and in Mountain View, the number?

[03:06:33] Google Representative: I have the exact numbers with me, but again, it's below the seated headcount cap that's in place, and it's around 24,000.

[03:06:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Around 24? Okay, thank you. Okay, all of my questions have been asked. I appreciate you asking the ones about safe parking. I've certainly had those conversations with Google myself. So...

[03:06:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Where did our colleagues go? Are they coming back? Um, I would like to move on to the questions, and I think we can just go through all 4 questions at once, and then if you have any other comments, provide them, I will keep track of what everyone's saying, and we will summarize at the end. So, um, could you put up, okay? You put up the question. So on question four, the modification is we take out net 0 water?

[03:07:38] City Staff: Correct.

[03:07:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Would anyone like to go first?

[03:07:45] Unknown Speaker: Question 3 would just be the one proposed community benefit in question rather than the two.

[03:07:52] City Staff: Correct.

[03:07:52] Unknown Speaker: Thank you.

[03:07:53] City Staff: Correct, correct.

[03:07:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, go ahead.

[03:07:55] Unknown Speaker: So, okay, so you, on number four, you're saying you're taking out some other items. So, then, question three, can potentially take out some other items if we... So, if the majority decided from the list that was provided? So on three, you said, other than these benefits. Other proposed benefits, or number three, staff says take those not considered community benefits. So can we determine that any of these would be not community benefits?

[03:08:28] City Staff: Yeah, you could request that a different community benefit, be in place of that, or, yeah, speak to...

[03:08:36] Unknown Speaker: Well, since we may not know what, you know, but could we say these are not, and then come back later to say these are something that, no, once we have a dollar value, what is available to us?

[03:08:46] City Staff: Yes.

[03:08:46] Unknown Speaker: Thank you.

[03:08:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Komet.

[03:08:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. So I'm just gonna go in order of the questions, if that sounds okay. So, one point of clarification. So I know, for the proposed public access plan, which is the final, final proposed access plan, the one from the staff reporter, or the one that we saw from the presenter, or thank you so much for pulling it up. So the last one, correct?

[03:09:25] City Staff: Yes, the one on the far right is the current access proposal.

[03:09:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So, I'm okay with the proposed public access plan. I think one of my comments and I gave this to the, um, applicant was, with the bridge there. I would assume that an era would also go over the bridge to Huff, for question two. Um, so the proposed alternative access plan. So are we looking at this one?

[03:10:02] City Staff: Correct.

[03:10:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Right. Okay. You know, I'm fine with that. I think that, you know, what's also of interest is, um, the proposal, um, that Google put forward with the alignment of the parcel, um, that they're leasing off of, um, interested to hear a little bit more about that. For question. Three.

[03:10:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: But before you go into that, because I know I'm going to circle back on this. So for question two, if you are okay with the proposed alternative, if they don't have the lease, would you want a condition in the approval? Saying that they have to, if they don't have access to the property they're leasing, they would move it. And then I think it was also, and they would potentially, uh, find another location for the open space that's being...

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

[03:11:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. And one question, does that? Open space have to be in North Bay Shore.

[03:11:15] Unknown Speaker: Ideally, yes.

[03:11:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right. And...

[03:11:20] Unknown Speaker: Before I was just saying I was too far down these questions, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just want to... I'm not clear, so I want to make sure others are on questions one and two. Question one, are we talking about the map on page eight of the report, which does bisect, I believe, the 1875 property, and then, so that's the recommended one, 'cause their staff was initially saying we would prefer kind of the more hugging one first. I just want to be clear which one we're talking about.

[03:11:57] Unknown Speaker: Oh, so I thought question one was, does the council support the one that the applicant proposed, which is the one?

[03:12:04] Unknown Speaker: Which goes through 1875.

[03:12:06] Unknown Speaker: Right. Yeah, I just want to make sure everyone is

[03:12:08] Unknown Speaker: Right. Right. And I even think that the rendering that they put forward cuts a little bit more. Do you, right? The most current one. Do you mind pulling that up for us?

[03:12:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So the For question one, does council support the proposed public access plan, I'm assuming that it's the middle portion, the proposed design. which I am I am fine with. For question two, Um, I'm fine with, um, your suggestion mayor, that we add the language in, um, as a condition of approval, um, for the open space. Um, Can I move on to question three? Are we good? Just checking. And I know some of the visuals have changed, so... Um, the commute, so for community benefit. Um, I think the value, the overall value, um, which I think I think I saw somewhere was close to 44 million, um, it's, I know it says at least 42. But I saw something else that said that it was higher, right?

[03:13:38] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. I think from Google Slide, that it was close.

[03:13:42] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm comfortable with the amount. I think, um, some of my colleagues were talking about the flexibility on allocating, um, that funding in different buckets as things shift, I think one of the things staff brought up that's of interest too, is, you know, we'll know more once we get back the traffic study plan. And so I'm not sure if we would want to reevaluate that once the plan comes back in terms of how much should be in each bucket. But I think the overall amount, um, I support, and then, um, for question four, uh, yes, I agree with staff that the bicycle pedestrian bridge should not be considered a community benefit.

[03:14:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And I will ask if there is anything on this page. I'm not sure what to call this page. It doesn't have a number. But anything that's listed as a proposed community benefit that you think should not be a community benefit as proposed by Google.

[03:14:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Do you mind if I circle back on this one?

[03:14:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yep, great, thanks. Council member Hicks.

[03:14:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I'm gonna answer fairly similarly, um, question one, does council support the proposed site access plan? Yes, the one that was labeled in the middle proposed design on the slide showing previously. Number two, does council support, the proposed alternate access plan, et cetera, um, yes, with the condition as specified earlier, by the mayor and council member, Kamei. Number three, besides the two proposed community benefits in question. So for the amount, I would go with Google's proposal of 44 million, and I'm interested in, uh, there's been some talk of, uh, benefits of housing, and I'm interested in those, in particular, to be flexible and not specified, uh, in terms of the housing projects that, uh, that Google representatives said they were reviewing. I guess my interest is that as we bring more high tech jobs to Mountain View, we're displacing a lot of people currently living in Mountain View, and we see that. We've seen that at the meeting tonight, and many other meetings. And I would like, we have an upcoming session on displacement. I would like that money to be used as flexibly as possible. I don't know the projects that you're reviewing. I don't know who they're serving, really. I don't know, you know, are they serving, uh, teachers or disabled people, or I haven't, or would they serve, possibly the currently people being displaced, or people currently living in RVs? I don't know. So I want council to have more discretion over that, and I would like more flexibility with the housing related benefits. Did I answer everything? Does counsel agree with staff that the by pedestrian bridge projects should not be considered community benefits? Yes, I agree.

[03:17:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Council member Ramirez.

[03:17:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. And I agree with the general direction provided by Council members Command Hicks. So the question one and 2 of exactly is, as a council member committee articulated, I'm comfortable with that. For question 3, similarly, I'm comfortable with the total benefit value and just to highlight some of the interests or priorities I have. I appreciate the revisions proposed, that speak to what I think are among the higher priorities identified by the city related to homelessness and permanent support of housing. And I appreciate the work that Google appears to be doing and identifying partnerships with affordable housing developers, to create permanent supportive housing, the use of the prefunded impact fees, to continue exploring those partnerships and if we can develop a navigation center, I think that'd be very powerful in achieving the city's objectives related to addressing homelessness. So that, that's important to me. And I appreciate the direction we're going there. And as also expressed by council member Kame, the flexibility of the use of some of the funding, particularly if some of these are later deemed mitigations and not community benefits. You know, I'm, I don't necessarily want to weigh in on where that funding should go. I think that's a discussion we'll have once we determine what that aggregate value is. Um, But the broad, the direction here I'm comfortable with. and which is continue to explore advancing the housing goals and the homeless services goals that were shared earlier. And that's all. Thank you.

[03:19:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry, on question four, and maybe I missed that.

[03:19:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Sorry, yes. Yes. So, yes, to that question.

[03:19:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[03:19:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So for one and two, I support what the members before me stated. Item three. Yes, so I support the total value of, I think it was $44000000 around $44000000 NSA, ask the question. It sounds like there's still some projects that are being reviewed and so I would like to reserve the flexibility of where those funds go. I do with, we'll say, transportation is definitely a priority in this area. in addition to some of the infrastructure items. I also think about the community shuttle and what possibilities we might have there. So, I would like to make sure we have some flexibility once we determine what our biggest needs are. And then housing to I agree. I, you know, I understand the interest after last week for safe parking, but I really want us to move more towards, you know, more stable housing sources. The idea of a temporary shelter was something that I did. It has Google to consider, um, in light of the Shoreline Commons. There's a former gym, health and fitness gym that has showers and whatnot, and, um, you know, it'd be interesting. I would be interested in to explore whether that could be a temporary shelter. So I hope that we can continue that conversation. Um, And then the items for our question four. Yes, I agree that the bridge should be a mitigation project, and again, there may be others. So, I don't think this is going to be the last time we see this and I'll look forward to continued discussion on these projects, thanks.

[03:21:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Clark?

[03:21:41] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, so question one, a begrudging, yes. Um, I recall from the discussion before, I really enjoy bragging, um, to neighboring communities that, um, our, you know, largest employer, um, is one that has traditionally sort of created, you know, public open spaces. And that was one of the things that I really valued about the Charlestonese project. And I was hoping we could continue through, you know, this project, but, um, I've met with the applicant, and they've walked me through the reasoning behind, um, you know, why they're not doing it in this particular location. And I do appreciate them changing things pretty significant way from the original proposal. And I think what isn't highlighted on there is just, it's not just the red arrows that will be accessible to the public. There's all the other trails that aren't highlighted, which gave me some solace there. So um, And then, you know, I think there is some benefit to the 1875 um, Charleston parcel and being able to create some additional access there, even if it isn't guaranteed in perpetuity, it sounds like it'll be there for quite a while. So yes, to questions, one and two. Three, I'm fine with the overall, um, total benefit value that staff's identified. I think, you know, from my, I'm just one council member, for my part, I do value the, I think having money today is valuable, and so, you know, if there's a few million dollars that would be provided as prefunding to do things today, I'd be willing to count that toward the 40 if it were done today. Um, so just to publicly state that. But so if they were to make the contribution toward the housing trust or prefund, as I think LinkedIn and others did, you know, those sorts of things, I'd be happy to consider, you know, toward the total when the time comes, to reassess what's there. And I suspect there will be some funds, you know, as we identify the projects that will need to be done as part of required as part of the project. There may be some other opportunities that come up there too. And then, yes, I agree with staff that the bike pet bridge should be not considered in the community benefit bucket.

[03:24:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, council member McAllister.

[03:24:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay, uh, let's think about this for a second. Um. Even though I demand, I expect, a lot from Google, I do praise them for being one of two companies in the South Bay, or in Bay Area, that is willing to do workforce housing. So I appreciate that. I do, as, as Chris may brag about our open space, I do brag, or I commend them. I don't know, but I commend them for doing their workforce housing, because no one else is stepping up. They seem to be trade organizations are trying to push housing onto our cities, and we're getting a lot of stress from that. But I do want to commend them, helping out with the building the workforce housing. So as we get into these other projects, I do appreciate what you're doing, but I... You said a high bar, and I expect it to be even higher, because you are one of the best or the best, other than... Oh, God, it's gone blank.

[03:25:43] Unknown Speaker: Probably a good thing. Very good. Facebook.

[03:25:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Facebook. Facebook is the only other one that's doing, you know, see, you guys are in my mind. So Facebook is doing some housing, but you guys. And the guys to the south of us, you're blowing them out of the water in the way you treat our community in the region. So I command you for that. On one and two. Since they're not committed, concerned, they're not community benefits, I'm fine with whatever,

[03:26:08] Unknown Speaker: that is correct.

[03:26:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Whatever works is fine, you know? I know security is going crazy these days, and you guys are one of the more security conscious companies out there, so one or two, whatever that you work out. Three, the dollar amount. It is what we have valued so that we got to be fair and consistent with that. So I'm fine, always more as important. Um, Number 4 is where I have a big pushback. They proposed a lot of these community benefits, well, this whole sheet. And I don't accept any of them as a community benefit. A lot of them are for their benefit, a lot of them for the benefit of their employees, some are off site. So, when I want community benefits, I want them to be directly affecting us and for their projects. They were talking about doing housing. We had a conversation about, I would prefer that Google not give us $5 million. I prefer that Google buys a unit, builds the unit, provide it, and does the project from from beginning to end and take ownership of it. And I say, Google, in the royal ways, that they line up the builders, they line up the funding. Because we keep seeing these projects come along, and well, okay, Google or some property will give us some money, and then we still go have to find funding for it, and we got to find the contractors. I'd rather say Google, take it, run with it, and give us an end product. I think that would be better in doling out some money here and there. We talk about displacement. I've been talking about, let's buy naturally affordable units and recondition them, whatever, Google, wanna use your money that way, do it. We have some projects that are be coming up, that there's gonna be displacement. You talked about one earlier this evening. Come along, buy it, recondition it, turn it over to a public. I mean, to a nonprofit, but that's, to me, is a better than, well, will somebody buy some land and will we develop it? You're not willing to develop housing or needed housing other than your 6,000 on your property. You're not willing to consider something along temporarily in North Bay Shore or along the shoreline commons. And you say we are not at this, we're not doing it. I would hope that behind doors, and with our city manager, whatever, you would give us a better answer than just no. Because I think we can address it. But that's where I would like to see some of these dollars go for housing, directly to building projects, and not lending money, because somebody else lend us on the housing trust, Silicon Valley, they're lending us some money, but somewhere it gets paid back, but eventually it's Mount View seems to be the one that absorbs the loan and forgives it. So. Take the $5 million, take the $15 million. Buy apartment complex, other, we're working with other developers to do that. So that's what I would like to see if these projects are deemed not community benefits and put that towards housing. Of course, my other big push is transportation. And, you know, the vice mayor did mention about our shuttle, but we're looking at our HET. We're looking at potential working something with VTA along the light rails, any kind of those types of transportations that will alleviate congestion. I'm going to preach for a second here. I on this VTA and we do this. We have this congestion management programs and policies. And we haven't come up with a solution for highway congestion in the 5 years that I've been involved with VTA. And our only solution is to put express lanes in. So we're not really solving congestion. We're just sort of managing it. And so anything that Google can do. They do a great job with their buses to help relieve congestion and move bodies and reduce greenhouse gases. So that's another area where maybe they can use their community benefits to help the North Bay Shore and Mountain, you'd be better connected. Thank you.

[03:30:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so for a question one, I do support Google's proposal for where the public access path will be, and so that means the majority supports that. Question two. I'm okay with the alternative, if it's needed, if the lease on 1875 Charleston, for some reason, is no longer available. And the majority said that we would add a condition, saying that Google would have to move the public access path, and that, um, they would also have to replace the open space that would be lost, and it would be replaced in North Bay Shore. Question three. Overall, I agree with the total amount of the community benefits, so that's the majority supports that. And I do believe I heard the majority supports having some flexibility in this area, in terms of what the specific projects, using the funding, especially in the transportation, and the, um, I guess I would characterize it as housing, um, homelessness area, because from my perspective, I would want more detail. on what specifically we would be funding before saying yes, but the concept, the direction, I think we're all good with, because it does provide some flexibility. There were quite a few other comments there, but, um, I think as we go through this process, we'll iron these out more. And then, I did have one project that, I'm sorry, I did not think it should be a community benefit, but I didn't hear anybody else say it. And that is number nine, which is the irrigation and other infrastructure to support the trees. I think, since we're requiring Google to add additional trees, I think they should also provide the ability for those trees to thrive. So, I'm not supportive of that, but I didn't hear anybody else list any other project that, in that bucket, they would leave out. Oh, I'm sorry, that's right. Okay, one serious. Comment. Sorry, John, you did say that. Um, and then on question four, uh, it is unanimous that we agree with staff that we would not include the bike pedestrian bridge as a community benefit. Lets see, and I forgot, I don't remember if I said this or not, but I do want to disclose that I met with Google prior to the meeting. City manager. I think we got pretty good clarity. I'd look over there, make sure everyone's okay.

[03:33:48] City Manager Dan Rich: Thank you for the summary. Just two comments on community benefits I wanted to make, the magical bridge components. Nobody spoke about it, so I assume everyone's fine with it being in there other than John, who was against everything. But I do want to make a point on that. Number one, magical bridge continues to seek outside funding, and the city also has a potential of a grant opportunity that could be used for magical bridge. So I want us to pursue continue pursuing those two pass and should additional funding come in, we would just sort of take that amount in credit from Google for other community benefits. And the other point, I just wanted to note, I think it's a 17 or 17 and a half million that's in the project originally, was for the bike pad bridge, which is now kind of just a more generic pot, depending on what the transportation needs are. But I just want to make sure everyone understands. That was the assumed cost of that bridge four or five years ago. We're now estimating it to be $20 to $30 million. So if our intent is to fully replace, or to build that bridge, the money on the table right now, is not gonna do that. So I just want to make sure everyone understands that.

[03:35:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Could I just clarify something from the city manager? I was against a lot of community. I didn't said no to the project, which is probably more important than to the community, but just wanted to clarify that, so...

[03:35:21] City Manager Dan Rich: Duly noted. But you guys know that, too.

[03:35:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I Vice mayor.

[03:35:30] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay, that just confused me because I thought question 4 was about the bridge becoming a requirement.

[03:35:36] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I'm sorry. Two different bridges. Okay. Stephanie or Matt, correct me? The one we're talking about in question four is the pedestrian bridge over Permanente Creek, which basically is the access to the parking garage. We were saying, That is a project requirement. I'm talking about the original landings proposal, had a community benefit for a bike pad bridge over Rengsdorfen 101, which was valued at $17 million. That was a specific project. Google said they would fund in 2015, It's now been converted to a pot of money for transportation program. of the city's choice. I just want to be clear that the value on the table today is not sufficient to build that bridge. And there's no nexus for that possible nexus for that to be a mitigation item. Well, that's someone unknown at this time, but more assuming not at this point, but our traffic study will determine that.

[03:36:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other comments? Okay. Then we will, and everyone's clear. Okay, um, we will close this item then. Thank you.

[03:36:56] Unknown Speaker: Thanks very much. Thank you. Oh. So do you want to make your announcement? Oh, that's right. Sorry, I forgot. Do you guys want a break? Well, okay. Okay, great's coming open. break. Oh, it's after 10, so we do need to vote. I'll second it all those in favor. Hi. Okay. Do you want a quick break? Yeah, it should be, yeah. Okay. So, item 7.1, we will get back to that. We're leaving because of what we said before. Right. Good night. 'Cause Dan says something to me who's mad. Yeah. I just get started.

[03:38:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so item 7.1, we are back to the El Camino street escape plan, and council members Clark and McAllister previously announced that they were recusing themselves on this item. We will start with a staff presentation.

[03:38:28] Transportation Manager Rhea Hutch Barrett Lowe: Hi, I'm Rhea Hutch Barrett Lowe, Transportation Manager, and I have with me Dawn Cameron, who's the Assistant Public Works director. So tonight, we're bringing the draft to El Camino Real streetscape plan. for your consideration and approval. El Camino Real is a 4 mile corridor in Mountain View. It stretches from the city limits with Palo Alto to the city limits with Sunnyvale. And in 2012, the general plan identified the corridor as a change area in the city of Mountain View. In 2014, Council approved the El Camino Real Precise Plan, which called for streetscape changes, and those have been developed further in the draft streetscape plan. The draft plan was developed with extensive outreach and engagement over an 18 month period. On June 18, we presented preliminary concepts with a focus on the parking survey and analysis to help determine segments to pursue as part of early implementation of protected bikeway facilities. We also obtained council direction on other pedestrian and bicycle improvements to include to be included in the city's request for incorporation in the Caltrans repaving and ADA upgrades projects. So today we're bringing the full overview of the El Camino Rayal streetscape plan, which includes keeping the existing travel lanes. repurposing the parking lanes, installation of new class for protected bikeways where space permits, exploration of various bikeway options at pinch points, and constrained areas, and dedication of a 4 foot public access easement with development to provide more comfortable pedestrian environment. The draft plan also includes installation of 3 new pedestrian bicycle crossings at Pettus Avenue, Benita Avenue, and Crestview Drive. These crossings would be signal controlled with high visibility ladder crosswalks and pedestrian refuges in the medians. Other intersection improvements outlined in the draft plan include protected intersections at cross corridor connections, and also high visibility crosswalks at four way intersections and side streets, as well as slip lane removal at El Monty Avenue. So this removing the slip lane would free up some public space to develop as a future capital project for intersection improvements in this location. Another feature of the draft plan is bus stop treatments, which are designed to work with the new bikeway facilities. So there are 3 options for the bus stop treatments. First of all, the minimal change option, we envision that most bus stops along the corridor would get the minimal change option, which would be implemented in conjunction with bikeway installation. There's also an opportunity for bus bulbs which could be pursued with development subject to Caltran's approval. And thirdly, in places where there are existing bus bays, bus islands would be feasible, and that would allow the protected bike way to continue uninterrupted behind the bus stop. For places where we add 4 feet of right of way, we've provided a typical layout with space for amenities, such as street lighting, and street trees. The draft plan also includes pallets for street furnishings and plant species that are planted as part of the landscaping plan. And finally, as part of the streetscape plan, cost estimates were developed, which amount to $81000000 for the entire plan, half of which we expect would be covered as part of developments. And we also expect that a portion of the costs would be absorbed by incorporating some of these elements into the Caltrans projects. We also plan to apply for grants for some of the remainder. Once council has adopted a resolution approving the streetscape plan. We will pursue implementation steps, which include integrating some of the elements of the streetscape plan into the upcoming Caltrans repaving and ADA upgrades projects, development approvals along the corridor, and then also coordinating with the neighboring cities and pursuing city capital improvement projects. Based on council's direction from June, we've already started working on elements which we hope to include in the Caltrans projects. And these elements include the class 4 protected bikeways between Castro and Silvan, where space allows and in more constrained areas, class 2 facilities, lane striping to the northwest of Castro Street, to allow for later bikeway installation in that area. Curb extensions and pedestrian crossing enhancements at 32 intersections along the corridor, and other pedestrian crossing enhancements, and also conduit for crossings at Pettus Avenue, Benita Avenue, and Crestview Drive, which would make it easier to add the crossings after the repaving project, the Caltrans repaving project occurs, and it would avoid having to dig up the street twice. So, staff has provided a recommendation, and we believe that approval of the draft streetscape plan could really help to transform this corridor and fulfill the vision set out in the El Camino ray R precise plan, and we're happy to respond to questions.

[03:44:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any questions, Council member Ramirez? No? Do anybody have any questions?

[03:44:52] Unknown Speaker: I did, but, um, I have to find them.

[03:44:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[03:45:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I have to find my question, too. So, you can go first, if you find yours first, but, okay, on page 55 of the El Camino precise plan, um, describes higher visibility, crosswork, walk markings, it shows them in slightly different colors in different places, and when I asked staff about that, your answer to me was, I think, I don't have it in front of me, it depends on what Caltrans allows. Is there... you know, is there a variety? Because some of them were just much more compelling than others, and I just wondered what they allowed in terms of...

[03:45:39] Transportation Manager Rhea Hutch Barrett Lowe: So what we'll be requesting is the latter crosswalks in general. And so that is also subject to Caltran's approval. So, generally, Caltrans has design standards that are acceptable in terms of crosswalks, and the ladder style crosswalk is one of the most highest visibility crosswalks that are part of their common standards that you can use for crosswalks.

[03:46:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So they're always ladder, and they're always white. Is that it? Because they were different in different pictures.

[03:46:12] Transportation Manager Rhea Hutch Barrett Lowe: That would be what we're requesting.

[03:46:14] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay. And are... all of the crosswalks on El Camino, the existing crosswalks, included in that? It says 32?

[03:46:34] Transportation Manager Rhea Hutch Barrett Lowe: Uh... Yes, I think so. There might be one that already has a ladder. Our general request to Caltrans, when we met with them, and we're gonna continue to, you know, work with them, is to say our preference, is at every intersection, to have the high visibly, the crosswalks. Of course, they and their traffic engineers will make the final decision of whether or not every intersection can have high visibly crosswalks. But in our initial meeting with them, it sounded like something that they would be willing to support.

[03:47:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Good, thank you. Um, and then when, on either end, when there are other jurisdictions involved, and you talked about coordinating with them, uh, will they be helping to pay for any of these improvements if Caltrans isn't making them? Like, of the 81 million.

[03:47:29] Transportation Manager Rhea Hutch Barrett Lowe: So, yes, uh, that's really the short answer, a perfect example is Los Altos, where the south side of El Camino Real is Los Altos, and the north side fronts Mountain View land uses, and that's the area between ring store, heading north up through San Antonio. We would expect that Los Altos would contribute their share of funding to help cover their side of the street, as well as mountain view, and then working in the future with Caltrans. We understand that Los Alto staff may be talking to Caltrans right now, but can they get some improvements in as part of the repaving project, and we'll keep the door open if they do continue to pursue that. We'll see how we can partner with them and turn some making sure it can happen on both sides of the street. So, and similar with Palo Alto and Sunnyvale, you know, should, um, you know, they be ready to connect something through, we would look to them funding their portion of it. The overlap with Palo Alto and Sunnyvale is much smaller. Yes.

[03:48:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, and are you getting, like, positive indications that they'd be willing to contribute to the funding?

[03:48:50] Transportation Manager Rhea Hutch Barrett Lowe: We haven't had a discussion about funding. Sunnyvale is doing an El Camina Rey corridor specific plan at the moment, so in terms of design, there could be some synergies and some coordination there. Los Altos currently isn't working on anything related to a streetscape plan on their side. And Palo Alto has told us that they're focusing on other areas of El Camino right now, not the section that connects to Mountain View.

[03:49:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. On page 40 of the plan. It shows the intersection of El Monte and El Camino. and the area that could potentially be a plaza area, and it said that there would be a bike facility through that. Does that mean a bike path? And if it is a bike path, would it be separate from a pedestrian path?

[03:49:51] Transportation Manager Rhea Hutch Barrett Lowe: So that is, yes, the plan is leaving open the option that, um, by closing the slip ramp and screwing up the right turning vehicles, that there could be, you know, kind of a cut through for bikes and pets, you know, shortest distance possible. The design of that, and keeping them separate, could all be worked out as part of a future capital improvement program to look at the overall redesign of that intersection.

[03:50:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. And that would come to us?

[03:50:21] Transportation Manager Rhea Hutch Barrett Lowe: Yes.

[03:50:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Um... I think that's all my questions.

[03:50:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: anybody else have questions? Okay, so since public comment is still open. Is there anyone who wishes to address us on this topic who didn't speak previously on this topic? If you could remember also to fill out a blue card and leave it with our city clerk. That'd be great.

[03:50:49] Shanek Linehouse: Good evening again. Mayor Mad, Ch second council members. Shanek Linehouse for Audubona again. Burders don't usually go bird watching on El Camino, but the birds do go there. Um, and I spoke about the trees before, and I would like to see known at lots of trees, and there'll be more trees than there are now, in the medians and on the sides, and maybe that can be something that you can start looking at all of the streetscapes. And the other thing is just, it's not really related to birds, but when we, when a lot of the birders don't walk on a lot of the trails anymore, because of the bike traffic during the morning, and They're afraid to go out there. And so, there are conflicts, and so, I don't know how you're gonna resolve it. But potentially, you could have parallel streets, one for bikes, one, cars, one for bikes, and pedestrians, one for birds, and trees. I don't know, maybe start not trying to always put it all together, because eventually it doesn't always work. So that's just a general common thing.

[03:51:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:51:58] Public Speaker: Yeah, don't put it all together. No cars, just bikes. and pedestrians, and a lot of trees, walking trees down the paths. Don't hit the bikes. No, but seriously, I want protected bikeways that don't have to worry about cars weaving in and out, or have to account for buses that are parked on the side. In North Bay Shore right now, our bike lanes are constantly full of buses, delivery vans, just everything. And so getting around on a bike is difficult and dangerous. It doesn't feel safe, and so you are much less likely to ride a bike, and I want to ride a bike. I want to ride my bicycle. I want to ride my bike. I want to ride my bicycle. I want to ride it where I like. Yeah, yes.

[03:52:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:52:51] Sergebont: Good evening. My name is Sergebont, Mountain View resident. So, I wanted 1st to echo what the previous speakers 2 hours ago said about bikes. I mean, I'm all for that. But I'm not wearing my bicadamac today. you know, I've walked here. And I think, You know, overall, I think there hasn't been enough focus on working in that plan, very much from the get go. It has gotten better, but it's still not quite there. And I'm going to 0 in on, you know, the mid crossing islands or refuges for pedestrians. I read the answer from staff on the question, which is kind of, in my view, kind of a non-answer, which is like, well, we'll figure it out with Caltrans and, you know, that's kind of the thing you could you could say about any elements of this project. Yet we propose, you know, protected by lens, that's in the plan. We have a commitment to do this. So I like, you know, this thing to be revised so that we plan for this meat crossing islands or refugees or pedestrians. This is a very wide streets, but six, 7 or 8 lines to cross. you know, there are people who may have some difficulties, you know, every day or once in a while to make that distance in one shot. You could have some emergency vehicles, kind of printing the lights and you get stuck. You could have lights going out. I mean, if that happens, I mean, and what you do. So it's just a basic, you know, safety feature and I think you have to demand it. Mountain View is an age friendly city. You're about to start a vision 0 um, you know, initiative. I think it's unacceptable not to plan for this refugees. So instead of living up to Caltrans and maybe hoping to have one, I'm afraid that if we do this, you know, we're going to wind up in 2022 with no additional islands, which means that we'll be left without this type of safety for the next couple of decades because that's how long it's going to take to go to the next sidecard. So, demand to be eating the plan. Maybe not on every single intersections, but make a commitment to have it at least on half of them or some metrics and plan for those. Thank you.

[03:55:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:55:28] John McDonald: Good evening, John McDonald, I promise several friends that I would bring up their concerns, all of which relate to ADA protections. I don't know how you feel about the yellow, nubby pieces of sidewalk that are supposed to be helpful for a variety of disabilities. But both blind and people who use walkers, and people who use electric scooters, or motorized wheelchairs, have all told me that they are, they feel incredibly unsafe, navigating over these nubs, to get to the street, and then navigating at the other end to get up to the smooth sidewalk. They suggest that maybe there have been upgrades or creative alternatives to this. They don't know of them specifically, but they hope that maybe some research on the part of staff or anybody who's come across alternatives, might come up with something in the realm of safer, more comfortable ways to navigate those areas. And in addition, the two things, one of which, Serge mentioned, they felt that a safety factor for disabled people to cross El Camino would be to make sure they stopped at the median strip and waited, and then went across unless the timing was extended, that they wouldn't be fearful that they would not have time to get to the other side. And the last, that for them, walking the distance required to get onto, or get to a bus stop, seemed to be unrealistic. Thank you.

[03:58:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think we have a question for you.

[03:58:15] Unknown Speaker: Or maybe it's for staff. It's a question related to what Ms. McDonald brought up, which I wonder if staff has the answer. I've had people tell me exactly the same thing, that the yellow, bumpy, um... rectangles. At the curb cuts. The people who've expressed problems with that, to me, were the people I thought they were supposed to serve, people in wheelchairs, they say that it makes it really hard for them to get up the curb cuts. So I'm wondering whether you have any additional information on that. And I see some cities aren't using them. Is there anything that goes beyond those? Anything that, it seems like the people they're supposed to serve, they maybe aren't serving well. And that's true also of people pushing strollers.

[03:59:02] City Staff: Yeah, that's where I'm familiar with it, and I really did not like them. As I understand it, These are required under the federal Americans with disabilities acts, and they're specified by law, and the design standards are set in the highway design manual, and it's not an option for us to use them. The only variances I've seen between cities that has changed over time is whether they're yellow or black, but the actual, you know, the bumps and all of that, and the design parameters are set via the Americans with Disabilities Act.

[03:59:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Thanks please.

[03:59:56] Michelle Watson: I haven't spoken before, so I'm not used to the microphone. My name is Michelle Watson. I've lived in Mountain View since 1985, so I've seen a few changes, although I have neighbors who have been here even longer. On the streetscape. I'm sure the bicyclists will appreciate what you're adding to the street, but I'm way too chicken to try and ride a bicycle on El Camino. So I would like to talk about the pedestrian improvements. And I think El Camino has a long way to go. A lot of it has four foot sidewalk, and that's all, and it's very unpleasant. And I'm afraid that you won't have enough pedestrians on El Camino to use your new crosswalks, which sound wonderful. If the sidewalks are not improved more. And I'm afraid that there's a little bit of a bureaucratic, um, difficulty, because the, to improve the sidewalks and possibly have them more sheltered, they're going to require the buildings next to them, to have overhangs or some kind of protection for the people walking. And in order to get those, at least expensively, from your developers, you need to talk to them very early in the process of designing their projects. And it doesn't seem to me that the people who talk to developers about their buildings, um, are coming to this early enough. You are with DPW and transportation, and that they don't seem to overlap with planners, because on the new projects that I've seen, the sidewalks are still barely 4 or 5 feet, and they don't give anything to the pedestrians, who walk along beside them, or come from them, to go other places along El Camino. And I think it would be a good thing, if the planning department could begin negotiations with people building these much bigger projects along El Camino, talk to them about their sidewalks, and giving something to the pedestrians who walk along them or from them as early in the process as possible. And I, I don't know who, who it is who negotiates with the developers on what they can do along the sidewalks, 'cause the city of Mountain View has a lot of, uh... I mean, there's demand for being allowed to build large buildings on El Camino, and so they have a lot of negotiating strength, and if they could ask early in the process for pedestrian improvements along their sidewalks. I think they could get them. I think, so, I hope that things continue to improve along El Camino. Thank you.

[04:03:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So anyone else who wishes to address the council on this? So I'll close the public input. Oh, sorry, what? Um, so we'll close the public in proportion and bring it back to council. Council member, Kamei. Oh wait. Well, it looks like you, uh, are ready to make a motion.

[04:03:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I am, but if there's further comments, I mean, I think, um... So this came before to us in the transportation committee, and it came back to us again in June. So I feel comfortable. I think there are a lot of great ideas on how we can take some of the feedback we've received today to try to improve the plan. Um, as we're going forward. But I feel comfortable and ready to, um, recommend staff's recommendation, but if other people have other things they'd like to talk about. I can wait.

[04:04:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So why don't you make the motion, and I think you have to read.

[04:04:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, I move we adopt a resolution approving the El Camino Real streetscape plan. Project 16 dash 67 to be read in title only for the reading waived.

[04:04:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, we have a motion by council member, May, and a 2nd by council member Ramirez, Vice Mayor Abi Koga.

[04:04:30] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I do support the the motion. Thank you, Steph, for working on this. This has been a long time in coming, and I look forward to it. Um, actually, hopefully coming to fruition soon. Um, I just wanted to respond to, um, Ms. Wilson, is it, um, regarding side sidewalks and, and, um, so, uh, yes, part of our our plan for El Camino, we were trying to follow the Grand Boulevard, um, initiative and part of that was to make it a more pedestrian friendly experience. And so I hope that, you know, I've noticed it. Um, I think I can say this. Our former mayor, Ronnie Ryan, who was our pedestrian person. She walks everywhere. She mentioned it to me that she noticed that some of the improvements have been quite good. So that, to me, is a seal of approval. So we do, when we have redevelopments, we do require the developer to provide improvements on the sidewalks. We're trying to widen them. So I think you'll see that as more and more redevelopments happen. Um, and some of them have already happened already. So, yes, it's a work in progress. Unfortunately, because we can't decide control when something gets redeveloped, but when they do, we do have that as a requirement, I'd say. The other thing is, I know we focused a lot on the bike lanes here and because that was a big item. I guess I would like to ask staff because, you know, I want to be respect Mr. Bonte's been very, um, diligent in, um, his requests that we look at current intersections or crossings. So, can we have the same kind of language that we have for new crossings for our existing crossings? And unless I look at the, like, there is a median here, so can we just, um, and have that in.

[04:06:39] City Staff: You mean in terms of a medium refuge island or... One of the reasons, we definitely can look at saying it's something that should be looked at for each intersection.

[04:06:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[04:06:52] City Staff: However, you know, some of the things that are gonna make it difficult or not allowable to put them in some intersections. Some of those medians, only 2 or 3 feet wide at the intersections, because what happens is you add those left turning lanes, especially if you have a double left turning lane, you used up all the right away, and you've now narrowed your medium to the bare minimum. So you really don't even have a great spot for the pedestrian to be waiting and enough clearance of traffic. I mean, ideally, your medians for a potential refuge would be 5 to 8 feet wide. So when we get down to two and three feet wide. It really is most desirable to make sure the signal timing is adequate to allow all pedestrians to cross with the signal phase, including those that have to move more slowly. And generally, that's how signal timing is supposed to be set up, and if anybody's having trouble crossing a signal of El Camino real, in one green light phase, when they are, when they enter the intersection, when they're supposed to, not too late, then we can talk to Caltrans about they need to re look at the timing that's happening there. But we're going to find along many of these intersections. The median is just too narrow, or there could be other issues dealing with turning movements and turning radii. So that's why it's going to have to be looked at, intersection by intersection, to see where some kind of what's called a thumbnail, or a median island that something could actually be put in there.

[04:08:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. All right. Um, so, uh, yeah, in that case, I will support the motionizes. Thanks.

[04:08:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[04:08:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Similarly, I'll be supporting the motion. I do agree with the vice mayor's concerns and Mr. Pone's concerns about existing crosswalks to the extent it's feasible. I would support and enhancing pedestrian safety, just to highlight a couple of other things. The bus bicycle conflict has always been a challenge that I've personally experienced. And I know a lot of folks do. I'd asked a question of staff about the bus island concept as a way to mitigate that impact. And it sounds like, to the greatest extent possible, we'll be incorporating that, but sometimes it's not feasible. There just isn't the right way to make it possible. But just making sure that we're always cognizant of that particular conflict because I know it's particularly challenging to mitigate. And then the other thing is, and you know, bigger than just this project. But once we begin the conversations about the shared micro mobility devices, the scooters, one of the things I'd like to begin exploring is designated parking areas where it's desirable to have them rather than just having them scattered everywhere. But if we're anticipating, well, 1st if we allow them. And if we're anticipating heavily heavy utilization, you know, and if El Camino becomes a more pedestrian friendly corridor, then thinking about where it may make sense to have writers park the scooters once they're done. I think could pay dividends in the long run. It's more useful concept for downtown, but maybe El Camino in the long run as well. But aside from that, I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.

[04:10:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[04:10:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'm generally supportive of the motion as well. I'm interested, though, in of a few tweaks to make it more responsive to the growing green streets movement and also the needs of pedestrians. I wanted to thank Ms. Watson for coming up, and speaking, I agree with her comments on pedestrianism. I'm interested in enhancing the pedestrian experience. I think there's a lot more potential on El Camino Real than just safety at crosswalks. I know before this, when I knew this was coming to us. As an issue, I invited several people to take a walk with me along El Camino Real to check out what the pedestrian experience was like, and almost everyone refused to come along with me. So I did find one person to walk with me, and we did not enjoy it most of the way. So, I actually think, I think one of the problems is, um, on page 35. You see, a figure, figure 3.18, with a typical sidewalk layout, has a 5 foot amenity zone, that's like your planting strip, with street trees and so forth. A seven foot pedestrian walk zone, and, um, there are, the text says their minimum sidewalk layout guidelines, um, that the new development along the corridor will be required to follow guidelines for their frontage as a minimum, and expected to further enhance the pedestrian comfort and experience along with along the corridor with their on site designs, such as, oh, with their on site design, which is what the vice mayor was talking about, I think, that the kinds of things that the public speaker was requesting would be done when each site was developed. But I have the same concern that the speaker did, that maybe we're not doing enough in those cases, and that some of the things that she called out might, I would hope would be done, such as even wider sidewalks at some points. And the things that the speaker mentioned, covered walkways, other things, like double rows of trees or parks. I would really like to push, even if the, the plan itself could push people to really make those improvements as each one of the sites develop, I think, that I think there's some sites that are actually quite wide, and could easily take some of those improvements, and I, the developments that I've seen have not been mindful enough of those. And then my second comment is that, well, we got a good comment from a member of the public about additional ways to make sure that trees grow well along the corridor, and I was looking for it, and I couldn't find it, but I guess they're the planning wells that they could be addressed in a healthier way. And then my last one is that, um, on page 40, there's a section on, um, on planting strips, and it says that they should be 4 feet wide, and for an 8 foot sidewalk, et cetera. I would like them to also emphasize that they run as long, they should be created wherever possible in preference to purely hardscaped amenity strips, and that they should include native vegetation, as one of the speakers said, friendly to pollinators, native and ample vegetation. So those are some of the things that I think would make, I mean, I think it would enhance the wildlife habitat, which I think we don't even think of much on El Camino. And the pedestrian experience that I find lacking at this point. Thank you.

[04:14:58] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I agree with all of those comments. I do feel like it has improved since the first time we saw this in terms of the focus on pedestrian, but I feel like it could be even more to make it something that people would feel comfortable and actually want to walk on El Camino or on the sidewalks in El Camino. It's got a long ways to go before it's really nice. And I think a lot of the items, council member, Hicks mentioned, I would absolutely support doing. So do we need to incorporate that? into the motion to say we'd like more.

[04:15:43] Unknown Speaker: Yes, please. And I see a...

[04:15:45] City Staff: Yeah, we might. Like as much clarity as possible. Let's just clarity. This is final approval, so Council member Hicks had some specific suggestions on page 40, if that's the council's wishes, we can certainly incorporate that or the theme of that. Several of you made kind of generic comments about pedestrian experience, improvements. I don't know if there's a opening preamble or another place other than kind of just here on page 40 that maybe we can express it more thematically, see what staff thinks.

[04:16:24] City Staff: So, yes, one of the things we were hearing, starting with the 1st pedestrian experience, had to deal with the median refuge islands, and I think, you know, we can find in here a general location to talk about where they are feasible and possible. We would like to see them, um, reference the exact page, but if your emoji, you say that's something you want us to incorporate. We will go through and find the right place to put in, that that's something where it's feasible, as I said, that can be included. The issue of wider sidewalks, covered walkways, double rows of trees and parks. What we do need to remember is right now, what we have out there, we're limited right away. We have about eight feet behind the curb as existing condition. So we can barely get a tree well in and have four feet left, as the speaker said, for a clear sidewalk zone. And, in fact, we struggle with the bus shelters that VT puts out because they're in the sidewalks, as well, because there's not right away behind the sidewalk for them to put them in. The precise plan, specified that new development going in would be required to dedicate a 4 foot easement. The streetscape plan is not the tool by which any dedication requirements can be changed. That is, through the precise plan. So that four feet where we can get it brings us to 12 feet. And so, as noted here, that 12 feet, we can do a 4 or 5 foot wide planting strip, and in that case, more easily go beyond tree wells and do a more continuous planting strip. It's a little cautious when we only have eight feet by doing a continuous planting strip, because the nice advantage of tree whales is you can widen out your sidewalk between them when you only have eight feet to work with. But when we have 12 feet, now you can do that continuous planting strip, and focus on getting as wide as sidewalks as possible. But beyond that, to go wider, the covered walkways that might involve building overhangs, be able to go into double rows of trees or parks, actually now is going beyond even the 4 foot easement that would be required to be dedicated, so that would have to be something that would have to be worked out with developers. Some of it would more likely need to be voluntary because, you know, the precise plan sets out the development guide. The setbacks, they must follow all of that. And, um, so, as I think was said, as these development proposals come in, and that's why a statement was added to page 35 that says, um, you know, we would like, you know, these are minimum, and we want to encourage, and further enhance uh, the pedestrian comfort and experience on the quarter with on site design. It's time to say, let's do what we can as staff, to work with developers along there. In terms of, you know, the planting soils and how trees are planted, we can definitely share that with our forestry department. I know they work to always make sure that best practices are used to maintain the health of our trees and our vegetation. I don't think that has to be specifically referenced as streetscape plan. That's an expectation. And then, encouraging more native vegetation, ample vegetation, friendly pollinators, we can definitely add language in the planting palate that says that we want to encourage these types of plantings. Does that... Did you catch a couple others that we might build on?

[04:20:24] City Staff: So the other thing that was brought up earlier also was showing all the intersections with ladders, so we can, I think we can update the, make sure that that's in all of the images. And then for the pedestrian refuge islands, if they are wider than 5 feet, we could show that in the images as well.

[04:20:43] City Staff: That's most definite. We rarely have that at intersections, though, once you put in your turning lane. And we could add language about permeable paving for, so even if we have the 4 feet, or however wide it is, the existing sidewalk, with the other 4 feet, which is, would normally be part of the landscaping strip, maybe we can add language about potentially... We will pay. Again, I think already the plan already talks about permeable flavors. We can add more language to encourage looking at other options and advantages. You know, they present their own challenges in terms of maintenance, potentially, you know, if they don't stay perfectly even. You know, tripping hazards. So you want to be careful about where they're placed and they're placed appropriately. So, but we can make sure that the plan says encourages where it's feasible and works well to have permeable pavers.

[04:21:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: C remember Hicks.

[04:21:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, yes, I thought that once I brought those things up, you would say, you would say, you would ask me where you specifically would put them in. I appreciate the suggestion of putting in, I guess you said, with the plant palette, the additional verbiage on native vegetation and so forth. I also, I also thought you would say this is not the place to talk about wider pedestrian improvements, that are agreements that are made with the developers, but it does, as you said, say on page 35, new development along the corridor will be required to follow these guidelines for their frontage as a minimum. and expected to further enhance the comfort and experience along the corridor with their on site design. And I thought, well, first, I want to just open that conversation and make sure that it really happens even a little more than it currently has. And that maybe just a few words could be put in at that point to make sure that it does. So, for example, at the end of that, it could say, such as wider sidewalks, covered walkways, um, uh, linear parks, et cetera, just some suggestions to kind of push us in that direction of asking for a little more when those, because there are some places that where there really are ample opportunity to do a little more.

[04:23:23] City Staff: I think putting them in as potential examples would be acceptable, we just can't say that we would be requiring them.

[04:23:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yep. I understand that.

[04:23:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Obbe Koga?

[04:23:34] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so I wanted to comment on that, and I was jogging my memory about the, I think it's El Camino precise plan. It should be, that where we talked about the sidewalks, and, I don't know, I can't remember if it was when they go higher, for bonus FIR. We require things like sitting areas, plazas, this and that. So it's all in there. You know, whether it's, and we could probably change from hardscape to more greenscape. But it's all in there. So, um, I think um, I don't really think we have to add that much more language.

[04:24:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Shall I summarize? But I think we heard. Or is there a economy in agreement? So, I think, um, we need to see if, um, the summary of what would be added is good with the, uh, with council member, Kame, who made the motion, and then council member, Ramirez, who seconded it.

[04:24:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah. I'm comfortable. I guess I thought between the El Camino streetscape and the Alchemino precise plan, we would find a good way to merge kind of all of the things that were brought up. up here, um, together in the implementation as well as the Grand Boulevard initiative. I mean, I think there are many different plans that are, um, that can be referenced. So if the street safe doesn't trigger it. As a vice mirror mentioned, you know, the precise plan could trigger it. And so I think that we do have some checks and balances, but if there are specific things that we're concerned about that, we need to incorporate. I mean, I from a staff, I heard a really good summary. Um, And I would ask them of the summary of things that we brought forward being able to let us know what the feasibility is on that, right? Because some of those things are required either at the state level or the federal level. Um, so we can't necessarily ask for certain things, but, um, Did Steph want to summarize?

[04:25:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I can summarize what I have. Okay, so it would be approving the draft streetscape plan with a number of tweaks or whatever the technical term is, including showing ladder crosswalks at all, intersections, showing pedestrian refuge islands, and also the language that goes along with it, at medians wider than 5 feet, and the language that goes along with that, including native species and pollinators in the section on plant palette, including examples, such as covered walkways. And I think there might be a few other things in the section on page 35, and then also including language about permeable paving in the streetscape piece. That's the exact list I have. So you're okay with all this? Okay. Okay. Are we clear?

[04:26:29] Unknown Speaker: I think so. I think that's very clear yet.

[04:26:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Any other discussion on this? Okay, let's call the question. And that passes, uh, five to two with council member McAllister and Clark recused.

[04:26:57] Unknown Speaker: Just to be clear, it's five zero, two. Sorry, 502. Just to be clear.

[04:27:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for bearing with us while we dealt with the other topics first. Okay, on to item 10, which is council staff committee reports. Vice mayor Abi Kogo.

[04:27:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. This isn't a report, but I wanted to thank the mayor for adding the presentation at the beginning of the meeting for breast cancer awareness month, as you met some folks know I am a survivor going on my 3rd 3 years. And I wanted to thank our place in fire departments for their recognition. In addition, I wanted to just mention that the Mountain View Firefighters Random X, nonprofit will be putting on an event called Fit to Fight, which will be a yoga in Zumba, on the city Hall Plaza, on October 12th, in the morning from 8:30 to 1130. So, I hope folks will come out and do some exercise under the trees and the sky. Um, and celebrate, um, survivors and, um, those going through treatment, um, raise awareness, and, um, also, um, there'll be funds that raise will go to uh, cancer care point and Bay Area cancer connections, which are 2 of the, um, local cancer support nonprofits.

[04:28:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And I just have one regional board meeting to report, and that's the Silicon Valley Regional Interrobability Authority, that I attended last week, and great progress has been made in terms of putting together the infrastructure to support communications throughout the region for first responders. When something happens, like a fire in the hills, it's very difficult for our current, or most of the older communication systems, they just don't have the range and they can't operate. So they had to install infrastructure, the towers, so that communication could happen, among all of the different 1st responders, and everyone will be moving to the same system. So great progress has been made in the past year. And there's only a handful, I think it's 3 towers left, and they're very much on the way to being completed. So we should see this soon. Anything else? Okay, and is there a close session report?

[04:29:53] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There's no closed session report.

[04:29:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great, thank you. So, the next council meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 15th, 2019, at 5 p.m. in the Plaza Conference room, 500 Castro Street. We adjourned.

• ← Previous
• Next →