October 29, 2019 Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] (archive recording) Mayor Lisa Matichak: And start with roll call.

[00:00:04] (archive recording) City Clerk: All council members are present, except Council member McAllister, is right here in Vice member. All Cal's members are present.

[00:00:10] (archive recording) Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. So, first is a study session, and this is item 3.one options for responding to displacement. And since this is a steady session, we'll start with the staff presentation, and then we'll open it up for public comment, and then bring it back to council for questions and discussion. So we'll start with this day, the staff report.

[00:00:40] (archive recording) Staff Presenter: Thank you very much, mayor and counsel. This item is 3.1. Options for responding to this placement. The purpose of this item is to seek council input on potential strategies to respond to displacement. Brief background, last fiscal year, there were several residential projects that included demolition of older CSFRA apartments, had tenant displacement, and the replacement of those units were primarily new ownership units. During those hearings, counsel discussed immediate options for those tenants, as well as longer term options, such as modifying the tenant relocation assistance ordinance, and known that loss policy. Other items were brought up as well, whether cities have the ability to establish a moratorium, on certain projects, and the concept of acquiring, and or preserving naturally affordable units. The council in June of 2019 this year established its set of council major goals and the accompanying work plan for fiscal year 2019 to 21. There are a couple of goals on there that are related to housing. First is goal number one, which is about addressing and creating a community for all and includes protecting vulnerable populations and diversity in the city. And then goal 2 is about increasing the quantity and diversity and affordability of housing and there are a variety of items under that. Project one. one, which is under goal one was identified as a top priority. So far, staff have conducted research on potential strategies and best practices, we've talked with a variety of entities working on displacement issues. We've evaluated Mountain View and regional housing data to provide some context and better understanding of what is happening in Mountain View. And we've also analyzed the issue of local land use authority and what cities can and cannot do in terms of responding to displacement. Just some initial high-level considerations based on the research. Displacement is a complex and multifaceted issue, and can be caused in a variety of ways. There are limits on local land use authority, but cities can respond. The way cities can respond, there are different options, combinations of programs, and even within certain programs. There are different ways those programs can be a design set up. But one key component that has been identified is that funding really is needed for certain strategies, and we'll talk about that later. What is important for an effective strategy is that the different programs and policies work together, in an integrated way, and be thought through together, so that they were designed alongside each other for a comprehensive integrated approach. There are a few discussion topics for tonight. The first is local land use authority, and again, there's limited ability to deny conforming projects, or impose a moratorium. The where cities can do that is where there are significant findings that relate to public health and safety concerns. And recent state legislation has really been focused on production, and as a way to respond to the underproduction throughout the state that has occurred over the last several years. Additionally, the Ellis Act gives landlords the right to go out of the rental business, and those are commonly referred to as Ellis Act evictions when the landlord chooses to withdraw the units from the market and the tenants leaving from those units. The state does recognize the displacement issue, however. For example, the Ellis Act doesn't diminish or enhance the ability of cities to mitigate impacts of tenant displacement, so there are ways it acknowledges the ability for cities to respond regarding state density bonus law. That was modified just a few years ago to have a replacement requirement, if rent stabilized, or deed restricted units are displaced or demolished as part of projects, and seeking density bonus. And the recently passed SB330 prohibits approval of projects with known loss of units, and there is a replacement requirement in that law. Regarding data analysis, a couple of terms just to define, we're using CSFRA units in the report, in the presentation, to talk about existing CSFRA units, or units that would have been under CSFRA, had they existed, but they're now demolished. So just a way of shorthanding that. And then demolished units includes units that have been demolished or have been submitted as part of a formal application to be demolished, so as a way of shorthanding that. Part of a formal application. Between 2012 and 2019, there have been 32 residential projects with demolished units, totaling just over 1,000 units. They are essentially all older CSFRA units. They're mostly in the R3 zone, or in zones that reference R3 standards. All of those units were built in the 50s and '70s. So essentially 40 to 70 year old buildings. And the average size of those demolished buildings are about 32 units. In place of those demolished units are 2,400 total new units, for 1,400 net new units, and just a quick update in terms of the data of those 2,400 new units, 48% are new market rate rentals, 42% are new market rate ownership units, and 10% are BMR/affordable units. ownership units. Mount View has 35,000 residential units, 60% are rental units, and a significant number of those units are under rent stabilization. So 15,000 units, or 40% of the entire housing stock, are CSFRA units. Because the demolition units are essentially older, CSFR units, specifically, so... So of the existing stock, 91% of all CSFR units were built in the '50s, '60s and '70s. In terms of the parcel size, it does appear that the demolished properties are on smaller parcels, so we wanted to better understand the distribution of those units, on parcel sizes. So in the shaded green, those are the number of units on acre, on a parcel size that is one acre or less. The shaded purple slices are the number of units between one to four acres. And for the orange shaded slices, Those are the number of units on parcels that are four acres or more. So about one third, one third, and one third split. In terms of the sales transactions, staff analyzed multifamily sales data between 1989 and 2019 over a 30 year period. On average, the annual number of transactions are 20 properties comprising about 460 units. The per unit sales amount, uh, increased from about $70,000 per unit, so about a $70,000 per unit, so about a 7 and a half time increase. It appears that the rate of CSFA multifamily transactions declined after 2017 and are actually lower than a neighboring city as well. The rate of transactions in a variety of neighboring cities actually increased after 2017. And the majority of sold properties do end up remaining as rentals, but all redeveloped properties were sold to developers. Based on the analysis and on staff's research, and the complexity of the issue, staff is putting forward some recommended key principles to guide the work, as part of next steps. They include a multi-prominent integrated strategy so that different components work together. It'd be a broad based strategy that includes both mitigating the impacts of displacement and preventing displacement. It would be a collaborative and multisectoral approach. Not one agency or one sector can solve this issue by itself. The data shows that this is really a tenant issue. So tenant focused is part of the key principles. And to have the work include exploration of both unit and place based responses so that the goal would be to allow tenants to stay in their unit or maybe get into those replacement units. But if not that, to be able to stay in the city of Mountain View, because it has been an expressed concern as well. So the first question is, does council agree with staff's key principles for displacement response strategy? So to the strategy itself, we start with the fact that the city does have various existing and pending city programs that relate to displacement in some way. There is the community stabilization Fair Rent Act, that is currently in the process of being drafted for potential amendments for council consideration. The city has the existing Trao, relocation assistance ordinance. City does have a condo conversion ordinance. There hasn't been many of those in the past. There's the short term rental assistance program, and there's also the mobile home rent stabilization work that is on the council, major goal is work plan as well. Stabilization. Staff is recommending six priority policies and programs for further work and evaluation. The first is an acquisition preservation program. So this concept has been discussed in a variety of ways, in a variety of settings, and one way to maintain the units as to acquire them. The acquired units could be preserved. They could be rehabbed, maybe depending on the condition of the quality of those properties. But there could also be the opportunity to be able to leverage funding into new affordable housing with a goal of having no permanent displacement. Maybe there's temporary displacement. Maybe there was construction happening. It would be very important to identify potential partners. There are a lot of aspects to this program, and this is just presented here as a higher level program. Considering establishing acquisition goal, for example, maybe it could be a pilot program, maybe it's 100 units, from initial conversations, it appears that having a goal, such as that, can really help drive the conversation for pulling in funding, or getting implementation partners, because folks understand that a local jurisdiction, understands the goals and the outcomes it's trying to achieve, and it's easier to people to facilitate a conversation, to get implementation partners for a program. It does seem like there would need to be a sizable funding source and ideally it would be flexible. Current public funds, do have certain restrictions for public policy purposes, such as certain AMI levels, but that may not be as responsive to addressing displacement entirely. Some initial conversations suggest that the per unit acquisition subsidy could range from 125,000 to 250, just based on property values. And this does not necessarily include the rehab cost, if there is a rehab cost. The second program is a displacement mitigation program and to evaluate requirements for market rate residential projects that include demolition of existing rental units. So we would explore a known that loss provision, but also a replacement provision for those situations that include demolition, rent stabilized units, and or deed restricted units. We will look at some various compliance options, as well as a first rate of return. And there are a few mechanisms that Sabbath come across, but need to understand more and do some more evaluation, but there does seem to be at least three different types of mechanisms by which mitigation program could be implemented. Staff did identify a modification of the trail for potentially enhanced benefits. So that would be included as a next step. It is recommended that it be conducted concurrently with a previous program, because that would allow us to look at the package as a whole, and identifying the benefits alongside replacement requirements as well. This would likely include stakeholder meetings to get feedback about how the program could be modified. The goal is to bring a modified trail, to counsel for consideration before the end of the fiscal year, but we would still have to determine the timing of that and finalize that based on how the other components of this six prong program looks like. The landlord rental set aside program, was a concert that has come up through research and talking with some folks about potentially finding property owners who could set aside existing rental units in the city. That would allow displaced tenants to either reside there temporarily, for example, while the original site is demolished and then rebuilt, and it could be paired with a first rate of return so that those displaced tenants could return to the original site in a new unit. But it could potentially be a longer term solution for displaced tenants, as well, if they, for example, choose not to return and like to stay in those rental set aside units. For this to work, we would need to meet with major property owners and potential partners, to evaluate the feasibility of this program, and the components of that design. But this concept has come up in a variety of discussions. Attendant selection preference, it does seem that there is the ability to allow for a preference for displaced tenants, to go into BMR, affordable housing waiting list, and they move to the top, but we would still need some additional evaluation to make sure that it is complying, for example, with federal fair housing laws, or any HUD requirements. And finally, there may be the need to modify certain city regulations or policies to establish a regulatory framework, to make sure that we're complying with state law, but also the ability to have that regulatory framework, be a way where it can lay the foundation for an overall displacement response strategy. This is how the strategy could work, just as an illustrative example. So, there's an existing apartment that's sold for demolition or redevelopment, the tenants vacate, but they receive enhanced relocation assistance, and maybe they can take that relocation assistance and move into one of the rental set aside units. On a separate and parallel track, the project goes to the entitlement and building permit process. The building is demolished. And then rebuilt with brand new units with required replacement, set of units. Those displaced tenants would then be able to have a first rite of return and be able to occupy those newly built units. and be able to occupy. Question 2 is, does council support the above party set of programs and policies for displacement response to the strategy? The next steps would require conducting additional research, initiating public outreach, holding discussions with potential implementation partners, to understand specific program design, elements, and to participate in peer networks that would allow for information sharing, technical assistance, and information sharing to design and build these programs. And with the goal of returning to council, to consider a displacement response strategy in Q2 of next year. This is the summary of questions, and that concludes staff's presentation.

[00:15:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. As I said earlier, since this is a study session, well, open it up for public comment. Can I see a show of hands of how many folks want to address the council on this topic? Okay. Each speaker will have three minutes. And we did have a request from one group to... And we did have a request from one group. Oh, it's back. That was weird. My microphone went off for a minute. Although, I am a little bit under the weather, so my voice might have gone off. What? So, um, did you guys want to go first? So, uh, the Steve Sullivan from Housing Industry Foundation ask for extra time, and you have the cards.

[00:16:12] Steve Sullivan: Okay, thank you. So, where would that be? How many minutes will be allotted?

[00:16:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry?

[00:16:19] Steve Sullivan: How many minutes?

[00:16:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, so, since speakers have three minutes, uh, you'll have up to 10 minutes.

[00:16:26] Steve Sullivan: Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you for your time, and thanks for having us here today. Thanks for presentation. Thanks again, everyone, for having us here. The Housing Industry Foundation has been in the region for just about 30 years, and our main mission is to prevent homelessness. Um, we... primarily serve San Mateo in Santa Clara counties, and in that time, we've assisted over 20,000 households, via our emergency assistant grants, and this is in the form of paying a security deposit, a month's rents, if they are in a financial crisis, we build a bridge over that financial crisis to help keep them in their homes. We also renovated over 100 area shelters, to help them expand their capacity, improve their service, raising money for capital improvements, and the shelter system is very challenging, so we feel a specific need there. And we've been doing both of those programs pretty robustly for the last 30 years. In 2019, we began a pilot program, which we're calling currently our affordable housing initiative. Oh, pardon me, let me back up. These are some of our community partners in the region that we work with through emergency assistance in a renovation program. They refer folks to us for assistance. We do projects with them, an ongoing basis. And as you can see, we work with quite a range of, this is just a sample of the community agencies that we work with. As I mentioned, we, in this past year, launched a new initiative to try and help with displacements from redevelopment, and also putting a bit of an emphasis on teachers, and nonprofit work as another community workers, folks that we refer to as the glue of the community. trying to help connect them to affordable housing. We're focusing on folks in the MI range of 50 to 80%, although we occasionally will work with applicants, just below 50% or just above, depending on their financial situation. their debt, their overall financial picture. But we are connecting them with units that have been set aside. So our goal is to help get them in a unit that is closer to their job, to be able to stay in their community that they live in, or nearby, so we can keep them close to where they work and close to where their children are in school. And to that end, in Mountain View, we have been wanting to launch the program here as well. So we've met with Dan Rich and Wayne, to try and begin, to build relationships here in the city, to try and expand this program in Mountain View. We work with regional housing, providers that we will reach out to to set aside units for us. And primarily, we've placed 21 individuals and families into... units. As you can see, the majority of our units currently are on the San Mateo County, Santa Clara County area, and we have a few in San Mateo County. This is primarily the San Jose region. But we are looking to expand here in Mountain View. We have half over half of our placements are in the education sector. The other, roughly, the other half are from the nonprofit sectors, who are miscellaneous working families. And our goal is to help them save at least $14,000 to $15,000 a year and rent, and then comes out to about $1,200, $1,300 a month. in savings. For an annualized savings for at least 21 families currently at about $400,000 a year. So that is, I know that was quite quick, so I'd like to take any questions that you have, but our goal, as I said, is to try and develop some units set asides here and develop relationships with the city. We've been meeting with different folks in the city. I met with Alex Nuñoz, trying to reach out to the community to try and understand the issues, and to develop more relationships met with the Wisdom School District as well. So we want to get more applicants, so we can begin to demonstrate demand here, and then connect them with, hopefully, some set asides that we can develop over the next couple months, and into next year. Hopefully some set asides that we can develop.

[00:21:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. We do have some questions for you. Council member Ramirez.

[00:21:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Steve, for your presentation. Just a couple of quick questions. Um, so this, this strikes me as, uh, uh, quite, uh, similar to the landlord rental syndicide program that's described in the report, so it could, it could mesh very well with the displacement response that we're crafting, just to give us a sense of how the program works. Where do you get the displaced folks or sort of the perspective tenants from, how are they referred to you?

[00:21:47] Steve: Yeah, so one way, the agencies that I showed earlier, a lot of those agencies refer folks to us. We do a lot of outreach into the community, meet with school districts, meet with individual schools. by hook or crook, currently. We're kind of in the cold call stage with a lot of the communities are working, with just reaching out, doing outreach. And as I mentioned earlier, trying to begin to develop relationships here, so we can, you know, build a bridge to the community, into some of the tenants here that might be good applicants for this program. And so it's a variety of ways. It's, you know, more structured and institutional, and also individual relationships that we're developing, expanding our network. So at this point, where whatever works we're looking into.

[00:22:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And you've reached out to the school districts that surf mountains.

[00:22:35] Steve: Whistman, yeah, we met with Whistman. We had an open house with them a few weeks back, about 16 teachers came. Today, we did a conference call with another 15 to 16 teachers. And by the way, it's open to the education sector, in the private sector. And again, we'd hope to expand that to other first responders, the healthcare sector. And as we mentioned, working with this place, tennis due to redevelopment, that's an area that we want to focus on as well.

[00:23:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then for the number of units you're able to reserve, how many rental property owners are you working with, and roughly how many units, do you think you're able to sort of set aside for this kind of program?

[00:23:11] Steve: Currently, outside of Mound View, as they said, we're not currently in Mound View, we're working on it, but regionally, we've got about 40 to 50 units set aside in the pilot phase, throughout the region. We're working with up to 20 developers, excuse me, property managers, and owners. And we hope to grow that as well. We're working and growing that. The more applicants that we can assemble, the more of a wait list we can build, the more demand we can demonstrate, the more we can secure more units.

[00:23:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then since most of these units are market rate, A lot of the folks that you're serving, you know, probably couldn't afford the market rates at least not for a sustained period of time. So, how is the program funded? How do you help subsidize these folks?

[00:23:57] Steve: So, um, the units are donated to us? From the develop, from the property managers, they're developed. Donated to us. We also have our own budgets that we used to pay for this, but, you know, we need to develop. We need to expand our funding in that regard as well, to help with subsidizing in future years, and also to help build our staff and our infrastructure to be able to grow and expand the program.

[00:24:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And last question, how can we be helpful to you?

[00:24:27] Steve: I think, as I mentioned, helping us to develop relation? Ships, hoping to support us, getting the word out, helping us to build our wavelist of applicants, helping us to connect with any levers of financial support that we might be out of leverage, primarily in those ways. That's really what we need most.

[00:24:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, that's all.

[00:24:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abigoga.

[00:24:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thanks for being here for your presentation. Um, so, you mentioned, is your program exclusively for teachers and nonprofits at this time?

[00:25:02] Steve: Oh, no.

[00:25:03] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So you are...

[00:25:03] Steve: We're putting an emphasis on that. The idea was brought to us by one of our, uh, someone in our network that had a son whose teacher had to leave the region, so he's really passionate about trying to help teachers, but, no, we, we would never exclusively, uh, focus on teachers or non private workers, but we are putting in a bit of an emphasis on that.

[00:25:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, we've had a couple of projects where we've had some displaced tenants, um, can the, for redevelopment. So, the developers, um, could they contact you, too?

[00:25:36] Steve: Absolutely.

[00:25:37] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: For assistance?

[00:25:38] Steve: Absolutely. Yeah, we want folks reaching out to us from every direction. We want to gather as much information as we can.

[00:25:45] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And then, um, you mentioned the landlords donate the units. So, um, is there any kind of incentive, or other than their charitable giving, I guess, but, um, do they, uh, are the units set aside for, like, a limited amount of time, or is there some kind of, um, you know, subsidy to just keep them open or anything?

[00:26:12] Steve: Oh, they? Oh, they are donating them from a charitable standpoint. It's also units that they might not have, they're not being rented, for whatever reason. They have a supply that they have not yet filled, or they are specifically setting aside units for us. You know, we, the goal of having... reason we to have a larger wait list, I need to be more applicants is that when a unit does come online and just donate it to us. We want to be able to make that match as quickly as possible, because they'll donate the news and let us try to fill them, but, you know, they can only have us hold on to them for so long. So our goal is to try and fill that unit within three to six weeks. Sometimes it's longer. But if it gets much beyond that, it gets a little harder to hang out.

[00:26:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sure. Yeah, that was my question. Concern is how long can you keep an apartment, you know, vacant? Especially, like, in a tight market like ours, I think our challenge is more finding units than tenants.

[00:27:14] Steve: Absolutely.

[00:27:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So how do you incentivize?

[00:27:17] Steve: Yeah, absolutely, yeah. I mean, we have relationships that go back along, a long time. And we are, you know, this is the our industry's response to, you know, this challenge, and wanting to participate in a solution to this challenge. So, they're committed to it, and more and more folks are committed to it. We do have to, you know, be efficient with it. So, as I said, the bigger the wait list, the more opportunities we have to connect folks. And you're right, it is a timing issue, because someone may apply, but they're not ready to leave their apartment, their lease is not yet up, and the unit might be available, so the more applicants we have, the more match we can, easier we can make. the match.

[00:27:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And then, finally, I think you had another slide on your emergency assistance program. Is that tied to the set aside units, or is it a completely separate?

[00:28:09] Steve: It can be. We've had examples of these families that we've helped currently. We've had a few that we helped with security deposits. We help them with moving costs. In some cases, we, you know, help... We just want to make sure they get into the unit effectively.

[00:28:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you very much.

[00:28:24] Steve: You're welcome.

[00:28:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[00:28:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Thanks for coming. So, thank you. Are your guidelines that if somebody is displaced in one county, that, or whatever, let me, whatever funds you receive or donated units, do the people that live in that proximity get first crack at it, or do you say, Well, we have this, you have an option to go to another area.

[00:28:50] Steve: Yeah, we're trying to make the, to be honest, we're trying to make the best match based on where the family is living, where their jobs, I said earlier, where their job is, where those kids are going to school. Ideally, if, if, for instance, if we work them out, Ideally, we get enough units donated Mountain View, that we can keep families in Mountain View, if not, you know, close by Sunnyvale, nearby. But, um, we wanna, our goal is to try and reduce the stress on the family, um, not only the financial stress, but also the commute, and having to live so far from their job. So it's, you know, it's fairly flexible if someone can make the commute to another county. We have no real limitations in terms of that. Our goal is to keep them near where they're living, correct?

[00:29:32] Councilmember John McAlister: So, then, somebody, if your wait list crosses county borders, you don't necessarily, if there's a better match with somebody down the line, I mean, it's their priority, so something opens up in Mountain View, and you go down your list, and then you might be 20th on the wait list, would they get a priority over somebody that's number one or two?

[00:29:52] Steve: You know, well, to be honest, we haven't had a wait list yet, so we're going to cross that bridge and we get to it, but... For us, it's about making the best match. And so, if it makes sense for the family, if the unit is about to, if we're about to lose that unit, we want to try and preserve that unit. So, I anticipate, we'll try to make the best match, but give, you know, be mindful and cognitive of the fact how long someone's been on that wait list.

[00:30:18] Councilmember John McAlister: And I notice some of the organizations you work with do similar things that you do. I mean, is there... What do you do that some of the, like, CSA gives emergency assistance, helps, and so forth? So, are we potentially dividing our money to all these other sources versus saying, Well, here's the biggest bang for a buck if we give it to one group. So what makes your organization get the money versus some of these other organizations that do similar things?

[00:30:47] Steve: Well, you know, we do partner with a lot of those organizations on this very issue in terms of emergency assistance. So we work with, uh, a lot of different organizations that are doing, to your point, doing similar work, we often talk to them, we often coordinate and share, you know, some of our challenges, so we're pretty collaborative with them. But I think with us is perhaps the speed in which we can turn around the assistance, our goal is to try and get some of the assistance as quickly as possible. And then with this new initiative, the goal is, again, we're not there yet, but the goal will be to get folks relocated into a new unit as quickly as possible. So I think there's many similarities to the different organizations that are providing the support. We're pretty lean. It's just myself and one other staff, hopefully more soon. But we are pretty nimble and can respond pretty quickly to when things come up and when applicants come to us.

[00:31:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[00:31:40] Steve: You're welcome.

[00:31:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, remember, Hicks?

[00:31:45] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Hi, thank you. I've been perusing your website, browsing it while you were talking to us, and you have an impressive list of donors, almost every everybody in the housing industry I can think of, although I haven't been able to double check it. How long have you been operating?

[00:32:03] Steve: 30 years.

[00:32:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: 30 years. And, um, so this is kind of the, your housing industry foundation, this is the industry's response to the affordable housing problem. And, um, how many, uh... I mean, you're getting 30, $40,000 from multiple, multiple organizations, how many people are you currently serving?

[00:32:28] Steve: So we serve about 400 people a year with emergency assistance? We do anywhere from three to five renovations, at least two of them being significant renovations, And currently, as I said, we've placed about 20 plus people in the new initiative that we're currently operating. So our goal is to expand. The number of people we're assisting, we want to expand this program that we're here today to talk about. We'd like to double it, if not more, in 2020. So the goal is to... I was brought on this year to help expand our mission, help deepen our impact.

[00:33:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you.

[00:33:03] Steve: You're welcome.

[00:33:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, I don't see any more people in the queue, so thank you very much. Thank you.

[00:33:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So thank you very much. Next please.

[00:33:18] Public Speaker: Thanks, please. Let me... I've been, uh, render and resident of Manton View for 11 years. I would like to thank, um, the city council for taking up this issue, and bumping up the forefront. The memo presented by city staff is an excellent blueprint to solve, like, 10 on this place, and I would like, thanks, city staff, too. I would like to make some points about how it could be enhanced. There should be, like, a three pronged approach, tenon protection, a four double housing preservation, an affordable housing reduction. On tenant product, protection, a tenant right to purchase, will go a long way, whereby a rendstabilized property that comes up for sale, should be offered first to the tenants, then to the city, and finally to the commercial real estate market. On a four double housing preservation. I urge the council to be aggressive with a land banking tool, suggested by the memo, to preserve existing affordable rental stock, which can be rehabilitated or rebuilt, a little expense, or less cost, than new construction. Think about the carbon footprint, the new construction requires, versus preserving existing rental stock, and increasing even density, based on existing stock. Again, before any displacement occurs. Ramp up the activity during our sessions. Mountain View is already doing this on a very limited scale, and I refer to the Dana 996 property. on affordable housing production. Right now, there is an imbalance between the amount of affordable housing that is built versus an affordable housing that requires everybody to hand over the equivalent value of a new Mercedes every 12 months. And over, for the privilege to live in one use. The problem can be addressed by, for example, introducing break controlled provisions. like San Jose already does for new development projects. The other I measure that you can attach is bringing in nonprofit developers. Usually they are advantage, because of access to capital and resources that are competing with market, right, developers. I urge you to level the playing field by adopting sound fiscal policies. Access to housing should be an equal opportunity affair. everybody should have a shot. As affordable housing, only low income, med income, and the missing middle, and so on. When it's time to take decisions, be bold, not just bold. But these Silicon Valley. We all love this city, and we can build a better and sustainable mountain view while preserving is diversity. Thank you very much.

[00:36:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any folks can remember to turn in a blue card before or after you speak with the city clerk. That would be great. Thank you.

[00:36:30] Amanda: Good evening. My name is Amanda. Um, I just want to first thank you all for giving this topic the consideration. It deserves. I really appreciate that. Um, there's a couple things that I just wanted to bring up and point out. Um, we have some really great eviction policies for the city. I've seen a bunch from other cities before they put them in place. And I've seen some friends who've beneficted in cities where they don't have great policies. And to me, I'm just glad to know that those policies are there for me, and I hope we can keep those and maintain those as part of a displacement plan with all the multi prong approach that it looks like the report has. The 2nd is there is a need for a broad workforce here in the area. I'm a tech worker, but I am not an engineer, by any means. And there's a lot of low and midwage workers, they cover the gambit of receptionists, janitors, day porters, maintenance, you know, facilities, people, and we need great policies that keep those people close to their jobs and here in Mountain View. I think it was a SF article recently that basically started comparing, you know, janitors to engineers and how approximately half of the jobs created in this area are really low wage jobs. So it would be wonderful to see some of the policies and the ideas that have come out of the report be there in order to support these low wage workers, midway workers and keep people here in this area and not displacing them, and forcing them to move super far away, commuting 3 or 4 hours just to get to a really low wage job here. Again, thank you for your time, and thank you for considering this all of this in the report.

[00:38:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Next place. Thank you. Next place.

[00:38:29] Nicholas: Hi, My name is Nicholas. I live at one of those units that we're talking about. I lived in Mountain View before, well, when I was 11, I'm 43 now, so... a long time. And I love this city. We moved to San Jose for a few years. We didn't like the area, and we decided to move back to Mountain View because we left this area, me and my wife, and my three kids. We moved to Sierra Vista, and the landlord there was raising the rent, like, every two, three months. And so I said, you know what? It's time to move out. So, luckily, I found a good place on San Luis, which was really affordable. I think at that time, I believe it was 1250 to $1,250. Awesome. Best place I could live in, a Ford that I could afford, obviously. Awesome. And, you know, I lasted there two years before they decided to demolish it. And I didn't hear anything about displacement or what the city is talking about or what the people that are trying to knock down the buildings. You know, it would have been great if I had heard that, because it sounds wonderful, but, you know, well, it really happened, you know, like, we hear all these stories about, like, the Native Indians getting kicked out, because of false promises and stuff. I don't want to be Indians. One of them also, you know, like, it sounds great, so, um, I would really love it if you... These people here can keep their words, and if the city can enforce it somehow. It sounds great. I really, I'm kind of looking forward to it, but well, it happened. And if I do get kicked out, you know, will I be able to still have managed to afford housing here in Mountain View? My kids go to Los Altos High School. It's a great school. I went there myself. They went to Cretenton school. I have an eighth grader now there. I couldn't school. It's a grade school there, even though I went to Gram. But it's a great school, and I'm actually coaching there too. I coach track and field, and I love coaching. And I love to continue doing that kind of stuff. And, you know, I love this city. Thank you for taking your time, to work on this project. And we hope for the best, and I know you guys are doing a great job, so I hope everybody can continue on this. If it happens, it happens, but thank you for your good work, ladies and gentlemen. Appreciate your call.

[00:41:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place. Thank you. Next please.

[00:41:08] Michael Chase: I'd like to thank the council for taking up is the most important issue. My name is Michael Chase, and I've been living in Mountain View for 32 years. What I want to discuss is, um, the unsustainability of the current trend of this, of, um, displacement. And I believe it's having similar effects as gentrification in other cities. Displacement is defined by the urban displacement project, quote, the process by which a household is forced to move from its residence or is prevented from moving into a new neighborhood that was previously accessible to them because of conditions beyond their control, end quote. Gentrification is described as a process of neighborhood change that includes economic change in a historically disinvestment, neighborhood by means of real estate investment, and new higher income residents moving in, as well as demographic change, not only in terms of income level, but also in terms of changes in education level and racial makeup of residence. The real estate investment, causing displacement in Mountain View through demolition of rental housing is having the same results as gentrification. Demographically, the same groups are disproportionately affected, racial minorities, working class, poor and working poor. This placement here is bound to mirror the effects of gentrification, neighborhoods, in cities around the Bay Area, where cost of living, especially in terms of housing, causes residents to leave the region or the state. causing a reduction in diversity of both racial and economics. reduction and diversity of both racial and economics. Excuse me, so Santa Clara County may be the beating heart of the tech world. Many middle and low wage workers reside here. According to the state employment department, The top five fastest growing occupations in the state between 2016 and 2026 account for $33,000 of the 126,950 projector, new jobs. Only one occupation software developer, with 12,410 new jobs projected, is in the high range high wage category. The remainder, 20,590, are all low wage. While a software engineer can afford market rate housing. It's educated, for example, cannot being paid almost less than half of what a software engineer would be paid. Working class, in terms of teachers, transportation workers, food service workers, and people employed in retail, or at risk of being displaced, as discontinues, so, too, will the intensifying labor shortage.

[00:44:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place. Thank you. Next place.

[00:44:20] Diego Paredes: All right. So, um, Diego Paredes, I live in one of the units, which is in 2491, but you drive, and I live in apartment 8, and I would just like to give the perspective as a teenager. So, I've noticed recently that big tech companies, I've been trying to kill two birds with one stone. Um, they've been helping their workers live near their job and also reduce the carbon emission being released into the by doing that. But from this process, they're also dislocating people like us from where we live to build new homes, apartments, and condos. Which, at some point, we're gonna have to move out of the area because everything's too expensive. But most of us won't want to leave the area because of our jobs. We won't get paid enough like we do here, or bosses won't, in other areas, won't like to hire people in their middle age, because they can hire someone younger. So most of us will have to drive from where we move to, which could be an hour to an hour drive, or a two hour drive. And from this, it still contributes to global climate change. Something that big tech companies think they're reducing, but doesn't see it under the nose. Therefore, I want to know if the city of Mountain View has solutions to keep the low class in the city that they work in, which I saw from the presentation, that they do. And so, but I want to see more of that. I've heard reports that lists from low income housing range from 500 to about a 1000 families. And recently, I've seen new apartments being built in San Antonio Road and West El Camino Run. But how come those aren't being proposed or built currently to serve for the lower class? Why isn't there a law where owner, or the owner of the apartments can make 10 or 30% of those units affordable to the lower class residents? Why isn't there a solution like this? This is wedge discrimination. They're destroying rent control apartments, so people with higher wages can move in. It's unfair. But what I've learned is that being poor isn't a...

[00:46:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[00:46:10] Diego Paredes: It's unfair. What I've learned is that being bored.

[00:46:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: you. Next place.

[00:46:17] Bruce England: Hello? Bruce England for Wisman Station Drive, for Mount View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. We submitted a comment letter, so I'll keep this relatively short. We thought the staff report was very well done. Very thorough and well reasoned. So we strongly support it. Well done. And I just want to mention that Wayne met with our organization earlier this month, and that was very helpful to us to understand all the issues and challenges. And as it says in the staff report, addressing displacement meets several of the goals that you have currently, about the council goals. So we'll help with that. We also think that, ultimately, what's needed is more housing. So displacement is something that has to be addressed because it's really a problem. But ultimately, we need more housing. And we'd like to see some of the R3 and MM zones in particular looked at for adding housing in the city, and that's mentioned in our letter, too. Our organization has been working on safe parking, and we're currently trying to identify private property lots, where we might be able to expand safe parking. But again, that's a stopgap measure to address the larger issue of inadequate amount of housing. So we urge you to vote, yes, on the two questions that staff has put before you, that we can proceed from there. Thank you very much.

[00:47:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks, bye. Bye.

[00:47:49] Mitch Manikin: Sorry, you'll have to pardon me. I am getting over a cold, so may not sound quite as I should. So, thank you, council members, for the opportunity to speak night. My name's Mitch Manikin. I'm here from Silicon Valley at home. Uh, the boys, you'll feel... Sorry. The Voice of Affordable Housing in Silicon Valley. Man, I can't even talk today. We are here to express strong support for the principles and strategies that are represented in the staff report. This is clearly really pressing issue. People... Don't have a place to go when they're homes are demolished. Prices are rising too fast, so we really appreciate the effort that staff's put into this, and the effort to develop something that's really integrated and comprehensive. The staff report that we saw identifies a range of strategies that they provide immediate solutions, but also think about structural changes that support long term affordability and equity. To us, this looked, it's a really important, this becomes not a menu of options, but more an integrated pragmatic policy solution that works together. Each piece of it is a standalone response wouldn't be sufficient, but the myriad forms the crisis can be addressed together as part of these strategies that address each other's blind spots. There's lots of examples of this. For example, the right to return only really works if people have a place to stay in the meantime. So their strategies to address that. Temporary state programs only work if they're somewhere to come back to in the end. So there needs to be creation of new affordable units as well. In the same way that increased trail benefits help for a short period of time, but once again, only work if there's an apartment to come back to at some point that has low rent. Another example is that acquiring and preserving buildings causes much less disruption to people's lives than having to move and live somewhere else temporarily, but it's also heavier lift, so it makes sense to have other programs that help in the meantime. There are so many interactions and reinforcements that wouldn't fit into the time we have, but we think that giving a staff direction to explore all these possibilities and support all these principles. It means that they can also explore collaborations with other groups that can help fund or implement some of the solutions. We heard from some of them today already. And it takes a village to rest of the crisis. So flexibility and direction of staff is really key, so we can find creative, innovative solutions that are appropriate to Silicon Valley City. So thank you very much. We support the staff report in its entirety.

[00:50:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a couple of questions for you. Council member, McAllister.

[00:50:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, thank you for coming and your persistence in advocating for the affordable housing. So you read it and mentioned a lot of concerns and solutions. And so I've asked you on a few occasions, that you are part of the solution, that your members are part of the solution. They can... buy these units, they can build these units, they can address it. So how are you making out with asking your members and your supporters to be part of the solution, and to pay for these, all these things that you were talking about, to build their own workforce housing, to buy additional units, and to do that. So how has progress been made on your part?

[00:51:03] Public Speaker: So, we figured this would be a great opportunity for this, because... Staff is essentially prosing a program where the city acquires these units, and preserves them that is affordable. So once that program resists, it's possible to get funding from all kinds of sources to support that effort, and make sure that there are ways to, that everyone in the community is contributing in, to make sure that people can stay in the community.

[00:51:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, have any of your members stepped up yet to contribute to not pool money, but actually take on a project of their own, to increase the housing stock.

[00:51:36] Public Speaker: I mean, I would be somewhat worried about corporations owning housing as opposed to the city, I think, in terms of equity. It makes sense for the city to go through with the program. Yeah, as soon as it's programmed to support, I hope that people will sign on to support it. Okay. But, yeah, riding for a direction to continue on this will mean that this program can be created, and then they'll be...

[00:52:00] Councilmember John McAlister: I appreciate you going back to your members and asking them to step up. That would be helpful for the solutions. Thank you. Yeah.

[00:52:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Nice, Mayor. How big of it?

[00:52:08] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, thanks for being here. I guess I wanted to follow along the lines of council member McAllister's question and be a little, dig a little, dive a little deeper. So, I've seen your tweets and posts about the funding that certain companies have been providing towards housing. How much of that is towards this issue of displacement, or have you discussed that with these member companies of yours as a part of the solution for affordable housing? And as a part of...

[00:52:45] Public Speaker: So, um, I'm trying to think of what are good examples of this. I think one of the really tough parts of creating a program, for example, the 1st option here, or the 1st policy here, is that there's not enough funding for nonprofits and other affordable developers to actually acquire these buildings, especially if they're computation with market rate developers. So it's really helpful. For example, the housing trust provides a lot of the bridge funding that exists. So a lot of the time, if you see things on Twitter, it's often us sharing, people have contributed, for example, the tech fund, there are a lot of good initiatives that are going forward that are sort of along the same lines. But I would say actually that mountain views, sweet, I guess I'd say, are programs here, is one of the most comprehensive that I've seen, and it could be really exciting to see that, whichever way it's funded, happen.

[00:53:44] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, I guess my question is, you know, we, we, sure, we can create the programs, but as you've heard, and the HIF gentleman has mentioned, it's a question of resources. And your organization seems to be, you know, at least you take credit for getting the companies to fund affordable housing initiatives. So my question is, you know, can we get your, your cooperation, your partnership, and getting some of those funds into these programs, because, you know, this is also part of affordable housing or housing preservation. And, you know, I see the $500 million here and a billion there. And, you know, my question has been, when are we, Mountain View, gonna get some of that, because we are working really hard to, you know, create the programs and initiatives. But at the end of the day, we need the resources. So that's my question I posed to you and your organization. Will you help us get some of that grant money to help us fund these programs?

[00:54:50] Public Speaker: Yeah, so we already talked to staff about ways that potentially we can help out. once this sort of is set in motion. It sort of needs direction to go forward, so the programs can be fleshed out and a lot of mortgage which can be done. But yeah, certainly. I mean, it's something we could do. We can try it.

[00:55:05] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I'd like to commit a stronger commitment. So whatever it takes, you know, if we have to talk to your boss or whoever, that's fine. I'd like to see a commitment, thanks.

[00:55:15] Public Speaker: Yeah, it... At any point, when there's a program to fund, we can certainly look for funding for it, but before it exists, it's kind of hard.

[00:55:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Councilman, come in.

[00:55:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Thank you. One of the things that I know the SV at home, it's a 501 C3, right? Designation. And so, for the earlier speaker, with the Housing Industry Foundation, their list of partner agencies consists of a lot of other 501 C 3 organizations. And I know that, um, casework is probably not, hasn't been part of the portfolio of SV at home, but I think what you're hearing from my colleagues is perhaps, in perhaps interest in, um, going a step further from advocacy to ways that we, um, some actionable items. And so I'd be interested in SV at home participating as a partner agency in some of these programs that we're starting to hear and talk about. And I think it could take things a set further, when bringing up concerns about displacement on how we can all partner together to be part of the solution. So I think, you know, I'd be interested in hearing back from you if your organization would be interested in doing things like this, being a partner agency and other things like that.

[00:56:39] Public Speaker: So you're correct to say that we're not, we don't have case management capability on staff that know how to do that. really a pretty small organization or about 10 folks who are all focused in policy and sorts of things, as opposed to, for example, doing case management. Right. So we're definitely different from HIF. We don't really have capacity to do that. But certainly worth supporting organizations that do that as well.

[00:57:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And I wonder if part of it can be just funneling people to certain different groups that kind of do more of that work, right? And so what has SV at home done in terms of being a conduit towards putting people in touch with more resources if they aren't able to provide it themselves.

[00:57:25] Public Speaker: Sorry, I'm a little confused. So you don't as we as we at home.

[00:57:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: It does not do, for example, case management. And so, um, I understand that your model is different than the housing industry foundation, and a lot of these partner agencies, they have a variety of different services that they provide. I, one, am interested in if you would, if SV at home, would be interested in doing something like becoming a partner agency. And two, if people come to you with questions about displacement. What are the things your organization does to help provide people or point people in the direction of services, if you don't provide them, like homeless case management?

[00:58:11] Public Speaker: people in the direction. Okay, yeah. So I'm hearing two questions.

[00:58:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Right. Right. So there's two, yeah, there are two different things that I'm trying to target, and that are, I think, of interest, and have come up a couple times when you've come forward. And so, I, that's why I decided to lean forward and just ask. I think it'd be interesting to hear more feedback. And it doesn't have to be now on the spot when you're recovering from your cold. But it could be part of an ongoing conversation.

[00:58:36] Public Speaker: Sure. I'll start with the first second one. Um, people do contact us looking for various assistants, uh, often folks who are worrying about being common homeless, or if their housing, uh, runs out. Well, we don't have those services internally. I mean, this is sort of ad hoc, but I'll, you know, find the resources for them and do some research on it. That's something I've done for various people who have basically come to our door and said, What do we do? Where do we go? And there's a whole bunch of, um, various agencies around the county, um, from county social services, to places like, uh, the Picardo Regional Center in San Jose, that will direct people to if they come to us for help. So we do want people to find their way to the people who can help them invest.

[00:59:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great, thanks. Thank you. Next, please.

[00:59:28] Raja Bianca: Thank you. My name is Raja Bianca, this is the first time I'm speaking in front of you as counsel. Thank you for hosting this. I'll give you a little bit of my personal background, help you understand why I'm standing here. So I came from Phoenix, Arizona, to the Bay Area in 2000. And that's when my parents had gone bankrupt fully personally and lost their home to foreclosure. So I came with everything I had in my car. And I ended up trying to find a place to live, and I found a place to live for $700 a month in someone's house in Palo Alto. And I rented a room in their house, and ultimately, I got a job, and I became okay successful, I guess, enough to buy a house. In 2004, I bought a house in Cupertino, and I was delighted. I saw the values consistently go up, and I've lived in that house since. And you'd be surprised here. Some people, my neighbors would be very surprised what I'm going to say now, because a year after I bought my house, I ran for city council, and I ran under a no growth strategy. In fact, there was a measure in our city about heights, density, and setbacks. I ran for saying that we should have no that. None of that, keep our preservation of our character of our homes, to avoid high rise density housing in our neighborhoods. And I had people, after I ran lost in 2005, I lost in 2007, both anti growth type of messages that I had at the time. And I noticed, you know, my second time I ran, people that were on the street corner, protesting against me for my council run. And they were saying, you know, How can you say this? And one of the people I recognized. I got out of the car. I spoke with her, and she actually worked with my office at Juniper Networks, where I worked in Sunnyvale. And she was a secretary there. And it's never left my mind. And over the years, I've then built my own business in Mountain View, I've had, I've grown here now in the sense that my kids have grown up here. I've had 25 employees in Mountain View, paid my taxes, and what I've noticed is the future that I thought of myself in Silicon Valley is not the future that the people I hire can have. And the reason is, Google, the big companies, hire these engineers at higher salaries than what small business owners like myself can afford. And that is a very sad thing, because I ultimately had to move on my entire operation, on shoreline, to Arizona. So I moved my team, and I said, look, I grew up in Arizona. a much better place to live. You know, you can't live in Mountain View. We paid for. for relocation for our whole staff to temp Arizona. And so over the years, I've started thinking a totally different mindset. And so I have just recently decided that I'm going to try to make a bigger impact. So I have purchased a R3 zoned lot in Mountain View, which was a condemned building, a 9 apartment building, and this particular lot is now allowing me under the current zoning for just 2 units. So I hope that you consider those things for R3. Thank you.

[01:02:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. Thank you. Next, please.

[01:02:49] Philip Cosby: Philip Cosby, Madam Mayor, members of the council. I want to particularly thank the city stay up for doing a comprehensive. I want to particularly thank... Stay at memo for the study session. It seemed to include a number of tools that would allow council to develop a policy that would allow no net loss of affordable housing, and endurably properties are redeveloped. And while I am thankful that we're hearing this report now, as a result of the priority that you gave displacement earlier in the year, I also wanted to remind everyone that we're still encountering demolitions, we're still encountering displacement of tenants, and urge everyone to work promptly to get effective policies in place. Thank you.

[01:03:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:03:56] Public Speaker: Thank you. Good evening. Good evening, everyone. I want to thank... Good evening. everyone of you tonight. And for making a stop displacement. Put this as a consult priority early this year. Also, thank you to you guys for having a good research. And I hope you will answer yes to the tough questions to keep Mountain View, our city, your city, moving closer towards having no more displacement. Thank you, have great night.

[01:04:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please. Thank you. Have a great night. Thank you.

[01:04:41] Public Speaker: Good evening, all. I want to echo other people's support for the incredibly... Echo other people's comprehensive, creative, staff report that you have now. And I do hope that you will support it by saying yes. I do hope that for both of the questions, and to make sure that you can put us on a track to do what can be done in short term. and continue the work in the long term. Not unexpectedly. Advocates for affordable housing, not only supports the staff report, but supports the League of Women Voters letter, which you received. And I just have one more thing to add that isn't in the staff report, and that conceivably might help in some of the displacement. conceivably, or the anti displacement efforts, and that is, long ago, anti displacement. We had a fairly robust program, I think, throughout the country. I know that it was robust in San Francisco, because my parents, before I was born, utilized that. They rented a home with an option to buy. Years later after we were in school. They had the possibility that they could actually buy, because their rent over those years covered the down payment, and then they could afford the mortgage. Perhaps that can happen in a limited way in Mountain View. Perhaps, I urge you to think about it. Thank you.

[01:06:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[01:06:50] Alex Brown: Love when I'm last. Hey, Alex Brown, Santago Villa, North Bay Shore, Mountain View. I couldn't pass out this opportunity to thank you for recognizing the threat of displacement for mobile home residence in the city and also just tackling this placement holistically. It's important. We're haveraging people and we need to stop it. Thank you.

[01:07:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wish to address the council on this topic? Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public input portion and bring it back to council. For discussion, because this is a study session will just be providing staff with direction. And because I'm sure you've all noticed, I'm coughing a lot. I've asked city staff, if they can do the summary instead of me. And on the questions, um, it was slightly different on the slide than in the staff report. And the second one, um, so question two, it's really the evaluation of these programs, I don't think I have enough information to say, I support them, but I, but I think in the staff report, it said, evaluation of them.

[01:07:59] Unknown Speaker: That's correct. It must have just been a transcribing thing, but it's to evaluate.

[01:08:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Clark.

[01:08:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: Thanks. So, I'll start by my answer to question one, as a couple agree with the key principles for a displacement response strategy. And the answer is yes. This was a really, really comprehensive and great staff report. I can't think of how it could have been done any better, and so I just wanted to say thank you for tackling something so, um, such a difficult and wide ranging issue as well as you did, um, and sort of coalescing everything around a set of, you know, particular priorities. And I know we'll get into specific strategies within those later on, but I definitely am supportive of the overall, the overall key principles that you've identified. And then, with respect to question two, I do support the priority programs and policies, and focusing on those for a displacement response strategy. Obviously, there's still more research and work that needs to be done before we get there. But I think you've identified all the key areas. And the only question that I had was on displacement mitigation, um, you talk about in their, um, a few concepts, like first ride return and replacement provisions. And the only question that I had was that we may want to look into is something like a first right to purchase either for... I know some cities have that, where the tenants have a first right to purchase, but there may be other ways to structure that, such that the city or a nonprofit or some sort of set of entities have a first right to purchase. But I also don't know how often, how well that's worked in the cities that have it, and how often it's utilized, and maybe it's something that sounded nice at the time, and isn't really taken advantage of that much anymore, but it might be something that within the displacement mitigation section that would be worth just seeing, you know, are those, are those strategies effective or not. And, you know, is there some way where if a complex is about to be or is on the market to be sold and likely to be demolished, either the tenants or a nonprofit or a city, or a nonprofit that has some funds provided by the city, could have the 1st right to purchase that instead of it just going to a developer. So otherwise, otherwise, I think everything's great and I'm fine with moving forward on both fronts.

[01:10:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be Koga.

[01:10:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and thank you, staff, for this very comprehensive report. I'm always very impressed with the affordable housing strategies, report we had, and this one, and also, I guess I had a couple of questions before I answered my the questions. questions before. Let's see, where should I start? Um, I guess I'll start with the landlord set aside program. as we heard from the HIF this evening. Do you see a potential of just combining efforts or, um, maybe supporting HIF rather than creating a completely new program?

[01:11:35] Unknown Speaker: Yes, we definitely see the possibility of that. HIF would be one of the organizations that we would want to speak with further in an organization organization that we had in mind. And based on council direction, we would initiate further conversations with them.

[01:11:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Yes, I think the more we can partner and not duplicate efforts. I say the better, and I really would like to see efficiencies realized. Um, in regards to, um, what's my next question. Oh, Trao. So, um... Could you, do you have some sense of what other, what changes we might be looking at with trail? Or was this a commentary, just a mention that we just enhanced Trao? Are you looking at further enhancement of Trao? Is that what?

[01:12:36] Unknown Speaker: It was fairly broad, if council has any particulars for staff to explore, we can incorporate that. Some of the key components of the trail are certainly the amount of the benefit, or those who qualify, we would be able to evaluate the whole ordinance, but we would do it, ideally, in conjunction with the displacement mitigation program, as well, to make sure that they are integrated and working together.

[01:13:02] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Yeah, I guess my interest was that, I don't know where we are now, but, um, the trio had, like, a requirement of three months, or two, for three months rent, um, you know, mark, whatever the market averages. And, um, I've been thinking more and more, I know, I mentioned it when we were looking at one of the, um, projects, but I was looking at the delta between what's being paid, and then what, you know, it would cost to get into another unit, and being able to just, you know, have the trail provide for that delta for a certain set amount of time, whether it's 12 months or 18 months. And so looking at it in that regard would be, to me, I think, more helpful for me to see, you know, how effective that program could be. In terms of the, I think this is called tenant selection. So, I've asked this before, and I continue to ask it, and I think I got somewhat of a answer from Palo Alto housing when I met with them the other day, but is this in regards to BMR units, and, or I guess, in regards to BMR units. My interest is, you know, to give our Mountain View existing Mountain View residents first priority. So, you know, we talk about displacement and so forth. How do we, if we're building a 200 unit, affordable housing project, And we have, let's say, 20 tenants being displaced out of... How can, is there a way that we can give them 1st priority into those BMR units? Is that tied to the funding, if it's, you know, purely city funding, or if it's the 15% BMR requirement, inclusionary zoning requirement we have now, do we have that kind of more flexibility to decide who gets to go into those units?

[01:15:06] Unknown Speaker: It does depend on the program. Our understanding is that, uh, so first, the city has a live work preference for both the BMR program, and for the projects that the city provides funding for, so it's 100% deed restricted.

[01:15:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. On the 100% deed restricted, so understanding that, if 4% tax credits were involved, there are limitations on that.

[01:15:30] Unknown Speaker: Right.

[01:15:31] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And as I heard, measure A funds, as well, that we only get a certain percentage of the total that we can put our people in.

[01:15:40] Unknown Speaker: And I believe Measuring has other considerations as well, such as working with the county in terms of placing folks from that list, as well.

[01:15:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right.

[01:15:48] Unknown Speaker: So that would have an additional layer to it. The 100% affordable projects that have 9% tax credits.

[01:15:54] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[01:15:55] Unknown Speaker: We understand that has more flexibility, and there could be a preference.

[01:16:00] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great.

[01:16:00] Unknown Speaker: With BMR, the idea is that there wouldn't be external funding, so there wouldn't be those external restrictions.

[01:16:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: But then those could be prioritize our...

[01:16:09] Unknown Speaker: Correct.

[01:16:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. All right. Pro restrictions. Good.

[01:16:12] Unknown Speaker: yes We would want to continue just to make sure that we're always complying with fair housing rags, but that being said, this is our understanding of it.

[01:16:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, great. Thank you. Um, and then this, um, Councilman Clark just mentioned the first right to purchase, uh, idea. Is that for BMR units? Or I guess I just don't, how would that work if, um, you know, it's a private landowner or property owner? How do we require them to, you know, give priority to their tenants to buy a unit. Like, don't they have the ability, like, their own, it's their property, so they can decide if they want to hold it onto it forever or not, or can we make them sell?

[01:17:02] Unknown Speaker: So I believe there are 2 aspects to this. The 1st aspect that council member Clark might have been referring to would be if a project is currently being rented out, and it's about to be listed for sale. The program such as the tenant opportunity to purchase act, such as the one in D.C. that folks have talked about. puts in place a set of requirements to allow the tenants to come together and bring together the capital, to purchase that building as part of an acquisition strategy. So I think something like the TOPA program, or SF has a different version of it, which is more about prioritizing nonprofit developers, to be notified and to be able to purchase the COPA program, that would be part of the program one evaluation, the acquisition slash preservation strategy. The displacement mitigation program, program number two, would be perhaps a different version of that. It would be a first rite of refusal, for example. So if an existing rent civilized apartment were demolished and rebuilt with new rental units, then the first rite of return would allow temporarily displaced residents to go back to those rental units. By the same analogy, if they were displaced, and the units were demolished for new ownership units, then by analogy to explore a first rite of refusal to purchase those units.

[01:18:34] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[01:18:36] Unknown Speaker: to explore. So there are some similar concepts that they would be different and analyzed differently under the two different programs. They would be different analyzed.

[01:18:45] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. And then, finally, you know, once we've talked about affordable housing and up being, like, our inclusionary zoning, percentage, or when we're talking about North Bay Shore, I remember, actually, remember, very clearly, how SV at home and said, we could never require more than 20% affordable units. So in light of that, as my concern is with, like, SB 330, the replacement. If it gets to like 30, 40, 50%, could any of these programs potentially hinder the development of new housing?

[01:19:19] Unknown Speaker: I believe that would need to be part of our next steps in, uh, figuring out what kind of analysis or potentially a feasibility component comes into it. I know that there is another work item in terms of our three modifications. So to the extent that those modifications lead to a greater number of units on site that can help pencil, but we need to crush all of that out. Programmers.

[01:19:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Great. Thank you. So, in light of that, pretty easy question one. Yes, I support key principles. I, I think it's been, um, emphasized that trying to, you know, create a comprehensive program that works together is, is important. And, um, you know, I look forward to, um, learning more about each program. And so, at that point, I think we'll be able to do more prioritizing. Thank you.

[01:20:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[01:20:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. So first, I want to echo the comments from my colleagues and thanks staff for, I agree with council member Clark. I know it's difficult to summarize a topic as expansive and challenging as this one, but you did it very well. And I think the analysis that accompanied, you know, the questions and the preliminary ideas was very helpful in sort of shaping my approach to this. So thank you. And I also want to thank the members of the public who have been engaged on this issue. This was one of the few items during our goal setting that was supported unanimously by the council, which I think demonstrates our commitment to finding whatever solutions are, you know, feasible. to address it. So we hear you, and I know it's hard to work on these kinds of issues, but I think this is a great start, a solid foundation. So just a couple, so yes to both questions. I think these are the correct key principles and good programs and policies to continue to evaluate and flesh out. But just to speak to a few things specifically. So if we're, so 1st overriding consideration, I think part of the challenges, response is an appropriate word, because there are different kinds of development processes that cause sort of the same outcome, right? So there are by right projects that we have no control over, that will result in the redevelopment of, you know, an existing occupied rent controlled apartment complex, for instance. And we have very few tools to address that, the displacement from that kind of redevelopment. And sort of on the other extreme, there are discretionary projects where we have a lot more leverage. And our response will prob, well, I assume, vary based on the process, the process that's being used for entitlements and for redevelopment. So, um, I thought, you know, I was really happy with how the the staff report was sort of sensitive to that and talking about in the context of our 3 makes a lot of sense. So, you know, constantly evaluating what process makes sense. You know, when discerning the appropriate response, I think, will be essential. You know, do we have what tools do we have to address by right development? What kinds of responses make sense when we do have a little bit more leverage, if there's a rezoning, if there's a general plan, that kind of thing. And in any case, how can we design a process that, to the greatest extent possible, produces the desired outcome, which, in this case, you know, would be mitigation of displacement, you know, but also broadly, how do, you know, we're talking about parkland dedication and affordable housing and community benefits. You know, this would need to fit in with those processes too. So that way, regardless of the kind of development we're seeing. We get what it is that we're looking for. Park space instead of inloof fees, right? Antidisplacement measures, that kind of thing. So, and I don't have, you know, great ideas for how to achieve that right now, but I think that that will be essential as we continue to evaluate each of these programs. There are a couple of specific policies or programs that I think could be not, you know, necessarily expedited, but since we already have the tenant relocation assistance ordinance, You know, it makes sense to, um, think about what are some, maybe short term things that we can do to fix some of the concerns that we've heard from the community. And I thought the Vice Marastic question, what kinds of modifications make sense. And one that came to mind was there were a couple of concerns that we've heard about Trao for some of the projects that we approved earlier this year. There was a timing issue, uh, related to, you know, when the displaced tenants received, um, the, uh, the, the payment. And then there was, I don't know if we can, if we can include this, but allowing, or having let the landlords, the property owners waive the tenants obligation to provide a 30 day moveout notice, which doesn't really make a lot of sense when you're demolishing an apartment complex. So those are things that we included in the conditions of approval for those projects, and moving forward, it strikes me as appropriate to include those in sort of a, I don't know, the 1st part of a more comprehensive update to Trao, if that's something that could come up more quickly, or if it needs to come back comprehensively, you know, those are, I think, pretty modest improvements that respond to concerns that we've heard from the community repeatedly. And then longer term, I think, including the Trao, thinking about the landlord rental set aside program, for instance, in the context of Trao, different tenants who are displaced will have different kinds of needs, right? So for some folks, just the cash payment will be all they need, right? So that's great. They could do whatever they need with it. For other folks, the trio is helpful, but if they're low income, it can be hard to qualify for market rate units, right? Most rental property owners, I think sort of the industry standards, you have to demonstrate that you make 3 times the rent. And that's a difficult barrier for many folks. So if the trail, I think, the vice mayor spoke to this a little bit, but if we can use that kind of as the differential between what folks are paying and then the new market rents, and in exchange, you know, have a property owner, who's accepting the displaced tenant, wave or reduce the income eligibility requirements, because, you know, these are folks who have previously demonstrated as sustained tenancy, right? They should have that comfort. And now they also have the benefit of the trio assistance. I think that could help really, you know, facilitate, you know, placing folks into new housing. So, in those cases where, you know, folks will be displaced. At least they have options. You can take the cash payment, you can participate in this, you know, landlords rental set aside program. It's kind of like an option B to trade out. So one way of thinking about it. Um, uh, the... And then the other one was the tenant selection preference. I think, you know, if staff discerns that that's legal, then I think that strikes me as a fairly quick update. And that way we could help place folks who are displaced in affordable housing much more quickly. And then the last thing is, I know, you know, Council member McAllister, you've been a very strong champion of the acquisition, you know, preservation program, and I support them. I'm glad it's included here. The challenge has always been, how do you find the funding to sustain that kind of a program. And it's challenging because, unlike, you know, new construction, there aren't sources of funding to leverage. And I think in the report, staff had identified that as something that we would need to think about a sustainable funding source for. And so that's something I'm hoping that staff can continue to flesh out. what are sustainable funding sources for, you know, ensuring the success of that program. We've talked about, you know, again, to the vice mayor's point about if there are limitations to who we can place in affordable housing, based on the source of funding, if having our own source of funding for affordable housing, so we can prioritize Mountain View residents first, then that funding source, you know, instead of just being wholly dedicated to acquisition preservations, could also be used for, you know, the creation of new housing. So affordable housing production, where we have greater ability to control who gets priority in placement. In other words, you know, I remember in, I think in 2015, 2016, when the council at the time was discussing rent control, there were folks among the stakeholders who suggested, you know, rent controls, sub par solutions, you know, let's explore a parcel tax that could fund affordable housing. You know, so looking at something like that, if that's viable. But the key being, you know, I want the acquisition preservation program to succeed, but we appreciate how costly it is. And I think if we're going to have it succeed, identifying a sustainable funding source will be critical. So, all that said, I support where staff is going with this and I'm excited to see what the outcome is. Thank you.

[01:29:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[01:29:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I wanted to start, like, the previous speakers by thanking Mr. Chen for this comprehensive response to our counsel's question, and also any other staff who might have worked on the report. I also wanted to thank members of the public, who, I think, did a great job tonight of focusing on helping us focus on what makes this particular topic so important. I think that, like many of you said, displacement, it's not just, we're not just facing an affordable housing crisis with displacement as kind of the footnote. I think that displacement should be put front and center. when we're looking at the affordable housing crisis, and in particular, some of the points that members of the public raised that a lot of the jobs being created in this area are not just high paying, high tech jobs, that there's an almost equal number of low income jobs, and low and middle income jobs, and that we have to, with our housing policies, address the needs of those workers as well, and make sure that we're not forcing them to move Antioch and so forth, and drive a very long way, which doesn't help any of us. So, with that as a background, um, question, one, does counsel agree with staff's key principles for a displacement, uh, response strategy, yes. I do, and I, um, was particularly happy to see the point, uh, the principal that, uh, these would be tenant focused, as opposed to, um, just, just unit focused, that we're, we're focusing on the present tenantsets. The second question, does counsel support the above priority programs and policies to evaluate for a displacement response strategy. I do, um, and a couple of additions, uh, it seems like our upcoming session on our three zoning overlaps with this to some degree, and were you foreseeing, uh, adding, uh, discussion of displacement within that topic, or how are you, or have you not foreseen what you're going to do at that point?

[01:31:51] Wayne Chen: I think what we would do is look at opportunities, and you're going to see the scope of work for the artery, and provide us directly. on which approach you want us to take. And if you do want us to look at opportunities, in the beginning, of course, to increase density. And then we can look at how that might be used to incentivize or require some of these strategies. Of course, you could always use more regulatory ways of doing that, and you could do that entirely in the context of this the approach to addressing displacement. But if you were to look at a zoning or an overly approach, we would want that to be done as part of the R3.

[01:32:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, that's exactly what I was gonna request. that you include zoning an overlay, and sort of a broad spectrum of possibilities of addressing displacement within the R3 zoning topic as well.

[01:32:52] Wayne Chen: Yes, we've sort of anticipated that a little bit, and, you know, I'm looking forward to council direction on the R3 scope.

[01:32:59] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, great. Then another possible addition was a member of the public mention that we might reevaluate how we fund parks, because we as a part of the broad spectrum of things that you're looking at, because we are not requiring park fees with ADUs, and I think not if there's one to one replacement of units, but yes, if there are more units. So that's one that we might look at. And let's see if there are any more. I'm also particularly interested in one of the things you look into further being replacement policies related to rent controlled units, given SB 330 and state density bonus law. Is that one of the things you'll be looking at? Okay. And then I would just echo things that previous council people have mentioned, like exploring how to make sure we can serve those who live and work in Mountain View, tweaking the trail, and finding sustainable funding sources. Thank you.

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

[01:34:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. I want to echo the sentiments of gratitude towards staff in the public and being involved in this process. I know that we all have wanted to talk about displacement much sooner, but at least we are talking about it, and I know that it was places that council priority back in February, and I think the staff report is a reflection of it was worth the wait in terms of coming back with the options. So for myself, I'm just going to answer the 2 questions and then provide comments. Um, so for question one and two, my answers are yes. Um, and when I guess I'd like to share my overarching kind of thought process when we're thinking of displacement. One of them is reactive ways that the city can be reactive for projects that are in the pipeline, that are dealing with displacement currently, and proactive. How can we address that with council policies, um, in terms of, you know, for example, which was mentioned related to Trao, um, to address displacement. So I think that those are the 2 kind of buckets. And in an effort to kind of move away from an ad hoc, approach that we've taken just because of the timing, and a way to find a set of standards, so that both those who are in older units feel like they understand what the process is, as well as those in the development community who are looking to, you know, take over these parcels of land. I think it would, the clarity there is something I heard a lot. in the last couple months in terms of on both sides. wanting to make sure that the communication is there. And I think when we're looking at the suite of options, coming to a reality that it might not be just one program, but needing to overlap programs. So, because of the high cost of living that we have in this area. So, for example, in the city of London, they have a BMR type program, and then they also have something that is similar to the a Topa program, that a resident is able to use at this, you know, kind of in conjunction. And those might be things that I'd like more information on being able to explore. Because ultimately, I think, while trio and different things are helpful, what would really help create more stability, are opportunities to own. And what are we doing for those in the load to moderate AMI category to be able to purchase, and how can we tackle that kind of more programmatically? And then, um, something I think we can do right now is something that, um, I heard both the vice mayor and council member Ramirez bring up, which is Trao. And I know that's set to come forward in May. You know, I'd like to, I think that's a way we can kind of solidify things that we've already been doing with other projects where we dealt with displacement. And so I don't know if there's any way to make it sooner than May, but I would be interested, at least in the Trao component as we discuss displacement. Oh, and the other thing that I did want to note as a comment is, on our community development, we have a on our website, our community development. We have a tab that says housing, neighborhood, and housing. I'd love to add a couple maybe informational tabs on what we're doing to address displacement in the city. And I know we may have been waiting for this council item to come forward. But I think the more we, as a city, can communicate resources, the better. Thank you.

[01:38:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[01:38:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Like anything, I always have a few questions. Let's move him again. I will not keep them short, so there you go. So there, you know, I learned a lot from the questions from my fellow council members on our city council questions, so I just wanted to follow up on a couple of them, so help me better understand. But I do, before I forget, understand. I'd like to reference, uh, page 14 evaluation on acquisition and preservation programs. I'm just gonna... Mention that, because I've been talking about that for six years, so persistence does pay off. Hopefully it does.

[01:39:10] Wayne Chen: So I think that's a great idea. We'll work on that.

[01:39:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, keep it up. This word recontrol of new units. If so, if somebody takes a unit out or puts it back, what do you mean by recontrol, does it make it a rent control unit, if you take it out, and does it... That the first question. The second part, what's the rent?

[01:39:34] Wayne Chen: So there are a couple of nuances with that. We need to understand SB330 a little bit more, because it is new, but the general concept with recontrol is that if an existing, so CSFRA apartment is removed, demolished, and there are new rental units built on site, then those units would be placed under the provisions of CSFRA. Now, what those rents can be set at, that is going to require further analysis, there is the ability to, under the Ellis Act, recontrol those units at the rents that they were at, provided that they also allow a fair return. So that creates some analysis that needs to be had in terms of whether recontrolled units can meet that provision. And now we have interaction with two laws, LS Act and SB 330. So I'd like to give a simpler answer, but... That'd be nice. But we're gonna need more evaluation, but we can say what we control is, what those units would be, replaced that, and what the rents would be, is subject to further evaluation. SB330 also does allow cities to replace those demolished rent stabilized units with deed restricted units at specified AMI levels. So that is a policy lever that jurisdictions can have, and that would be part of the analysis, whether they're reconcontrolled, or whether they're deed restricted, or some combination, that's gonna be part of the analysis.

[01:41:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Also, we have this 15% inclusionary law right now. But is that sort of a moot point now? Because if you build something or tear down a unit, as you just said, on the 330? Therefore, there all have to be inclusionary units, then? It's 100% then.

[01:41:32] Wayne Chen: So, there's a couple of ways of looking at it. First, the BMR program would still apply to new development that does not involve demolition of CSFRA units. So that program would still be in place. How that might interact with, for example, the program number two, the demolition, uh, displacement medication program, is part of that analysis along with the LS Act, along with SP330, and figuring out how to design the program. And so, this is, um, really at a conceptual level, and it's going to require further analysis to present some options and develop those options. And what an inclusionary requirement might be if, indeed, that's the way the council wants to go. We would have to evaluate that along with whether the units become recontrolled or teach restricted.

[01:42:23] Councilmember John McAlister: On the first right to return process, if it's two years or whatever, I don't recall, if somebody said, what would the rent be? Would the rent be, what it was, like, two years ago, two years prior, if they moved out, would that rent be, then they would come down and just continue the existing rent?

[01:42:42] Wayne Chen: So with the new units. So I think that refers back to the prior question, is that what those new events would be for those new units that are recontrolled, it would depend on further analysis with SP330 and the LS Act, what they can be returned at.

[01:42:58] Councilmember John McAlister: So on 330, when you say there's further analysis, Are you referring to there might be court cases to challenge it to get more clarity, or how would you go about getting that clarity that you need?

[01:43:11] Wayne Chen: I think right now, it's the law is so new that it requires just reading the law and then understanding what it is trying to say, and then doing further analysis, and this would be in conjunction with the city attorney's office, or our legal consultants, about what it all means. I think everyone's just trying to figure out what it all means, because it is so new, and understanding how it is written and how it interacts. So a lot of it is really bad at this point in time.

[01:43:40] Councilmember John McAlister: And one other question you responded that this is about displacement, that SV 330 also prevents any city from enforcing the moratorium, and then it goes to housing and community development, and the department finds that the moratorium is necessary to protect against an imminent threat to health and safety. And that goes, I'm going to tie up to another question that was asked, and the things... You mentioned that there is a vacancy rate of 5%, which, out of 15,000 units, about 750 units, are vacant at any given time. If there's a vacancy or available units, Wouldn't that, somebody could then go from one unit going down, and they could be relocated in another unit. Would that sort of take away some of the strength of the imminent threat to health and safety if you can relocate those people?

[01:44:41] Wayne Chen: The eminent threat, um, language is directly from SB 330. And that is really focused on what cities can or cannot do in terms of denying housing production. So I think that's one component separately with the vacancy rate, and whether the fact that a tenant might be able to find existing vacant units, as an argument, to mitigating the notion that there is an imminent public health and safety, I think that is another one of those items that would be up for further evaluation, because it is so new.

[01:45:27] Wayne Chen: Okay. I do want to note that currently the biggest rate is under the 5%. So the 5% is as a reference point of the council response is the recognized sort of standard in terms of a functioning market, and currently it's under that.

[01:45:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I bring that particular point up, because a lot of people or certain groups have used that phrase to prevent a development going. And so, and that's why I'm looking at all this stuff, and I go, Well, you know, if they can transition to another unit, then there is no in minute healthy safety. So that's why I would appreciate you looking more into it.

[01:46:02] Wayne Chen: Yeah, see, would you come with that one.

[01:46:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Appreciate you looking forward. Has there... Okay, well, you ask about the rent control. Um Another component in here, and I'm gonna sort of... Oh, so when you were talking about the taro, the enhanced benefits would be additional subsidy for a period of time between what the person was paying and the market rate in the transition. What were you referring to enhanced benefits?

[01:46:32] Wayne Chen: It's pretty general. A couple of your colleagues have suggested some more specific recommendations such as basing the methodology on rent differential for, say, 12 to 18 months. There could be other suggestions about the tenant notification requirements. And so there are a couple of different suggestions already made. There could be others. And we're open to council's inputs.

[01:47:05] Councilmember John McAlister: You mentioned, in your presentation, that 91% of the housing in Mountain Views, between 70 and 50 years old.

[01:47:17] Wayne Chen: 90, so out of the 15,000 CSFRA units, 91% of that housing stock were built in the 50s through the 70s.

[01:47:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, 70s. So, yeah, so they're 50s, 70s. Is there any concern about new development brings a new product? And so we have all these old units. Is that a factor, and I didn't see it in the reporter. Is it something that, as we look at redevelopment, that we have a lot of old units, we have earthquake issues, we have construction issues, that the use of life is concerns, that, for this, is that something that we want to consider into redevelopment, that we do need to refresh this old housing supply.

[01:48:02] Wayne Chen: I believe that is part of the consideration, that has informed the notion of a broad based strategy, that is mitigating displacement, rather than just preventing displacement, because there is a recognition that there is going to be redevelopment, maybe in certain cases, it would be better to redevelop. But maybe not all the cases, there is a separate work item that is occurring right now regarding CSFRA, valid amendments, that is, looking to incorporate the ability for separate individual rent increase, petition pass throughs, that would include capital improvements related to end of the useful life. as well as seismic retrofits. So through that avenue, there are options being developed for extending the useful life and being able to respond to issues like seismic concerns.

[01:48:56] Councilmember John McAlister: So, Enis built in the 50s. Would you say that they're in their useful life?

[01:49:05] Wayne Chen: Those buildings are older. They could be more susceptible to needing capital improvements or seismic retrofits, for example.

[01:49:19] Councilmember John McAlister: And I'm going to go back to one other coast, and I have a last question. What is another component of all this thing you're talking about? is, if people are even going to develop. Have you talked to developers, have you sat down with them and say, you know, what are your thoughts? I mean, we're going from one direction, but I see a lot of reasons that somebody will go and go, if you have to replace units with something, then why would a developer come into the city of Mountain View and redevelop or buy something? And I put that in context that you mentioned in the report, that limited resources for development are going to other cities. Other cities, developers, development's going up, ours is going down. So what are we doing? Is part of our deal is to find a balance to incentivize development, but also protect the tenant relocation.

[01:50:19] Wayne Chen: Definitely. I think the data point about the comparison with other cities was more about the rate of sales transactions, of multifamily, properties rather than the rate of developing new units. As part of Next Steps, it would be to initiate public outreach, and I believe, as mentioned in the report, it would include developers, as part of that process. We do know that the issue of displacement has come about because it's involved several developments that included demolition of CS of RA units. So what you're referring to in terms of a program that would facilitate development, while still addressing the issues of displacement, is the goal of this broad based strategy.

[01:51:11] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, because everything I've seen is, is the goal of, is a sort of a barrier or a burden, a concern to development, because of a lot of the restrict, or requirements that we're putting on. So I'm concerned about that. But, uh... So, now that you answer those questions, then, uh, page 14, item one evaluation of new stock and so forth, a key a key potential strategy to rent displacement is acquiring existing rental housing stocks. So I just want to keep harping on that, because it's easily missed. I support everything that you're doing. Yes, yes, to the valuation, everything, I think it's great. As a small business owner, And I am a small business owner. You don't make a lot of money, selling $3 scoops. The labor force is really, really important trying to keep that workforce housing. And that's why I keep harping on Silicon Valley or Silicon Valley at home, they come in and they say, yeah, do, do, do, do. But I like to see some money behind what they're talking about. And it's not a cheap shot, but they've been talking to us for a lot. I guess I'm getting a cranky old man. I'm getting frustrated. And hearing groups come to us and say, do that, da, da, da, da. I say, You have the funds, and they don't help us. But, yeah, hopefully... So workforce housing is very important, too, small businesses like myself. And this is one way to encourage it. And the sooner we can buy units. I'm harping on buy units, because then we have complete control, we can do immediate rabbit rehousing, we can determine who stays in it, we can, and it just gives, to me, more flexibility. And we get rental income that will help keep that project sustainable over time. So, yes, yes, yes. Well, they'll keep that project sustained. you.

[01:53:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I also appreciate all the work that it was. put into this. I absolutely support the key principles. I also support valuation of the programs and policies that are listed here, but I did have a couple of comments about those. And I do think it's important to have it all come back at the same time, because so many of these are related. And, um, we might be giving folks options. And so if we only have a portion of the option that we're talking about, I feel like, you know, we need the other options, so we can discuss how we really want those to fit together or not fit together. So I'm supportive of having them all come back at the same time. I saw and hear about the preservation of, um, units, and I did. And at first glance, I was thinking, okay, this makes sense to start with a smaller project. But then the more I thought about it, um, which is why I'm glad this is gonna come back to us, um, because I'm sure you'll think about it more, too. If the smaller complexes are the ones that right now are being redeveloped, and therefore we get a large increase in the number of units, is it really the smaller complexes that we want to preserve? Maybe we want to preserve a larger complex that could accommodate, lots of people who are living in a bunch of smaller complexes. So it's like, hmm. You know, this is one where I don't want to make a real snap decision on it. I really want us to dive into that to understand the dynamics, to figure out what would be the most appropriate approach. I'm supportive of buying the units and refurbishing them. But I think we really need to think about this carefully. Thank you. Um... So, actually, maybe, um, you could have an example of those different, uh, approaches when we talk about this again. In terms of the net loss. I was also thinking, now that the state has defined what net loss means, thinking about, well, if we had a different definition, how would that work, and what a different definition be, one that is used after SB 330 in five years, doesn't apply anymore. It's for five years, right? SB 330? Yeah. So, I feel like we need to think about how that might work. Um, the right of first return provisions, I also think, is a good one, but I think it might be challenging under certain circumstances. And so that's another one where I feel like I really want to understand the implications. We often talk about how we don't want unintended consequences, or we don't want very predictable consequences that are not good. And so thinking this through a little bit more, I think, will be really important. When it comes to the trail, um, you know, I hadn't thought about, uh, some of the items that council member Ramirez talked about in terms of, we've heard some things, uh, over the past year or so, that we've put into the conditions of approval. And some of those, I think, might be appropriate to come back sooner rather than later. But I'm a little bit concerned about other aspects of the trail being proposed to be changed without thinking of in terms of all of the different options that we're looking at here. So there might be some that I think are okay, but like, yeah, let's really think about that. When it comes to... When it comes to... I knew I was gonna cough my way through this meeting. When it comes to, uh, the landlord rentals set aside. Um, I appreciate that program, and, um, I appreciate the information we got, and the program that Housing Industry Foundation has, and I would like to further explore that. Actually, I met HIF at a real estate symposium. Actually, I met maybe a year ago. I can't remember how long ago it was. And I was incredibly intrigued with what they are doing. And, um, on the side here, I have been trying to hook them up with potential sources of funding, because, to me, it seems like they've got the infrastructure, and the thought, and the relationships. And so to leverage all that and not duplicate it, I think, would be great. I think I also sent one potential candidate for placement their way. But I don't think that person ever really followed up, which is unfortunate, because I think HIF could help them. So I'm very interested in this one. Again, the right of first return, I think, could be a little bit tricky, so I really want to think about that. And I absolutely support having a preference for folks who are from Mountain View, who are being displaced in anything we do here. So I would want to make sure that there aren't restrictions on that in any of these options. I want to make sure that there are restrictions on that in any of these options. So I'm gonna ask staff to summarize our city manager. Ready for a summary?

[01:59:22] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay, I'll give it a shot. So, first and most importantly, there was unanimous kudos for Wayne and staff for a very well written report and thorough reports. I want to echo that. There was also unanimous support for all the key principles. on the priorities and programs of question two. What I heard was, you want to analyze all of them. There was nothing taken off the table. There were some questions about bringing some things back, sir, New, sooner, particularly Trao, or the tenant preference issue, but then also a countervailing view that they're all intertwined and have to come as a package. So it would be good to get clarity and maybe ask staff to chime in and whether or not, particularly, the very specific narrow changes to Treyo, reflective of conditions you've already made, whether that one piece would be appropriate and possible to bring back sooner, but to keep everything else together as a package.

[02:00:33] Wayne Chen: I think we could identify some narrower options to bring back for counsel, and after this meeting, we can review the trail and identify what those could be, and work that into our timeline.

[02:00:50] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay, and then other than that, there were several specific comments about different elements. Again, nothing was taken off the table. They're all to be analyzed. There were two issues I heard that were, in my mind, knew that I heard one member speak about, so I just want to clarify whether or not, and there's any further work on those. One had to do from council member Hicks on park funding. I don't think that was in the staff reports. If that's something the council wants us to explore. And the other one, council member Kame, I didn't get all the details, something about some London programs that you were interested in, whether or not those should be explored. Other than that, I think it was more just analyzing all the options and coming back with more information.

[02:01:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Let's check in on our folks supportive of looking at park funding. Council member Hicks's suggestion.

[02:01:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I think... Just look at it for, I'm not very committed to, you know, it's not that I have radical changes in park funding that I'm driving, but just to look, because to look, to see if it's providing a disincentive or incentive, and whether we want to tweak it in any way, because we don't, when you add ADUs, you don't have to, you don't to give park funding. When you, um, I think when you do the same number of units, you don't have to... So just to. I mean, I strongly support parks and park funding, but just to see if there's some inconsistency, as this has evolved.

[02:02:42] Unknown Speaker: If I may sort of try to explain the concern, it could be that if you have units that are demolished and replaced for one to one, they don't have to pay parking Luffy's. But if you have an industrial area that's converting to residential, they do. So there's a built in incentive to demolish units, because you, you know, one might argue, and build a different kind of unit, in order to avoid that park fee, that was my understanding of the park fee issue, and how it affects the ability or incentive to build or not build. If I'm mistaken, you could let me know.

[02:03:26] Wayne Chen: In the case of ADUs and BMRs, they do get a break. So that's across the board. And it's fairly even. That's across the board. So just, I believe, we came to council not too long ago, with some preliminary assessment of the Park Aloofian changes to it. So if there's council interest, we can wrap this into what we bring back, but as I recall, there are a number of components of that already.

[02:03:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[02:03:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, so basically echoing the city manager's comments, I feel like we've already provided direction on the park issue, and I'm not sure that's wholly relevant here. So, I mean, I guess continuing with that effort, there may be some solution to that issue, but I feel like that's distinct from this work. But I was, I did want to provide comments on a council member Kame's idea. So I'm interested in exploring that program, and it sounds similar, substantially, correct me if I'm wrong, with what Council member Clark was proposing about, sort of right to purchase first, right, a refusal. So, you know, it's kind of broad, but I would be interested in, you know, fleshing that out and determining determining what the feasibility of that kind of a program.

[02:04:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice my hobby Koga?

[02:04:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, in regards to park fees, um, we've talked about park fees a lot, so I don't think we, I think we, we're moving in a direction, but the one area that I would have our question about is under SB 330 with this replacement of the rent controlled units, um, with that change anything with the fees. But in terms of, you know, the, I guess the comment that was made, um, frankly, we only have so much industrial land left, so it's not really gonna make much of a difference, to be honest. Um, you know, we're an infill city. this point. So that's just the nature of our community. So I'm not really interested in looking at the park fees, other than how SB 30, 330 might affect it. And I'm fine with looking at the housing purchase.

[02:05:47] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I would agree. I'm interested in looking at, uh, the, uh, like, rent to own or similar programs. Um, and then I'm okay with, uh, what we've already provided direction on in terms of the Parkface. I feel like there's so many other things we could look at. I'd rather just focus on those. and not start down another path. I'd rather just focus on those and not start down another path.

[02:06:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think, from our perspective, we have enough clarity. you guys good over there? Okay. Great. Thank you again. This was, um, a lot of great information, and I appreciate your bringing it forward. in such a timely manner. I look forward to the next discussion. So thank you. So we will, um, adjourn the study session, and then call the regular meeting to order, and we're just gonna keep on going here. So, uh, we're not gonna take a break yet, 'cause we've got a couple of kind of short items that I think we can get through. So we'll call the regular meeting to order, and we will start with a pledge of allegiance. If you will join me, order, and we will start with the pledge of allegiance. You will join me. And if, well, city clerk would do roll call?

[02:07:26] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[02:07:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Uh, first up, we have a presentation. Uh.... Oh. presentation. I was hoping you were here. I couldn't see. Uh, yes. We have a presentation by Foothill College President and Wynn. Yes. We have a presentation by Flint Hill College President wins.

[02:08:06] Foothill College President Thuy Thi Nguyen: Good evening, council members. My name is Tweety when I'm president of Foot Hill College. Good evening, also, to our city manager and staff and members of the public. First and foremost, before I talk about the substance of our conversation today, which is really an opportunity for me to give you an update on how things are going at Foothill College, give you actually some insight into some polling that we've done recently in the community about what the community thinks of how we're doing at Foothill College. And three, is to actually get your own insight into what you think our priority should be. But before I even do that, I want to thank, uh, first of all, our mayor and our vice mayor for coming to our graduation, uh, in the last two years, we have really been making an effort. I started this tradition of town gown relationship, and having council members from our respective cities to be on the platform at graduation, and it means a lot to have you represent the city in that manner. So thank you so much. And it tears me that our city manager is retiring, but I do want to let you know how much our college appreciates his friendship. He has definitely been a friend to our college, and our students, In fact, a year and a half ago, he met with our students to coach them through housing and homelessness issues. So thank you so much to enrich city manager. So, how are things at Foothill College going? Well, we're doing really well. We pass our 60th anniversary year, and you may have seen a lot of news about us. L lately. One of it involves, this is the third time we're ranked number one, California community college, and number 8 in the country for adult learners by Washington Monthly, which is sort of seen as that version of US news and world reports in terms of ranking of community colleges. So we're very proud of that. And I hope you do also, because this is your community college. We also have been doing some really extraordinary things around providing affordable college, including free college. That's a waiver of all tuition and fees at Foothill College, and even paying for books for 2 years for 1st time full-time students. So, and we're getting a large number of students really taking advantage of that program. So that's also another quite extraordinary. Now, this ad right here, you're seeing, you may have also seen it in the Mountain View Voice, along with other local newspapers around our rankings. Number one, online community college, in the state, number one, safest college, whether it be a comedian college or a four year university. in the state of California. So we're also quite proud of the varying types of rankings that shows how well we're doing. The chronicle of higher education also ranked as number one in California for graduation, number two in the country. And for students of color, it's also quite impressive where we're at too. So I know that's really important for you in terms of vulnerable populations. And I really appreciate the kind of goals that you're setting. We also, actually, nearly half of our students are now online. With our growth and online, about 23 years ago, we became the 1st community college in the state and we even believe in the country to offer distance education. And that legacy has definitely shown itself with nearly half of our students now online. And students can take 39 degrees strictly online. So we're very, very proud of our accessibility in that regard too. The other thing that we're doing is service leadership. And this concept of harnessing students' leadership voice and their leadership skills through the service of others. I know yesterday you honored folks who have served. Congratulations, Vice Mayor, and others. And I follow her on Twitter, so I know that part. So, you know, this is really something we want to really instill in our students that our community college is not just, you know, for lack of a better word and assembly line. You go through, get your degree and go. But really is also a place for you to serve and lead. So, and in fact, our students have done extraordinary work statewide in bringing the issues of student homelessness to the statewide platform. And you may have seen it in bills such as Mark Berman's bill and other bills around the issue of student homelessness. So we're very proud of what our students have done. And, in fact, I will be passing out a little lunch container trinket for you, and it is our way to honor our students around hunger and homelessness. This is the trips that our students are doing on service leadership. And I wanted to show you a little bit here. service leadership. I wanted to show you a little bit. All right. Can't quite press press the video. Okay, I'll just tell you what the videos does. The video is our transfer video, and it talks about a number of students who have transferred. In fact, we always have an impressive foothill in Dianza, comedian college district, is the number one district transferring to the UC system. And Foothill, college alone, for instance, this year. Nationally, Stanford accepted, enrolled this year, 20 students nationally, from community colleges, three from Foothill. Last year, nationally, Stanford accepted 21 students from community college is, three also from foothills. So we're very, very proud of the kind of transfer that we're doing at our college. We do a lot of work around a veterans resource center. This is our mural. We also do a lot of work around strong workforce. You may have started seeing the ads here in Mountain View voice, and it is, we are the college in the Bay Area that has received the most gold star from the state for our workforce programs. And it's because we are being able to ensure that they have employment at the end and also livable wage types of employment. So very, very proud of our gold star. Now what have we learned from some polling that we did in the community. And this is what we learned. What we learned is our community really, really respects our track record. They know how well and how well ranked we are. And so the excellence, the innovation, as a district, we annually educate 60,000 students. In fact, Foodhill College alone is about the same size as Stanford, undergraduate and graduate. Although I often say to them, I'd love to have their endowment, but that's another story. And we're very diverse, as you know. The other, though, is that the community recognizes the challenge of affordability, and Foothill College is, you know, five times less than what you're seeing at the UC systems and the calcate system. Look at the price difference. So you can tell, and now, with if you're a full time, first time full time, you can go to college for free and we're even paying for your book. So this is just really extraordinary how much our college is making college accessible. These are the areas our communities recognize this for. And as you can tell, that's a lot. It's almost like, what else? Is there? Because we are really recognized for an extraordinary amount of things. And again, this is the particular workforce, types of job training programs our college is recognized for. We serve all students, from veterans, working students, lifelong learners to seniors, and, of course, these are our priorities and the priorities. Actually, there are priorities, but it was very interesting that our community recognize that these are our priorities. So they said, please help students facing hunger and homelessness. And I know you just had a study session around displacement in housing, and I really appreciate the kind of conversation. The community definitely recognizes all the other things that we do around transfer and workforce preparation. So, what am I asking of you? I'm asking for your input and feedback. So we definitely have gotten the community feedback, but we want to get community leaders feedback, and you are the leaders of the community. So there is a form. Very simple, very easy, that I ask if you could fill it out, and maybe we can collect it afterwards from the board clerk. And our chief of staff is going to pass it out to the members of the public. And then for any members of the public, the viewing audience, they can also go to the website link and give us some feedback. And there's some really a critical question about, is it important for our college to support students facing food insecurity and whole hunger? And is it important for our college to support students experiencing homelessness? So we really want to hear from you about that, especially considering what the solutions could be, the kind of town gown relationship is going to be critical for this. Don't you agree? Yeah. So, I'm more than happy to answer any questions you may have right now.

[02:17:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, I... Cousmember McAllister?

[02:17:45] Councilmember John McAlister: So what happened with the assembly member, Mark Berman's bill?

[02:17:51] Foothill College President Thuy Thi Nguyen: So the bill was in appropriations committee, and it did get out, but it had significant revisions that the assembly member felt that it watered down the bill too much for him. And so he voluntarily withdrew the bill, and it's now becoming potentially a two year bill. So he presented a bill. People wanted to get their own little bills involved, but so they tacked it on to his bill, and so it just sort of went away from the intent of the bill, is what happened. If I recall correctly, there were amendments from the appropriations committee that essentially added exceptions or certain comments around overnight parking near a school, a K 12 school, things like that, that for him, it was too much watering down. And so he'd rather pull the bill and get a fresh start. That was my understanding from his response back as to why he pulled the bill.

[02:18:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. Yes. his response back as to why he pulled the bill.

[02:18:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I don't see anyone else in the queue for questions. So thank you very much.

[02:19:01] Foothill College President Thuy Thi Nguyen: Yes, thank you, and look forward to your feedback. And I hope also a real possibility around partnership in the future, enhancing the issues of student homelessness and housing. So I look forward to working more with the council. Sounds good. Yes, thank you so much. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Sounds good. Thank you so much. This is your little trinket, okay? So it's... Thank you.

[02:19:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, next on the agenda is the consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion, unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. Would any council member like to remember an item for discussion?. Yes, member McAllister.

[02:19:57] Councilmember John McAlister: So, uh, 4.5.

[02:19:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Go ahead.

[02:20:01] Councilmember John McAlister: So my question was... I just wanted to get clarity that revised every other week, garbage, because we had discussed that at prior times, and we didn't... It didn't seem to pass the muster. And so, again, I was reading one of the questions, staff, and I guess you're gonna come back and reevaluate... about every other week. And so what new knowledge that you have, that would cause this to take place?

[02:20:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And I can go to the city manager for an answer.

[02:20:38] City Manager Dan Rich: Lori, why don't you come up and answer it? But my recollection was, when you looked at the zero waste program a while ago, there was recognition that a number of new tools will be necessary to get to this, and depending on how we're doing, and other things, this is one potential option in the future, but it would not be done without further exploration and review by the council.

[02:21:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So... How would that... Oh, yes, so you had some follow up on that?

[02:21:10] Councilmember John McAlister: No, not unless you want to clarify. So, okay, so what tools, I mean, were those something that's going to be over time? I mean, there was a lot of feedback from the community saying, This wasn't going to work. And so, I was wondering why this is coming back again.

[02:21:26] Solid Waste Program Manager Lori Topley: Well, one of the, um, sorry, I'm Lori Topley's Solidways program manager. One of the, um, things that we think could help in the future is, um, as we invest in getting more people to move more materials from their garbage cart to the other carts that we may find, um, that people are realizing that they don't have that much to put out. So it could be something that would work in the future, and there may be more support for it then. But there are other ways to look at how to collect garbage less, we could do smaller carts. There are other things that other people might be investigating. And so we would just want to look at all the options and not rule anything out. until we get a chance to look at everything in the future.

[02:22:15] Councilmember John McAlister: What was your timeline at looking all these things?

[02:22:18] Solid Waste Program Manager Lori Topley: I don't have that plan right in front of me, but I think that is one of the long term initiatives, and maybe, those don't start until after 2025, so it's a number...

[02:22:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. To our city manager, long term is three months, and so that's...

[02:22:36] Solid Waste Program Manager Lori Topley: Yeah, no, it's one of the long term initiatives.

[02:22:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member, Hicks.

[02:22:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, John, you seem satisfied now, but I was gonna say that one of the activists on the... When I was not on council, but you were, who was opposed to moving to every other week, garbage collection, did call me about this item, and when we read it over together. She was satisfied that this was very long term, and it was when a certain series of conditions changed, that made it possible, so she was like, Okay, don't even bring it up. She did. You can always bring it up, but she wasn't interested anymore.

[02:23:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, um, any other comments, room counsel? Would any member of the public like to comment on an item on the consent calendar?

[02:23:29] Public Speaker: Yes. Regarding item 4.2, the water main crossing from Macon and San Rafael? While you're down there, I was wondering if you could have, like, an underpass for bikes and pedestrians, so that you can connect the pair neighborhood and the new East Terabella neighborhood, just add more non-car options to be able to get between the new retail options that are gonna be available in both of those areas? Thanks.

[02:23:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other members of the public want to comment on an item on the consent calendar? Okay, seeing none. We have a motion from Council member Clark. Council member Clark?

[02:24:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, the motion is just to approve the consent calendar.

[02:24:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, and we have a motion by Council member Clark in a second by Vice Mayor Abbe Koga. There's no other comments. We'll call the question. There's no other comments, we'll call the question. That passes unanimously. Next step is item five, which is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter, not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section, and state law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. Uh, can I see a show of hands of the folks who want to speak to the council on items not on the agenda? The folks who want to speak... Okay, um, each speaker will have two minutes. If the first person could come up, and be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak, and leave it with our city clerk. Come on up. Yeah. or after you speak. and leave it with our city court. Come on out. Good evening.

[02:25:20] Shabana Ansari: Good evening, honorable council member. My name is Shabana Ansari. I'm a resident of Mount Donevu since 2016. October is a national domestic violence avenues month, and I stand here to talk about an epidemic that is persuasive in our homes, cities, state, country, and all over the world. Domestic violence is an ill that exists in all communities, irrespective of culture, religion, sexual orientation, financial status, and immigration realities. A survey administered by national network to end domestic violence, also known as NNEDV, reveals that in 2018, in a 24 hour period. Domestic violence service providers served approximately 75,000 individuals with their needs. In California itself in a 24 hour period, the number of victims helped with various domestic balance related services were 6903. The need for comprehensive plan to address domestic violence in our communities is urgent, and we thank the city of Mountain View for providing much needed assistance in many areas as well as requests to stepping up the effort. I volunteer with my 3 A woman led organization with 28 years of experience in the San Francisco Bay Area, serving the South Asian communities. My 3 pride itself on its culturally responsive and linguistically appropriate services and is regarded as a community expert in this field. We request the city of Mountain View to join organization around the state of California, commemorating October as a domestic violence awareness month, and initiate the following activities. One, evaluating and improving current language access in the field, to offering training all cultural responsiveness to various local government employees and agencies, 3 involving non-governmental organizations, as thought partners, while planning city activities, for uplifting the voices of the minority groups, whenever possible, as they like representation in committees and other policymaking spaces, and last, but not the least, create a safety net for vulnerable immigrants, so that they feel free to seek assistance when needed. Thank you for your time.

[02:27:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next place.

[02:27:33] Papia Gamblin: Good evening, mayor, council and staff. My name is Papia Gamblin, and I'm with Platinum Advisors, a consultant for the Valley Transportation Authority. The Valley Transportation Authority has retained RSM to perform an independent study to evaluate VTA's governance practices. Platinum Advisors was retained to assist with the robust community outreach. I am here tonight to invite the public to participate and provide feedback on how VTA is governing in relation to bus ridership, light rail, highways, bike, and pedestrian pathways, and county wide transportation planning and congestion management. There are several platforms available for the community to engage and participate that we would like to share. RSM will be hosting an in person community meeting on November 20th at 7 p.m. at the County Build Government Building at 70 West Heading. They will also be conducting a virtual town hall, webinar on November 21st, which will allow the public and members of the community to provide comments and ask questions. The webinar will also be recorded, so community members can watch at their convenience in any location. There is also a dedicated voice mail for members of the public to leave anonymous, confidential feedback by calling 408, 952, 4200. A web page and survey at vta.org has been dedicated to this effort to provide more details and gain feedback. RSM's findings and recommendations will be presented at the December 18th ad hoc board enhancement committee meeting. Further information on this is available at the VTA website. Our team will present this same information at every city council meeting and at the county, and our goal is to promote an in-person and the in-person and virtual town hall meeting to gain the maximum amount of participation. Thank you. We will be sharing this information with the city clerk so that you can receive it electronically.

[02:29:44] Unknown Speaker: I am not sure if you have a question or a question. do.

[02:29:46] Unknown Speaker: I have a question. Oh yes. Hello there. Is this one of the first times in a long while that the VTA has reached out to the community, to let them give their input, and how they feel the board is governed, and how it's made up, and is it effective, and so forth?

[02:30:03] Papia Gamblin: It has been quite some time. It's probably been, you know, VTA has outreach to the community on a number of projects, whether that's a localized project or community at large, but with regards to governance, this is, I think, one of the first times in quite some time.

[02:30:20] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so for all those people that always complain about VTA, doesn't give them a ride, or doesn't provide service to them in this area, this is a great opportunity, then, to participate in feedback to the VTA?

[02:30:31] Papia Gamblin: Absolutely. Thank you.

[02:30:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Next, please. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you.

[02:30:40] Maria Marroquin: Good evening, everybody. My name is Maria Marroquin, and with me, I have today, uh, three people who lives in, uh, currently in Crisanto, and I just want to bring, again, to your attention, the citations that they have been receiving has been impacting tremendously their lives. So, first, uh, is Manuel. So, he wants to share, and I'm going to translate briefly what is getting through in order to pay, uh, this citation, this one. His name is Manuel Resinos, and he is hurt in his job, so he is not able to work until December. So he just gets a citation for $98 for, is not able to move, because he has no driver license, and he needs to find somebody who can move the vehicle over him. And he also suggests, like, they or he commit to keep the street clean. If they can clean it, just continuously, and could be different situation, if they need to move at least every month. It could be different situation. So we don't have a lot of time, so I need to push a little bit. Okay. So, we don't have a lot of time, so I need to... Okay. So, uh, his name is Cristova. So he said they labor, he works today workers center, and he appointment, like, as a director of there. So he also suggests about just to move at least once a month, and he commit himself, also, to clean the street. And pretty much, he's asking you, your support, and also the police department, and also to be avoiding the citations, because it's very detrimental for them. avoiding the citations because it's very detrimental for them.

[02:34:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could speak into the microphone

[02:35:26] Maria Marroquin: So, his name is Alberto Resendis, by the way, he's the gardener. So, if you like the garden there, is because him. So he said, I, in all the comments that the previous speakers made, so also he had about his age, like, it's very difficult for him go to work, and then be able to pay the citations. So he really is begging for your help in your intervention, in order to stop the citations, to them. Thank you very much. You have questions. I think we have questions.

[02:36:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Next, please. Oh, I wasn't sure. Were you in line for...? Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on items not on the agenda? Okay, then we'll close this portion. And we will move on to, um, item 7.1, which is the South Westman Park design, Project 17, 34, approve the conceptual plan, and select a name for the park.

[02:36:37] Senior Project Manager Ray Rodriguez: Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Ray Rodriguez, and I am a senior project manager in public works. My name is Ray, and I am here to review the two recommendations with you tonight for your consideration. I am here to review the two recommendations. The future park site, shown here in the red area, is located in the South Wisman Precise Plan area, which that plan envisioned a three acre neighborhood park to include playfields. The larger site opens up the park to more possibilities not available in mini parks. and is intended to serve a larger geographic area. I'll discuss those possibilities later in this presentation when I discuss the recommended concept. But in 2015, council approved permits and the associated conditions of approval for the developments at Ferguson Drive. The area is shown here within the blue lines. One of the conditions included a dedication of 2.76 acres for a future park, and there were visions at that time for soccer fields.. A closer look at the park site shows residential units on the left side of the site. that all those units have doors facing the future park. There's a private walkway and a landscape buffer between the walkway and the park itself. The red shading on the three sides signifies the improvements provided by the developer, including landscaping, sidewalks, and a public path, public bike path. There's a light rail trail accessible on the other side of the light rail tracks to the north air. That's accessible via the at grade crossing, and that trail will lead to the Wisman and Middlefield VTA stations. For outreach, there were two community meetings held to obtain input on the park. In April, about 50 people attended the first meeting, where we reviewed two possible park concepts that were mainly focused on soccer fields, but they also included restrooms and play areas. Focused on soccer fields. The two concepts modify, the two concepts modified the layouts of the soccer fields themselves. At the meeting, while the majority of residence did not support soccer fields, they did provide input on amenities. At the second meeting in June, three concepts were reviewed with the 65 attendees. Following a discussion, voting, attendees selected a preferred concept with some modifications. The concept was revised, and based on the community input, and staff presented it to the Parks and Recreation Commission in September. The Parks and Recreation Commission, then unanimously approved the preferred concept, which you will have for consideration tonight. Honestly approved the preferred concept. This is the recommended concept plan, reflecting those changes. The concept includes a large open turf area surrounded by trees. The circular area on the right includes space for play areas, barbecue and picnic tables, and stationary exercise equipment. There's also unisex restroom building on the site. a full size basketball court, and an enclosed dog area. These amenities are generally unique to the neighborhood parks and not typically found in many parks, with the exception of the play area and sometimes exercise equipment. Staff recommends a few additional modifications shown in the concept that include the following. There's a recommendation to split the dog area into large and dog, large and small dog area, for safety reasons, and to install a pergola, for shade, where the fence divides this two spaces. There will also be picnic tables and a water fountain, which will include a pet fountain, as well. And we have also heard from some of the residents that they'd like to have just a single dog area, not split. There's also mounding in the lawn area adjacent to the basketball court. This would allow users of the park to watch a basketball game and kind of be elevated in that area. of the park to watch a basketball game. The project also will include public art because the construction budget is over a million dollars, in fact, it is $3 million. Following tonight's meeting, when we, the staff will take the recommended park concept to the visual arts committee to begin the public art process. When staff returns for counsel for approval of plans and specs and authorized bidding next year, we will also bring the VAC's recommendation for public art. next year. And that budget is about $30,000. budget is about $30,000. The second recommendation tonight is to select a name for the new park. Council policy, K 17, provides the criteria and process to name a park, which staff followed for this project. The guidelines and the policy are included in the report, and I have listed them here as well. The process is for the parks and recreation commission to submit at least two recommendations for the park for the parker name to counsel. To submit at least two recommendations.ations Again, following the policy, staff reached out to the public for submission of suggestions, and this table reflects those suggestions. received. Staff included the Pyramid Park and Infinity Park name, since it was not suggested by the community. And typically, the street name is often selected as the park name to provide a geographic reference. The Parks and Recreation Commission does recommend Pyramid Park, and their second choices Infinity Park. You guys recommend... The next steps following council's approval. tonight. Consultants will begin the design process to develop documents for bidding next spring, and to begin construction in the fall of 2020. The project budget for construction is currently programmed at $4.8 million, and is included in the five-year capital improvement program. that request to appropriate, the funding will be included with a 2021 CIP process. This concludes my presentation, and I have the two recommendations on this line. for your review. Thank you.

[02:43:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. It's always fun to talk about parks. Are there any questions from council members? Vice Mayor Abbehooga?

[02:43:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you for the report. Um, just one question. What was the reasoning for having one dog park area instead of two?

[02:44:08] Staff Presenter Ray: I think, for one, I think that the, um, it's a common practice in dog parks, generally. And it's common to separate them because the larger dogs may not be always friendly to the smaller dogs.

[02:44:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, wait, I was, um, the other, the other way, like, what was, why was there interest, community interest, having just one park, I guess?

[02:44:33] Staff Presenter Ray: The feedback we got is that they feel they just want to have more space for the dogs to be able to run after a ball.

[02:44:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, okay.

[02:44:40] Staff Presenter Ray: It just makes a longer run.

[02:44:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you.

[02:44:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[02:44:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Yo, a couple of questions. On the dog park, we have a lot of dog parks. I mean, parks that have off leash areas that aren't fenced off, that has time restrictions. Was that a consideration? That has time restrictions.

[02:45:02] Staff Presenter Ray: We did get some of that feedback from the community, but I think that... I think that what happens is it's easier to contain the dogs and... We find that the staff... I'll let John answer the question.

[02:45:29] Community Services Director John Marchant: Good evening, John Marshawn, Community Services director. As Ray was starting to say is we heard, loud and clear from the incoming residents and those that are already there, that there is an interest for a specific dog park. We talked about the off leash dog area as an option. What also helped tip us over the kind of the other side was that there's access to the VTA corridor right there. And so being able to separate the dogs for safety reasons and control reasons so that they don't end up in that area.

[02:46:04] Councilmember John McAlister: This part, when it's the size of it, based on, let's say, 3 acres, play safe. What is the geographical area that is normally associated with the 3 acre park? I mean, what's, you know, instead of just little pocket parks or right for the little neighborhood? So a three acre park. What kind of geographic pocket sphere is that supposed to include? What kind of geographic potentially? Is that supposed to include?

[02:46:34] Community Services Director John Marchant: Oh, John Rashon. I don't know if we have a specific number of residents or, um, a specific radius that we're trying to accommodate. It's a matter of, also, the some of the boundaries that the area is found between with some of the larger streets for access to those locations. So I can't answer a specific number of residents that we're trying to accommodate with this park specifically.

[02:47:03] Councilmember John McAlister: And related to soccer field. Do we have enough soccer fields or not necessarily soccer fields, but anything that's a wide, large area. that made people rule out that we have plenty of soccer, so we don't need one here.

[02:47:20] Community Services Director John Marchant: At this site, there were a couple of accommodations that we were looking to make through the process. Number one is with McKelvie coming on board. That's going to help alleviate some of the congestion at Shoreline. We have the Vargas school that's going to be opening up with a turf field. We're going to be able to bring more sports to that location as well. So we're gonna feel a little bit of a alleviation, at least short term. The one of the issues with this site specifically was appropriate parking for the number of people we were expecting to come for not only even just one soccer field per se. We were actually looking to possibly have 2 soccer fields. Once we started looking at the number of families that would be coming to a location for that type of, that type of use. The parking in this area was not going to be able to accommodate that, and it would negatively impact the local residents.

[02:48:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Not only parking is there, uh, on the two streets now. Or proposed.

[02:48:15] Community Services Director John Marchant: I believe we're at 35, approximately.

[02:48:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay. I've gone past soccer games on a regular basis over at Huff, and there's usually not more than 35 people there, so... well, that's for comments. I'll hold off on that Hang on. Thank you. Is there a concern or consideration for other than just this particular neighborhood that this park is a size that maybe it may be too much design for one particular area and not universal for the rest of the city? I mean, you... Yeah, that's not a good question. Well, it's sort of like, are you... It sounds like this, this park is, you're going by just the complete neighborhood around it. Versus, it's large enough to allow other people throughout the city to come. So, is it broad enough, and use that other people throughout the city would use it, versus, you got a playground for two, playground for five, dog park for small and big, and so, you're giving up a lot of stuff, or you're very descriptive of what you're putting in there. So, is it...?

[02:49:36] Unknown Speaker: Well, I think... If I understand what you're getting at.

[02:49:39] Councilmember John McAlister: I hope you do.

[02:49:42] Unknown Speaker: I do. The picnic area that has barbecue. So there's a number of barbecue pits and picnic tables. And so that will accommodate a large number of people.

[02:49:59] Councilmember John McAlister: It's not typical in a mini park. I mean, it looks like...

[02:50:06] Unknown Speaker: Well, I'll add to, since I live in the Wisman area. There isn't a dog park like this in the Wisman area. And I know a lot of folks who live close to me, go to the San Antonio Center to use the dog park there. So I feel like this is great to have one much closer. And a basketball court, I can imagine a ton of pickup games there.

[02:50:30] Councilmember John McAlister: You doing comments or questions?

[02:50:31] Unknown Speaker: I'm answering your question.

[02:50:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. Well, okay, has, with all the, uh... Modification, or the, uh, amenities there, how much does that diminish the open turf area? Or change the open turf area from which was mutually proposed.

[02:50:48] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Well, I have some numbers here for you. Thank you. The turf area is about 40,000 square feet. And the, if you take a look at that circular area, on the concept. No, that's about 150 feet across. I don't have a square footage on that, exactly. square footage on that, exactly. The dog park area is about 13,000 square feet. The dog park area is about...

[02:51:27] Councilmember John McAlister: How does that compare to the one at the shoreline?

[02:51:30] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, it's very similar.

[02:51:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So those are my questions. Thanks.

[02:51:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Got some Abercame?

[02:51:38] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thanks. Um, I actually have, I actually have a follow-up question about something, uh, counselor recalcer I was bringing up. So for the basketball court is the idea that it would just be kind of a passive court, kind of like at San Verone Park, and that's why there isn't the parking concerns that there would be with the soccer fields.

[02:51:57] Unknown Speaker: I see an audience.

[02:51:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Got it. And then, um, for the the tables, um, the picnic benches, are those to rent like they are at Ringstorf, and Cuesta, or would it just be kind of more open or? Are we are we thinking about going down that path to?

[02:52:18] Unknown Speaker: At the moment, we are not looking to make that a reservable space, 1st come 1st serve, similar to other parks.

[02:52:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. All right, thank you.

[02:52:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[02:52:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. I have a question about perk names, which is actually not something I'm super passionate about. I actually don't really care what the park name is, but I keep seeing that we have certain guidelines related to street names and historical figures. And then, I don't know exactly what happens, but it seems like we go out to the public and get people brainstorming about a lot of very creative names that then we're unlikely to pick. And I feel, I feel like there's some, um, disjuncture there, that maybe we're not... telling members of the public that we're not going to pick those particular names, or I don't know what exactly what's going on, but I thought I would bring that up, and ask, you know, because I, I can imagine my children thinking up all these fabulous names, and seeing them never being picked, and just wonder, Where are we going with that? Could we be more clear? Maybe to the public about what kinds of names we're looking for, or maybe have some feedback on that?ish?

[02:53:33] Unknown Speaker: Well, what we do at the, usually at the second community meeting, on these park projects, is after we're finished reviewing the concepts. We hand out a postcard with the policy, and let the residents know we're seeking their suggestions for names. So we give the copy of the policy. And those are the guidelines that we're following. And we don't try to impose any other suggestions that they, we just let them submit what they would like to submit.

[02:54:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, like I said, this is not for me the biggest issue of the night, and I'm not going to belabor it, but it's just something that I see coming up continuously of people thinking of all these creative names, and then council goes with the street names. I thought I would mention that, and we can maybe think about it in the future.

[02:54:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Okay, we will open this up for public comment. If there's anyone who wishes to address the council on this item, please be sure to fill out a blue card, either. Either before or after you speak with our city clerk. Uh, excuse me.

[02:54:52] Frank Kelsey: Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. Frank Kelsey, Infinity Way. Excuse me. I just wanted to thank staff very much for all the hard work, the diligent work and coalescing input from the entire community for this new park within the precise plant. I believe that the plan before you this evening does incorporate, for the most part, but actually fairly well, the input from the community, and ask your support in approving the plan before you this evening. Thank you very much.

[02:55:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else?

[02:55:31] Serge Bont: Yes. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Sergebont, Mountain your resident. So, I had, actually, a question that tells to council member Hicks question about Park's names. How did we come up with street names? Because, you know, in my neighborhood, it looks like it's picked by 1st names. You know, Olivon Lloyd, there is Thud, very scaffy nearby. In this case, we have pyramid and infinity. And they don't seem very descriptive, and I don't know if we had a policy or policy to change for names, because, you know, I don't know if it just seemed very random to me. Thank you.

[02:56:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council on this topic? Thank you. Okay, we'll close the public input portion and bring it back to council for any further questions, or, uh, discussion, or then a vote. Vice mayor, I'll be Koga.

[02:56:29] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you to staff for bringing this forward. I think, been a long time in coming. I remember the development project from back in 2003. I think it was or four. Um, and so, um, it's great to see the park coming to fruition. I think this is great. I appreciate the community input. I was really rather surprised at the number of participants who came to the community meetings to provide input. That was very exciting, I thought. And I understand back in the early 2000s when we started talking about this project area. I mean, I recall the conversation, and at that time, playing fields was a real issue, a concern, but I think in the end, I remember the project as it was going through just in terms of the need, their, you know, more sports teams being wanting to play in Mountain View and just having a oversubscription of the fields that we had, but I think since then we've had Shore open up and and then, you know, some of the others, old McKelvey's coming online too. So, I can understand the interest in switching this to more of a multi-use park. and I can support that. I guess I was council member McAllister was talking. I was likening this to maybe Sylvan Park. I don't know, so they might be bigger, but a similar type of park where you have many different, you know, activities available. It is, probably, primarily the neighborhood, but it does, I think, attract folks from all over. So, I think we'll see the same for this park. So, um, I'm, well, okay, I guess there's others in Q. I'm fine with pyramid. I preferred infinity, but it looks like pyramid's actually the bigger streets that fronts the park, so I'm fine to go with that name. So, yeah, I'm happy to support it. make emotion when ready.

[02:58:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right? Cut some in for McAllister.

[02:58:50] Councilmember John McAlister: You know, I'm ready. We were talking about names, and... What? You know, you talk about historical family names, and somebody who's been in the area for years and decades, and family has deep roots. Could have been an excellent name to go with, but I always like street names, because they're always good. But the reason I was bringing up the parks again is, yeah, we're getting up to... I mean, we saw his vision as a bigger area for recreation, and for, you know, their soccer coming along, and there's rugby coming along. There's various other sports coming along. And as the city grows, our opportunity to get large open space is not very good. We've seen that throughout all these other developments. And so, when I saw this big open space, potentially two fields, or, you know, flag football, whatever, you know. I was saying, This is great, 'cause we need them. And we've always had McKelvey, so I don't see how that is going to change use, if anything, that's probably going to be reduced a little bit, because it's really stricted for baseball, and it's lit, but I don't think we're going to get that much difference. And then Shoreline, yeah, it's, you know, turf, and so we do have some opportunities. But we just don't have that many chances to get big, large open space areas, and that's why I was disappointed to see it. And I thought a little bit of it was... The way it was designed was more specific to that neighborhood's wants versus the needs of the city, and that's what I probably was trying to say, is, should we look at the needs of the city, because it's a larger area versus a smaller park, where it was tailored for those people, and it might be, you know, construed as a private park in some regards. So that's my comments. I was sort of like infinity myself, because it was more of a direct shot off of Ferguson, but I could live with either one.

[03:00:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Counselor Clark?

[03:00:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: Ferguson. So I'm fine with the design. The name is tricky. Because they're his pyramid way in Infinity way, but the park is neither infinite nor full of pyramids. Um, so, because it does mount. My preference between the two, I mean, the Vice Mayor's Right Pyramid Way is sort of the longer street, but I sort of like infinity way a little bit more. So I would, I'm open to... open to my colleague, because, and that, and as, and as, Counselor McAllister just said, that is the street that leads off of Ferguson. So if you're coming to visit, you know, and not necessarily just walk in there from the neighborhood, then maybe that has some additional sway. But anyway, I can go either way on this one. I don't think we have any, like, really stand up. obvious options. this one.

[03:01:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I appreciate how many residents got involved in this process. It's astounding to see how many came to both the meetings, and I really appreciate that. And I appreciate staff, hearing the input from the residents, and making adjustments to the plans. I think this is a park that is very supported in the neighborhood, the greater neighborhood, and that's exciting to see. I think the dog park will be used by folks, not just who live around there, but I think you'll see lots of people, use that dog park. Um, it seems like everybody has a dog. And it's a great social outlet for folks to go, and take their dogs there, so I think it'll be well used. I would like to see the public art incorporated into the, I feel like I say this every time. Sorry, the features and the fixtures, kind of like we did at Wyandot with the interesting bench. I prefer it integrated into things rather than standalone art. So while we have the chickens for Wyandotte. I would prefer not stand alone. I also would like to give the direction now that we not only look at a 1% budget for art, but a 2% budget. So we have the option to see what additional items could be incorporated with double the amount of budget. And I prefer Pyramid Park. Infinity Park makes me think of Cupertino, since that's a major street in Cupertino, infinity way. So I actually prefer Pyramid Park. And I do prefer names. It's close. I feel like there's gonna be confusion there. So I like ours to be distinctive, and I think, um, it makes sense to have the streets, because then people know where it is, if they just look up the street. So, um, I'd like to stick with pyramid park. Council member Ramirez.

[03:03:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So I appreciate Steph's work on this. I support the plan. I support the mayor's suggestion to explore additional art funding. The only, I guess, substantive common I have is the park name is likely to influence the art that we see incorporated. So I don't have a strong preference between the two names, but I can see if we go with Pyramid Park, the visual arts committee, may be taking that literally. So if you have, you know, comfort with that, you know, then, you know, maybe it would be helpful to provide at least preliminary direction on, um, if we if we go with pyramid park and we don't want to see pyramids, literally, then, um, maybe expressing that or, I mean, whatever the council prefers. That's really the only the only remark I have. Thank you.

[03:04:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Can remember Kameh?

[03:04:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I think the mayor said it best when she said it's nice to look at a park. So, um, and I appreciate staff's feedback and answers to my questions. I think that that just kind of goes to show the importance and the priority that the community had in creating this, you know, neighborhood park. And I would say that benefits the community overall, right? Because it'll be heavily utilized ideally. And I myself don't have a preference for the name. I do think that one of the reasons we go with street names is so that people can easily identify where it is. That's been a tradition that we've had, and I'm comfortable with that. Um, the increased, um, from one% to 2% for the public artist, something I support. And I do like the idea of it being integrated versus standalone art. Thank you.

[03:05:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: It being integrated. So we have a motion by the vice mayor.

[03:06:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so I will go ahead and make a motion to approve the Parks and Recs commission's recommended conceptual plan for South Wisman Park Design Project 17 34. And, um, I will go ahead and, uh, motion to select the name as for the new park is Pyramidway. And also include a 2% budget for the art. And personally, I kind of, I think it might be interesting to see what might come out of a pyramid themed park, but, um, I won't put that in the motion, but as a comet.

[03:06:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So the park would be Pyramid Park, not Pyramid Way. It's on Pyramidway.

[03:06:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, okay, yes, sorry. I think... I recommendation.

[03:06:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. You right. When I was... Yeah, you're right. When I was proposing an increase to the art budget, it was, let's look at a 1% and a 2%. So we see what we would get for additional budget. So not just increasing it automatically.

[03:07:17] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yeah, and if I could jump in, maybe some more general direction to look at that, but also that one% for art is actually a standalone policy, which isn't an item before you tonight, but you certainly could add onto the motion a direction for staff to look at. reviewing that policy, but also bringing back options, what if a policy, if the policy was changed, what the 2% could look like, because right now it's not part of your motion tonight.

[03:07:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So our current policy says it has to be standalone art?

[03:07:54] Unknown Speaker: Oh, no, no, no. That's a standalone policy. 1%.

[03:07:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. I'm sorry. I wasn't clear about that. Okay. Okay. So, what we did, why in, was it Wyandot? On another park, we did increase it to 2%. So how would that be different?

[03:08:09] Unknown Speaker: I think the point is, this is not on the agenda tonight. The art is coming back as a separate item. So if you want to provide direction to consider 2% when it comes back. You can do that. You just can't take action on it tonight.

[03:08:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right, okay. So it's so moved. Counsel... member of McAllister?

[03:08:29] Councilmember John McAlister: I just wanted clarity on that. I mean, we're proving a CIP project. So, about to the art. So I'm a little confused about why we can't allocate funds, the way we see fit.

[03:08:45] Unknown Speaker: I'll let the attorney chain in, if he disagrees, but it's not on the agenda, and it's not part of the item, and the report explicitly says, We'll come back with art later. And so the public doesn't have notice that you're taking action on art tonight.

[03:08:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Whatever. We're looking at dollars that we're spending. When we're talking about the park and isn't art incorporated into the park in conceptual design.

[03:09:09] Unknown Speaker: You can provide direction to staff that when they come back to discuss the art, that they can, that we give you options for 2%. You cannot take action on that tonight.

[03:09:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[03:09:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Sorry, not to belabor the point, but for Mora Park, I think substantially similar direction was provided regarding an increased art budget. So, is what you're suggesting how staff interpreted that direction from that park.

[03:09:44] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I mean, my recollection was that was similar, as you said, come back with options for what 1% and 2% look like when you bring the item back.

[03:09:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. options for what 1% and 2% look like when you bring it out.

[03:09:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We have emotion.

[03:09:58] Principal Civil Engineer Lisa Al: Oh, yes, yes, sorry. Hi, I'm Lisa Al, principal, civil engineer. Just wanted to add that we actually don't have construction funding for the project yet, so it's gonna be proposed in the spring CIP process, and then that could be considered in the project at that time for the art budget.

[03:10:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay, we have a motion by the vice mayor, and I seconded it, and it's, um, to approve the conceptual plan, to name it Pyramid Park, and to give staff direction, that when this comes back, um, to give us a 1% and a 2%, uh, option, uh, for the public art. option. Everybody clear? Okay, we'll call the question.

[03:10:51] Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry, can I just clarify? Did the motion also include, um, any direction regarding the art, um, direction for the... No, okay, thank you. Direction of the art.

[03:11:02] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I made a comment that I personally would like to see some pyramid incorporation, but I did not include it in them more motion.

[03:11:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Actually, though, but I mentioned some other folks did, which thank you for reminding us. I did mention that I thought it would be good to have it incorporated in, rather than standalone art. And I know council member Kumay said she agreed with that. I don't know if other folks agreed with that.

[03:11:29] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So actually, um, I would make a friendly amendment if we could include that.

[03:11:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, and since I seconded it, I'm okay with that. So the art is, when it comes back to us, we would have, here's what 1% of the budget would get you in terms of public art, and here's what a 2% of the construction budget would get you for public art, and that the art would be mostly incorporated into the fixtures and items in the park rather than standalone art.

[03:12:05] Unknown Speaker: What kind of description? Are we going to give the visual arts committee? Do you want? Do you want to? direct them to incorporate the name or...?

[03:12:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No, no, no, I'm just... I would like to, but I just didn't... I wasn't sure everyone else was going that way, but... Oh, you know, I could see the plane structure, including a pyramid. You know, there's ways to do that, but I didn't know if we want to be that descriptive.

[03:12:33] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, that's why I was thinking, I was leaving it up to the visual arts, because you will be on a corner, and I think a corner would be a great way to put some visual art on a corner, to highlight whatever you were asking for. And I would hate to preclude the opportunity to study something on a corner versus if it was incorporated in the park. And when you say incorporated in the park, I'm looking, everything is sort of along the VTA line. And so that's, I want to get clarity on that.

[03:13:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so since I was the one who suggested that. I would be okay if we had options, some of it standalone and some of it incorporated, into the fixtures and features of the park. But I don't believe the visual arts committee gets involved in picking, like, the play structures.

[03:13:25] Unknown Speaker: No, not the play structure, but the art. I know Margaret was talking about that. If it's going to be incorporated, then it could be part of the place structure, right?

[03:13:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I guess I was thinking more of the benches and tables and things like that, but, um, I guess, look to staff for, uh, guidance on this one.

[03:13:45] Unknown Speaker: I think we're getting a little bit into the weeds here. I think the way it worked last time is you gave general direction to the VAC, and in that case, they look at a range of art options and made some recommendations, which will ultimately come back to you. So I think there's enough direction, particularly, if you say, look at options for incorporating at least some of the art into the features, but not necessarily all of it, and that will be the direction. we give them.

[03:14:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so I will change what I said, too, that we give direction to the Visual Arts Committee to look at options for incorporating art into the features, as well as stand alone, and come back with options for us. Is that good with you?

[03:14:34] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[03:14:35] Unknown Speaker: Oh, I have one more. No. I'm sorry, you've asked. One left. It has nothing to do. When will the RFP be set out?

[03:14:43] Unknown Speaker: It has nothing to do. Now that you have direction on a park. The process is that we will go to Visual Arts Committee, uh, committee meeting next month, their first meeting in November. We'll present to them this concept and show them some of the opportunities they can look at and consider. They will put together kind of the criteria that they would like artists to submit on.

[03:15:09] Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry? Go ahead. Okay. How was this? I was thinking the whole park, the RFP for the whole park versus just the visual arts.

[03:15:16] Unknown Speaker: So you're... Oh, you're talking about the construction.

[03:15:19] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, the Earth be for construction, yeah.

[03:15:21] Unknown Speaker: That bid will go out next, probably in June. In 2020.

[03:15:26] Unknown Speaker: And the timeline, because June is... Why so long?

[03:15:32] Unknown Speaker: So just to be clear, what you're talking about tonight is conceptual design, this park has not been designed. It has to go through the entire technical design process. So, as the report says, final design is not expected until summer of 2020. That's when it will come back to you for plans and specifications, once you have... final design.

[03:15:55] Unknown Speaker: Thank you.

[03:15:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we're gonna call the question. Okay, let me call the question. That passes unanimously. Okay, we will close item... 7.1. And since we've been going since 5 o'clock, um, we are gonna take a 10 minute break on this clock. and come back at 8:30. Oh, yeah, sure. Sorry, um, we are gonna have one announcement before we take a break.

[03:16:36] Unknown Speaker: Thank you, Mayor. Uh, so, uh, after speaking with the city attorney, I am recusing myself on item 7.2, uh, due to the potential for bias, or the perception of bias, with regard to a service provider, potentially impacted by decisions related to the site. Thank you.

[03:16:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, now we'll take a break till 8:30. Thank you. Okay, now we'll take a break till 8:30. Okay, we call the meeting back to order, and we'll do item 7.2, which is procurement options for new solid waste agreements, and we will start with the staff presentation.

[03:19:39] (archive recording) Solid Waste Program Manager Lori Topley: Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Lori Topley. I'm the solid waste program manager, and with me is Don Cameron, our assistant public works director, and we're here tonight to review options for developing new solid waste agreements. Mountain View solid waste system, is made up of services provided under three separate agreements at a cost of more than $26 million annually. All three agreements expire at the end of 2021, so it's now time to begin the process of establishing the new agreements. Recology provides collection services, compost organics from commercial customers, and operates a recycling center on Terabella Avenue. The most recent agreement with recology went into effect in 2013, and the current budgeted expense is $18 million. The Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station, also known as the smart station. Processes our curbside recycling, processes trash to remove organics and recyclables, and then transfers the remaining trash to the landfill. This 30 year agreement dates back to 1991, and the current budget expense is 5.3 million. Disposal takes place at Kirby Canyon landfill in South San Jose. This 30 year agreement with waste management also dates back to 1991, and the current budgeted expense is $3 million. Back in 1991. The process to establish new solid waste agreements began with the preparation of a zero waste plan. The final plan was approved by counsel earlier this evening, so thank you. The initiatives included in the plan will be considered when evaluating services for the new agreements. The next step in this process is for the council to review procurement options to develop those new agreements. Once counsel provides direction on a preferred option. Staff will proceed with an evaluation and selection process, with the goal of having the new agreements in place by the end of 2020. collection process. So Mountain View has essentially had... Oops, the same collection provider since 1940. Based on benchmarking of 2018 collection costs at 10 agencies. It appears that the city is still receiving good value from the current agreement. Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale have a 30 year memorandum of understanding for the construction and operation of the smart station. Sunnyvale is the managing partner and operates the facility, and it's difficult to benchmark the processing cost, because the arrangements can vary so widely by city facility and the range of services provided. All three smart partner cities have 30 year agreements with waste management for disposal at the Kirby Canyon landfill. The garbage generated in the three cities is first brought to the smart station, and then is later transferred in large trucks to the landfill. Current disposal costs for mountain view is about $63 per ton. We don't have a lot of comparison points on cost, but we know that recent pricing offered to several other jurisdictions from Republic services and waste management ranged between $43.55 per ton, depending on the length of the agreement.. Staff has presented three procurement options for council consideration. Under option one, the city would negotiate new agreement. directly with all of the current service providers. Under option two, the city would undertake a single competitive procurement process for all the required services. And for option three, the collection contract would be put out to bid and the processing and landfill agreements would be negotiated directly with the current service providers. Processing landfill agreements would be negotiated. If the city chooses to negotiate with the existing service providers, in January, the council would approve a scope of services for recology to respond to, and also adopt a resolution authorizing smart MOU negotiations. In June of 2020, the council would review the status of the negotiations. If they are not progressing well, then at that time, the city could revert to a bid process for any or all of the services. We could revert to a bid process for any or all of the purposes. I think I went too far. Nope. Sorry, I think I'm missing a slide that I wanted to... Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I'm sorry. I do have the information there. I wanted just to tell you a few things about the waste management agreement under option one. And that's because the landfill disposal is closely tied to the trash processing services. So we think it does make sense to entertain a negotiation with waste management. If the city is also engaging in MOU discussions with Sunnyvale. And those negotiations can be done either by the city alone, or in conjunction with Sunnyvale and other potential smart partners. Option two is a single competitive bid process for all services. The council would review a bid package in January 2020. Staff would issue an RFP and undertake the evaluation process. The council would then select the preferred provider to negotiate with, and those new services would begin in October of 2021. For this option, it's important to consider the availability of other service providers. There are a number of companies providing collection services to cities located in Santa Clara County. Processing facilities are more limited, green waste recovery, and republic services both operate facilities in the county. and might respond in a bid process. Sunnyvale is primarily interested in partnering with other jurisdictions, and is not likely to read. to a city bed. For option three, collection services would be put out to bid while processing and disposal would be negotiated using the same process I outlined for option one. However, the RFP for the collection services would not be issued until after the June 2020 negotiation status check in with the council. That way, if it's decided at that time that either the processing or disposal services are to be bid, then the RP can be issued as a package. Each of the options was evaluated based on five criteria. Diversion potential was based on the likelihood of the option to deliver the programs identified in the zero waste plan. However, not all additional diversion anticipated by the plan can be achieved through collection and processing improvements. Legislation, behavior change, and consumer product changes are equally important considerations. Cost was evaluated relative to the other options, and risk relative to both operational issues and contractual terms. Facility capacity and availability and customer convenience were also evaluated. This table summarizes the results of the evaluation. The best ratings for each option are highlighted in red. Option one is ranked highest due to avoided risk of operational issues that can occur when changing service providers. Assured processing capacity at the smart station, and the customer convenience of having a disposal and recycling facility in close proximity to Mountain View. Having disposal and recycling facility. So while staff usually recommends a competitive bidding process to procure new services, There are unique circumstances with these solid waste services. Recology has provided good service to the city for many years, and their costs benchmark well. The smart station is not a typical service provider, and would not likely be available if a bid process is undertaken. For these reasons, staff is recommending option one, which is to first negotiate with the existing service providers, while retaining the ability to revert to a bid process if the negotiations are unsuccessful. So I'd be happy to answer any questions. And I also have Ruth Abby and Kevin McCarthy from our consulting team here, and I may call on them to help me if needed. Thank you.

[03:38:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any questions from council members? Thank you. Council member McAllister.

[03:38:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. It's getting a lot of help here right now. I need it. Um, so, a couple of questions that I... You presented a chart for us, that benchmark collection cost? And Mount View, this goes across the board is Lois. So, Mount View, why would, I mean, sort of, going along with staff recommendations, I mean, their benchmark costs are really, or the lowest, pretty much average, across the deal. So if we went out to bid, what advantage would we get that people would lower their costs? Try to match or something?

[03:39:44] Lori: That's possible. Also, we will be initiating some, looking for some new services, um, to, uh, based on the 0 waste plan. So, um, there's an opportunity to, um, you know, to price well additional things.

[03:40:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Wasn't there in the staff report. One company that came in low and that they went back to ask, did I read that in a staff report? That they went off the bid, and the company bid... And they came back for us to renegotiate a contract? Was that in the staff report? For some reason, I just, or it could have been a different item, but I thought it was in this. There was an option that... a concern.

[03:40:32] Lori: Um, I don't I don't think I address that in the staff report. Are you... Are you saying that when you put something out to bid is possible that your existing provider might bring you a higher price?

[03:40:44] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no, no.

[03:40:45] Lori: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, misunderstood.

[03:40:47] Councilmember John McAlister: One of the reasons for staying with your college is... Another company had bid on it somewhere else. And then they came back and wanted to re negotiate... Not with us. but with the other... Again, could be mistaken, but I thought it was regarding the garbage. Okay, let me go to another question while we're doing that. On page five, you say, landfill, the postal costs are included in the smart station expense noted above. And could you clarify that a little bit, because if waste management does the disposal? And they're the landfill. But the starts, if they're included in the start station expense, I'm trying to understand.

[03:41:35] Lori: Yeah, sorry. In the staff report, I included the $3 million that we pay for disposal, and the $5.3 million that we pay for processing are in the staff report, those are noted as one expense, and the reason is that is because we actually pay the city of Sunnyvale for the landfill disposal, and they pay waste management. So I only I don't actually have a separate budget for waste management services. It's all in the smart.

[03:42:02] Councilmember John McAlister: So when waste management goes to the smart station, they're picking up Mountain View's garbage, Sunnyvale's garbage, and Palo Alto's garbage.

[03:42:09] Lori: We actually take it to them. But yes, the garbage from all three cities, is put in transfer trucks, and we take it to Kirby Canyon.

[03:42:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Who's we?

[03:42:19] Lori: The smart station, the cities. We're responsible. The cities are responsible for delivering the garbage to Kirby Canyon.

[03:42:28] Councilmember John McAlister: And then Kirby Canyon. They just collect, because we drop it there, That's how they get their money.

[03:42:33] Lori: Yes.

[03:42:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay. For some reason I thought waste management was delivering it. from one point. Okay. It helps the confusion a little bit there. And I recently saw a letter from the mayor of Sunnyvale, saying that they wanted to talk about negotiations or continue. There was some concern about the smart city. on a smart station, and that we were doing some negotiations with them, or remodeling it or something, like that.

[03:43:00] Lori: Well, so the, when the smart station MOU expires, it was long anticipated that that facility would be upgraded, and that additional, there would be additional capital expenditures. And so the process that's been going on so far is to look at what those options might be, what are the long term costs might be, and we needed that. We wanted that information in order to feel comfortable recommending to the council that we go keep going and go further. Okay. So that's the process that's been done to date.

[03:43:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Is there a new law on disposal that is going to be implemented, or that we're supposed to be implementing now, or very soon?

[03:43:49] Lori: Yeah, so, um, the state is, um, right now, drafting new regulations, um, as a part of SB 1383. And those regulations will require us to get more organics out of the garbage. There might be various ways to do that, but essentially think of it as a mandate. We're going to have to mandate our customers to separate their food scraps and food soiled paper. And one of the things that could assist us with that, meeting those regulations, is sorting our, continuing to sort our trash. So we think that's going to be an important thing to keep doing going forward, is to pull organics and recyclables out of the trash when people don't quite get it out themselves.

[03:44:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so we're... Okay. Uh, those are my questions for now. Thank you.

[03:44:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Okay, we'll open this item up for public input. Is there anyone who wishes to address the council on this item? Is there anyone wishes to address the council on this item? You can fill out a blue card before or after you speak, but come on up to the microphone. I can fill out a book card before or after you speak, but come on after the night.

[03:45:14] Hala Al Shawani: Thank you, Good evening. My name is Hala Al Shawani. And, um, just one thing I'd like to mention to Lori, um, Palo Alto about two years ago, I experimented with electric garbage truck, collection, or using electric garbage trucks. I would love to see that, recommendations, the negotiations, with the waste management company. If it's feasible, and it's in alignment with reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportations, and kind of all mixed together, so... Thank you.

[03:46:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is anyone else who wishes to address the council on this item? Thank you. And are there others after this gentleman? If you could please, um, line up over there? That'd be great. If you could please... All of us lined up.

[03:46:18] Michael Gross: Michael Gross from Zanker Recycling. We have a construction demolition recycling operation in Albiso in North Park of San Jose. There wasn't a lot of talk about construction and demolition debris. And when we talk about solid waste as a whole, Construction waste and demolition rate is about 30%. Now, you guys just pass as zero waste plan. So you kind of see the writing on the wall here. But one thing that you kind of left out is, on this RFP process, you have the largest construction and demolition recycling operation, in the United States, as your next door neighbor. And we have just invested, uh, $12 million last year in one store line that we use robots, actually do sorting and stuff. But we've over the last three or four years now, we have put in three other operations, to handle your construction and demolition debris. So it's just looking at some back numbers in 2018. There was about 22,000 tons of construction and demolition debris that came from the city Mountain View to our facility, and we recycled that construction. So that's people bringing stuff there that, uh, not through the debris box from your hauler, but through other, other means. It serves their own self haul material, maybe they're tearing down a building or something. There's an opportunity for the city to actually be part of that, and for the re boxes to come directly to Zanker. So, I think one of the options, when you guys are talking about this, is potentially bringing the construction, demos, debris, too, a facility likes anchor. Thank you very much.

[03:47:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[03:48:00] Emily Finn: Good evening, Miss Mayor, members of the council. My name is Emily Finn, and I'm here representing Green Waste Recovery, and also Zanka Road Resource Management, and part that owns and operates the Z best composting facility down in Gilroy. I know that staff and the consultants put a lot of effort into bringing this item forth tonight. One of the things that we would like to have the council strongly consider. Each of the 3 options includes the negotiation of a MOU with the Smart Station. And one of the things that was absent, unfortunately, from the staff reports is that the smart station actually sends all of the green waste, the clean, green material, and then also all of the garbage processing finds down to our facility in Gilroy. And that contract also expires in 2022. So as part of our green waste family of companies, We'd really love the opportunity to provide comprehensive, all-inclusive pricing for mixed waste processing for any other processing services that the city might like, including what Michael said with regard to construction and demolition debris, that can be mixed waste processing, it can be dual stream or single stream recycling processing. It can be clean yard waste. It can be yard waste, commingled with food waste. We have lots of different options. And believe it or not, it's very simple and straightforward for us to provide you with that pricing. As an example, the city of Santa Clara recently issued an RFI for mixed waste processing. They did that, I believe, in August, and um, that we responded to that RFI, and we are already in the process of negotiating that contract that's going to go before their council um, on December 10th of this year. So in less than 4 months, they were able to issue an RFI that was very basic. It just provides, how much per ton are you going to provide for this service, how much per ton for this service? If we do all 3 of these services, what would those pricing options look like? So it's pretty basic. It's not as complicated as the collection service options. And so we would just really love to have the opportunity to be able to provide that pricing. Um, and as part of the green waste and anchor family of companies, the smart station right now is relying on that material coming down to one of our facilities, and we do provide, of course, preferred pricing to our internal family of companies. So in terms of a cost competitive advantage, if you receive ZVests composting facility services through the green waste, anchor family of companies, that's going to be more competitive pricing than if that goes through the smart station. And in all of our contracts, we also include the disposal components, so there wouldn't be necessarily a need to renegotiate, um, with waste management for the Korean Canyon contract. So we just like the opportunity, and we're here in your backyard. So let us know. Thank you.

[03:50:48] Unknown Speaker: I have a question for you. Did you say, um, so, um, on the, in the staff report, it has a table that shows the major service providers of facilities, and the smart station says Jewel Stream, Green hoist recovery says single stream, free recycles, processing. Are you saying you could actually do dual stream?

[03:51:10] Public Speaker: So, some of the service providers, the other companies that bring us material do collect in a dual stream. So when it's collected in a dual stream. It can either go into the truck, maintaining those compartments where it remains separated. But what it can also do is it can just be the container that the resident of the business puts that in. It encourages them to keep the materials cleaner because they're separating them at the point of generation. But then if it gets mixed in the garbage truck and comes to our facility, it ends up as a cleaner stream material when it enters our facility. So we have the capability to process it as both you wouldn't need collection, service changes, in order to be able to utilize our facilities, and we do have incredibly high diversion rates on curbside recyclables.

[03:51:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. We do have incredibly higher. Thank you. Next place.

[03:52:01] General Manager Johns Raleigh: Good evening. Mayor, may I attract members of council, I'm Johns Raleigh, gentleman manager, for Ecology, Mountain View. Your manager, member of the council... I recalled you supports the staff recommendation of option one. I stated in the staff report, where colleges provide good service to the city for many years. and their cost bench mark as well, and authorized negotiations with the current service provider. In addition, recology collects and processes, all the residential and commercial organics for the city of Mountain View, based on prior agenda 4.50 waste plan tonight. This is one of the largest areas of increase for for potential diversion, which for college, it would be the best partner of the rollout of these new programs, and the zero waste plan based on our experience and knowledge in the city. programs. In the city staff report on April 25th, Mountain View residents, trash rates are 43% lower than Palo Alto, and 20% lower than Sunnyvale. Commercial rates are 39% lower than Palo Alto, and 18% lower than Sunnyvale. So as a staff reporter said, we are the lowest cost service provider. Through our partnership with the city of Mountain View on diversion programs. We've achieved a 78% diversion, which is one of the highest in the region. Recology is 100% employee owned company, and every employee has a stake in the company, from your collector, to the customer service representatives, to the mechanics, to the office staff, for all stakeholders in the company, with the highest level, or customer service and satisfaction. Stakeholders. We're also a great community partner. That supports many local organizations, art and wine, all the carts, CSA, Leadership Mountain View, Special Olympics, Stevens Creek Trail, Mountain View, Firefighters, Fire Drill Run, and all the local school districts. We also have a, uh, we completed a volunteer project at Questa Park on May 18th. We had 125 recology employees come volunteer at the park. We painted and redid the restrooms, the horseshoe pit, we spread 125 yards of mulch. We spread 24 tons of gold, gold finds in the barbecue and picnic area, and that's what ecology is all about, and we also planned the 10 trees. And closing, you know, we called you, Mountain View looks forward to increasing the diversion in the environmental programs for the city of Mountain View in the upcoming years as service providers. Thank you.

[03:54:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this item? Thank you. Okay, so you none will close the public input portion and bring it back to council for if there's any other questions or discussion. Council member Hicks.

[03:54:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I have one question given public comment from Ms. Topley, which is, do you think there's any value in your negotiations in bringing up electric trucks, or any specific way to do that?

[03:55:04] Unknown Speaker: Uh, definitely. Yes. Okay, I think it's a great idea to bring it up. and discuss it. Yeah.

[03:55:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[03:55:14] Councilmember John McAlister: manager. General manager, you want to comment on electric garbage, and then I'll ask my question. General manager, you wanted a comment on electric garbage?

[03:55:22] General Manager Johns Raleigh: Yeah, this is actually a great opportunity. Recology just rolled out his first all electric garbage truck and then our Seattle operations. So this will be a great test to see how well that truck performs in the next 6 to 12 months. And we'll be happy to do a pilot, and as part of the extension in our programs. So... I would be happy to do a pilot.

[03:55:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, my question for staff, then. The report you talked about landfill disposal is extremely high. Issuing. So, I'm trying to understand how are we going to bring that part down? So I'm trying to understand... How were we going to bring that?

[03:56:04] Unknown Speaker: Well, I can't say for sure, having not opened any discussions with waste management. One of the ways that we can approach waste management is in concert with smart potential smart partners. Um, so, uh, more numbers of cities.

[03:56:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so that. helpful. Okay. Yeah. That's one of the questions I put in there, the council questions about working with Sen is a... Sunnyvale, through the smart. Okay. And I want to read one line here. that I knew I wasn't going nuts. In the current recycling market, many cities with single stream recycling programs have been approached by their service provider seeking help to offset losses. So, I just wanted to read that. I did know something. So, okay, those are my only questions, thanks.

[03:56:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Nice mayor, Abigoga.

[03:56:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, one of my concerns is, of course, our staff is always hardworking, and you have a lot going on. So, um, my question had to do with, um, negotiating a or renegotiating a current existing contract with recology. Like how long, we're saying, I guess, 6 months or so, if we were to do the whole R, RFP, that entire process, how long would that take? That entire process? How long?

[03:57:36] Unknown Speaker: Um, I... I think either process takes about the same amount of time. So our goal is to have new agreements in place by the end of 2020, and if we, starting now, I think we can do that, whether we choose to negotiate, or whether we go out to bed. I don't know that one's going to be faster than the other. The tricky thing is, is if we go through a negotiation and we decide part way, this isn't getting us what we want, it's not working, then we're gonna need some extra time. We'll be a little bit behind schedule to revert to the bid process then, but it can still be done.

[03:58:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, and looking at the chart, though, um, in terms of just cost, um, I mean, we do have one of the lowest cost per person, um, services. So, I guess I just, I don't know what, yeah, why we would go for a higher cost, um, organization. Did you explain what the difference is? Like, Palo Alto is, you know, brought up green waste, but I look at it and they're much more expensive than we are. So why would we even look at that? much more expensive than we are.

[03:59:01] Unknown Speaker: It's, um, so it's hard to know exactly, um, exactly what these cities are paying for without going out to bid. It's the only way to know true apples to Apple's pricing. So the benchmarking is a way to try and isolate, similar collection services, but it's not, it's not foolproof, so...

[03:59:27] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sure. For example, I know that Palo Alto has more staffing. For example, I know that through green waste, then we have through ecology. Is it necessary to good service?

[03:59:41] Unknown Speaker: I don't know. The only, again, the only way to know 100%, apple to apple is to put them against each other in a bid. So the benchmarking isn't foolproof, but it gives you an idea of what other cities are paying.

[03:59:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Thank you.

[03:59:57] Unknown Speaker: I'll add on a note. You know, notice that staff is recommending option one to renegotiate, and that part of that reasoning is based upon that benchmarking, and if negotiations go well with ecology, including the additional services, we would want to see to reach our zero waste plan goals. It seems like a practical way to go. When you go out to bed, you can either do very well or it could go in the other direction.

[04:00:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right, you have a higher risk.

[04:00:27] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[04:00:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. you. Are we going into comments or?

[04:00:31] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah. Okay. So, I appreciate staff's hard work on this, and as well as our existing contractor ecology. Um, I'm inclined to support staff recommendation. Um, you know, I think we've had good service from mycology for many, many years, and, um, there definitely has given us cost value. And for their services. And I guess I, you know, I am, I want to be mindful of a couple of things, one being some changes that will be happening within our organization. And so I think that, um, for me, you know, personally, I think having familiarity is is important, and if we already have an existing relationship, which we do, and it's been a long one, in a positive one, I think, you know, my sense is that would make it easier to negotiate. So I think it's worth, you know, the ecology has been with us a long time, and, you know, I value loyalty too. And so I'd like to give them the, you know, 1st opportunity to try to negotiate something with them. Um, before we look at, um, going out to bid. I also think about the consumer, and, you know, we are introducing a lot of new programs, and I think, like, if we were to switch operators, we have to probably switch out bins and whatnot, right? And that's the, you know, for the average home, the resident. I think that's just a lot of change. We're just trying to get folks to compost at this point in time. So, um, I think, you know, things are going well, we just stay the course. try to get folks, you know, just be comfortable with what we have. And I think familiarity is important in that process. So I will be supporting the staff recommendation.

[04:02:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Council member Hicks.

[04:02:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I will also be supporting the staff recommendation. I thought the analysis was sound, and basically agree with the vice mayor as well. I would like to add that, uh, during negotiations, I would like you to bring up the electric garbage pickup tricks. Thank you.

[04:02:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I am leaning toward, um, either option two or option three. I feel like it's just good policy, good practice to every once in a while, go out to bid for the vendors that are providing services to the city. And it's not that I have any issue with our current vendors. But, um, if we haven't gone out to bed since, um, 1940, that's a long time, and I just feel like it's, uh, it's just good practice. And I think I've said this about all the other contracts that have come to us. And I think I've said this about all the other... So I think it's time to do that. And if we wait to go out to bed until six months, or eight months from now, I feel like that does put us behind, whereas if we just start right from the beginning, I think we'll get better information, we're adding new services, and I don't think it's gonna be a huge effort if we have to change some things with our residents. I think they're adaptable, and we'll, uh, easily, you know, understand what's going on. I don't see that as a huge issue. So I would like to go out to bid, either for all of the services or for some of the services. I think it's just good business practice. So it looks like, uh, we have emotion from the vice mayor.

[04:04:33] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so, um, my emotion will be to authorize staff to begin negotiations with the current providers for solid waste collection, and processing services, and report back on the status of negotiations in June 2020, to determine if negotiations should continue, and with the three entities, as listed.

[04:04:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kamet.

[04:04:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, so, I, um, have seconded the motion, I just wanted to, um, respond a little bit to why I did that. Um, you know, I think in general, I would lean towards where the mayor's going in terms of, um, believing in the RFP process, putting things out to bid. Not traditionally a fan of the sole source. But I think in reviewing the staff report, it's kind of a creative approach. and a way to move forward, and I was trying to look for it in my notes, but I can't seem to find it, but I do believe that there is a stipulation in there. For 6 months, it will be kind of like a see how things go, period, I would say. Um, and should that not, um, should there be any issues, then we can go out for the full bid process. So I think for me, that measure makes me feel comfortable with the staff recommendation. And so that's why I have 2nded the motion and just wanted to share a little bit about that. Thank you.

[04:06:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[04:06:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, 1st for public full disclosure, I have met with the provider, so I just want to let everybody know, chat. I'm supporting the motion. There's various reasons. The vice mayor mentioned management, but what we're going to be losing three various seasoned people in our public works department. And so continuity might make it a little easier for that department. I remember I was on the finance committee, and we were going out to bid, and I was the one that pushed to go out to bid to change their outside auditors, because I did want to change. And in theory, yeah, I do believe, you know, opening the market up was good. But in this case, there was a new software coming along, new transition, and so I said, Let's get through this transition in a smooth way. And so that's sort of an analogy here related to this. And when the mayor said that people are easy to adapt. I still remember when we were talking about changing the garbage, and people were going really. They were very concerned about changing from one week to two weeks and so forth. So I don't know how adaptable our residents are, but so continuity is good. And if we're incorporating new laws, and we're going to be requiring new services. I'd rather work with somebody that we have a relationship with so that there is, we don't have to build that, hey, you know, you're gonna do it. You said you'd do it, let's do it. And so, that's another reason, I like to see some continuity going down the path of staying with the same provider, because that could be challenging. And I also, as a council member, Commay said, I like the idea that we do have that option of going out to RFP. So it's sort of a hybrid. And the last comment is, garbage is... It's complicated because you got one person doing this, one person doing that, one person... There's no true consistency of, or one shop stop, one stop shopping. I mean, it may be in there, but that goes back to the single stream, I guess, was concerned. So, you know, let's pick the best of both words, worlds, and if we are going to wear you renegotiating with a smart station with Sunnyvale, here's an opportunity to lower some costs and gain some more efficiency, and so, since they are using it. So, ecologies were there. And then I saw Santa Clara is having... So they sort of have really a mixed bag of providers, but they're still using recology for the consumers. And so that was interesting, residential pickup. So, I don't know how that fit in there, but they're using it, and they looked at, and I'm assuming, and that's going to be a big part of mine, that they have all these people doing certain select things, and I just think that is a little overburning and trying to try to track it and manage it. So for those reasons, I'll support the motion.

[04:09:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Nice mayor, I'll be coca.

[04:09:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I actually wanted to add to the motion council member Hicks requests that we look at electric vehicles. So, if the seconder, would it agree to that?

[04:09:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I meant addition. That's second. Thanks.

[04:09:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I just want to add, I think, going from two weeks to one weeks is very different than some other changes you might experience. I'm sorry, from one, yeah, from every week to every other week. Sorry. I'm sorry, from one, yeah, from everything. Well, that's a very different service. I don't think it would be as dramatic going to a different vendor. But, uh, we have emotion by the vice mayor, and a second by Council member Kamet. Let's call the question. And everyone was clear on the motion, sorry. Should I... Everybody was clear on that? And everyone was classified. Okay. Plus the EV. Yeah. Okay. So that passes, uh, five, uh, yes, one, no, and one recuse. Five, yes. Okay. Thank you very much. very much. Oh, Council member, Kame?

[04:10:42] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, I just wanted to announce my recusal from this item. Um, can... Okay, so, um, I'm recusing myself from this item, due to my interest in real property, which is located in close proximity to the project site. Sorry, I should have announced first what the topic is, the next item is 7.3, Shenandoah Square strategy. Sorry, just to add context to you.

[04:11:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we will start with a staff report. Uh, presentation.

[04:11:27] Principal Management Analyst Melvin Gaines: Good evening, Mayor, and members of the city council. My name is Melvin Gaines, and I'm a principal management analyst and a city manager's office. And I'm here tonight to provide an update on our progress toward a city council, major goals project, to begin discussions with the Mountain View Wisman School. on their possible acquisition of Shenandoah Square and discuss shared uses of the site, as well as to seek direction on how you all would like us to proceed with the Shenandoah Square strategy. I'll begin by giving a little bit of background on Shenandoah Square for those of you who may not know. So Shenandoah Square is a 17 acre site, located at the northwest corner of Moffat Boulevard and Middlefield Road, that is currently an island within the city of Mountain View, unincorporated county land. The property is under the custody of the United States Army, but it's managed through a ground lease by California military communities, California military communities, which is a public private partnership, between the Army and Clark Realty Capitol. It's currently improved with 126 townhomes, which were constructed in 1989, and most of them are occupied by military personnel and civilian federal employees. And most of them are occupied by... In 2015, the United States Army expressed a desire to sell the Shenandoah Square property, in order to, or sell, or at least the Shenandoah Square property, in order to recapitalize their residential communities initiative family housing program in California. In December of 2015, the city council authorized a gatekeeper request for CMC, which included a general plan amendment, precise plan for multifamily residential development, with up to 1,000, or approximately 1,000 units, as well as annexation into the city of Mountain View. The council in 2016 provided preliminary input on a precise plan, in which they directed staff to consider tiered floor area racial program. Study heights up to seven stories, as well as to maximize public neighborhood parks with greater than or equivalent to five acres of parkland at the site. They also directed staff to prioritize affordable housing at the site, with there being roughly an equivalent to the on site, that any new development, have roughly equivalent to the existing affordable housing at the site, which is 126 units. That was preliminary, um, preliminary input, but it wasn't binding. It was never adopted or official. In 2017, CMC requested that the city put the gatekeeper on hold. And since then, no further action has occurred, related tuition, Nendoah precise plant, or the gatekeeper. No further action will occur, or would occur without the city initiating a project, or the U.S. Army, or whoever they lease, or sell the land, to submitting a new request. Believe in earlier in this year, Mountain View Wisman School District submitted a letter to the Army, expressing their interest in purchasing the Shenandoah Square property for a school site. Considering that request, in May, city council provided direction for the Mountain View Wizman School District to explore the possibility of a district acquiring the Shenandoah site, as well as discussing shared uses of the property, including affordable housing. Earlier in October, Mountain View Wisman School District informed the city that they're no longer interested in acquiring Shenandoah Square for a school site. However, we've learned that the Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District is interested in exploring the purchase of the site. The city manager's office met with Mountain View, Los Altos, Jr. School District Staff, as well as Congresswoman Anna Issu staff last week. and discussed kind of shared uses in a way of ways to proceed with the potential purchase of the property by the school district. Mountain View, Los Altos High School District proposes to use 12 of the 17 acres for a high school campus, and it is open to sharing shared uses for the remaining 5 acres of the site for mutually beneficial projects. Congresswoman Ashu's office, as she mentioned in 2016, remains concerned about maintaining housing for existing Shenandoah Square residents. And they've also reiterated that the Army is interested in using proceeds from the sale of Shenandoah Square to recapitalize or repay some of the debts from their residential communities initiatives, their family housing initiative in California. Because of that, sale of Shenandoah is exempt from certain federal regulations that would require the sale to go towards a public use or to require entities who are addressing homelessness to have a first shot. Well, that property is exempt from those requirements. Therefore, any purchaser would likely be expected to pay fair market value, and purchased by the school district and or the city and partnership would require a creative funding strategy, potentially with a private sector partner. a creative funding strategy, potentially. Before we proceed with that, we have a number of unknowns and seek our direction for how to proceed. So our recommendation is that you direct staff to modify the fiscal year 2019 through 2019, 20, 2021, major goals, work plan project, for the city to work with Mountain View Wisman School District, to instead work with the Mountain View Los Saltos High School Union District. We also ask that you provide direction on the city strategy related to the army sale of Shenandoah Square, and provide direction on the types of uses you would like to see Actionendota Square, particularly with the shared use with the Mountain View Los Altos Union High School Editions. So the question remains, should the city continue, the exploration of Mountain View, Los Saltosian High School District, acquiring Nandola Square property, and the opportunity for shared uses, and affordable housing on the site? And if so, what are the council's general parameters for use of the site pertaining to affordable housing, parks and open space, potentially market rate housing, et cetera? Housing. Once we receive your direction, if it is to do so, we'll continue discussions with MVLA, Congresswoman issues office, the army, and potential private sector partners. We'll also study financial feasibility of potential land use and shared site use scenarios at the site, and return to you later for further direction, and information on funding, and resource implications. for further direction. That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

[04:18:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: This is not a study session. Is there any questions from the council members, Council member McAllister?

[04:18:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I have a question that maybe it's directed at the school district, or maybe, you know, the 12 acres. Is any open space included in that 12 acres?

[04:18:57] Principal Management Analyst Melvin Gaines: My understanding from the school districts, the superintendent wrote a letter, and they're present here today, and they may answer it for themselves, they like, however, the 12 acres was strictly for school use, and they're open to the other acres, acreage being used for...

[04:19:12] Councilmember John McAlister: What I'm saying, open space, but there are gonna be buildings on the 12 acres, or is part of that gonna be fields for the school to be used?

[04:19:22] Public Speaker: I can share that we have an early architectural design that has it just for the buildings. The 12 acres.

[04:19:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And so then potential... Well, excuse me. Will you need fields there?

[04:19:39] Public Speaker: Yes, we will.

[04:19:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so that's where the joint use potentially comes in on.

[04:19:44] Public Speaker: Yes, Correct.

[04:19:45] Councilmember John McAlister: And do you know how many acres? I know it's early rail, early in the proposal, how many acres you might need for fields.

[04:19:52] Public Speaker: No, we don't know exactly how many acres at this time.

[04:19:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you. No, we don't know exactly how many.

[04:19:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[04:20:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Just a couple of questions. First, the staff report mentions that there are vacant units currently on the site. Have, has the city approached the army about potentially using those vacant units in the interim to achieve some of our affordable housing objectives, or do they have some plan for those vacant units units?

[04:20:26] Principal Management Analyst Melvin Gaines: My understanding is that there are 126 townhomes there, and 8 of them are vacant, and those are largely in a declined state, and in need of repair before other people could occupy them.

[04:20:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And then, how does this fit into the broader school strategy that the council provided input on earlier? So if a school materializes here, how would that impact the strategy moving forward? How would that impact this?

[04:21:01] Principal Management Analyst Melvin Gaines: Well, it's unclear at this point, but it certainly could be a component, part of the next analysis and the fiscal analysis will be, how would you fund such a thing, and contributions of land and or funds from a school strategy could be a component of that?

[04:21:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[04:21:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? I just have one. And in the staff report, it talks about pre zoning, um, and it's pre zoned for public facilities. If we went forward, Would we do another pre zoning?

[04:21:39] Principal Management Analyst Melvin Gaines: Yeah, so as unincorporated land, it's pre zoned for, in an event that it is incorporated or annexed by the city, then that zoning becomes the zoning for that area. It's currently, actually, low density residential, as the current use of the site. So the prezoning, once we annex it, would take place. For a school, public facility would be sufficient. But if you wanted to do denser residential development, then zoning would need to change.

[04:22:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: The pre zoning. The pre zoning. So it's recommended that we do, we pre zone it, do a precise plan before annexing it. Because once you annex, you have to wait two years before you can change the zoning.

[04:22:19] Principal Management Analyst Melvin Gaines: But just to add to that, we are not recommending tonight that we move forward with the pre zoning. That would be required before you annex and do anything, but we're suggesting is kind of work on the financial viability of a project first and get those parameters, once you know that, then you would pre zone according to those outlines.

[04:22:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry, I just didn't know the benefits of prezoning, but now I understand the process. How that works. Um, okay. Any other questions? I understand the process that that works. Okay. Um... Well, open this up for a public comment. Is there anyone who wishes to address the council on this item? Is that for public comments? Be sure to fill out a blue card either before. or after you speak, and come on up to the microphone. Be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you...

[04:23:13] Mark Chotol: Thank you. I'm Mark Chotol, I live in Chenandoah Square. Um, just first to make a comment. There may be some vacancies, but the units that are occupiable, I think, fill up pretty quickly. Also, as someone lives there, I want to say that, actually, and this may be something for the teachers in the room, I've been working for San Francisco State University and lived in an apartment complex next to it, next to what's called the Stone Town Mall. And many teachers and university staff live there. The university took it over to provide more housing for faculty. But when they took it over, Frankly, they didn't have much experience with managing that sort of thing. The services were slash, security was slash, car breakings, just soared. It became such a zoo that a lot of us had to leave. And then the previous time, the council may have seen me a few years ago. So eventually moved to 777 West Middlefield Road. But unfortunately, that became subject to, I guess, it's all going to be torn down and everything. And put into high density housing. So we saw the writing on the wall. So we moved into Shenandoah Square, which is very nice. It's a lot of families over there. It is a quiet place. We're not inundated with two to three o'clock Wednesday morning, doing 2 to 3 a.m. Wednesday morning, boisterous, you know, celebrations, and happy discussions outside the windows from the Google programmers, you know, who just, you know, got back from the bars and stuff. Again, very family oriented. I'm not inundated with, like, marijuana smoke and things like that, which really isn't optional if your neighbors smoke it. And so one thing is, if you move this to high density housing, is that the character of the changes quite differently. It's harder to raise a family there, um, you always have new neighbors, and even if you can try to train the new neighbors to be quiet, and, you know, maybe try to keep the smoke to themselves, or you smoke those ashtrays, and stuff, and not, you know, party at 3:00 in the morning every night. Then a new neighbor comes in, and the rate of new neighbors coming in, that need be trained is so quick, you just never really get quiet. It always stays noisy. That's one reason we move to Shenandoah Square. We do science work, we do hard stuff like that, and we need the quiet to be able to think and do that work at night. Like, we work during the day, but, like, I took a whole night off to be here when I should have been working. Also, I wanted to point out that there are a lot of, well, it would bet that Shenandoah Square is probably one of the most densest African American neighborhoods in mountain view. But it's not ghettos. You think that, well, there's black people. There's a ghetto, it's bad, we shouldn't develop it. But no, it's a lot of families. They take their kids to the park, the green space. It's just a really nice place to live. Yeah, there's some different maintenance, be sure. But it's like the Filmore District, in that, you know, you're taking a nice neighborhood and then redeveloping it and trying to help the families. Thank you.

[04:26:20] Unknown Speaker: I have a question.

[04:26:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We have a question for you.

[04:26:23] Public Speaker: Yes.

[04:26:24] Unknown Speaker: Um, I'm sorry if I missed it, but are you affiliated with the army?

[04:26:30] Public Speaker: Um, no, um, I've worked as a civil servant at NASA, and I work for... Okay. ...and place of the research partner.

[04:26:35] Unknown Speaker: Okay, great. Thank you.

[04:26:36] Public Speaker: And I also teach assignment teacher. at the research park.

[04:26:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is there anyone else who wishes to provide public input on this topic? Okay, we'll close the public input portion and bring it back to council for... additional questions or direction council member Ramirez.

[04:26:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Sorry, one additional question. So, um, just, I want to make sure I understand, sort of, who pre amps of what here? So if the site is developed, it would be subject to our land use authority, right?

[04:27:08] Unknown Speaker: Totally. So...

[04:27:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I guess the leverage that we have is the value of the land is heavily influenced by the zoning that we select. Right? So if is there, I guess, a danger of kind of a standoff where if we choose not to rezone it, then the land has a certain market value, then that would be less than it would be if we were to change the pre-zoning. Can you sort of help me understand how that would work?

[04:27:40] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, with the caveat, that that's if there is a sale of the land to a private entity. If the army retains the property, they can do what they want under the sphere of the county. So we don't necessarily control what the army does on that land until they sell it to a private entity, and we determine that we are going to annex the land. In the event that we do annex the land, Yes, our prezoning greatly influences the value of the land, as it says what uses can occur there. So, um, we do have some control, but the army still has kind of its interests and may decide that they don't want to sell it off. Something isn't viable to them. We never know.

[04:28:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so the danger would be if we elect to keep it as a public facility zoned area. They may decide to wait for a different council before they proceed with any kind of development.

[04:28:43] Unknown Speaker: Potentially, that's possible.

[04:28:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Got it. Thank you. Appreciate it.

[04:28:46] Unknown Speaker: Just to expand on that. The Army has made it very clear that they are looking, essentially, to profit from this site, and use those profits for other properties of theirs, and therefore, they have no reason to dispose of or sell or lease the property unless they get the value out of it that they want. So while we have leverage through our zoning, they have leverage that they don't have to do anything with it. Well, we have leverage through our zoning, they have leverage.

[04:29:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Albikuga?

[04:29:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I guess following up on that question. If it were to be leased, though, we still have to zone it. for something that they could build lease at least development, correct?

[04:29:29] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so, in an event that they do a ground lease to a private partnership or a private entity, then we would still likely have to change the zone and to accommodate the new use. So there is still... You can make an argument for prezoning it a certain way, and... that could determine. Ultimately, we would have to presone it if we want anything that's different from what's there now. All I'm suggesting is we don't want to go through that step of prezoning it until we have a better sense of the physical viability of a project. better sense.

[04:30:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are we doing confidence? Okay, to go to comments? Okay.

[04:30:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I wanted to think staff again for bringing this to us. This is something that I've been personally following for a while. Um, and um, learning the ins and outs of this parcel. Um, I know that, um, was it, 2016, the council then had allowed for the gatekeeper of uh, up to a 1000 or a 1000, um, market rate, uh, units, housing units to be developed there. But, you know, I had heard from Congresswoman issue, her interest in preserving the affordable housing that currently exists, and her priority being, you know, making accommodations for the families who live there. And we just talked about displacement in our study session. And here we do have this situation where these families may be displaced. And so, you know, that I heard very loudly and clearly from her, that that was her, you know, main concern and priority. But as a result, I started thinking about, well, you know, what else could happen there? And, frankly, you know, as much as we need. housing, I think we should make a distinction between housing, market rate housing, which is getting more and more expensive versus affordable housing. And my interest has been that, is that, you know, I started thinking, well, could the city potentially acquire the land, and with affordable housing developer, and put affordable, 1,000 affordable units. Like, how great would that be? That would be some a big, you know, statement. So I guess that's where I was looking at something, you know, doing something big that could really make a difference and putting a thousand market rate units, you know, to me, that's not that exciting, frankly. So, um, you know, in the process, and I know our city managers had conversations with our school districts, and I appreciate that, but we have the need for more school space, and so the school district's interest came about. And so, I guess my thought, my hope, my thought was, like, could we partner with the school district to try to come up with the, um, acquire the land to do a school, try to satisfy some of the school's needs, and then maybe try to also put some affordable housing there. So, you know, I've also learned, yeah, I learned about the, like, if it should have, if it was through normal process, then the excess land should have been offered to the city or another public agency, and then, if not, to affordable housing developer. So the fact that the army was able to get legislation to bypass that normal rule, I guess was, you know, the concerning to me because, one, this is in the center of our, you know, prime location in Mountain View, there's so many public uses that we could have with it. And to just let it be, you know, sold off or whatever it is, so the army can pay off their debt. To me, it does not serve the purpose of our community. And that's what I'm really, you know, as Mountain View council members. I feel that that is our first obligation. So I understand the federal government's interests and needs. You know, my hope is, I'm hopeful that we can work something out to satisfy everybody's needs. You know, there's many, we now have many tools, whether it's TDRs, or the school strategy, and I did mention it to Google because they have obligations in North Bay Shore, and perhaps some of that could be satisfied here. So perhaps we could come up with a public, private partnership. I think there's just a lot of potential. And to me, this land is so valuable. It's just too valuable to just say, go ahead and build 1,000 market rate units on it, or sell it off or whatnot. So before we can, you know, do that. I just want to explore this a little further to see if we can come up with a real partnership that can satisfy everybody's needs. So that was my interest in this. And I would, you know, like to move forward with at least exploring that possibility. Thanks.

[04:34:30] Unknown Speaker: Yes, and, you know, I appreciate Mountain View. I was, yeah, I was concerned when we lost with Mountain View Wisman School District because I think the school peace is important. So I appreciate MVLA stepping up, and I would be more than happy to work with them. Thanks.

[04:34:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[04:34:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I certainly agree with what the vice mayor said. I think it's an important piece of land for the city, and I would prefer a substantial amount of affordable housing over market rate housing, and also working with the high school. In addition to that, the other way I see this piece of property is that it's part of it is adjacent to Moffatt, and it's very near our train center. So, I see it as a part of, if we're really doing transitoriented development, I think we have to see how it fits into any long term plan for development on Moffatt, which personally, I think, should be. an extension of our downtown. It should be walkable. It should have wide sidewalks and trees, and uses that the public can engage with on the ground floor. So I would like, I would like any sort of pre zoning we do to kind of look at how it fits into the city and into the transit station. And I think you can do that with either affordable housing or with whatever is on Moffat or with a school, their, you know, various school years. that could, it would be exciting to have a school theater, right, on the street, and that you could, you know, engage with the public more than, um, I would go, if it were, if I could walk there to theater events and maybe rent it out. I think there are all sorts of possibilities, but I'd like to acknowledge, you know, when we look at pre zoning, acknowledge that this is really a part of our downtown, and a part of our transit center, and not ignore that while we're doing the pre zoning. And then I had an additional question on exactly what people are meaning when they say fiscal viability. Does that involve... Does that involve talking to the military and trying to figure out what value they're looking? for, or setting some parameters? What would you mean when you're looking? What are you looking for when you're looking for physical viability? Because what I've heard is that the school site and the affordable housing site bring the value down, and then maybe the Army's not getting what it wants. So what are we, what are the parameters for, what are we looking for in physical viability?

[04:37:15] Unknown Speaker: I believe your understanding is correct, fiscal viability, meaning, one, what it would take to purchase the property, what the army is seeking, and then also, what are the uses that we're proposing to use at the site, and what are the, how much money can we generate to, with those uses, to pay the army what they want. So if we have 1,000 residential units on the site, then that is a different land value, and different purchase price, essentially, that can be generated for that site. If it's a 12 acre school with a little bit of affordable housing in some fields, the site is might be less, might be worth less. Another consideration is if we do say that a thousand units are there, is it actually going to be built? If we have 1,000 units with a mixture of 20% affordable, then, you know, 200 affordable uses, will any developer actually build that? We need to study those and look at the considerations for such.

[04:38:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, so what's the process for that? Because on the one hand, I don't want to overpromise and end up getting something that is not right for the city.

[04:38:27] Unknown Speaker: So, considering a shared use of the Shenandoah site with the school district and the city, we would look at the different uses and conduct a financial feasibility study to see how much the site would be worth in such a scenario and how we could come up with money to provide those funds. be worth in such a scenario.

[04:38:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you.

[04:38:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Guess member, McAllister?

[04:38:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, question, if this army sold, Okay, they have housing there now. And if they sold the property to the highest bidder, but they required government housing on the site. So it's same use, but it would just be going to a outside contractor. Would they need to come to us for change the zoning at all?

[04:39:20] Unknown Speaker: If the army sold the property and required government housing, housing, in addition to market rate housing?

[04:39:29] Councilmember John McAlister: No, just if they put in, like they're doing, they're putting, like, NASA's putting in 2,000 units approximately over there.

[04:39:35] Unknown Speaker: If it were still a federal government run property, then no, they would not, in my understanding, I defer to the assistant city manager, community development director, to clarify that, but my understanding is the army has control of the site, and if they're going to be the controlling entity, They can redevelop it.

[04:39:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Sort of like they can have their cake and eat it too, but they can sell it, but they'll still...

[04:40:00] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Our T Shir Vastovva community. director. Again, we can go back and do some research, but, you know, if they're using it for their purposes. It's our understanding that they could continue to use it for those. For example, there's housing now for that personnel. So...

[04:40:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[04:40:17] Unknown Speaker: Oh, yeah, that's our understanding.

[04:40:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, 'cause down in Southern California, didn't they have some outside agency built some housing, and that's why they want to sell this one, so they could pay for their housing down in Southern California. But if they sold it, then they could still give it to a developer to provide their government house. Okay, that was good. Okay.

[04:40:37] Unknown Speaker: The follow question on those lines. So, the current use, though, not everyone who lives there works for the army. They work for lots of different organizations, including some folks who are not affiliated at all. So...

[04:40:58] Unknown Speaker: I can't speak to that, 'cause I don't know that we know who all the...

[04:41:02] Unknown Speaker: It's not own song? NASA. There are some just folks who live there.

[04:41:05] Unknown Speaker: That's a good question for the army. Um...

[04:41:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thanks. Okay, then, my next question goes back to the school district. How high can school districts build? My next question goes back to the school district. How high can school districts field?

[04:41:27] Unknown Speaker: I was going to say, The highest I've seen has been three stories, but I can get that information.

[04:41:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. for you. Because we were talking to allow up to seven stories. Okay. Thank you. My thought process is, I'd like to see, we can accommodate everyone, but if the school districts can go higher, therefore it gives us more space for subsidized housing, which, to me, that's a high priority, subsidized housing. I don't use the word affordable. I would say subsidize housing. So if we can accommodate the school district, by them building higher, and then giving us a bigger footprint for,

[04:42:00] Unknown Speaker: Well they'll need some open space.

[04:42:01] Councilmember John McAlister: We'll need some open space, and then subsidized housing. That's the direction I like to see, Scott.

[04:42:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[04:42:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I agree with my colleagues. Um, I think that the highest and best use of the land would be, you know, having the high school district, you know, use that to address some of the concerns we're trying to address the school's strategy. So, you know, being able to use one of the very few large, I'll say, underutilized sites that we have in the city to achieve that purpose, I think, is ideal, and then similarly using whatever space we can to achieve our affordable housing goals. I think makes a lot of sense. I guess so, you know, I think that the term used here is creative funding, creative funding strategy. I guess that's the real challenge here is we I assume we don't really know how much the army is seeking to profit from this site. and cobbling up the funding, you know, to make that happen, maybe challenging. So I, I don't know if you're seeking direction on that piece. There's no question specifically about that, but I guess that's really the challenge here is how do we achieve many different and equally valuable objectives using this property, you know, and you're seeking to develop it with uses that are not terribly profitable to the army. So I'm looking forward to staff and the high school district and potentially a private partnership to identify strategies, to achieve that. But that strikes me as the most difficult piece of this puzzle.

[04:43:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[04:43:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so I support the, um, the continuing exploration, except, you know, the staff recommendation to, you know, explore this with MVLA, instead of the, um, basically with the high school district, the, um, I think the only thing I would say is just to echo what some of my, um, colleagues have said is, you know, I would like to, um, utilize this site to... to its maximum potential. So, you know, have the school be as dense as possible, have the affordable housing, what? And then, you know, we're going to have the shared sort of park sites and playing fields are required. But the school itself should be, you know, as tall as and dense as we can support and the same with, hopefully, an affordable housing component too, that could not only meet some of the city's affordable housing needs, but also, hopefully, I think, mitigate some of the concerns that Congresswoman issues office has, and we could provide preference to certain folks, who, you know, either already there or may work for some of these other agencies. So, um, you know, hopefully if we, you know, if we partner with the school district and with, you know, a potential buyer, um, and, um, and sort of include those components and are willing to accept some additional density of some of the facilities there, whether they be housing or the school, then I think we have a, um, a pretty nice, um, and a comprehensive sort of project, whether or not it will actually work out or not. I have no idea, but that would be sort of the ideal scenario from my perspective. I have no idea, but that would be...

[04:45:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I'm supportive of changing the groups we work with from Mountain View Los Santos, school district, and from my perspective, while I do want to make sure we look at... make sure we... Gosh, darn it. I'm really tired of this cough. Um, I do want to make sure we're working with the school district on this. But I also am very sensitive to the fact that, um, I want us to kind of remain in the game and in control here. And so I don't want to completely ignore the federal government's desires, with what they want to do and what they want to get out of this. I think we do need to work together on this, to come up with something that we can all agree to. I do think the school is gonna have to be denser, taller, that maybe what's currently envisioned, and I'm saying that, because I'm expecting a park that is separate from the school district at that location, because we specifically did not have the development at 777 middle field, West Middlefield, do a park, because we said we were gonna have one down the road in this location. And so I don't want to park that is only available when school is out of session. It would have, because it's gonna have a different, um, plan for what's included, uh, versus if it was a public park that's available all the time to the public. So I want to make sure at least some of that park space is not affiliated with the school. But I also hear, loud and clear, from our congresswoman, as well as just us, that we absolutely want to accommodate the folks who are currently living there, and if we can add more affordable housing, even better. So, um, I see the vice mayor.

[04:48:01] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, I'm getting ready to make a motion. Thank you. So, I will make a motion. So, the 1st one is to... There it go. Oh, can... I just turned my... Um, it was to change the, um, partner from MV, um, view Wismond School District to Mountain View, Los Altos School District, high school district. Um, and then in terms of providing direction, um, I would, uh, direct, uh, direct that we direct prioritize in terms of types of use, uh, a school, uh, that maximizes the land there, and more urban, I guess, we've been talking about urban schools, so a more urban design. Parks and open space with the potential for joint and shared use. And I would also like to, we did this with Los Altos School District, but if there were to be any other facilities, like a gym or even maybe the library or something, that we could look at a joint use of those types of facilities as well. And then also including subsidized housing. And if there is a need for market rate housing to pencil out the project financially, that would be, we could look at that, that would be my last priority. And then I also wanted to add to this, I think, I mean, I personally would like to make it clear that the 2016 Gatekeeper is no longer in effect. So I would like to add that to the motion. And seconder is okay with that.

[04:50:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[04:50:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just wanted to add some final comments. I'm supporting the motion. That's... But I was just, um... That's your final comment, so I'm supporting the motion. The reason I keep asking, the last time the schools came along, I want, you know, what's the height? And schools need to be innovative. They can't rely on... want them to be creative, and that's their source. And so that's why, with all the needs that we're trying to get on this one particular property. The higher you can go, the more use and gets the use out of it. And then I was just reading about the school that Oracle just put out. They're a charter school, and I go, well, Google is walking distance around there. I don't think it's... But maybe that's a possibility that that type of a school where, instead of going to a degree, you can get, you know, skills at the high school level, and I mean, I'm sure you guys have worked with, or reached out to Google many times to try to see how you can collaborate. There's a possibility for public charter school at that site that is geared for, you know, something unique. But, yeah, I do your thing, I want that would be nice to have parks. I hate to see, with all the development that's going around there, that the open space would not. But the schools, but go up as high as possible and see what we can do, and be real creative. And whatever we've done. I know when you were here before, you were saying, oh, Mountain Vee High, we're going two stories, well. Everything is at a tight, tight package now, so the more you create a VR, I think that there could be a great partnership, something real innovative. creative VR.

[04:51:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So can I, you clarify your statement on Parks and Opus Space with potential for joint use? What does that mean?

[04:51:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I, I, I understand the interest for parks, so that would be our priority, but, um, I was thinking, you know, if, depending on what really can fit on the land, if we really, if we had to go to a joint use agreement, I think we could explore that, but maybe add to that, whatever facilities are built, like we did with Los Altos School District, like the gym or the track or whatnot, yes, that would all be joint use. Like, the gym, the track, or whatnot.

[04:52:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So would there be any park space that's not joint use?

[04:52:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I think that's our priority? So that would be our priority to look at that first. Okay. I think that's... I just want to leave it as flexible as possible... It's only 17 acres... I don't think we have to get into that much detail right now. The real issue is working with the school district. on the park issue. I mean, it could be like Los Altos, where there is part of the open spaces joint, where we only have access 50% of it, but then we also acquire two acres next to it, and similarly to a lot of our school sites. It's both city, land, and school land. So, we can work out those things.

[04:53:05] City Manager Dan Rich: I just want to, two comments. One, I want to be very clear that this is gonna be extremely challenging to come up with anything that has a remote possibility of working, it's gonna have to be very creative, it's probably gonna have to require the use of both TDRs and school funding strategies as well as other funding sources, because neither the school district nor the city and the uses we're talking about are profitable. their public purposes. So, you know, we're going to have to be creative, which is why we're suggesting doing that fiscal analysis first, related to that. So what we would suggest is you direct us to come back with a work plan and a budget for that fiscal. analysis, and we'll talk with the school district about hopefully sharing those costs. But I also want to be transparent. We failed to proactively inform the army of tonight's agenda item, and while on the one hand, they've been sitting and doing nothing for two years, and there have been meetings with them, so I don't, frankly, lose sleep over that. But if we're going to formally kill their proposal, I feel like we have an obligation to at least let them know that. So my suggestion would be, when we come back with a work plan and a budget, we would bring that action with it, and then we would at least let them know about it. That action.

[04:54:34] Unknown Speaker: Can I ask a question? So, um, do gatekeepers have an expiration time? It's been 3 years, 4 years now, right?

[04:54:45] City Manager Dan Rich: RT can chime in on this. My understanding is a gatekeeper has one year to file an application. Okay. This is not a normal gatekeeper because it required the precise plan. And so it's sort of a different animal. It's not, like, technically dead because of that.

[04:55:08] Unknown Speaker: I mean, I'm fine with that. I would like to put a time, a deadline on this. Well, I mean, I'd like, I'd say move towards action to end the gate.

[04:55:22] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I'm not suggesting that you can't or shouldn't kill it formally. All I'm saying is, in fairness to them, we should tell them we're gonna do that, and we failed to do that. So I would say when we bring back the work plan and the budget, which we have to bring back to you anyway, we could do it at that time.

[04:55:40] Unknown Speaker: That's fine. I think that, I mean, we met with them in March. I, you know, I think they should have figured out something was going on by now, so I'm not losing a whole lot of sleep, but...

[04:55:51] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, and again. Yeah, when it comes back, and I'd like to bring it back then. At least that piece sooner than everything else, because I imagine this will take some time, but I just think it's time, we just need to make a statement that, because if they're under the impression at all that that old gatekeeper is still in existence, I think they need to rethink. And, um, that's part of it too, is I know, you know, I've been given a number for what they're looking for in terms of, um, amount. And, you know, that's great, but again, I think this should be a partnership. And, you know, they should, I think they're gonna have to rethink their strategy, too, if they don't get everything that they want.

[04:56:36] Unknown Speaker: And I'll just add that in order for us to pick up work on Shenandoah, whether that's a project submitted by the Army, or whether the city initiates the process, they'd still have to come back to us and request that we do it. They just can't tell us, okay, we're ready, and we pick up everything without coming back to council for authorization.

[04:56:56] Unknown Speaker: Sure. But at this point, if, you know, we're very different in what they originally wanted and what we are looking at now, so I think we just have to say we're not interested in your original gatekeeper project.

[04:57:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we have a motion by the vice mayor in a second by council member Ramirez. There's no more discussion, and sorry, is everyone clearer on the motion?

[04:57:27] City Manager Dan Rich: Um.. Yeah, I would suggest that we... We just make sure everyone's clear 'cause we've had some unclear emotions, and I just added some nuances to it. So let me try to recite back what I heard. Formally changed our working partner to the high school district, from the elementary school district, prioritize a denser urban school, parks and open space with shared use facilities, as well as some freestanding park component, subsidized housing, and some market, if necessary, to make it possible, and that we would come back to you with a budget and work plan for the fiscal analysis, as well as an action item to formally kill the current gatekeeper. item.

[04:58:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay. That passes 6, uh, 01 with council member. They recused. Okay, thank you very much for that. Thank you very much.

[04:59:05] Unknown Speaker: We do. I'd like to make a notion that we continue past 10 o'clock? Okay. I'd like to make a motion...

[04:59:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I prefer not to continue past 10 o'clock. So. But, uh, we will... Take a vote on that. Take a vote on that. Now, I feel like we have had so many meetings where we have stayed forever, um, that I feel like it's time to say, um, you know, kind of enough is enough. Let's start, um, ending meetings at a more reasonable time. But if that is not what my colleagues want to do.

[04:59:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, uh, there was emotion in a second, so all in favor of kid starting a new item past 10 o'clock. There was a motion in a second, so... So I think there's forks. I think I see Luke's hand up. Yeah. Okay. So we are moving on to a study session now, which is the bike share and scooter share pilot programs. And since this is a study session, we'll do a staff presentation, then we'll open it up for public comment, and then we'll bring it back to council. Then we'll open it up for public comment, and then we'll bring it back.

[05:00:41] Transportation Planner Nate Barrett: Good evening, mayor and council. I'm Nate Barrett, transportation planner. This is Don Cameron, assistant Public Works Director. We also have Rhea Hudera. Lowe, the conservation manager in the audience. Tonight, we are bringing Scooter Sher Ford for your consideration. We'll start by briefly reviewing some summary results of our bike share evaluation, followed by presenting staff's recommendations for a scooter share pilot program, and continuation of the bike share pilot program. For a scooter share pirate program. Council adopted a pilot bike share program in September 2017, limiting bike deployment to 800 as a maximum total to start, with rules focused on safety, parking, and pedestrian access. Our two operators, Lyme and OFO, had 50,000 trips with 13,000 riders traveling over 45,000 miles in a six month period. over 50% of users connected to transit, and approximately two thirds replaced car trips. transit. While we did an extensive analysis of bike share results, which you can find in the staff report and attachments. This chart highlights a key industry metric, trips per bike per day. Spike share in Mountain View accomplished between 0.5 and 1.5 trips per bicycle per day, which was lower than bike share companies had hoped for. Staff expects, however, that increasing adoption by our neighboring cities could bring renewed interest in bike share in the near future. In addition, the program was well received by both bicyclists and community stakeholders. For these reasons, staff recommends it is worth continuing to test the market, while the city considers expanding to scooter share. It is worth continuing to testify. Scooter share has successfully demonstrated its market demand with significantly hired trips per device per day in numerous markets. San Jose, for example, has seen over 10 trips per day per scooter device. This has led to a substantial shift across the nation in the micromobility industry, with an increasing focus on scooters over bike share. Scooter share of success, however, hasn't been without issue. Noted concerns include complaints about parking clutter, pedestrian safety and access, and user safety. Staff presented potential guidelines for feedback to both the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee, also known as the BPAC, and the Council Transportation Committee, also known as CTC. Guidelines including several guidelines included several recommended requirements aimed at mitigating concerns associated with scooters that have arisen in other jurisdictions. CTC recommended moving forward, and not requiring scooter share operators to also provide bike share services. BPAC, in particular, was cautiously supportive of moving forward and recommended careful oversight of parking and safety issues, as well as requiring robust education efforts. BPAC also recommended council consider requiring a minimum writing age of 18 years. Proposed pilot scooter share guidelines will include sections on product safety, robust user education, notification of writing rules, and tips, including safe writing habits and awareness of state and local rules, such as the need for a driver's license, and not writing on riding scooters on sidewalks. A fleet minimum of 200 scooters per operator, a maximum fleet of 400 per operator, and a cap of 800 city wide. As well as a minimum age requirement of 18 years and designated parking areas. A key component of the pilot program will be the requirement to park in designated areas only, which will address many of the issues confronted by other jurisdictions with respect to parking and the potential for scooter clutter. Staff would work with operators to identify and mark appropriate locations on city property, such as parks and in the public right of way. These hubs will be geophins and marked with striping and signage to help users find them virtually and in person. Staff have two key recommendations. Launch an 18 month scooter share pilot program based on proposed guidelines, and continue to offer the pilot Bikeshare program until the end of the scooter share pilot program. Next steps would include finalizing pilot program requirements, working with operators to set up designated parking areas, and evaluating results toward the end of the 18 month pilot period. We have two questions. So city council concur with the proposed scooter share pilot program guidelines on product safety, education, designated parking areas, fleet size, and minimum age, and the city council concur with the recommendation to continue the bike share pilot program. We are happy to answer any questions you may have. To continue the bike share pilot program. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions.

[05:05:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So at this point, we'll open it up for public comment. If you want to address the council, please be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak, and leave it with our city clerk. And, uh... each speaker will have three minutes.

[05:05:57] Sam Kang: Madam Mayor, let me just begin by, I feel for you. I'm bowing a cough as well. I got extra cough drops if you need them. Okay, let me just... Good evening. My name is Sam Kang. Excuse me, I'm having a cough drop in my mouth right now. I'm here representing today lime, as you know. We participate in Mountain View's recent bike share pilot program, and we thoroughly enjoyed working with the city staff on that pilot program. And partly due to our positive experience in working with this city staff, we're very interested in the city's prospects to initiate a proposed initiated share scoot program, if it does move forward. Lime currently operates in over 120 cities around the world, in more than 30 countries and 5 continents, or over 15000000 riders have downloaded our app, across the world, and they've taken more than 1000000 rides currently. I like to law the city and staff with the steps that are taking exploring the initiation of a shared scooter program. And further say the study session memo authored by stat is a great starting framework for what could be a very successful program. Given the great start offered by staff, I like to offer just 3 specific thoughts that could help accelerate this great start. Number one is the recommendation to terminate any permit. You have a battery, or motor, or any other part B deemed unsafe. Safety is, of course, the most important thing for Lyme. And if we find safety issues with any of our vehicles, we act quickly to mitigate and hopefully prevent harm to be done to any rioter or member of the public. Unfortunately, though, in this industry, vandalism of scooters is a very common occurrence. For example, there was an arrest in Florida over this summer where one man, one person, was responsible for cutting the brakes of dozens, if not hundreds, of our vehicles. So, vandalism happens, and a lot of times, it's just not our fault when defections happen. So before setting a strict liability standard of a non-functioning vehicle leading to permit revocation, we can 1st establish both formal and informal phases of compliance, inquiry, enforcement, and escalation to make sure scooters are safe. Number two, staff report also identified some viable and pragmatic sites for designated parking for scooters. This makes absolute sense in high density areas such as areas along Castro Street, the 2 Caltrain stations, and as city owned facilities, but revise against restricting it to designate areas as the only options. That's because Lyme would also recommend a city afford use of existing infrastructure for scooter parking such as bike racks. A key element of a successful scooter program is affording residence the freedom to explore the city. With each added step a user has to walk to find a scooter. There's a precipitous drop in their likelihood to actually use a studer instead of instead hail a cab or use their own car. So we'd recommend a balance of free floating parking. in less dance areas and abundant parking spaces and dense downtowns and major transit stops. Number three, and finally, staff recommends $25 per unit deposit from operators. This may seem like a reasonable and costly measure on the surface. The line would actually recommend a per feed trip per scooter basis. And I can answer more questions if they'll cancel ask questions. Thank you so much.

[05:09:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez, do you have a question for it?

[05:09:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes, thank you. I'm curious about the per, what is it, per trip fee as opposed to per device? Right. Can you explain that a little more?

[05:09:20] Sam Kang: Of course, Kalsman Ramirez. So the staff report said that we recommend what would dissimilar into a buy share program, $25 per bike as a deposit as a fixed cost. On the surface, that's maybe seem like a cost savings to us. But actually in this business, scaling is everything. And it's far easier for us and more efficient for us to scale, if you impose a feed per trip rather than a deposit even per unit. So for example, if you charge us a nickel per trip and you multiply that by 3 trips per scooter, which is kind of an industry standard to try to meet profitability, multiplied by that by 800, the number of scooters, the scooter, the staff recommends to be on the roads at any given point in time, that could gross the city upwards of $43,000 a year instead of just one fixed payment cost. And those funds could go back towards the city to be reinvested in pedestrian walkways and rebuilding infrastructure.

[05:10:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Appreciate it.

[05:10:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: member Hicks.

[05:10:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So the per trip versus per vehicle fee, do different cities handle it differently, or is there is one or the other becoming a standard?

[05:10:35] Sam Kang: For us, the per a trophy is becoming the standard. That is the way we like to operate officially, yes.

[05:10:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then can you also describe what you were saying should be... I didn't quite catch what you were saying should be done in terms of damaged vehicles.

[05:10:51] Sam Kang: Yes, so, um, we were saying that the first issue was about not holding, uh, uh, a vehicle as defective or a defective parts, and allowing that to be a strict liability standard to move to revocation. Instead, have both formal, informal inquiry, investigation and enforcement, about what is going wrong. And of course, if something is wrong with the vehicle, we have means to detect that as well. So we are in the business of preventing harmful things from happening. So instead of moving from defective product to revocation, create some kind of processes where we can investigate what is going wrong, both formal informal before going to jumping ahead 10 steps to revocation of a permit.

[05:11:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you.

[05:11:39] Sam Kang: Of course. Thank you.

[05:11:42] Unknown Speaker: I had a question about your age requirement. So do you require 18 minimum?

[05:11:47] Sam Kang: Yes, minimum age 18 with a valid driver's license.

[05:11:50] Unknown Speaker: So is that mainly because of the helmet rule, or is there any other reason for going 18?

[05:11:55] Sam Kang: Yes, that's...

[05:11:57] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Okay, great. Thank you.

[05:12:02] Unknown Speaker: Okay. I appreciate the shout out in Silicon Valley. Didn't like where the line bike ended up, but that was interesting. There was an article... No, I guess it's Sunday morning, CBS Sunday morning. I think it was scooters or... They were talking about a gentleman that was hired to relocate and charge all the batteries. Everybody looks at the thing of benefit, but how many jobs are created locally for those people who pick up and charge and distribute?

[05:12:33] Sam Kang: That's a great question, Councilman. That number varies market to market. I can't tell you because we have markets of very different sizes. Actually, 2 of our largest markets are in California, LA and San Diego, our large market worldwide is actually in Paris. So there's a lot of variants there, but we can tell you, this could be for some families, not just a nice to do, it could be quite lucrative. Those New York Times are article that followed a juicer family that this is for extra income, and they were able to earn upwards of $50 an hour.

[05:13:06] Unknown Speaker: Oh, this guy was talking about you. $200 to $300 a night, because he would do that. There's a lot to say. So, okay. Now, I've used line in Austin, Texas, I believe.

[05:13:21] Sam Kang: Yeah, you're still there? I think so.

[05:13:24] Unknown Speaker: And when I went there, I had an expired license, driver's license. I had a paper one, though. I had the paper one, okay? So I still had one. But it didn't allow me to ride the bike. So, I guess, as you scanned, now, there was Austin also had 2 other provider side, but don't always remember. But do you also require that when you pull up with your app, they take, you scan your driver's license to...

[05:13:50] Sam Kang: I believe so. Yes. Yes. And not only that, once you sign onto your app for the 1st time, there is a safety tutorial that actually automatically happens that you can access at any time because it's prominently displayed on the front banner about using a helmet, not doing it on a not scooting on a sidewalk, going with a flow of traffic, and a number of other seating precautions.

[05:14:10] Unknown Speaker: And it's your app, also the one that requires a photo taken that you stand your bike up at the end of the ride.

[05:14:17] Sam Kang: For some jurisdictions that require, we definitely do it, such as in San Francisco. I can't see it for certain weather is required in all markets.

[05:14:24] Unknown Speaker: Okay, that's what... And the... Uh, question. Okay, okay, um... Oh, what the heck was it that I was going with? I'll get back to it. But I think, yeah, you answered most of them. Thank you. Thank you..

[05:14:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next please.

[05:14:43] Marty Fatou: Thank you. Thank you. Giving Mermetachek members of city council. City manager, Ridge, congratulations on your retirement, wish you best of luck in future endeavors. And also, thank you to city staff, who have worked diligently on this report. My name is Marty Fatou on the community relations manager for Bird Rides Incorporated, the East Scooter Company, which hopes to serve the city of Mountain View through regulation and enforcement, of course, hopefully in this upcoming program. Just a little bit about bird. We are in over 150 cities around the world. We currently operate in the tri-cities here in the Bay Area, San Francisco, through our subsidiary scoot, Oakland and San Jose, through the flagship company, Bird. And, you know, just real quick to answer the thing about jobs. So we have 3 service centers in the Bay Area. San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. Three shifts throughout the night, throughout the day. We employ hundreds of people, both, you know, full time as well as gig. And so we'd love to continue our service here in the city of Mountain View. Just a few things that I wanted to touch on. You know, one of the things that we really take pride on that bird, we see ourselves as the industry leader with community and public engagement. So we have given out over 50,000 helmets around our markets. We plan on doing tons of community engagement here in Mountain View. We look forward to calling out to multicultural events, always happy to speak at a neighborhood council meeting, really getting folks acquainted with our product. But most importantly, safety. Safety is our number one priority. So that's why any time you start your scooter, well, first, the first time you ride a scooter, you'll have to go through an in-app tutorial. We work on our platform to ensure that the rules of the road are hyper local to the jurisdiction. So, in California, or in Mountain View alone, there might be certain municipal coats, we will make sure that on our platform, a rider in the city of Mountain View will be able to see those local rules and regulations. Every three rides. You have to go through a tutorial again. So always pushing the safety. Another thing that we really bring to the table, and we hope to bring to Mountain View is our community mode, which is essentially a 311 service, but just going through bird. So instead of having to call the city about, you know, Badly Park scooter, someone writing incorrectly, you can report it right to Bird, where our 247 customer service representatives will get in contact with the local team, or that specific writer. So, always really happy to partner on this. Now, I did kind of want to echo my colleague or my counterpart at Lyme on the parking concern. You know, we want to make sure that folks are getting to their last mile, whether that be Caltrain or to a small business. So we're always happy to collaborate with cities, with DOTs, police departments, and small business organizations, on where exactly we can work on designated parking areas that work for everyone. small business, merchants, regulators. And we can actually, we can incentivize writers to do so. We will do something called preferred parking, where thank you. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Thanks. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[05:17:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[05:17:59] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I am. Counselor member, the counselor. Okay, now I remembered the question, but it's pertinent to you.

[05:18:04] Bird Representative: Sure.

[05:18:05] Unknown Speaker: You're able to program the bikes not to go down certain streets and so forth, correct?

[05:18:11] Bird Representative: The term that is now, I think it's geo fencing.

[05:18:15] Unknown Speaker: Geo fencing. Yes. Okay, and so line, I'm sure you can do it. Okay, so I know there was a lot of concern about Castro so they can do that. And I have transparency. I went to Scottsdale and got it, and they have a bird helmet that they gave to us, tomato free, so...

[05:18:33] Unknown Speaker: Was that a giveaway, or just...

[05:18:34] Unknown Speaker: It was a giveaway. It was a pair of sunglasses, too, but...

[05:18:36] Bird Representative: Awesome. Awesome. Always happy to hear.

[05:18:40] Unknown Speaker: I did wear it tonight. So, yeah, no, but that was the question this geo fencing was important, too. Thanks. Thank you.

[05:18:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Next, please.

[05:18:51] Valerie Fennick: Thank you. Good evening, Valerie Fennick, a Mountain View resident. I am on the B pack, but I am not speaking for them today. I'm speaking as an individual. I was a passenger in a vehicle collision in January of 2019 that gave me a traumatic brain injury. I have had very many months of intense recovery and therapy to get back to where I am today where I no longer stutter. I can remember events that have happened, and I can walk and now ride my bicycle and even drive again. It's pretty amazing. I've had a whole team of therapists, though, at Stanford. I mean, I wanted to talk about the city of Austin and the CDC have studied the Dockless East Scooters. over the summer of 2018, 45% of the injuries are traumatic brain injuries that people receive on these scooters. Like concussions or other things of that sort. These can be life altering in the most horrible way. Health professionals, such as my team at Stanford, have seen an epidemic of injuries and new patients coming in, particularly very young adults, where this is going to impact their ability to get educations and have fruitful lives and the future. 11 deaths have been attributed to these e scooters and many cities are pulling them out worldwide. These are often attributed to and blamed on uneven payment, pavement, potholes, and mayhem, as described by some of the vendors already. And let's see, the small wheels on these devices are much less stable than on a bicycle, and also, these rental ones are not necessarily designed for the type of stability, that one you may purchase on your own, or make your own safety decisions for your own home. As mayhem is noted, they don't want to be liable for someone else cutting their brake lines. Someone will be liable. We may want to think about what that means. Also, they can do tamper resistance. designs, and other ways to improve that. They've been essentially experimenting with the populace. They've got a large data set, which is awesome. They're fun. Everybody loves them. The lifespan of these E scooters is approximately one to two months before they are beyond repair, is what I've read in several of these sources, including Business Week. So I would like to know where would they go after that? We've got a zero waste initiative going for the city of Mountain View. Oakland has had issues with these ending up in their waterways, when they are no longer operable. By allowing these devices to park on city owned street sidewalks, lots, and parks. The city is effectively endorsing their use. And then think about that when it goes back to the liability. A seat, please consider these age restrictions, but a lot of students in high school, particularly like to work around them, because the scooters are fun. They really are. And think about any injuries that may affect those students for the rest of their lives, what it means for a mountain view to be essentially endorsing these devices by putting them on our public streets and sidewalks and think about all the other major cities pulling the plugs on these programs. Thank you.

[05:21:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[05:22:05] Public Speaker: So, I support the guidelines that were prepared by staff through the various study sessions. For the minimum age, I think the city should prohibit kids to write one. You know, my understanding is that if you rent a scooter, you have to affirm that you are 18 years older, if the city were to allow kids to ride them, we would pretty much encourage them to lie. And it's probably not a good idea, not to mention the legal issues. I like the idea of having designated parking areas. And I think that's kind of the only way it will work for all of Mountain View. If I look at my neighborhood, you know, or sidewalks are, you know, the standout like 3 feet wide. or narrow, and there is just no room for them on the things. We don't have bike rides. We don't have anything. So, and I think that's a lot of parts of Mountain Dew that don't have any infrastructure to allow. E scooters to be parked. So the idea would be to provide these designated areas, you know, throughout the city, maybe every block or every other block or at the end of a block, to have small designated areas on the streets, that would allow all of Mountain View to benefit from this. And in terms of the command from representative online, that's kind of a hindrance, to have to walk to an area to pick up things. That's something we do, all of us, every single day, or every week when we go to a supermarket. We park or car, we park a bike. We walk to pick up a shopping cart, designated areas. We use it for doing our shopping, and when we don't, we put it back, and it works pretty well for the large parts. I don't see why we wouldn't be able to do the same with scooters. Thank you.

[05:24:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council on this topic? Thank you. Okay, seeing none will close the public in proportion, and bring it back to council, and if there's any further questions or we can go right into, um, comments. Council member Ramirez.

[05:24:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor, just to keep things flowing. I'll go ahead and just take care of both if that's okay. So first, a couple of questions. In the agreements or the pilot program, if we start working with operators, do we have the flexibility to modify the parameters of the pilot as we go along, or are we going to be locked into a set of parameters for some amount of time?

[05:24:57] Staff Member: We will set up the program to have the flexibility to revise the parameters or the requirements as we learn, you know, how it's going. We actually set up the bike share pilot program the same way. When we issued the permits, we put in clear statements that we reserve the right to change our requirements and expectations of the operators, with proper notice from us.

[05:25:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, perfect. you. And then, um, you know, there's some logistical things that we'll probably figure out, you know, as, you know, the program progresses. But for instance, if you have a designated parking area, and it turns out that the market demand for going to that area is quite high, and you don't have enough space to park all of the scooters. And we end up with, you know, a program, for instance, that imposes a fee as a penalty to the permitee or to the writer, for failing to park in that designated area. Do we have a way to, how can we provide relief for those folks? Because the intention may be good, but because the market demand is so high, Either the deployment means, you know, you end up with, you know, one operator kind of having a monopoly on that space because they got to it. 1st or you have a bunch of riders parking intending to park in the right place, but there isn't enough room within the designated area. How do we accommodate that?

[05:26:27] Staff Member: Usually, there's enough flexibility. The geo fencing that they do is not so accurate that, you know, if you're just outside the line, you're gonna get dinged for that. You know, the worst problem is if the scooter itself is blocking access. And in that case, that's where we would want some sort of, you know, feedback loop so that that device is taken care of. But in terms of the user not putting it exactly in the spot, that shouldn't be too much of a problem. And again, the goal of a pilot program is to learn from it and work with the operators. So if we start seeing an area is very popular, one of the first things we'll do is work with the operator to expand designated parking areas in that area. So there's a way, you know, in many cases, when we set up these requirements and permits, and we say, you know, we always have the threat of, we can revote your permit, we always have first steps of, is there a way to cure the issue, work together, to resolve the problems we don't immediately go to revoking. So if we start seeing a lot of scooters not parking exactly where necessary, because the demand was so high, our first step isn't to penalize the operator, but to work on expanding the parking options in that area.

[05:27:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and so not to belabor the point, but if you have a designated parking area, and we end up with four operators, and one operator knows that area is going to be used, so they get there first, and they maximize their deployment, not leaving sufficient space for other operators. Do we penalize that or...

[05:28:08] Staff Member: So we're actually only recommending that we have up to two operators. We want there to be competition, but we want them to be competing on the service and not necessarily on the capturing the market all to themselves.

[05:28:21] Staff Member: Sorry, I missed that. Well, and if I think I understand where you're going, so I just want to clarify one more thing, I think the situation you're talking about is when the operators rebalance the scooters, and they're trying to position, you know, like the transit center. Very popular area. The way we handled that with bike share is we estimated the number of bikes that could park at the transit center, and we told each of the operators, you may have half of that share.

[05:28:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so very easily solved. Thank you. And then the last question, before I get into, hopefully, some brief comments, for data collection, do we use? I know there are maybe a handful at this point of, you know, I'm not standardized data formats for mobility data and that kind of thing. How are we approaching data collection, anonymizing the data, you know, in preserving the privacy of the writers and that kind of thing, proprietary data.

[05:29:17] Staff Member: So we're not interested in getting any personal data at all. And, you know, the industry has been standardizing over time. So the conversation with the companies is getting easier because, you know, the big cities have been kind of leading the way on making sure that the right data is captured out of that. So much of that effort, we can kind of piggyback ride on. That said, with the bike share companies that we did work with, we were able to work with them both to get the information that we wanted in the format that we wanted on the time basis that we needed. Some of the data that we wanted, we weren't able to get because of how the bikes were set up, but we believe we'll be able to work with them to get something that we can use.

[05:29:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So just quickly, I support the staff recommendations with just a couple of modifications. So the 1st is I like the idea of a per trip fee instead of a per device fee. And especially if we, I mean, that's ongoing revenue, and then I like also the idea of investing that in safety improvements. protected bike lanes, whatever, whatever would make sense to address the concerns that a member of the public brought to our attention. So that would be my preference. I do support designated parking areas, particularly in downtown, particularly in areas where you have a high volume of pedestrian activity, where it makes sense to, you know, to have a designated area and prevent sort of the havoc of having an unmanaged parking system. But I do have some concerns about how that might work in low density areas. So, I don't have a great solution for that. But, you know, maybe working with operators who might have a creative approach for addressing that problem would be worthwhile. So just allowing for some creativity or flexibility in that approach. You know, just using parks may make sense for some areas. I live in the San Antonio shopping center area, so I'm if this, you know, goes into effect, I'm likely to be able to have easy access, but somebody living in Waverly Park may not. So I'm sensitive to that and want to ensure sort of geographic equity and access across the city. And I would be interested also in partnerships with private owners to have a designated parking area. So I'm thinking about major employers and apartment complexes in particular, and that may fall on the operator's sort of responsibility, but if the city can incorporate this into the TDM program, For instance. You know, I think that would go a long way in providing additional access. And I also support the opportunity to sort of correct remedy and issue before a permanent revocation of the permit. So, however, that would make sense and comfortable with staff's approach to that. And I believe that's all. Thank you.

[05:32:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[05:32:34] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so just to keep things moving, I'm mostly fine with what you proposed with the pilot program guidelines, there's a lot of really good data that we got from the tool designs. There was a lot really great data, and I really appreciated the graphs in the maps and the plot, plotting everything from the bike share. information. So I think we can, you know, I think staff is, um, can use that to sort of guide us as you've had as the issue looks like you have here. So, I mean, the only thing that I, um, I would be okay with a portrait for you, if we think that makes more sense. The only other, um, I personally don't think the city should be the one, um, um, regulating the minimum age. I think that should be up to the provider, but I also understand that you made it clear on the report that in most cases, they're going to require it to be 18 and it really isn't going to make that much of a difference. And from a simplification standpoint, since the helmet requirement is 18, it just, so that's, I'm fine with what you proposed. So I don't think we need, um, I don't think I... making that change. It was just, you know, just a personal preference. Otherwise, I'm fine with proceeding. I think we'll learn a lot from this, and then we can adjust things over time. I don't think we need to try and, you know, be prescriptive about every little thing early on. I think, just like with bike share. I think it ultimately, even though it, even though they ended up, you know, pulling out. I think we learned a lot from that, and it actually went pretty well during the period of time that it was active. I think we learned a lot from that.

[05:34:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry, one of the other questions Steph asked, which I'm not sure has been answered as, um, do we agree that we should continue the bike chair pilot through the scooter?

[05:34:33] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes, I meant yes to both of the bullet points on that slide.

[05:34:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And did you Lucas? Okay. Council member McAllister?

[05:34:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I guess we have to talk about social justice, if we can't get scooters in Waverly Park there, Council member Lucas, so...

[05:34:50] Unknown Speaker: Um... Yes. He was gonna be... yeah You know, actually, my my, uh, my street's gonna be a major use of these streets, 'cause the high schoolers are gonna be zipping down the trail, and it's coming past my house.

[05:35:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, you can. Electric vehicles are loud on the trip. Huh? Only seniors? I'm senior. Only the seniors will be 18 years of old. Oh, yeah. Oh, the seniors. There you go, yeah. I'm fine with the concurrence with the guidelines. I know my experiences with the bike, I took, I had to do quite a few checklists before they even allowed me to use the bike, and as I mentioned earlier, that I had an expired driver's license and they caught it. So I was surprised that the tickens on that one. I walked. So that was that. So, I'm all fine. You know, when it came to the CTC, the council transportation committee, we were all flying for the program, and the fact that... You had to go with, at the time, it was recommended to the bikes here had to be combined. Is that still one of your requirements? Okay, good. Because... I have not seen a bike share program work in Mountain View yet. And we've had many of them, and I know the city managers worked on with working other cities. So... Actually, we were down on Long Beach, and I didn't... Did you see mikes? I saw a lot of scooters, but I saw more scooters than I saw bikes, so. Okay. Well, are you going to then designate a bike area versus a scooter area? How's that gonna work?

[05:36:35] Dawn: So the bike share program, the idea is that the bike share could still be dockless and free floating, and that could be an incentive for bikes to come back potentially.

[05:36:44] Councilmember John McAlister: But that, okay, well, are you gonna say scooters have their own parking zone, and then bikes have their own?

[05:36:50] Dawn: Both devices could be parked in the designated locations.

[05:36:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Because I always saw the scooters that they were always parked in. Now, would you require the operator to come mark out a parking zone, or would we say, hey, we'll, you know, they'll pay us to survey whatever area, and then we just put this striping on the ground? Because it looks like Long Beach was the one that...

[05:37:13] Dawn: The latest examples were they painted it on the street themselves. Our proposal would be to work with the operators, not only to identify the Desai parking areas, but see if they'll go ahead and mark them to our specifications. Kind of goes back to workload. So we would give them a permit with the approved specification word B and have them do the marking. However, it would not be operator specific in that case. They would have to understand that that would be a shared parking area.

[05:37:43] Councilmember John McAlister: specific in that case. But you would survey, you would recommend, or you would point out, these are the spots that we feel comfortable with.

[05:37:49] Dawn: We, we can... We have some ideas, initially, where we think that they could work out, but we also will encourage the operators to also help us canvass the city in identify areas, where there is room for designated parking, because we agree, we really want good permutation, you know, really make it out throughout the city to make them easily accessible, while having making sure we have the designated parking areas that we can control where the scooters are at any point in time.

[05:38:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, well, just paint them Google colors, and they'll disperse everywhere. So, okay, so, um, going with the concurrent, you know, bike share. Okay, so workload, you know, it hasn't worked, but that's up to his staff to figure out if they want to continue, but I think the scooters will be a great success, though. Those are my comments I support. Bye, Samara, bay, go go.

[05:38:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So I support both. Um, I think the more options, the better. I would concur with Council Ramirez about designated areas by companies. That's what I was thinking too, working with the companies, so that they have parking areas would be helpful, since a lot of them are using them to get from the, for instance, the transit center to their jobs, multi-family complexes. I, um, I could, I'm fine with the per trip fee, if that's eat better, a better, um, way to go, and, uh, warnings, maybe, I guess that's thinking, a warning system for infractions. to give the companies a chance to rectify. Yeah, I was, I understand the minimum age issue, because I was looking at it as a access perspective, and, you know, as having high schoolers who aren't driving, and this is, would this be, you know, another way for them to, um, transport, but, um, I understand the safety reasons. So, um, I'm fine with going with the 18 year, and I'm on my age, and I support the bike share program continuing, thanks.

[05:40:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member come in.

[05:40:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I'm excited that we're talking about scooters. This came forward in the CTC, and I know that Councilman McAllister has been anxiously awaiting it coming back to us. Um, I, to answer the 2 questions. I'm comfortable with both. I think one of the things, and I'm comfortable with the per chip per trip fee as well as the designated parking areas, and I'm fine if it's mixed for bikes and scooters. I think one of the things that I mentioned in committee and came up tonight in public comment is the safety component, and how we manage the mixed modes, because even though we say that you're not supposed to do something in practice, right? That can be difficult. particularly, like, I read on the trail, and I see people with scooters on them. Um, and, you know, I know that downtown has a lot of traffic. And so when we were in Long Beach for the league conference, we did see a lot of people kind of zipping, weaving on the streets. And so how do we proactively think about that as part of the pilot program? But that's just a comment.

[05:41:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Hicks?

[05:41:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. I also answer yes to both of the recommendations and go along with most of what previous council members have said. I guess... I'm just hoping for a sort of robust reporting on the pilot program, 'cause it seems like... So the per trip fee sounds fine to me. I was kind of leaning towards free floating parking, just so that, because, just so that people could get to some of those areas that are not as dancing, may not have parking, but as long as this is, since most of council, or everybody else is, once designated parking, as long as we get reports back on how that's working out, then, and I guess people has had a warning system for damaged vehicles. So I would go along with all of those things.

[05:42:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Damaged vehicles. Thank you. So I would go along with all of those. So I'm okay with the bike share pilot continuing, and I'm okay with the scooter share pilot. I think I would leave it up to staff to figure out if a per bike fee, is the way to go. I'm open to it, if it is. And, um, I think I heard you say that we would do some sort of warning if there are issues before we would revoke a permit, right? And try to work with the companies?

[05:43:13] Dawn: That's our standard process, yes.

[05:43:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, and... Okay. When it comes to enforcement, um... I guess I'm wondering, how realistic is it to enforce, you know, not riding on sidewalks and not going against traffic if you're on the road? I feel like I see it all the time. So, how realistic is it to enforce that?

[05:43:49] Dawn: Well, I mean, that's kind of a question for our police department, but in car conversations with them, It's pretty easy for them to identify if someone's riding a scooter on the sidewalk. It's something very visually, you know, they can see that. Judging someone's age is more difficult. in terms of, you know, having to look at someone and see if they need to have their helmet on based on their age is much more difficult. But the sidewalk riding is fairly easy for them to spot.

[05:44:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: It is, but our police department is pretty busy. And so I'm not sure they're, you know, they're not everywhere at all times. Um, I do see this a lot in the, um, the Wisman area close to the, uh, employment part of the Wisman area. But it is an issue.

[05:44:43] Dawn: You are correct. It really is, whether they're the resources available to be working to enforce it, it would be something that we'd have ongoing discussion with the police department, in terms of what they could put towards enforcement, and also, we continue to work with the operators, for that continuous reminders and tutorials, that it's actually against state law to ride on the sidewalks. It is not even a local issue. is against state law. And I know that there has been discussion with a couple other cities kept looking in terms of, is there a way for them to use their GPS systems to really differentiate that you're on a sidewalk than a roadway? Technology's advancing, but last, I heard that it wasn't that fine grain enough, but there's still that expectation that we would like the operators to do everything possible, to also help identify when users are not obeying the rules, and therefore, you know, take action. When we were doing bike share, we asked them, you know, how do you penalize users, if they're not parking correctly, if you're getting complaints about that user, and we had expectations, that after a certain amount of warnings, they would actually evoke a user's privileges to use bike share. And these are things that we're going to be interested in talking to operators about even with scooter share.

[05:46:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I'd like more of the burden to be on the operators than our city staff, too. and do the enforcement. Okay so... So, to summarize, I think we have unanimous support to continue the bike share program, as well as unanimous support, to initiate the scooter share with the guidelines, there was majority support for the per trip fee, but before we jump to that, I would like to ask staff for their input, if they have thoughts on it,

[05:46:40] Councilmember Chris Clark: and with all respect to the speaker, I don't doubt that, potentially, it could be more revenue for the city, but number one, this isn't about revenue. And number two, there's no guarantee there's going to be 800 scooters being used three times a day. As we saw from the bike share, it didn't come anywhere near the standards of desired usage. So I just, you know, I'd like to make sure we weigh in a little bit more before we unilaterally jump to that conclusion. Thank you.

[05:47:08] Dawn: We would appreciate the opportunity to analyze it. The deposit concept was if they were not removing scooters where they needed to, and we had to send our own staff out, that would reimburse our staff costs. But we can analyze the idea of a per trip fee, both in terms of its revenue generation, combined with helping to reimburse our costs if we think we're going to incur any, but also would want to work with city attorney's office in terms of any legal requirements that we have in terms of determining what the fee would be in establishing a fee like that.

[05:47:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: And the other point to add is, this is the pilot, and it's pilot for a reason. So, frankly, you know, I would suggest we keep it simple, and during that time, we analyze the data and best practices, and if it makes sense, ultimately, to switch to a perfee long term, great, but it might not be worth doing that right off the bat. Great, but it might not be worth doing that right off of that. So, um, maybe some clarity on that, whether it's, leave it to staffed or we stick with the flat for need for now.

[05:48:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I had said, leave it to staff, so... I think we have the direction we need. Great, thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Dawn. Great, thank you so much. When do we have the demo? Thank you so much. William, uh, do we have to take another vote? Because we're starting a new topic after ten?

[05:49:22] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Do you have the option of not taking it up, but you don't have to revote?

[05:49:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, we were moving on to item 8.2, which is intergovernmental legislative advocacy program options, and this is another study session. So we'll start with the staff report, then open it up for public comment, and then have counsel, uh, have a discussion and provide direction.

[05:49:47] Assistant City Manager Christina Gilmore: Thank you, Mayor. Good evening. Christina Gilmore, assistant city manager. The purpose of tonight's study session is to receive counsel input on the expansion of the intergovernmental legislative advocacy program, and to support counsel's desire to take a more proactive role in addressing issues at the regional, state, and federal levels. So, the city's current intergovernmental relations and legislative advocacy program includes an existing council policy that was first adopted in 1994, and then subsequently revised in 2006 and 2013. The policy provides guidance on how the city can take positions on ballot measures at the state and federal legislation, as well as provides guidance on when full counsel action is required for legislation that is not within the guiding principles of the policy or would support or opposing type of grassroots, advocacy, action, such as political or economic movements. Historically, the council has focused on federal legislative priorities and issues. The council at the beginning of each calendar year, um, uh, adopts the slate of federal priorities, um, those photo priorities are, um, put together with the input of staff, um, and council utilizes those priorities when they go to the national, the annual national and eco cities conference in Washington, D.C. each spring. The federal priorities for the last several years have focused on the preservation of CDBG, CDBG, home funding, transportation, housing, and justice grants funding, as well as identifying other federal issues of interest to the council, which has included NASA aims issues, airplane noise, environmental sustainability, and protecting vulnerable populations. In the past three years, the city has transmitted 42 legislative letters, which is averaging about 14 letters per year. The city also takes action on state legislation, and we do that by utilizing the League of California cities to provide member cities with advocacy guidance on both state and federal legislative and ballot measures. Those are mostly communicated through action alerts, our regional public affairs managers, what legislative webinars, professional departments, as well as annual conferences at the council attends. Council members also participate on regional planning on government agencies, such as the Cities Association of Santa Clara County, the Valley Transportation Agency, and A Bag, and other bodies. And then the council, the city manager's office also supports the IGR program by dedicating approximately .20 of an FTE, which is currently my role in the city manager's office. We support the IGR program by supporting the departments and tracking legislation and monitoring it to support the council, adopted legislative priorities, coordinating the annual visit to Washington, DC, and then liaising with other regional agencies. The departments provide input as well on legislation that needs to be tracked, the city manager's office will support each of the departments. They will often track legislation that has been indicated as a council priority as well as legislation that comes through many of their professional organizations that they belong to, such as the California police or fire chiefs association, the APA Planning Association and other agencies like that. So we should note that our current program. We track legislation by departments, and it is can be limited and variable based on department priorities and workload, but there is significant coordination between the city manager's office, the departments, and as well as the mayor and the council, to ensure that the city is responding as quickly as possible to legislative priorities. All said in our current program, the departments other than the city manager's office, we estimated, expends approximately about 325 hours each year on legislative issues. So there are many ways that cities can implement intergovernmental legislative advocacy programs, as I just described, our current model, which we consider as more of a council guidance on your top legislative priorities, the existing staff, helps facilitate the implementation of those priorities, or responding to those priorities when legislative action arises. But we are not necessarily a very proactive legislation. We are more reactive in our response. And there are some other models that we wanted to bring to your attention here for the discussion that you're going to have shortly. Other models include could include increased staffing. So if the council desires to expand the current program, Staff, could be spending more time on the intergovernmental relations, program, and engaging in more proactive legislative engagement. There is also a collaborative approach that could be explored where the city would share legislative resources with neighboring cities, or have an increased utilization with regional partners, such as the city's association, and other professional organizations for legislative support. And then finally, an option that many of our neighboring cities and other larger cities do do is hire a consultant or a lobbyist to provide some more in-depth legislative advocacy and support. And that can be, uh, that consultant can be hired to provide uh, the support represents the city's interest in Sacramento or Washington, D.C. We do want to mention that, you know, all of these structures and options have a range of costs and capacity for a more proactive advocacy program. Certainly expanding the city's existing program could provide the city with additional opportunities to engage in a more meaningful way at the regional state and federal level. But we don't really have a lot of the information examined. So we're looking for feedback from the council tonight to determine what the council is interested in pursuing. And we'll be able to return a later date with some more information. So that brings me to my last slide. We had 3 questions for you this evening, to kick off your discussion. Um, I won't read them all out loud, but just to summarize, um, we are looking to hear from council about what kind of outcomes you're hoping to see from a city, the cities, um, IGR and legislative advocacy program. We lost to learn a little bit more about what levels of government are most important to the council. Do you want to continue to focus on regional? I know there is an increased focus on state legislation. as well as federal. And then finally, does council have direct, does council have direction on a preferred program structure that I just outlined previously, that you would like staff to analyze further and return with more detailed information. So that completes my presentation, and staff is available to answer any questions. That completes my presentation. Thank you. Doctors available to answer any questions.

[05:57:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So this is a study session, we'll open it up for public comment, is there anyone who wanted to comment on this item? Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public input portion, and bring it back to council for discussion and direction, and bring it back to council for... Council member McAllister.

[05:58:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, thank you. Uh... I just read recently that, uh, a family member, Berman, went to this Palo Alto City Council and chatted with them. So one of your deals here is coordinating meeting with legislative representative. I can't recall ever... I'm sure we invited our sent local senator and our local legislator, but... Is that something you're talking about, that they would actually come to a city council. We would agenda, agendize them, and then have discussions with them, and, you know, here's our wish list. So what happened in Palo Alto, they said, well, here's our wish list. And there was a dialogue going at the time. So is that what you were thinking about, coordinating meeting with leg, or were you thinking more privately?

[05:58:48] Staff Presenter: That could certainly be one of the options where we would, in addition to strengthening our relationships with our local elected by setting up meetings, bringing along the mayor, the vice mayor, or other council members, as representatives, to discuss issues that are of concern for the city, but also inviting them to council meeting, to give a presentation. And I do recall assembly member Berman coming before the council, I think, when he was 1st selected and talking to the council about issues that were happening in his district. So certainly that is an option that would be available under one of these models.

[05:59:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, great. I like that eye. And so some of the, when you were talking about increasing staffing. I know a lot of what's having with housing, does the community development department, do they follow the legislative requirements that are coming out, like SB 330 that we did? So do we sort of have, um, segment, maybe public works, follow certain things, and that we already have in-house, following legislative stuff, but we just need somebody to bring it together as a report to us?

[06:00:01] Staff Presenter: Yes, so currently, departments do track different types of legislation, and as everyone is aware, this last year, especially for this legislative selection. There has been numerous housing bills. It is very overwhelming, and the city has taken legislative action on several of the bills and transmitted letters. So yeah, staff does monitor the bills. However, as I mentioned in my in the staff report and a little bit more detail. Departments also have other project priorities as well as council priorities that they are trying to implement. So the monitoring of bills can be a challenge, especially when there are near most ones. So, certainly, we provide the city marriage's office tries to provide as much support. However, we're not subject matter experts, so we do lean heavily on the departments. Because right now, our current model is a little bit more reactive. It can be challenged to get that quick turnaround time from staff, to ensure that we have the correct analysis that we are crossing all the Ts and dotting all the I, so to speak, and to respond and submit letters in a timely fashion that would have some measurable difference in how they are dealt with at the state legislature.

[06:01:20] Councilmember John McAlister: And then for regional, for question number two, regional. So like VTA or Silicon Valley, Clean Energy, or Caltrains, those would be our type of regional wishes.

[06:01:30] Staff Presenter: Correct.

[06:01:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. Those would be our...

[06:01:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Nice, Mayor Abicoga.

[06:01:35] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, thank you. I wanted to go into comments. I don't really have questions. I think I brought this item up during priorities. Um, and it mainly. So, I can answer the questions, too. So question one. I actually am interested in all of the items listed here. And, um, the reason being, um, I guess my own experience in this last year, um, I used to, I've been the chair of the legislative action committee, um, for the Cities Association, and we were hit with quite a few, several, many, um, housing bills that, um, we were trying to track, and the Cities Association has one staff member. Um, so it was quite, it was a lot for that one individual to do on her own. And, um, you know, we do communicate with the, um, league of cities, there's a more staff there. But I also was trying to do a lot of it on my own, in all frankness, given everything else going on, and technically our jobs are part time. It was a lot. And I guess my feeling is that we could go with, like, the city's association, you know, trying to go in together. But what I'm finding is that even within our 15 cities, we're very diverse. And when it came to these housing bills, we were on, you know, all over the place in terms of where our individual cities stood. And that's where I really felt like, especially for us in Mountain View, I think was the issue of housing, you know, people have noticed that we are leaders, but so we do have very specific positions. And I also felt that we have, you know, best practices that we could actually be sharing with others, but we just don't have the resources, frankly, the staff, to either back us up as council members, serving on these regional bodies, to really talk specific, because, you know, I was asked, well, how does 1487 affect Mountain View? And honestly, I did my best to, you know, analyze the bill. But, one, I can be very, you know, I'm not sure if I was accurate or not, and I didn't feel like I could speak for the city. So just put us in a very different, awkward position, frankly. And I think this is going to continue to happen as our city grows and, you know, becomes more of a player in the regional world and with state legislation coming in and affecting us locally more and more. So, you know, other cities, I've noticed other cities do have that and their council members come up with a binder that has their position on every bill. And that's what I was looking for, to be able to have that kind of backup when we are in these meetings. I think we should have but stronger relationships with our legislators. I remember you're right, counselor. McAllister, we used to have them come and give us updates, but I also remember like at the beginning of the year, meeting with assembly members to, you know, talk about what our priorities were. So I think we just knowing that, you know, everything is becoming more regional and even statewide at this and those would be the areas that my primary focus. We just need to be, you know, we're going to be in the playing in those arenas. So we need to be better, um, ready to prepared and able to, um, you know, to speak to these issues. So that's my senses. I was thinking it would be nice to have someone internal. to be able to do the tracking. And I understand every department, you know, has to have, um, you know, they have a say. But I get, you know, council member, Kame and I, we've been legislative staff. Like, you know, there is, like, a staff person who kind of tracks where the bills are, and these bills are changing every day. So just tracking that alone can be substantive and, you know, so I think it is helpful to have one designated person who can do that. And to coordinate with the various departments to get responses to folks and to us when we're going, getting ready to go to a meeting. So I would say that. And, you know, originally I thought, well, what about a lobbyist? And, um, I know some cities are looking at that, but, um, you know, that might be something down the road. I personally would like us to look at internal and having that kind of like the analyst, legislative analyst type of role internal first. And then we can look at lobbying next. Thanks.

[06:06:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[06:06:45] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I was gonna focus on... One and two, and just give me some examples of outcomes that I've seen elsewhere that have been really helpful, and maybe that can help guide the answer to, you know, whether we need a fully dedicated person doing this or some of their strategy. And I agree with the vice mayor. You know, I originally thought, you know, maybe if we pool resources with others, you know, we'll have, because there's, there's certain elements that cut across all the jurisdictions, right? And that is just the pure tracking of the legislation, where it's at, what's been done to it, and analysis of that. But then when you get into sort of the lobbying side of it, every jurisdiction is gonna have a different take on various things. And so... I can speak from, from the last year or so at, at A Bag, you know, one thing that they, and they share staff with MTC, which is why this just got much better in the last year after that staff sharing arrangement occurred. You know, whoever they utilized to sort of track the status of bills. And I'm not sure I can try and find that out, they're really good. Like, we were getting pretty real-time information, not on every single bill, but on the key ones that they were tracking and lobbying on. And so I don't know if that's their staff specifically or if they outsource that piece of it. I know they I know the staff does lobby. And that was the other thing that they were pretty effective on was, um, they sort of honed in on key bills and were actually really effective at meeting with the bills authors and saying, you know, if you can make these adjustments, you know, we think will be behind it. And we got a lot of those adjustments on some of those key bills in terms of A-Bag being the originator of certain tax measures and things like that, and totally shifted things around. So, That's just a long way of saying, I don't know if they utilize outside firms to track that specific legislation and get up to the date analysis. You know, if so, then maybe that's helpful for us. But I think from our perspectives, I think what would be helpful would be, you know, identifying the key bills each year that we want to, or each session that we want to track, either have someone internally or some outside service track those. And then the other would be ensuring that we are able to have an opportunity to nudge those in one direction or another instead of just taking abroad a pose or a letter position. So the situations that I've personally ended up in have been, you know, take SB 50, for example, you know, support, approve, you know, we can send letters to that effect. But, you know, if I end up in a mixer, which has happened with Senator Wiener, and we start talking about SB 50, and we start talking about what Mountain View's done over the last few years, and how we're really taking the bull by the horn on housing, you know, are there ways that, and we start having a conversation about, well, how do we recognize View for that, and jurisdictions for that, and not necessarily end up with a regime that's punitive, going forward in those circus sort of circumstances. And, you know, he said to me very specifically. So, you know, well, tell me what are the amendments I can make. You know, let's talk about this. And you know, I can't come up with those on the spot, of course. And that's sort of the lurch I was in where I had an opportunity to say, okay, what's actually, maybe we and some other jurisdictions can sit down together and talk about these things, but I also can't do all that on my own. And so whether that's having internal staff support to say, you know, here are some key things that would really, um, you know, um, improve this from Mountain View's perspective, or, um, what ABAG did with some of the ABAG amendments was, you know, they set up a meeting with the chair and a few key folks and went and prepared with a meeting with David Shu. And basically knocked everything out that they wanted and got, I'd say, 90, 95% of the things that they wanted. and the legislation. Well, it wasn't perfect. Yeah, and the sponsor was still happy with the ultimate outcome. So anyway, those are examples of, I think, one part is just sort of identifying and tracking the things that are really key to us. And then the other is being able to set up, it doesn't have to be an outside lobbyist, but just being able to set up the meetings and go in with a punch list of, here's some key, forget about the broad, like, oppose or support. And here are some key things that if this is going to go through, that would really make this much more palatable to us and be helpful. you know, whether it's tacking on an easier way to get waivers for, say, parking lots or I don't know, key amendments to SP 50, which will probably come back this year in some form or another. Anyway, those are the things that I think would be helpful. And I think just focusing on the regional and state level, and I don't really think we need to focus on the federal stuff at this point. It's going to impact us, but I just don't think it's, at least for the next, like you said, year or so, it's really not going to have any lobbying that we do is not going to have much of an impact, so...

[06:12:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member committee.

[06:12:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, I'm trying to think of how I want to hand and tackle these. I think I'll go for the questions first and then, um, go into comments. So, I agree with the direction that, um, the vice mayor and council member Clark are going in terms of, I think, um, all of these priorities of under number, question one, um, being relevant and needing to, um, have a, have them all kind of bubble to the top, but I would say. And then I do agree that for the time being, focusing on regional and state, for question two, are of most importance. And then, kind of, my comments for question three. I think, um, I've been in different organizations that have, um, a model where there's someone in house, I've had one where we have, um, a lobbyist in-house and a lobbyist, um, you know, when at the county, there's a county lobbyist, and there is another firm that actually, you know, weekly sends you updates on every single bill. So I've seen that. Um, I've seen the various approaches and kind of feel, um, that at this point, I don't feel comfortable going forward with a lobbyist. I think the more important part of the conversation is being on top of the different policies that are coming forward that are gonna affect the city. And I think the second component of that, in terms of talking about the physicists with legislators, is having that personal relationship. And for me, when I was talking about question one, the reason why all of those are important is all of those kind of will affect the day-to-day lives of residents of Mountain View, and all of those need to be key in our relationships with, um, are elected, whether they be at the county or the state or in another entity. And so I think one of the things I've been thinking about going forward is how do we approach going beyond our current model? And so, you know, we discussed, you know, just earlier, piloting the scooter share program, and perhaps we need to think about an intergovernmental affairs pilot to try to address some of the new needs that we have. So, um, you know, maybe something from now until, um, when we're able to address it in the budget and discuss it as part of, um, next year's fiscal year, whether that be, you know, as a limited time staffer, um, for someone wholly devoted to that. So I'd be interested in, you know, I know this is a study session, so that would kind of be my feedback in what I hope comes back, because it is a full-time job tracking all the different bills. And as helpful as bill summaries are, they're changing all the time. And I do think it is, when you're in those moments, as council member Clark was saying, where you have somebody's ear, you want to be able to utilize that opportunity because, you know, when you say, oh, you know what, let me check with staff and get back to you, the opportunity is lost. Yeah, it's gone. And we all know that. And I think, especially now, kind of whether that be the environment or the climate, it is just that much more critical for all of us to be aware of the bills and the implications that can come with them. You know, earlier when we were talking about displacement, we were talking about a couple different bills. And so that, to me, is why this item is of importance. And I, you know, I do know that staff is busy doing many of our other priorities, but whatever council can do to help accommodate this new need, I think, is something of interest at least to me. Thank you.

[06:16:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[06:16:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I think my comments are in line with those of my colleagues. We're at a competitive disadvantage in many respects. You know, I think about the city of San Jose, which, if my memory is correct, has three state senators, three congress members, and four state assembly members who have, you know, in part or in whole, in some cases, jurisdiction over that city, and the city has multiple intergovernmental relations folks who have regular FaceTime with their representatives. And we have one of each who are accountable to many jurisdictions with different and competing priorities. And so it's very difficult, I think, for us to, um, you know, unless we have some variances. Council member Clark and council member Kumay said, if we have some very narrowly scoped sort of individually tailored modifications to legislation or something we could append to existing legislation, whatever. You know, it's hard for us to get to be hurt, I think, in the same way. So I'm also not really enamored with the idea of hiring a lobbyist or something like that. I just, I'm pessimistic that it would be terribly productive. So just going through these. I can, I think tracking bills is helpful insofar as, you know, there are some things that have potentially transformative impacts to, you know, the city. We spent a lot of time talking about SB 330 earlier. There are a lot of implications to that bill, that I'm not sure we fully understand even now, you know? And so having the capacity, a little additional capacity to track bills like that. And just so we could understand their effect early enough to maybe have, to be a little more proactive, to modify it, to address, again, some of the sort of specific needs of the city, you know, speaking with our representatives, or, you know, if one of us happens to be in the company of a legislator, who, you know, asks for our opinion, to be knowledgeable enough on those really key pieces of legislation, where, you know, it may be helpful to be able to articulate something, you know, a point or two, that they could help, you know, soften the blow or help us achieve our objectives. So, I think, you know, in approaching question, what, you know, what are opportunities to be a little bit more proactive? when it comes to state legislation, especially, but also, I think, some stuff at the county, too, where it would be helpful to be proactive. And the other thing I think about, too, is how can we get more money from other sources of government, is being very, you know, transparent. Um, you know, some other jurisdictions have been fairly successful, I think, at getting, you know, investment. And not that I don't think we've been totally unsuccessful. It's just, I don't know if we have the capacity to do a lot of that kind of lobbying. Um, but I'm, you know, I'm not as well versed as many of you are. So for question two, I think, you know, focusing at the regional and state levels makes a lot of sense. I have no optimism at all for the federal government. And then for question three, increased staffing, you know, some modest amount that I think is that allows us to be a little bit more proactive would be ideal. I agree with the feedback that working collaboratively with other cities is difficult because we have competing priorities. So that I'm not really enthusiastic about that. So, I think, I think that's all. Thank you.

[06:20:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[06:20:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you to all staff and all the previous council members for clarifying exactly what you were thinking when you brought this up, because I wasn't clear. Okay, for question one, what kinds of outcomes? It seems to me, like, drafting communications, but especially analyzing and tracking bills and legislation, um, tracking agendas and preparing council members for regional meetings seem to be the three most pressing ones, maybe occasional having a meeting with a legislative representative. Question two, what levels of government? Yeah, I agree, regional and state are most important. In question three. It sounds... I liked council member Kuma's idea of a pilot or part time person, just to see what we're getting out of it, and I'd be interested in whether staff has any... what they would find most helpful in terms of, you know, like a separate person, but then there are, you know, people with subject areas of expertise, so I'm open to hearing other ideas, but it seems like a pilot or part time person would make the most sense to begin with.

[06:21:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. part time person. Council member McAllister.

[06:21:56] Councilmember John McAlister: So, my short time on council with doing all these legislative things. So, drafting communications, talking, so I know that, um, and I think our various mayors have done it, is that if a bill comes up, and it brought to their attention, staff is always willing to draft a letter, and we send it out to our showing our concerns, without having it through the council, and I thought that has always been very quickly to react to it, because it sets our goals. So when it says talking points, writing legislative updates to council. It all depends on, I mean, there's so many different varieties or areas that they could be doing that too. I don't know if we'll actually sit down, reader, how pertinent it is to us. But drafting, you know, housing like the SB 30, if it's in a staff report, then it would be nice to have a background report that goes with it. And that would have been helpful to, like, today is just an example, this would be 330. I think we are really at fault, but not meeting with our legislative representatives. Not necessarily the mayor and the city manager, but I think I would like to see our legislative person be at the day is, I mean, at the podium, talking to us. I know Senator Hill was sort of quiet on SB 50, was it? He didn't make a commitment one way or the other, and we're all screaming, da da da. And I think if we get that relationship with our new senator or new legislative person, that they see us and we talk to them and we have them in the audio or in the with us in the same room. I think we might get more fuller answers. So I think we need to start as a regular meeting, or regular agenda, is put it on the agenda. Don't invite them to just give us an update, but put them on the agenda, and we spend time, you know, he asking us questions, or we ask him. I mean it could be a study session in the in the new community room or somewhere along that line. But let's get that relationship built up a lot better than trying to get a federal legislator in here. I mean, is, I don't know how realistic that is. Even get Joseph Idian to come in here and talk to about, you know, homeless that we, you know, we keep bringing in that, hey, let's get the county. Let's get the county representative in the room with us and sit and have a dialogue and let the whole community see it. You know, he has these coffees, but get him in here, let us have a dialogue, you know, send him down, we go from there. So I would like to see that much more. I mean, that, to me, would be my top priority of all these various things that you got going on here. Analyze and tracking bill legislation. Again, it's all pertinent to what particular thing we're looking. I mean, we're looking for money for grade crossings. We looking money for housing. We're looking money for, you know, road construction on 101 or, you know, we're looking at legislative for the 5G modes that are pods that are going. So that would be, you know, those are all pertinent to when they come up and how that affects housing. Um, Tracking and preparing council members for regional meetings. Regional meetings, I usually go to, like VTA, we have, they give us the legislative updates, and probably Silicon Valley, clean energy, you have legislator, and they give you the updates on what's happening, I would think. They were doing that before.

[06:25:28] Unknown Speaker: You're talking about like, what's Mountain View's position?

[06:25:31] Unknown Speaker: No, no, no, but just... Yeah, but just basically for the industry, because, I mean, you're under the clean energy is under a lot of changes and under moving about. So in a sense, I don't know what regional meetings that we go to that that board doesn't have it. I mean, and so that's a concern or thought developing legislation. I mean, We are, as we said, we're reactive, we're not proactive. And if there's some way to figure out how we can get on top of it, that's going to be requiring staffing. So I'm not exactly sure that we do have the staffing to get developing legislation. I know we're possibly doing some stuff with VTA to good stuff for transit lane, and that may require some legislation. So, but that's going through that particular. But I don't know anything, particularly that Mountain View may want to develop it. The level of government most important, I think state, because they're the ones that are really affecting the housing right now. Regional, that's the regional thing would be the tax measures. A, B, whatever. So that's those affect how we get funding for various things. So in that regard, I would think, taxes would be regional. And direction and preferred structure. I think this would be something that an internship might be available to us at a reasonable cost, and that we could get somebody in to do the tracking force, instead of having a full time staff, or we could have a part time intern, work on this particular program. So I think that would be a direction I would like to see. work on this particular program. That would be the direction I would like to see.

[06:27:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so this is an area that I'm glad we're talking about because it's been a real challenge, I think, this year or two, try to address everything that's sort of coming at us. And I think I would echo a lot of the comments that my colleagues said in question one, I'm interested in almost all of these, but I would add to it that I'm also interested in, as an outcome, the public being more aware of what's going on and seeing what we're doing about it. Because a lot of the stuff we do or some of the stuff we do, if it fits with existing council policy, it kind of happens without even the other council members knowing about it until they see the letter in the council correspondence. And the public doesn't necessarily look at council correspondence. So I somehow greater visibility, both among us, and with the public of what we're doing. The one about tracking agendas and preparing council members for regional meetings. I feel like just in general, I'd like to be more on top of what's going on, even if I'm not going to a meeting. And so I'm looking for regular communication, whether it be at a council meeting or an email or a place we can go online to see what's the status of things. Because I might be someplace where it would be really handy to know that, might not be in a social setting, but if I'm in a meeting and it's like, 0 my gosh, you know, I wonder what is going on with that. I'd like to be able to look that up easily, rather than go to like the websites that I see where you can track the individual bills. We have done a little bit of legislation. We recently met with Mark Berman, and Kimberly had prepared like a draft paragraph or 2 for proposed legislation. And certainly when it comes to airplane noise, We have a resident in Mountain View, who has drafted legislation and gotten some of our representatives to pay attention to it and introduced it at the federal level. So kudos to him for doing that. That's Robert Holbrook. So I kind of feel like it's all this plus more, and I sort of hate to say that. Um, because that's a lot. And then the challenge is, I feel like just, since I've been on council, the workload would probably vary tremendously. And so how do you really say what the optimal amount of resources to put against this is when I do think it's going to continue to change. And so taking that into consideration in terms of how we approach this, I think, is important. I'm interested in the state and the regional level and by regional, I would include, and I did step out from it, so I'm not sure if this was discussed. Um, But, um, a bag. And MTC is included in that. I had a resident contacted me and say, hey, there's a deadline for input on the model for the A bag allocation. And the deadline, deadline was like 2 days from now. And while our city, uh, planning department is on top of things, that was news to them. And they're part of the committee. So it's like, why wasn't A bag even communicating to the people who are part, or maybe it was MTC, I forget which, but, um, We had different deadlines here at the city than what a resident heard. So I contacted Dan, and we scrambled it, and we did get input, but it's like, if that resident hadn't mentioned it to me, We wouldn't have had the opportunity because we didn't know about the deadline, which is really frustrating. I'll quickly add, I'm not sure we'd even be able to track something like that. Because if you're not communicating with the people who are part of the committee, something like that. I mean, that's the basics, they should know. So I'm not sure how we address that, but I felt like it was a gap there. And I feel like this year, I've really been scrambling a lot. as things have been changing, and I feel bad every time I send Dan an email or contact him to say, oh, here's another one. You know, what are we doing about this, or can we do something about this? And to council member Clark's comment. And if I happen to have the opportunity to talk to somebody about it, what would I say that would be useful? It's just for me, personally, this year, I felt like it's been a real scramble, and as the vice mayor said, when it comes to the city association, I don't know how you did what you did. But then when you're in the meetings with the board, and, um, the legislative committee, recommended positions on the different bills, and then, you know, as the board, we all were not necessarily in agreement, and in fact, we did change some of the perspectives, that the legislative committee had, so that says to me, we can't really work on the position as a group. We can work on tracking, as you said, but, yeah, I'm not sure that's the important part. It's what we say about it, which is really key. And I just don't see that forum being the appropriate one to do that. So I agree with the comments about not necessarily having a lobbyist, because frankly, I think we're the best representatives of our city. and have a more complete picture. So I think we should be the ones, if there are any meetings or letters, that we're the ones doing that. I thought the meeting we had with Mark Berman the other day was actually really good. He asked a lot of really good questions, and our staff was prepared. And I felt like it was much more impactful when we go than when a lobbyist goes. I think I already mentioned, I think it'd be good to have periodic updates at council meetings. I want to emphasize that. So the public sees what we're doing. And I think I'm gonna stop talking. Council Robert Clark, did you ever?

[06:34:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: I just wanted to briefly give two examples of, you know, things that might be helpful in the coming year or coming session. So one thing would be... It was at one of these events with a number of people in Nancy Skinner was there, and she was talking about 3:30, and sort of her interpretation of where things landed this year, sort of what she had to give up in her mind in order to get it through, and what she's thinking about for next year. And I think she made it clear, and I think one of her staff members did, too, that, you know, some of the stuff that we talked about earlier tonight, that's really undefined, they know is undefined, and I think they'll, in next year, probably propose cleanup language to clean those things, you know, better specify things, but that would be an opportunity for us to weigh in on, you know, what that language looks like, or sort of what part 2 of 330 ends up looking like, because I think a lot of the things that she was really a champion champion, she wasn't thrilled got dropped, and she may bring those back. And that's a good opportunity. I think regardless of how we feel about them or their particular legislation, a lot of them know that Mountain View, they wouldn't just listen to any regular city. They know that we lead on a bunch of issues. So if we want to talk about, you know, safe parking and exemptions, and I think a lot of those folks know that we're sort of at the forefront of a bunch of those issues, and they're, and we're sort of experimenting and dancing around the edges. And I think they'd be much more willing to take our input and sort of consider them as their drafting legislation than they would be for, you know, to some random city in the state. And so, I think, 330, um, um, a family member, Berman's bill, when it comes back for, um, you know, we could look at maybe exemptions and other things besides just, you know, um, the community college lots. I think there are just a number of opportunities that we could have to weigh in on some of these things that are certainly going to have a 2nd life. There's going to be there's going to be SB 50, there's going to be a lot of these things. And to the extent that we're prepared to start having those conversations early on and just say, like, here's our punch list of things, especially the stuff that we know is going to have legs, whether we like it or not, the more that we can influence that legislation along the way, the better it will be for us.

[06:36:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I totally agree. Any other comments?

[06:36:58] Unknown Speaker: Totally agree. Oh, you've been taking better notes than I've been taking?

[06:37:06] City Manager Dan Rich: All righty then. Um... So, uh, somebody who started his career in local government 27 years ago devoted 100% to intergovernmental relations. This is an issue that is sort of near and dear to me. What's that? Because I know it from a lot of different angles. So you've said a lot of different things, and frankly, your ass are pretty big and broad, and will have significant implications. So, you know, let us take it back, as we said, we would, and come back to you with some ideas and some implications, but I just want to be clear that, as we said in the report, it's not just staffing up in our department, which, in and of itself, has implications for other priorities and or the budget, but it's the departments. So no matter how much time Christina or someone like her spends coordinating and facilitating, it's still going to be a Wayne or a Tim, who needs to know and write the talking points and the suggested amendments to SV 330. So it's not to say it can't be done. All I'm saying is that there are implications for staffing and workloads. So we need to give some more thought to that, but this is helpful in terms of, you know, the prioritization around state and regional things. I think we will probably come back to you and say, we're not going to spend more than 10 minutes on federal issues. You know, I mean, again, that's part of the trade-offs. And clearly no interest in a lobbyist or a regional approach, and that's fine. So I think that's helpful to have the clarity that it's a matter of beefing up internal resources, so let us go back and kind of think through what that, or some different ways that might look, both in the short term and longer term, budgetarily. and the trade-offs, and then we'll bring something back to you probably. We will bring something back to you after the 1st of the year..

[06:39:22] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: And if I might, perhaps timed at that same time, it seems there needs to be some conversation around what those key issues are, because, like Dan said, what you, kind of, the intensity of tracking and relationship building and trying to nudge along, certain things, and maintaining communications for the council and the public is broad enough. if you're doing it on a limited number of things, but kind of impossible if there isn't that level of focus and priority. And so that might be something that we want to also get your direction on when we come back.

[06:40:02] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, just to add to that, sorry. Yeah, we can't anticipate every time you may be in a random meeting with a legislator who may bring up any one of a thousand different bills. But if you tell us next Tuesday, I'm going to be at a reception with Senator Skinner, what should I know? And if you give enough time for that, we will help you with that today. But again, as Audrey says, it's kind of, what are the priority? I think probably every year, every 6 months, we'll have to have a meeting or a study session, say, you know, for the next 6 months, we want to focus or the emphasis is on, you know, housing related stuff. Well, okay, that's no longer a priority now. sustainability or whatever it is, because those will change over the course of a year or years. So getting that initial focus, and then we can say, okay, you know, we will track everything in housing and give you monthly updates or talking points or whatever is necessary for those priorities.

[06:41:03] Unknown Speaker: I guess that's what I would, that's where we can lean on these, you know, other bodies, cities, association, league of cities. They do have lobby, well, cities doesn't, but like, league of cities, they have a lobbyist. They go through their legislative priorities, all the bills that they think are going to move or are going to be impactful. And, you know, VTA, I'm sure, has an ABAG has it. We have it at Bakmed. So it's a matter of like collecting all that. Just to see, like, what are going to be the hot legislation items for the year and then just track them as they move. and then figure out how they can, they're going to affect us. So, I mean, you know, there's, yeah, 3000 bills that get introduced. I don't expect us to be following all of this, but, you know, the professionals, the lobbyists and whatnot, they know which ones are gonna be hot. So that's what I think we need, you know, a person internal who can consult, you know, consolidate all of that information and say, okay, on these bills, this is where Mountain View is, and, you know, if you have an opportunity to speak to somebody. This is Mountain View's position. And yeah, that I, you know, completely agree with Council member Clark, when I met with Assembly member, too, is, you know, clear that Mountain View is different from some of the other cities, and, you know, we're not going to say no to all these bills, like some other cities do. So it's like, you know, it became clear that we need to figure out what our own path is, and that's what we're looking for. But in terms of, yeah, what are the priorities, I think that's pretty easy to figure out if we talk to some of these regional bodies that we sit on. easy to figure out.

[06:42:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: And the final thing is, while we all sort of said no lobbyists, one, if it's helpful for staff, and maybe it will just create more work. But one thing that I could think of is, you know, if there's one of these folks who's out there, who's, you know, really, um, really experienced tracking these things every year based on, you know, you say, you know, housing's important, and this thing's important. And to the extent that they could meet with Wayne or whomever, and understand sort of, um, basically, you know, meet with meet with the department head or whomever, understand sort of how these things could impact, or should maybe we'd want to change the legislation, and they can go sort of write those suggestions for us. It doesn't all have to be done in house. But that form of, like, a lobbyist I'm fine with. I just don't need someone lobbying on our behalf in Sacramento. I think we're, though, as someone said earlier, we're the best folks do that. Sacramento.

[06:43:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other comments on that? Okay. That was it's a good topic. So thank you very much. Okay, moving on to item nine, council staff and committee reports. Okay, moving on to item nine, council staff and committee. Council member McAllister?

[06:44:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Today, uh, I attended a, uh, VTA ad hoc committee, uh, on governance, and we had a, uh, we hired a firm RSM to come out and evaluate how we, our, our VTA board works and how it's made up. And recently, they sent out a survey to the, there's 18 members on the board. There's 12 board members and six alternates. And the question, the questionnaire was, you know, engagement, conflict, ethics, and we had seven people return the survey, three board members, and four alternates. And so it was sort of a quick reflection of the engagement that the board was having at the time. So we are working on trying to, The whole committee is trying to increase the engagement, to make people come to our meetings. We had a survey of also of meeting on time, getting a quorum. And we had board members, tenants was between 17% and 90%. There was also study on how many meetings started without a quorum, and it was, so these are the things that we're looking at to see how efficient this group of people are on this board right now. So it's an ongoing issue that we're looking at, hopefully, we'll have deliverables at the end of December, but that's what we had a meeting today to just, sort of, give you an idea. And that's when the young lady was out here telling you to participate in the public surveys and so forth. You know, We need to hear from people, 'cause people say, Hey, VTA is not pertinent, it doesn't give me a ride. Well, we need to get people, the public, more informed, and give them an opportunity to give feedback, to say, You're not helping us out, and then why? And so this is... So that's what I had today. You're not helping us out, man. Why? So that's what I heard.

[06:46:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, I have a couple... I went to the Round Table meeting last week. That's the airplane noise round table, and we are continuing on a ad hoc committee to work on the strategic plan and the work plan. And the Roundtable is now meeting every other month. So, um, we are also talking about forming committees so that, if something happens in between meetings, the committee can respond to that, uh, like a new procedure or something is, uh, listed in the IFP gateway. Um... Then, uh, I know that this was included in the weekly update to the council, but I just want to let the residents know that we, um, did have a meeting with our representative, Mark Berman, uh, to talk about, um, sorry, assembly member, Mark Berman. Um, like, give him this proper title, about, um, remember how when we talked about the shelter crisis, and how some cities specifically had an exemption to some of the rules, um, when it comes to, um, providing safe parking. And so we're asking specifically for not just an exemption from Mountain View, even though that's our goal, but basically any city, why are some exempt and not others. Let's just make it all cities. And we also suggested that we look at potentially exempting private property owners if they want to do safe parking from some of these rules. And I felt like we had a good discussion with him about the pros and cons of this proposed legislation. And, um, I'm sure we will, I felt like he was receptive to doing this. And I'm sure we'll keep in touch with him on this topic. And then, while this isn't totally within the guidelines for what we announce, I do want to, again, mention that we had the celebration of service last night, for all the folks who are members of our committees, commissions, and boards, they all give a lot of their time and energy. to the advisory body work. And I know we all appreciate them doing that. So I feel like I just want to recognize them one more time. Um, so if there's no other, um, is there a close session report?

[06:49:15] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There's no close session report.

[06:49:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, then... we will adjourn the meeting to the next council meeting that will be held on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019, at 5 p.m. in the council chambers, 500 Castro Street. At 5 p.m. in the council chamber. 500 Castro Street.

• ← Previous
• Next →