February 4, 2020 Joint Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:40] (archive recording) Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: There he is. All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our special session of the Mountain View City Council for February 4th, 2020. I'd like to call this meeting to order at 6:32, and we'll start with the pledge of allegiance. I'm gonna ask former mayor, former mayor, John McAllister, elitist in the pledge.

[00:00:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Ooh, what about it? Please join me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. to the Republic. For success. One nation, another. Individual, number 13, and justice.

[00:00:38] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We will go into roll call.

[00:00:42] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[00:00:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Great. Thank you. Item number four, consent calendar. This item will be approved by one motion, unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. Would any member of the council, like to pull an item, boy? Did we have a... Would any member of the council like to pull item 4.1?

[00:01:08] Unknown Speaker: Is that the, um, for disclosure purposes?

[00:01:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: That's actually the only item. I'm sorry?

[00:01:15] Unknown Speaker: Yes, on the concern. I submit it.

[00:01:16] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. Yes. Okay, if not, would any member of the public like to provide comment on any of these items? If so, please come to the podium. If not, I'll close public comment.

[00:01:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: Might move that into the calendar.

[00:01:33] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: One second.

[00:01:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Motion by Council member Clark, second by Council member Metachek. Any other discussion, and we will do a roll call vote because we do not have our electronic voted machines today.

[00:01:45] City Clerk: Thank you. Council member Clark. Council member Hicks, Council member Matachek,

[00:01:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[00:01:49] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[00:01:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[00:01:51] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez.

[00:01:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[00:01:52] City Clerk: Vice mayor Kameh.

[00:01:53] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:01:54] City Clerk: Mayor Abi Koga.

[00:01:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Ike, thank you. Thank you. And I'm sorry, I should have mentioned why we're here in this room today. Because we are doing our goal setting, study session later, I wanted to have a more of a round table type of format for the council members to be able to really have a conversation, and so that's why we are here rather than the council chambers this evening. So, I know we don't have all of the bells and whistles is like we normally do, but, you know, I appreciate everyone's indulgence in allowing the council to have a, try to have a good conversation, um, a dialogue. So that's why we're here going on to item 5 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 3 minutes during the section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items. Are there... welcome. And we do have our city clerk has our timer, and she'll just ring, it'll ring when the time is up. Or she'll raise your hand 15 seconds before, and then it'll ring, so, yes, welcome.

[00:03:14] Stephen Goldstein: Stephen Goldstein, Mountain Resident since 2007. I recently saw this interesting article called Landlord Defense Attack on Tenant. Says she tried to break in a home, home because of fraud, that I thought was really interesting, because at one point in time, my landlord had submitted a petition for rent increase under the CSFRA. And what he did is he signed a document saying he was in compliance with the CSFRA, called a Declaration. And it turned out he was fraudding the city, because he was charging late fees, in which late fees are explicitly not allowed under the CSRA. If you look at the lawful rent section, it only talks about the basement, and no other fees are allowed. I have a canceled check showing that I had actually been charged $100 more than my legal rent while he was petitioning. Now, would I be entitled to do anything to threaten him? Of course not. I would never dare even think of it. But the idea that the attorney for the landlord is trying to say that justifies this action was really what I thought was kind of nuts. And it basically indicates that they have no defense regarding the criminal action that took place. As far as there was a recent article or submission done by the acting mayor of the city of Mount View, claiming that the city has done everything it can regarding the CSFRA and supporting the citizens' rights. And I'm just here to do some corrections on that. First, the city council agreed to a temporary restraining order, freezing the CSFRA, the day before it was to become enforceable on December 22nd, 2016. Second, the city attorney was instructed not to defend the CSFRA in court by the city council at that time, and that basically required a third party, the Stanford community law center, to intervene and defend the law. Eventually, the court ruled that the law was perfectly constitutional, and eventually the cases were dropped by the CAA, who was the primary challenger. Third, when the case was dropped, the city council in the RHC did not require for more than 3 or 4 months to have the overpaid rent that was collected during the temporary restraining order to be refunded to the citizens, because the fact that the rollback was supposed to be enforceable on December 23rd. Eventually, the city finally caved in and finally said, yes, we have no choice in the matter. Fourth, the city council colluded with apartment owners to fast track removal of front controlled units. Thus, forcing the state under SB 330 to provide a ban of removing rent controlled and affordable units unless they are replaced in kind with replacement units on each and every new project that's coming down the pipe.

[00:06:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Your time is up. Thank you. All right, thank you. Any other speakers? Welcome up. And if you can fill out a blue card, they're on that table and hand it to our city attorney, who's our acting city, helping the city clerk this evening, that'd be great.

[00:06:41] Janice Yoon: Okay, thank you. Good evening, Mayor Abby Koga, and esteemed council members. My name is Janice Yoon. Seras Regis, and I'm the chair of the Mountain View Transportation Management Association. And with me here is Tom Harrington from Into It, the vice chair of the MTMA. And we're here tonight to represent the board and the organization, to share some accomplishments, and from 2019, as well as some exciting new commitments and initiatives, to transportation demand management programs in 2020. The TMA now represents 14 different members, including the city of Mountain View, employers, developers, real estate owners, as well as now in residential property owners, throughout the city. The MTMA is committed as partners, and advocates to support projects that improve regional and local transit for the greater benefit of the businesses and residential community here in Mountain View. While the infrastructure, inmound view continues to evolve, the MTMA continues to research and pilot new programs, and we determine what's most effective, and we appreciate the city's partnership, to helping reduce SOV trips together. So since 2014, we've operated this commuter shuttle, that's first and last mile shuttle, from the Mountain View Transportation Mountain View Transit Center, and we, in 2019, had 120,000 connections to Transit Center, which was an average of 500, reducing 500 single occupant vehicles each day, weekday. So in 2019, a couple of the pilot programs we tested was the midday mobility pilot program, which originally started as a three month pilot with Uber and Lyft. And this is to encourage a commute, alternative commute, so they have more flexible ability to commute during the midday. And that program subsidizes up to $5 per trip. was very successful, and we extended it through December. We also tested a carpool sponsorship program, which was 6 months long, with Waze Carpool, and that is providing a flat rate $2 ride anywhere to Mountain View and from Mountain View. And we originally approached other program. We had 3,500 trips in the month of July. By the end of the program in December, it more than doubled. And, um, in anticipation of new residential developers and owners joined the TMA. We also started a residential subcommittee and did a residential tedium analysis with Nislan Nygar, and we are looking forward to implementing some of those programs in 2020. Um, And then starting in the summer of 2019, we started planning, uh, extending the shuttle service through the San Antonio area. So we're excited to launch in the spring of this year, a bidirectional service that connects the Mountain View transit center, to San Antonio area, and the North Bay Shore area, and that'll increase the rides to North Bay Shore by 60%. So, in 2020, we are looking forward to having a real partnership with ways. We just increased that sponsorship to $350,000. We're starting this new route implementation, and we're extending the midday mobility program. And also, as part of 2019, we gave $100,000 to the automated guideway transit project. Thanks so much.

[00:09:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank you for there. Oh, there's a question, actually, if you don't mind answering the question from the vice mayor. Great, thank you.

[00:10:04] Janice Yoon: Sure.

[00:10:05] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: I don't know if this, there it is. Would it be possible for you to email us all of this information? I don't know if we're getting it at another point or I know you've given it to us in public comment, but I think it would be really helpful.

[00:10:17] Janice Yoon: Definitely. I will, I think I sent another letter on Friday, but I'll resend it with a summary of those initiatives.

[00:10:24] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. you. Thank you.

[00:10:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Hello, Mr. Harrington. Welcome. Oh, without the. You look different.

[00:10:35] Tom Harrington: Thank you. Hi, Tom Harrington, I'm into it, and I'm just gonna touch on a few of the points that Janice wasn't able to get to as far as our 2020 goals. The carpal program she mentioned, it's an investment of 350,000 by the TMA for that carpal waste carpal subsidy that's out there. Really cool piece of it. If you're traveling less than 10 miles, It's free for the passenger. So we fully subsidize less than 10 miles, which is a real short-term, the short distance trip that we're all struggling with. By the way, all of these programs are open to the public. They're not just the employers, they're not just members of the TMA. It's open to the public. The new route implementation that's going to be opening in the spring that actually Janis talked about. And then the midday mobility pilot, basically that mobility pilot to get people around during the day, that $5 subsidy for Uber and Lyft, we actually have extended that for the first 4 months of 2020, and we'll be looking again to see if we want to extend that even further during the year. And that's it. So thank you for your time.

[00:11:46] Unknown Speaker: We have a question for you. Yeah. So our question. VTA is looking at dropping express buses, but replacing them with van pools. And when you start talking about car pools, that made me think about van pools where you could hold 10 or 15 people. Have you guys looked into that? Is it viable? Is it economic or...?

[00:12:08] Tom Harrington: So we haven't looked at it as a TMA. One of the reasons is, if you're doing a vamp pool, there actually has to be a lease that one of the people actually sign up to as a coordinator of the vample, into it has 18 vamp pools right now that we're actually subsidizing in the Mountain View area. We're down a little bit because tax compliance has caused us to audit those very carefully, and we hold a high standard to the folks that are actually taking those. But as a TMA, it would really be a logistic nightmare to try and do that as a TMA. But employers, and I don't know if, I know Google has had some in the past. I don't know if they have some active now, and Microsoft, I'm sure, has some as well. So.

[00:12:53] Unknown Speaker: So from your perspective, are they been useful? Have they been working?

[00:12:59] Tom Harrington: So they're a great solution. As long as you have a spot that you can garage or park the vehicle overnight. So, for instance, I've had as many as 31 vamples going at one time. They've all either been from the East Bay or from the South Bay. I've had nothing from the peninsula, and I've had nothing from San Francisco. I also see that problem in other cities as well. In San Diego. We also don't have the ability for people to garage their vehicles overnight in downtown San Diego, even though there's a subsidy that's available locally in San Diego, of an additional $400 besides the subsidy the employers put in. It's hard getting folks could do that just because there's no place to put the van overnight.

[00:13:40] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Actually, I wanted to add on that. I spent a day with council member Rod Stinks in Cupertino, and I passed this on to our staff, too, and look forward to hopefully getting more information when we do this shuttle study, but they have this program called Via, and it's like a shuttle, a small shuttle service from my understanding. And they mentioned that they actually send the shuttles to the Sunnyvale Transit Center. He's interested in getting it to Mountain View Transit Center. So I was just, you know, hoping that we could at some point have a conversation and look at whether this we could create some kind of partnership. And so I was just wondering if you were aware of this via program and if you were into that.

[00:14:27] Tom Harrington: It was a really cool app. I actually have it on my phone.

[00:14:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, okay.

[00:14:30] Tom Harrington: used it in New York. At least in New York. They weren't always fulfilled with a van, but one of the things they did is the 1st question they asked is how many riders are in your party. And that was huge for being able to have some sort of a pool solution out there. I don't know if the Cupertino solution is all vans only and...

[00:14:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, I'm not sure. I just I've heard it's very popular doing well, so...

[00:14:57] Tom Harrington: It's similar to Uber and Lyft, but it leads with the pooling, which is really kind of cool.

[00:15:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. So hopefully there's some opportunity there. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on a non-agenda item? If not, I'll close public comment and move on to our public hearing, which we have none. So we're going to go into unfinished business before I do that. I just wanted to remind the audience regarding public comment if requested in advance of the public input portion. So right now, if you would like to pull your time, a speaker who represents 5 or more members of the public in attendance, can complete speaker, the speaker cards for 5 or more. And if you like not to speak, you may have up to 10 minutes to dress the council on a topic. If you are interested in doing so, please see the city clerk at this time on any of the items moving forward. So we're going into item 7.one. The legislative program, update and proposed legislative priorities and issues for 2020. So we have Christina Gilmore, assistant to the city manager for our presentation.

[00:16:15] Assistant to the City Manager Christina Gilmore: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, mayor and council. Christina Gilmore, assistant to the city manager. The purpose of this item this evening is to approve recommendations for an expanded legislative program and the proposed legislative priorities to guide the city's regional, state, and federal legislative advocacy during the 201920 legislative session. The recommended actions for counsel consideration this evening include the following. Affirm council's desired legislative program, scope and timing, approved the proposed legislative priorities and issues for 2020, and provide direction on council's engagement in federal legislative advocacy during the Annual National League of Cities Congressional Cities Conference. As part of the fiscal years, 201920, and 2021, Major Council Goals work plan, Council called for a study session to explore the possibility of expanding the existing legislative advocacy program. The study session was held in October 2019, during which the council provided feedback regarding potential legislative program functions and outcomes as included as attachment one to the staff report, and includes the following. Focus on regional and state legislative issues, bills, and priorities, proactively analyze and track priority bills and legislation, provide talking points and regular legislative updates, maintain regular contact and coordinate meetings with legislative representatives. The council had no interest in retaining services of a lobbyist, and finally, preference for additional staff support to engage with regional and state leaders and influence legislative outcomes. Council directed staff to develop a proposed program scope and associated resource needs for council consideration, and for the remainder of the fiscal year 201920, which would be February to June, staff proposes that we increase the time spent on legislative issues by existing staff, and to modestly expand the legislative functions that we currently have by focusing on regional and state legislative bill tracking, advocacy, and engagement with legislative representatives. For fiscal year 2020, 21, staff will be proposing increasing staffing capacity for the legislative program, public communication and community outreach. This will be discussed further during your next council. Council item 8.1 during the council Major Goldberg Plan study session of this evening. Stock conferred with all city departments to propose legislative bills and issues for council consideration to include in the legislative priorities issue platform 2020. The recommended platform consists of actionable items, of top legislative priority for the city, in accordance to the existing city council policy A16, which is included as attachment to the staff report. The recommended priorities and issues include both state and federal bills that have been introduced during the 201920 legislative session, as well as a proposed regional transportation initiative. The bills and issues proposed by staff that fall within the following issue areas and are summarized in a chart on pages 4 through 7 of your staff report. The issue areas are housing, transportation, solid waste, recycled water, and airplane noise. Staff seek city council direction on the extent to which it desires to include federal legislative advocacy as part of your legislative program for 2020. And the council's interest in participating in the National League of City conference. Alternatives for counseling consideration include the following. Do not approve the legislative program and propose legislative priorities and issues for 2020, modify the legislative program and proposed priorities for 2020, or provide other directions. This concludes staff's presentation, and staff is available to answer any questions. Thank you.

[00:20:18] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Are there any council members with questions? Yes, Council member McAllister?

[00:20:24] Councilmember John McAlister: So, when you were interested in, in... Diving into legislative stuff, um, before we put staff time on it, is there much interaction between us and the California League of Cities, or the National League of Cities, where they do have that legislative bodies already there, so that, you know, we could reach out, then they could give us the updates?

[00:20:44] Christina: Yeah, so our current program does include very active engagement with the Lake of California cities, our regional peninsula representative, as well as participating in monthly webinars, and any legislative action items that we receive from League. And so if the any action items on current bills come from the league and they fall within the city's legislative guidelines or if they are an issue that the city has commented before, then we work with the departments to analyze the bill and provide a recommendation for taking an opposition or support on a bill and presenting it to the mayor for their signature. And the same was the National League of Cities.

[00:21:26] Councilmember John McAlister: So with the California League, have you found that here we're asking potentially bring another body along, but how much does this League of Cities, California cities give us information that would supplement a staffer?

[00:21:45] Christina: They provide very detailed information on the bills that are coming before cities that will be of cities interest. However, they are pretty, they are pretty generic at times. And so there's definitely additional staff time, that is needed to analyze each of the bills and the physicians to ensure that any specific issues that the city is currently dealing with, or is interested in including in the bill or opposes, is analyzed and presented in a way that fully represents the city.

[00:22:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[00:22:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Other questions from council members?

[00:22:26] Unknown Speaker: I just had one in regards to the listing of the state legislation, especially that you have. Um, how, how do you, hopefully you determine which bills to track. I noticed that there's some bills that and I've been part of the legislative action committee for the Cities Association. I mean, there's a whole bunch of housing bills, as we know, some of them will come in different forms down the road. But, yeah, how will you determine which ones to track and which ones maybe not to?

[00:23:02] Christina: So, as I mentioned in the staff report, these are recommended issues or priorities that staff is recommending that the council may want to have staff track and keep track of and provide comment on when these bills come up. For any other bills that are not on this list, it will definitely, we would go back to the council policy to determine if there has been prior or existing action, if it protects local control, and it meets the council, the city's priorities in ensuring that the city has the opportunity to maintain local control and to preserve fiscal funds. So we would look at the policy, and then, of course, if there was, um, if under the existing policy, legislation could be reviewed and signed by the mayor, then we would work with the city manager to present that to the mayor for consideration. And then, of course, if staff determines that further council action and consideration would be needed, we brought to council for discussion.

[00:24:04] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so, um, I guess I should have been more specific. If, let's say, one of us learned from some other regional body that we're on that this bill is something to watch, how do we bring that forward? Do we bring it forward to staff or do we have to have the council to talk about it? How does that work?

[00:24:22] Christina: So past practice has been that the council member raises it to the city manager who reviews it and refers it to the appropriate department or staff.

[00:24:31] Unknown Speaker: Great. Thank you.

[00:24:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other questions from counsel? No, if not, are there any members of the public? Wishing to speak on this item? If not, go close public comment and bring it back to council for deliberation, and I'll entertain emotion as well. Anyone?

[00:24:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I move to approve the staff recommendation.

[00:24:51] Unknown Speaker: Second.

[00:24:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, we have a motion from Council member Ramirez 2nd from Council member, Matez, and we have a discussion from Council member Matachek.

[00:25:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that, um, on page two of the staff report. or at least the parameters. I think we also said that one of the reasons we want to do this is to give visibility to our residents as to our positions and our advocacy activities. And so I want to make sure that that doesn't get lost in all of this, 'cause that would be another aspect of the workload.

[00:25:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right. Thank you. Any other comments? No? Yes. Play some air.

[00:25:33] Unknown Speaker: Thanks. Sorry. So I just wanted to make a comment about the city's participation in the National League of City, the Congressional Conference. So, um, I do just want to iterate at least my support, I do think there's value of both having visits with federal representatives in Deep Washington, DC, as well as locally. And I know that that received discussion last October. But I really feel like with the way things are going, a two prong approach to making sure that we have that existing relationship, and we have that FaceTime is of value. And it's also more effective, sometimes to meet in Washington, DC. The other thing I'd like to just highlight is as we're looking at legislative bills, particularly in the state legislature, it would be nice to take note of some items that the city might be kind of working on in the future. So, for example, I know that there's been discussion about single use plastics and trying to reduce that. I know that, I think, at least with some of my colleagues, we've talked about that, and I know that there's a bill in the legislature right now about that. So being able to track those, and I know a lot of, sometimes the focus goes on to the larger housing transportation bills, but that would be of interest for me as well. Thank you.

[00:26:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, thank you for bringing that up. Question. Do we do would you like input now about the National League of Cities, who's planning to attend and what topics of interest as well as whether you would like meetings set up with the federal agencies?

[00:27:18] Christina: That would be appreciated.

[00:27:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, show at hand, so who is planning to attend? Okay. And then are there any agencies you would like the staff to try to set up meetings with or legislator?

[00:27:32] Unknown Speaker: Just John? Transportation.

[00:27:36] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So DOT, department of transportation, any others? FAA? We always usually go to HUD. but...

[00:27:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: I mean, I'd say after last year, I just didn't find a lot of value.

[00:27:53] Unknown Speaker: So um... Yeah, so I think, you know, focusing on the ones that really could make a difference would be my, and I'm not planning to go this year, actually, but, um, I'm assuming, uh, we can meet with our member of Congress an issue. You'd want to do that. Um, the state, I know the senators are harder to get into, um, that you can meet with staff. And then any other agencies that they, or, um, similar to what Council Marple Clark said. I think right now meeting with the FAA would not be a good use of our time.

[00:28:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. NASA?

[00:28:30] Unknown Speaker: I don't know about NASA, but any, there's any sort of federal jurisdiction that might, I think about the use of some of the lambs, about what I'm not sure NASA would be as helpful, but it might be some folks at the Pentagon who might be worth getting an update from it, they'd be willing to meet with us.

[00:28:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Christina, do you know if who's on recess that particular week? Because we've gone in the past and either senators are on recess or the Congress people are on recess, so?

[00:29:02] Christina: I don't have that information, but I can certainly find out and really that to the council members.

[00:29:09] Unknown Speaker: Well, in fact, uh, we meet, but we don't.

[00:29:11] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, that's true. Anything? Oh, yes. Was there interest in a meeting with the army? I wasn't sure where you landed on that.

[00:29:20] Unknown Speaker: I think the army is of interest, but not NASA or FA.

[00:29:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And the Department of the Navy? Does the Navy headlands? Is that just, what's the arm?

[00:29:32] Christina: You have met with them in the past, but you're requesting just to meet with the army.

[00:29:36] Unknown Speaker: don't think I need to do that. I don't think that. I mean, mostly about talking about Shannon federal lands.

[00:29:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. So. Okay, anything else? If not, there's a motion in a second, um, to approve the staff recommendation. All this in favor, I oppose. Oh, sorry, I'm sorry. Sorry about that.

[00:30:00] City Clerk: Council member Clark? Council member Hicks. Council member Mattachek? Council member McAllister. Council member Ramirez.

[00:30:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[00:30:07] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Kameh. Mayor Abi Koga. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:30:10] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you all for keeping me on track. All right, we will move on to the next item, and we go actually, if we go into our study session, This is the 8.1 fiscal year, 201920, and fiscal year, 2021 city council goals work planned, 6 month update. And our presenter is Mr. Melvin Gaines, right? All right, welcome.

[00:30:58] Melvin Gaines: Good evening. Good evening. Mayor Abbe Koga, members of the city council. Thank you for having me here tonight. I am here to discuss our fiscal year 201920, through fiscal year 2020, 2021, City Council Matrix Gull work plan, specifically to provide a six month progress update, as well as discuss potential modifications. As you all are aware, and members of the public may not be aware, you all adopted four major goals, which I've shortened here, describing as the community for all. goal, a goal for housing quantity, diversity, and affordability, a goal to have a comprehensive, innovative transportation strategies, and a goal for environmental sustainability, and the quality of life. You'll also have a number of major projects that don't fit within any of the four major goals, but they are still council suggested projects that are elevated to the status of your major goals, work plan. Six months into this workplan. The 65, you guys have 65 projects adopted of which eight have been completed. 44 are in progress, and 13 are upcoming, what start dates either later this fiscal year, or in the following fiscal year, beginning July 1. Based off of various happenings, we've, as staff have proposed certain modifications. We propose to add products to the work plan based off of council suggestions or staff noticing things that we can do to improve our service delivery. And we've added, I believe, six projects. We're proposing to add six projects to the work plan, noted here, A through F, A, develop and implement, enhance legislative program, B, develop and implement, and enhance communications program. C, assess gaps in youth mental health services, D, prepare an ordinance to expand firearm prohibition and recreation facilities to all city facilities. E, prepare an ordinance to require safe storage of firearms, and F, prepare an ordinance, prohibiting the sale of evaping and flavored tobacco. In addition to proposing to add projects, staff is also proposing to modify some of the existing projects, for various different reasons, whether that be staff capacity, or us understanding the feasibility of particular projects. We have certain proposed modifications. Current project 1.1, which is a displacement study session. We're proposing to modify a deliverable for that. We have discussed with you all, bring forward modifications to the trail in April of 2020, but Snap is proposing to delay that until we discuss the larger displacement strategy in June 2020. Project 1.3, which is a study session on homelessness services gaps. We originally plan to provide a study session sometime between January 2020 and June 2020, but because of staff capacity currently, we're asking to postpone that project to some point between July 2020 and December 2020. Projects 1.4, the community workforce agreement. We did not include this project and a staff report. That's why it's noted with a star here or an asterisk. We are proposing now to delay that project from June of this year. The original project's period, was from June of this year, June of next year, but we're asking that we delay the start of work on that project until January of 2021, and B. finalizing it by December of 2021. Another project that we did not include proposed modification in a staff report is Project 2.4, middle income housing strategies. of which we originally proposed to work on that project between March 2020 and December 2020, we're now asking to delay that project for a project period of November 2020 through April 2021. Project 3.3, the citywide transportation management ordinance, we have originally proposed to begin work on that in January of 2020 through October 2020, but we're now asking to delay that project for approximately one year to begin work on it in January 2021 and finalize it in June of 2021. Project 3.5 developing e scooter regulations. We actually have made progress on this project, and have the regulations. However, we'd like to delay the actual implementation of the e scooter share program until this fall, based off of staff capacity, and us bringing on some new staff later this year. And Project 3.9 is the final project that we did not include in a staff report, and that's developing a comprehensive motor plan. We're asking to postpone the study session until this fall. I'm sorry, yes, it's 2020, I don't know the year anymore, until this fall. And the final project we're asking to modify is to Project 3.20, automated Guysway, transportation system, feasibility study, asking to postpone that project until November of 2020 and deliver it by April 2021. In addition to those timeline modifications, we're also proposing to eliminate Project 2.11, which is conducting a community benefit financial study to create a financial methodology for determining community benefit amounts for gatekeeper projects. Step is actually recommending to deal with that on a project like project basis, so therefore eliminating a major project and dealing with it for specific projects. So this is a study session, and we're proposing to, as you all have seen in your packet, a proposed way of handling these modifications. We're asking you to pull the desired progress, sorry, desired projects that you'd like to discuss further, any of the projects that we've proposed to modify that you would not like to discuss. We'll assume that you accept. You may also suggest any new projects or work plan modifications. After all of the work plan modifications that you'd like to further discuss our listed on these whiteboards behind me, we'll have an opportunity for you all to discuss the work plan modifications, and finally, we can vote on the port items. The next steps, the staff will assess the workload impacts of any council approved work plan modifications, and we'll return to you all with a final approval of any modifications. That concludes my presentation, however, as far as deciding which projects to prove, I'd say we can take it in steps, beginning with new projects. You all can let me know if there are any of the newly proposed projects that you'd like to pool, you know, add those to the whiteboard behind me. And with that, I conclude my project. Then second, we'll go into the project timeline modifications, and finally, into whether or not you want to discuss us eliminating Project 2.11, or if there are new projects you'd like to eliminate. So with that, I will hush and allow you all to, um, let me know if you want to pull any projects.

[00:38:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. So before we do that, this is a study session, so we will open this up for public comment first. Show hands if anyone would like to speak on this item. Okay, it doesn't look like it. So I'll close public comment and bring it back to council. So, any questions? We'll start with questions. Yes, Counselor Ramirez.

[00:38:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. First, can you hear me? Um, so, um, I want to follow up on a point that uh, council member, council member Metachek made during the team building that was regarding the downtown parking strategy. I had it circled here. I can't find it now. Oh, here it is. So, Project 3.12 continue to implement downtown parking, long term solutions, and then I think there's a corresponding project, 3.14 for short term downtown parking pilot programs. We have the proposal from Marwood to collaborate on the creation of a new parking structure. So is that something that could be incorporated into these existing projects, or is that an entirely separate issue that we will need to deliberate tonight?

[00:39:58] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Good evening, Don Cameron, Public Works Director. The possibility of constructing a new parking structure is a major undertaking, whether it would be a developer undertaking it in some kind of partnership with the city or the city undertakes it, so it would have to be considered a separate project.

[00:40:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so we would have to state tonight, whether we want to formally include that in the work plan.

[00:40:21] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Yes.

[00:40:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And then... I have a question about when state legislation requires us to update the zoning code. So there's a project in here, 2.7 update city documents, including the density, bonus ordinance, to implement new housing laws, which I'm assuming means modifications to the zoning code, and that could include things like, I saw there's the item in march about ADUs and a handful of other things. So I'm guessing that's we're taking that on because we're required to under state law. But for other things, and staff referenced in the responses to council questions, like the tenant relocation assistance provisions in SB 330, which are also in the zoning code, there isn't a need to update the zoning code. So can you help me understand when we have to go through that work to be in compliance with state law. when we won't need to. Sorry.

[00:41:36] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Our teacher, Vastava, Assistant City Manager, Director of Community Development. It's a good question. One of the reasons is, I think SB 330 is a law that's expected to last for five years. And so, as opposed to density bonus. And so we definitely want to, especially where we've got sections of the density bonus currently in our zoning ordinance, we don't typically need to do it, but we then have to put ours aside and try to understand the state law, for example, the density bonus. So we like to clarify things, make sure there's no confusion, so that we're implementing it correctly. With SB 330, it's a slightly different animal. And so, some of those will apply to us, some of those won't, and don't typically all end up in an ordinance, like all laws don't end up in an ordinance. So that's kind of a short version of the explanation, the limited nature of the law. That isn't to say that we can't take on a project, which we are going to as far as displacement, where we figure out what sections would belong in our ordinance. So.

[00:42:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. That's very helpful. And then just a quick follow up. So for some period of time, there's going to be a discrepancy between what our zoning code requires for tenant relocation and what state law requires. So in that, and then there are, there are different kinds of circumstances that trigger Trao. And that could be confusing. So how do we, if you know, if somebody is not necessarily demolishing units, but simply vacating them, they still have to provide trail, but maybe state law, that doesn't trigger the SB 330 requirements. So how do we account for that and make sure folks are complying with the, you know, the relevant trail.

[00:43:28] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Right. And, you know, in fact, we were just discussing that today, where we have to separate when, in fact, SB 330 kicks in, when only trail kicks in, when both kick in, and you have to take the stricter of the two. So a lot depends on the circumstance. But typically, it's fairly clear that if we've got an ordinance that entirely relies on a law, like density bonus, or what we have for ADUs, and that's a permanent law, we go back and change it. With some, you know, I guess SB 50 is an example, we wouldn't update our ordinances necessarily. We just know we have to comply with the law and you might have a project. I'm sorry, SB 35. We have a project that requires compliance, then we would comply. So in some cases, you need ordinance amendments, and some cases, you need compliance. In this case, I agree. There's confusion. And so I think that's part of what we're trying to address as part of the goals.

[00:44:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you very much. That all I've got.

[00:44:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great Thank you. Any other questions?

[00:44:36] Unknown Speaker: I just have a follow up question on that. But with SB 330 in the trio, whichever is stricter, is the one that applies. Is that not true?

[00:44:47] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Um, that is true, but as council member Ramirez noted, there may be instances where SB 330 doesn't apply, in which case only Treo would.

[00:44:57] Unknown Speaker: Right, yes. So.

[00:44:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Council member, Mattachek, and then Councilman McAllister.

[00:45:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so, um, I just want to understand the process. question here. So if I have an idea of how to release workload, which is kind of my objective in looking at all of this, and want to propose a rescoping of a project, would I pull it and do that?

[00:45:22] Staff Presenter: Yes, right, correct. Correct. So the process is, if there's a project that staff has proposed, and you'd like to further discuss specifically that project, let us know, we'll pull it. If there is a project that we did not propose, that you'd like to propose, then you may do so as well.

[00:45:39] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. So I'll hold up on my comments till we're ready.

[00:45:42] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Hence Mr. McAllister?

[00:45:45] Councilmember John McAlister: We have three handouts. So to make things easier. Is there anyone that staff would feel that we concentrate on? Because I know council member Ramirez was referring the first one, then we got a mail in, then we got one tonight, so...

[00:46:03] Staff Presenter: So the handouts are prepared since some of you prefer to look at the projects by list in numerical order, some are by department order, which was provided to you last night, and then in your packet for today, it's a timeline based on similar to a Gant chart, the completion estimated project, timeline for each project by department. So it's really provided to you for your own preference and how you would like to analyze the information for your decision making. So there's no one preference tonight to just sort of keep us flowing a little easier. You can refer to each project by number and perhaps abbreviated title.

[00:46:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And on SV330, will we be getting an update on that, the council update, either through a memo or study. So just to get us a better graph. I should have asked this at 7.1 that legislative. But, I mean, there's still some confusion exactly what the consequences of this particular action is.

[00:47:02] Staff Member: I believe a couple weeks ago, we did send a memo to council updating you on SP330 and other legislation, so we can resend that to you.

[00:47:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I remember saving one, but I thought there was still more research to be done on that, so.

[00:47:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Any questions? So, um, I had one, a couple. Um, 4.11 on the chart. I don't know if this was corrected. I'm not sure if I've updated. It's the North Bay Shore District Sustainability Performance Measurements. There was nothing in the box. Is there an update to this? that I did not see.

[00:47:46] Staff Member: Oh, yeah. Um... That's not true. That project, there's... Yeah, who's that? Yes, there's... Does that move? Sorry. So it says upcoming because the major work is to be is upcoming. There's no current update to give. They have not, um, done anything worth reporting on in this current reporting period.

[00:48:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So the recommendation is to keep the timeline as this?

[00:48:11] Staff Member: Correct.

[00:48:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. Um, and then I just wanted to, I don't know if you all received this, but regarding the HET project. I received a message from Google this afternoon, or right before this meeting, that they do not plan to pull their funding that they've offered. So even with, if we choose to delay it, they still plan to continue to provide the grant that they've offered. So that's not an issue, at least for Google, I don't know about the TMA piece, but do we have a response from the TMA.

[00:48:57] Staff Member: The TMA is also noticed, noticed, informed us that if we do defer starting the AGT for a year or so that they will still make the $100,000 available.

[00:49:10] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Okay. So, moving on, then. Oh, I'm sorry? Another question?

[00:49:20] Unknown Speaker: No, that's not a question. I was just going to give...

[00:49:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: You want to start? Holding. Is there any items to pull? So...

[00:49:27] Unknown Speaker: This will probably fail spectacularly, but, um... We're just gonna, right now, put them up... Well, I would... Yeah, so you don't have to... That's fine. So, I... Put your odds down. I was initially, initially, when I, um, looked through everything, I had a, um, I had a few concerns, but I, um, I read through it more in depth on, um, on Sunday, and then read through the, a lot of my questions were answered, sort of, through the council questions. So I'm actually, despite my initial concerns. I'm actually fine with the staff recommendation, and I would also be okay with not going through the whole, what's, um, blow it all up and start over again, um, if staff is confident with these recommendations that they'll have a, that this will make a significant impact, then I think I can live with the delays on some of these things, because most of them are 3 to 6 months, either delayed implementation or just sort of adding on some additional period at the end to finish that. So I just wanted to throw that out there in case there's any other folks who are just generally okay with the staff recommendation as it stands, as they modified it, I think, most recently, which also includes the removal of 2.11. But anyway, I just wanted to start by throwing that out there.

[00:50:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, cancel number hicks.

[00:50:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Tell me if you can hear me. I'm not familiar with this microphone. Um, is it on?

[00:50:59] Unknown Speaker: Yes. I can hear you.

[00:51:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, great. Um, so I would go along with that. I was gonna look at the scope of the youth mental health, and the gun safety, and I also had a little question on the... the Trao portion of the displacement. But other than that, I would go along, and I would even give up the first two, if it made it easier, just because I thought that staff had thought it out pretty well.

[00:51:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, yeah, so I don't think we're planning to redo the whole thing. And this would be the opportunity to just pull the few couple, if you have, and we can put it on the boards, and then the we were planning, the plan was to then approve everything else like consent. So, um, if you have, so you mentioned, use mental health. That safety and the trail. So we could pull those three. Council member Clark, did you have any for that? Are you just good?

[00:52:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: No, I'm All right.

[00:52:09] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Just for a magic check.

[00:52:11] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, um, I guess I would like to pull the downtown parking structure that council member Ramirez spoke of. 3.9, the comprehensive modal plan. And 1.3, the service gaps related to homelessness, and I agree with pulling mental health and guns ink.

[00:52:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Uh, let's go, Councilman Ramirez. Do you have any items?

[00:52:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Can I clarify the, uh, you said the downtown parking structure?

[00:52:37] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. It's a new project we just added tonight.

[00:52:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Oh, you just added it? Okay. Sorry. I'm not familiar with that. to add tonight.

[00:52:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Did she have any?

[00:52:50] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Middle income housing strategies.

[00:52:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. You get that. Middle income. housing strategies. And Councilman McAllister?

[00:52:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just wanted to give up, sort of, where I'm gonna be coming from, so if you guys start pulling items, that you'll have a sense of my direction. I've been looking at this, and, you know, we've been talking about trying to reduce our, uh, scope for a long time, and I've always had the concern is that if there is a current law, state or federals, or proposed legislation coming forward, I prefer not to touch a particular item, uh, because there would exist in our priorities, again, with the limited resources we have. So, I always try to stay away from those, other types of items that come up that other agencies that are more and should be handling it. I would defer to them, so I would not usually want to spend staff time on those kind of items. And anything that I'm also against putting laws on the books that are not realistically enforceable or do much, I'm opposed to wasting, not wasting, but relocating staff resources on that kind of items. I'm always looking, trying to see the most that we can help the largest population of the city, and try to see that we improve the lives and quality of lives on those. And again, that takes a lot of time. And this particular step here, tonight, I've been pushing from the very beginning earlier this year about getting our city into a smart position, moving forward and getting infrastructure going. And so those are my priorities, and I agree with the former mayor on 3.9 that the comprehensive modal plan. I know there may be some reasons, but I mean, that's the centerpiece. You know, we have housing, and the comprehensive model is sort of the centerpiece for relieving, taking care of our traffic congestion, and trying to get the cities moving around a little more freer, and reduce greenhouse gases, and vehicle miles, travel, et cetera. So, uh, that's when I when I'm looking at things for the rest of it. Yeah, we got to start working on getting our city moving forward in that particular direction. So those are some general comments, and as we go for, then you'll see my detailed six.

[00:55:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: If I might, Council member McAllister, I think what I heard in there, that there is one modified time frame that you would like to discuss, which is the comprehensive modal plan?

[00:55:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, ma'am.

[00:55:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. That's why I said, I should say, council member, Madison versus...

[00:55:35] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I also said that one. She did too. I gave you a credit.

[00:55:39] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. But is there a way to get rid of the hum we have going on? I don't know if everybody can hear it. I think it's some mics and maybe proximity. what we're doing that's causing that.

[00:55:52] Unknown Speaker: It's John. John's Mike is too far away.

[00:55:56] Unknown Speaker: Oh, the problem is we need some room for paper. Can I move this forward? Can you move here? I can't.

[00:56:04] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, that one is slide. Or just lean in.

[00:56:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. Count some, uh, Vice Mayer. Do you have any items?

[00:56:18] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Um, so, I agree with the stock recommendation for the added projects for, so the A through F I'm comfortable with. I'm comfortable with the elimination of Project 2.11. Council member Ramirez talked about 2.4 middle income housing strategies. I like to discuss that. And, um, 1.4 community workforce agreement.

[00:56:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Did we get that community workforce agreement? What was your other one?

[00:56:55] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Middle income.

[00:56:57] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great.

[00:57:00] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: So, for me, the items, I agree with the items that have been pulled, um, I wanted to, I guess, offer this, um, in relation to the downtown parking structure, new project, and the question was asked earlier, but, um, could we, should we, could we get a sense of what the downtown parking strategy item is. and if there's a potential to swap them, if that's a way to address downtown parking. So I can't, is it 3.14, I believe, the downtown parking strategy, if we could add that as in the context of a potential swap with the structure, that would be great. And then, I support the, obviously, I support the evaping and flavored tobacco. I guess if this can be answered as a question. That's great. But is there capacity to do regular tobacco policies as well? And this is relative to the dashboard, the health and wellness dashboard that comes from the county. I think there's like 14 items on there. We were doing really well about 7 years ago and then, um, we haven't done anything in terms of tobacco. The one I hear most about is smoking in multi-family complexes. And so could we add that to EJP is the question.

[00:58:44] Unknown Speaker: I think that would be a bigger lift than the evaping flavored tobacco and an additional project that we can add a few so chews.

[00:58:50] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Could I add it then as a possible new item?

[00:59:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. I'm leaning too much. All right, any other items to be pulled? If not, I will entertain a motion to approve the balance of the items.

[00:59:24] Unknown Speaker: So moved. on consent. Just a... This point of order, we would just ask for a straw vote on your approval of the recommendations at this point.

[00:59:35] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay. Oh, um, so all those in favor of approving the remaining items, anything not on the lists of on the boards, say I, or hands up, please?

[00:59:50] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, it's just a scroll. It's strawberry.

[00:59:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So it's unanimous. Thank you. Great. Thank you. So, Melvin, would you like to move us through these items, remaining items?

[01:00:04] Melvin: Yeah, why don't why don't we take them one by one? As far as discussion goes, and once we finalize discussing, I'll actually ask you guys to vote on whether or not you want us to, uh, leave it as proposed, added, or modified, once we finish concludable. But we can begin with a proposed item, new item. C, assess gaps of youth mental health, opening it up, but especially.

[01:00:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, yes, tons of them, McAllister.

[01:00:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Um, what are you... When you bring this item up, what are you expecting us to do as related to the, uh, can it be just done in a memo, can it be done by doing an ordinance, or do we have to go through the process of study sessions and community outreach? So, for any of these that were pulled, I would be interested to see that if there's a way to streamline it. The ones that are full, that it could be done through an ordinance without doing all the particular outreach, and still accomplish what you're trying to do.

[01:01:12] Melvin: So, with respect to youth mental health. really a direction of counsel. We can come back to you with a memorandum that just discusses what current services are available. I think the initial idea was that it would be a steady session in which we would conduct a gap analysis of existing services, and then maybe identify alternatives for you, in which you might be able to enhance support for existing services. But it's really at the council's direction, if there's a majority of preference, if there's something, just to start with, with a simple review of existing programs and services, or if you'd like a little bit more information, as well as what alternatives you might consider as a part of the city's capabilities, with resources, to support those that you might choose to.

[01:02:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Are you saying that the first part would be able to handle that through a memo versus a study session?

[01:02:08] Melvin: We could, but we wouldn't come back with you to you asking for recommendations, but we would just come to you with an overview of what services are available in the community for youth mental health.

[01:02:19] Councilmember John McAlister: And then, would you be able to... So, I'm looking at that, and I don't want to take the thunder... Councilman Metachek, but, I mean, that's something that the county is really going to eventually be responsible for. And we can contribute funding for it through chat, or CSA, or through whatever. So is that. So when I say that you come back to us and say, the county's going to, you know, we're going to direct the, we recommend that the county steps up or do more for this, and that we'll go down that path versus coming back to us for recommendations.

[01:02:53] Melvin: So in a simple memo, I don't think we would make those recommendations of what services that you may consider to support with additional resources, that might be better served in a steady session, to gauge council's preference, and give you that opportunity to consider the alternatives, if, for example, check or El Camino Hospital or behavioral services through the county, if there's programs that you wish to contribute to, or if there's an opportunity for that, that would be preferred to be done more in a study session format.

[01:03:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Because I know when we did the budget, I was emphasizing, let's give more money because it's a very important issue. and that we're sort of underfunding things, and Chak has financial things, which are trying to maintain employer, I mean, staff. And yet, at the time, I mean, I didn't get that much support from the council. So, would you, when you came back to us, would you say, okay, budget time's coming along? Would it be financial, or would just give us a whole list of options financially this way or partner with this and so forth?

[01:03:58] Melvin: So I don't think we would be able to get back to you before your opportunity to consider next fiscal year's budget. But as a part of the session, we could come to you, we'd have to do an analysis and see what was available to you and develop those alternatives for your considerations so that those are all possibilities, but I couldn't tell you today what the recommendation and alternatives would be.

[01:04:19] Councilmember John McAlister: So did I hear you correctly say it would be a midyear correction if we wanted to increase the budget for those particular items for next budgetary process?

[01:04:28] Melvin: It could either be, yes, during the fiscal year, if you wanted to appropriate funding based on that study, or if you wanted to wait till next fiscal year.

[01:04:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you.

[01:04:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I wanted to add to that, because it was an item I brought up earlier. You know, I've been asked, well, what are you thinking on this topic? And, um, So my thought was, um, you know, we had some tragedies at the high school, um, and that triggered this issue, and, um, the city of Palato is what I was, like, who I was looking at, what I was looking at. They had a similar situation where they had a, you know, some a cluster of incidents. And then the city actually took lead and established this program called Project Safety Net. And it's, from my understanding, I went to visit with them. They're like a convener more than a provider of services. But, um, that's what I was looking for as a the, could the city be a conduit to try to bring all of the different service providers, the schools, you know, the city, the county together, to discuss this issue, do the analysis of what's available, what's missing, you know, what are the gaps that need to be filled, what the city could potentially fill, and start there. So, um, that's what my vision for this is, um, Vice Mayor and I have attended our youth youth advisory committee meetings and discussed it with them. You know, they sent in a letter. They're very much interested in participating in this process. So, you know, we don't know what the outcome will be, but I think the 1st step would be to just try to convene everyone to figure out, you know, again, what's there and what's not. So that's what I'm looking at. It's not necessarily just putting more funding into one thing or another, but really trying to figure out, you know, what are we missing? How can we better connect? How can we leverage the resources that are out there better? So that's what I'm looking for the city to do. So, and yeah, Spice Mayor might has for more.

[01:06:56] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Sure. So, as I've been thinking about this item. And after, as the mayor mentioned, the yak meeting, talking to our you directly, I wonder if it might be we could refine the scope of the item. And perhaps this could go to the youth services committee, the mayor, and I both sit on that, along with council member, now Hicks, and perhaps that can be a work plan item that we can flush out in committee with our recommendations and then bring it back as an item to the full council. And perhaps that might be the way to approach this, and we can reach out to the providers to come to our committee meeting, have that discussion, have your representatives, um, if there's a concern about, um, kind of a study session component. I think that the cut back to where the committee can have that discussion. So that's kind of the new thought I've had. since we had our meeting with them. Advisory body.

[01:08:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Yes, counselor magic.

[01:08:02] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I think I share some of the concerns that Council member McAllister mentioned. I am looking at all of these in terms of how do we reduce workload. And so I feel like, I think I said this the 1st time we talked about this, that I think this is an important topic, and I can see this city playing a role and participating in it. But I would prefer that an agency that has more expertise in this area, like perhaps the county, or one of our local organizations, or even the school district, take the lead on doing the convening, and collecting the information, summarizing the information, and the city can be one of the members of that group. But I would prefer to not have the city take the lead. given how much we have on our plate.

[01:08:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Councilman Hicks?

[01:08:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I pulled this item. And I like the general direction it's going in. I think that we're, it sounds like we're mostly in agreement that we think it's important or I'm summarizing it in my own way. We think it's important. We don't want it to tax staff too much, and we're not the professionals in the field. At the same time, the youth advisory commission did bring it up, so I like what council member, Kameh, said, about maybe fleshing it out a little bit in that group, and then bringing it back. Hopefully, that gives, in a way, that doesn't tax staff too much. So I'm hopeful that everything people have said that that's the direction we're moving in and kind of reducing the scope and also making it more appropriate and effective.

[01:09:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other comments on this item?

[01:09:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Like I say, I have a question about that. If it went to the committee, wouldn't that still require a staff member's time, as soon to support the committee? So would it reduce the workload on staff, or is it just shifting it?

[01:10:09] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Uh... I think it also depends on if it's a subcommittee, you know, art... Some of it is incumbent on the members and how much we could do ourselves, frankly, like in terms of convening and reaching out, you know, we could do that ourselves. So I think there are ways to minimize the work on staff if our committee members and Council member Hicks is a 3rd member. So, I mean, I think I hear interest by the 3 of us to take this on. So perhaps we can find ways to minimize the workload on staff then. And I think in terms of the county, you know, I had a conversation with Supervisor Samidian about this very topic earlier today. And I think there's some synergies, but often our entities don't always communicate the information to each other. And having the topics live somewhere within our council priorities, I think, would be a really great way to ensure that we're all kind of addressing this really important topic together. Um, and then once we have the discussion, perhaps then we can decide who will be, um, you know, the major entity that takes it, takes it on. But I do think it's important to have those conversations. And if we don't prioritize it, we're not able to do that.

[01:11:41] Councilmember John McAlister: I would, oh, sorry. That's not... I'm going back to council members, how to check deals, it resonated with me, is that we really don't have any technical background in people involved. Maybe the police or so forth. And so I'm concerned about us convening this group, even though we don't have the real knowledge of what to do. But if the group wants to go down that path, I would like to see you co- convene with somebody, get somebody else as a partner of the county, the hospital, the whoever to bring in that expertise so that they would be able to say, yes, it's important to the city of Mount View, we want to be part of it, but they'll have the technical knowledge and the experience to say, here's what you should be looking for. This is what you're going to look at, because otherwise, you're going to involve staff, and then they're going to start having to think about something. So if I, if you partnered with somebody, I would think that would be a way to us participate and yet get us down a path efficiently and really get to the meat of the issue.

[01:12:51] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: So, uh, I am the JPA member for Chak, and I see Marcia in the audience. We've had this discussion multiple times. So we are, I think it's already begun, and it's starting, and I think it's just formalizing the process. And I see, um, our trustee from the high school district, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but we've had conversations, and I think there are willing partners. They're just waiting for us to turn the green light on. And, you know, the folks you mentioned are exactly the folks, at least in my mind, I was looking at to bring together in our 1st convening. So it would be a joint effort, but you know, someone has to take the initiative to try to bring everyone together. And that's what I'm really asking for is to, for us to play that role.

[01:13:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Counselor Ramirez.

[01:13:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So I think the vice mayor's suggestion to have the council youth services committee sort of take the lead and flesh out the scope is an elegant one, and if you're looking for a 4th vote, I'm happy to continue working on this. And I'm optimistic that you will sort of be sensitive to the impacts of staff time. And it sounds like your suggestion to sort of keep the bulk of the responsibility, responsibility on the committee members, you know, could make this work very well.

[01:14:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other comments? All right, so I'll take a straw vote on whether to, is that what I should do?

[01:14:21] City Staff: You can do that if you like, or we did come here to allow you all to interact with the board if you want to use dots. It's really up to you, your preference.

[01:14:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right, we'll do the dots in honor of our class. Or McAllister.

[01:14:33] Councilmember John McAlister: So should we...

[01:14:35] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, on this one, we can wait. We're gonna get through all of them, talk through all of them, and then we'll get up and put the dots on the ones we want to keep.

[01:14:43] Unknown Speaker: I will be. You have 4 votes, so I don't think. That would, unless there's further discussion, but I think if you have four votes, We could...

[01:14:54] Unknown Speaker: Somebody might use their dots on other things and not have enough before...

[01:14:58] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, that's true. Could you then explain our prioritation using thoughts, then?

[01:15:03] City Staff: Thank you. So how will that work? There are 7 different colored dots, each with, I don't know, 14 dots, so, and there are 9 things up there, so there are enough dots for you to vote, if you want on each one.

[01:15:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So thank you, council member. Now to check for helping clarify that. Yes, F, once we discuss all those items, then the priorities could be shifting around. Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[01:15:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I thought the straw vote was on the scope of the project, and then once we scoped it, we would put dots on it, maybe I don't understand the process. To me, it sounded like, in some way, we made the project smaller and more manageable. Maybe not when we got in the committee. But, um, so... I thought it was all that.

[01:15:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: That's my understanding. So we'll discuss it out and figure out if we need to figure out the scope or change it, and then from after our discussion of all the items, we'll go and put dots on the ones.

[01:16:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Do we vote on the scope of the project or we just, you know, that's what we're...

[01:16:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, that's a good... I guess, yeah, probably to be clear. Why don't we go ahead and vote on the scope? Strava. So the scope of the youth mental health item would be to refer it to the youth services committee and further scope it out, including our various partners on the topic, and have a convening of some sort. At least that's the starting point. All those in favor of that scope. Hands up please. One, two, three, four, five, fused hands. Well, you're gonna have enough dots, John.

[01:17:01] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no, no. I'm still trying to figure, you know, again, I like experts. But when you say When we're bringing the experts in. We just...

[01:17:12] Unknown Speaker: They're doing the convening, basically.

[01:17:15] Unknown Speaker: A quick question. So I'm the I think council member of McAllister and I have philosophical differences of opinion about dots, but a dot next to youth mental health is very, very different from a dot next to comprehensive modal plan. So what exactly are we ranking when we're putting a dot next to one of these?

[01:17:35] City Staff: It's not ranking. It's just whether or not, if any of these items has the majority of council, so 4 or more dots, then it gets added to the list of projects that staff assesses or not competitive. They're not competing with each other. They are not.

[01:17:50] Unknown Speaker: Got it. Thank you.

[01:17:50] City Staff: You can approve you might approve them all. You might approve none of them.

[01:17:53] Unknown Speaker: Perfect, thank you.

[01:17:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay. Are we clear on... That item? Yes, we'll go onto gun safety. What was there a question? Okay, thank you, Star...

[01:18:10] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just had a comment on this one. Also, like the previous one, I wanted to make sure that the scope wasn't too far ranging. And so, I was most interested in, oh, I don't, in the first one, which was, um, which is the, uh, I'm not gonna summarize it perfectly, but it's the, uh, disallowing guns on city property. I would be actually happy if we moved on that one this year and defer others for future years, you know, do one a year. So that would be how I would scope it, but I'm open to other people scoping it in other ways.

[01:18:54] Unknown Speaker: Did we? We did. We voted to... I thought we decided to bring it back here for further discussion. We work on the two items, to move those forward, and then the other two that had to do with zoning. Those were really more up for discussion tonight.

[01:19:10] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Well, I'm saying I'm willing to cut it down even more, but I'm open to whatever other people are.

[01:19:15] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, that... sorry. Oh, please, good. Yeah. Sorry, that was my feeling as well. I'm continuing to look at how do we reduce workload, and, um, the one that Council member Hicks mentioned, is taking an existing ordinance and just adding some other, um, pieces, pieces of property. parcels to it, where you can not possess firearms or weapons, I think it even says. So, I was looking at reducing it even further as well, and just doing that one this year, and if we want to talk about the others for later on, that's fine. But I cut it back to just one this year.

[01:19:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Another comments?

[01:19:58] City Staff: Just wanted to clarify, there are, so there are 2 proposed modifications that are gun safety related, denoted above as D, which is the one you were referring to, Council member Manachek, just to expand firearms, prohibitions, and recreation facilities, to all city facilities. But then there's also E, preparing an ordinance to require safe storage of firearms and vehicles and homes. So those are the only two that staff has proposed. The other two items that you all mentioned, that you discussed in the past were not on this proposed list.

[01:20:31] Unknown Speaker: Right, and I think we're both suggesting we cut it down to just D.

[01:20:36] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Under comments? Okay.

[01:20:38] Unknown Speaker: Okay. That was my question, is, so if I put a dot next to gun safety, What am I voting for?

[01:20:43] City Staff: I'll go ahead and I'll put E, Andy. I separate them so you can vote on each one individually.

[01:20:48] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. So, um, I would actually support continuing with the 2 that we voted on earlier a week or 2 ago, um, one is seems very doable. Two, regarding safe storage. Um, this is more in relation to um, trying to uh, expand the movement. There's a movement to require safe storage of firearms. And, um, when I just think this is really important, oftentimes, you know, when we hear incident about incidents, it's because of the lack of safe storage. And so to me, frankly, this is very important. And, um, since it was, uh, you know, staff said they could do these 2 and delay the other 2 and, you know, my press prints would have been to do all four, but I saw these 2 as, um, the 2 important ones and as a compromise and being mindful of staff time, uh, I would like to continue to put these 2 forward. That's my

[01:21:57] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: McAllister.

[01:21:59] Councilmember John McAlister: What's required? Is public outreach required or can it be just an addition to our ordinance?

[01:22:14] City Staff: I think in terms of safe storage, if it's not impacting businesses, we'd probably bring something back to you and allow for public comment in the public hearing, rather than do community outreach or surveying.

[01:22:28] Councilmember John McAlister: And would it be a study session, or would it be an action item? Action item?

[01:22:35] Councilmember John McAlister: So, D would have to come back to us as an action item anyway, right?

[01:22:40] City Staff: Yes.

[01:22:40] Councilmember John McAlister: So if you combine DNE, at the same time, public input, vote on it, action item, is what you would propose that would be the process.

[01:22:50] City Staff: If we were to take both, yes, we would likely do at the same time.

[01:22:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. So is the scope, are you, can we bring, I guess I'm gonna take a straw vote. Who would like to keep the 2 items together? D and E.

[01:23:07] Unknown Speaker: Well, right. DNE. Yes. If it's as simple as if it's as simple as you say it is, I can support that. So that's the scope. You would have to write the 2nd ordinance, whereas the 1st one, it's adding a couple of words, right?

[01:23:25] City Staff: Yes, the work. Yes, the work. Yes, the workload for authoring 2 ordinances would be greater than the workload for authoring just one, but we would likely bring them back to you at the same time. Yes.

[01:23:39] Unknown Speaker: When I thought when my counsel member, Mattachek mentioned the 1st one was just adding, changing some words. So I'm trying to understand the workload of, if we're modifying, changing it from recreation to all city facilities, how much time is involved in that?

[01:23:57] City Staff: I think there would still need to be a legal analysis in determining whether the ordinance is constitutionally lawful, so the city attorney's office would still be required to, on some of that,

[01:24:09] Unknown Speaker: it appears simple, but you're saying it's more complex than, as they say, the devil's is always in the details.

[01:24:17] City Staff: Okay. So projects that tend to look simple. Don't often turn out to be simple, and we want to be thorough, accurate, and complete. and provide you with the most comprehensive and accurate information.

[01:24:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, so I'm going to go back to the straw vote. Question. Those who would like to keep DNE combined. raise your hands. So, and then the rest of you would like to separate it, do items. Okay. Going on to. Trao modification. So there's still 2 on there. I'm not sure if you noticed on a new list, the downtown parking structure and the multi-family smoking ordinance? Downtown parking structure. So who would like to speak to that? Like I said, counts memory mirror.

[01:25:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Quick question about who would be responsible for this. So there's a public works component, but more immediately, there's we have to basically revisit the entitlements, right? Because it's technically a different project. So there's a CDD component. So can you help us sort of better understand if we vote for that, what the impact would be and sort of the time frame for which department would be spending the most time on that project?

[01:25:50] City Staff: I'll try to take a stab at it, and this kind of just... probably help you understand that nothing is as simple as we would think. So currently, we have economic development staff who's working on some very preliminary estimates, and they'll for a lot six parking structure lot 12. Some questions that the council came up with. So that gives it an example. It typically starts off in CDD. We connect. with public works, where it starts intersecting with private development. And we do have one person who has been given some direction from council. We have 3 to 4 other parties who are interested in partnering also. In fact, if we partner with everybody, we'd be oversubscribed. So we have to find a way to bring that to the council. And we were hoping to do that as part of the downtown parking strategy, because if the council decides that as a strategy, then the development of the parking garage would be the next implementation step. So there are many pieces that have to be completed, probably front loaded by CDD, with some connections to public works, and then the implementation then goes back to CDD and public works depending on on the project type, whether it intersects with private development requirements, development agreements, then all those in CDD, and then the actual building or the parking structure, when that starts, will likely be public works, with some connection to economic development, because it's in the parking district.

[01:27:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The development agreement feels like it could be decoupled from the design of the structure and sort of the implementation of that project.

[01:27:42] City Staff: To some extent. We're getting some preliminary ideas about what that might even cost, so that before we all go into DAs, everybody has some sense of what it is.

[01:27:55] City Staff: Yes, and then we've got some subsequent property owners are also interested, and I think the council will eventually have to pick which ones they want to partner with, which ones they don't, to give the council some sense of how this is all going to play out and how many spaces are public. Um, so, so, item, we were thinking the downtown parking strategies is going to come to the council, um, very soon. It's going to be a very high level strategy. So we were thinking of bringing that, and then the council could then vote on what things they want to move forward on, and the parking structure being one of them, at which point we would come back with the one developer and do a DA, yes.

[01:28:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so is it just to make sure I understand, it's already at least partially baked into the existing downtown parking strategy project?

[01:28:50] City Staff: Because there are some policy questions we'll have to answer. It's been evolving since we heard the council. You know, I don't think we originally started out with it, but it seems like it would be a big part of the downtown parking strategy and shouldn't be ignored.

[01:29:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Right. Okay. Yes So do you need us this evening to vote on it as an item to include or?

[01:29:11] City Staff: I think that downtown parking strategy will be on its track because it's mostly just adopting the strategy, not implementing all the items. And then if this is a new item, I think we have to think about what those next steps are, which department's going to get involved and what they're doing that gave, maybe put off. I have a feeling that staff is probably going to have to go back. I don't know, and take another look because we're coming back to you with some recommendations based on what you tell us tonight.

[01:29:44] Unknown Speaker: So for tonight?

[01:29:46] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, if you do. If you'd like to move forward, then we'll add that and evaluate that into the strategies.

[01:29:52] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[01:29:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great. So that's why I think I took off or put up the strategies, but that would be the intent then. Is separate? Is that project? 3.12?

[01:30:05] Unknown Speaker: The strategy? The one that it would potentially be a part of?

[01:30:08] City Staff: We support that. It would be an implementation item, but typically, as Don said, I think it would probably get pulled out, since it's got a pretty, it's a pretty big item by itself.

[01:30:20] Unknown Speaker: Right, but in terms of just it's an option that would be part of the downtown.

[01:30:25] Unknown Speaker: Yes, the downtown Fox. Okay. Yes. 312? 312, but it'll be its own item under project.

[01:30:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Councilman McCaster?

[01:30:36] Councilmember John McAlister: I just want to follow off on it. You just said that you had enough developers that it's oversubscribed. There's interest. That doesn't mean that, you know, they're willing to jump in, right? They don't know what the costs are.

[01:30:51] Unknown Speaker: We have some... proposals, proposed applicants. They haven't made formal applications that are interested in developing office in the parking district. And so they have heard about potential discussion about a parking lot. And they are interested in seeing if they can partner because it's hard for them to provide all the parking on their site. And we have told them that the program itself needs to be taken, you know, looked at in terms of office and the council is evaluating that.

[01:31:25] Councilmember John McAlister: So we were talking about prefunding this particular parking garage somewhere down the line, is this, but is it?

[01:31:30] Unknown Speaker: Oversubscribed in terms of the number of spaces that this potential garage could hold, if you even took a ballpark, and you took all the people interested, the amount of parking they would need would be over what that parking garage provide. That's what I meant.

[01:31:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Not necessarily the funding.

[01:31:47] Unknown Speaker: Not the funding. No.

[01:31:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. That's what I was trying to understand.

[01:31:51] Unknown Speaker: Right. We were just doing a back of the napping calculation based on everyone's need. And we figured this parking garage would have fewer spaces than the number of people with the need.

[01:32:04] Councilmember John McAlister: So if there's parking, this particular item moved forward, and there was enough collaboration from among the developers, then would we see a sudden increase or potential increase of requests to develop office downtown Mountain View?

[01:32:21] Unknown Speaker: I think on this garage itself, if, depending on what the council wanted to do, I, I think the council's interested in replacing the lot, the parking space is on lot 6 and lot 12. So I would say probably a couple of projects could, you know, sort of add their parking need to it, but not beyond that, any new projects that came in probably would have to start another conversation.

[01:32:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. Any other? Oh, yes, counselor hit.

[01:32:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: As somebody living near the downtown, would I, uh, or anyone else be recused from voting on this?

[01:33:05] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: No, sir.

[01:33:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Or any portion of this?

[01:33:08] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: That would take a closer analysis once a more concrete scope and details emerge. We can't do conflict analysis without more specific details at this time.

[01:33:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay, so no site, I get a dot for this.

[01:33:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, for purposes of time. Thank you. So this item, the downtown parking structure, just to reiterate, would be a part of the downtown strategies, an implementation item.

[01:33:38] Unknown Speaker: Correct. I'm going to strike downtown parking structure on new items, and I have Project 3.12 on the modified items, so we'll do an assessment brings back if you guys vote for it.

[01:33:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, thank you. Moving on to multifamily smoking ordinance.

[01:33:57] Unknown Speaker: That was mine. My question was, is there some sense of how much stuff that would be? My understanding is most cities have an ordinance. And the multifamily structures would be the one in particular that I'd be interested in. So is there some sense of how much more staff time this would take.

[01:34:26] Unknown Speaker: So my sense, we did a preliminary analysis with the flavor tobacco and eBay being, and even the timeline that we had anticipated with bringing an ordinance to you, because of the implications with Zoning, would probably push out beyond what's in your staff report. So based on what we know of community development's workload, it would probably require a careful look, and we'd have to come back to you with a closer assessment of impacts to resources and what timeline we could do something along those lines. No clear estimate until we do an assessment of what exactly entails what the zoning ordinance and any other implications.

[01:35:06] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other comments on this item or questions? Nope. All right, we'll move on to Trao, going to the modified items, the Trao modifications. Was that? New counseling numbers?

[01:35:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I think Council member Hicks. Pulled it technically, but I do have some remarks.

[01:35:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, go ahead.

[01:35:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. So, I understand where staff is coming from on this one, and I'm very sympathetic. I think there's a lot of complexity with the implementation of SB 330. I guess what my preference would be, though, would be for a significant narrowing of the scope. rather than just a wholesale delay of the project, to achieve a couple of things. There were some, I thought, relatively minor modifications that the council had supported in the context of a handful of development proposals that went before us last year, and those are those are laid out in the responses to the council of questions. Some of them, I think, are probably more complex than others, but I guess what I would like to achieve is if for any projects that are not subject to SB 330, rather than continually negotiating from the dais, which I personally find sometimes uncomfortable and could lead to different parties being treated differently, that we at least allow for those modifications, which were designed, I think, to accommodate some of the reasonable requests we've heard from tenants. So like the timing of the dispersing of the 2nd half of the trail money to help folks find a place and then waving the requirement that a tenant provide 30 days notice, you know, if the 1000000000's going to be demolished, it's kind of a moot point. So those kinds of things, I think, feel relatively minor and compared to something like a revisiting, how much, how much the benefit, you know, do we, should they receive, right? And looking at, you know, significantly increasing that amount, which is which I think would require a lot more stakeholder outreach and that kind of thing. So, in, in, I'm not sure. I didn't get a good sense of whether those more narrowly scoped modifications are within the provisions of SB 330. So having a better understanding of that relationship would be helpful too. The other thing is, so there's going to be this gray area of projects that are going to be subject to our Trao and not SB 330. And I think it'll be very confusing to have in our zoning code, trail modifications that don't actually reflect the requirements that will be imposed on development. So, um, you know, again, I don't think it's going to be, there's an easy solution to that, but I want to be mindful of that. And if that's something that we could include in a more narrowly scoped review of the trail. I think that would be that would be very helpful. And I had one other point, but I can't remember what it is, so I'll defer to other members of the council.

[01:38:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Some mix. Well, that's basically why I brought it up. I was hoping, uh, that we could do a more narrowly scoped version of the trio, and then maybe visited in more totality, um, on down the line once, uh, SB 330 expires, or, for some other reason, but I was hoping that it seemed like there were a good portion of upcoming projects that, um, would, the metal field ones, for example, were, I think, almost half of the project would not be fully covered. So I thought that we should at least do a narrowly scoped update of the train.

[01:39:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other comments on this item? So, um, do I need to take an straw vote on the narrowing of the scope?

[01:39:33] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Could you, one of you, reiterate what the scope would be?

[01:39:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I think, isn't it basically in the council questions, the highlighted the 3 highlighted items? That's basically what you...

[01:39:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes, but if you want it, so, because... maybe that was a bit of a leading question. So, I would be open to further reducing. So something like the AMI eligibility, you know, maybe that requires more thought. certainly the referral to landlords with rental housing options in Mountain View. I think that's something we've talked about in the context of the housing industry foundation. I think that's going to be a separate item. I'm most interested in, so this is question 10 and the council questions. B, C, uh, and if it's a trivial adjustment, D, because that's the other thing we've heard a lot about. And if there's an opportunity to incorporate this into regularly scheduled modifications of the zoning code, since we already have that, I think that would be the ideal, rather than treat this sort of separately from that. If we can sort of wrap that into one thing.

[01:40:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I saw her. So, on question 10, BC and D, the three items, you would like to limit it. Is that correct?

[01:41:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, I agree with that. I'm just, um, skimming E and F right now. Um...

[01:41:14] Unknown Speaker: Okay, naughty. Lucas, if you look on the other page under question eight, you see the highlighted item. Are there any discrepancies between those three items and what you are they overlapping?

[01:41:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: It looks like they're mostly overlapping. There's actually one. I just want to make sure we didn't miss them.

[01:41:34] Unknown Speaker: The highlighted... The BC and D, I don't think, had the $5,000 for special circumstances.

[01:41:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, right. Well, so that's... increasing the benefit. And this is totally, you know, this is just an arbitrary recommendation. I don't have a good sense. And maybe staff could help us here. I don't have a good sense of what requires more work and what would be a trivial modification. It feels like increasing the benefit may require more stakeholder outreach than something like waving the tenant obligation to provide 30 day notice or providing the 2nd Trao payment earlier, you know, upon a tenant securing a new unit. But I want to be more deferential to staff on maybe what the ideal scope would be, but just more, I don't want to, because these were suggestions that the council had supported before, and if we don't do it, we're just going to have to keep doing it from the dais, this struck me as a good opportunity to incorporate it into, you know, an upcoming zoning code modification anyway.

[01:43:01] Unknown Speaker: Yes. So, um, there's a couple of things that I just wanted to note, one is waving of tenant obligations. We're gonna have to review it with state law in SV 330, and let you know if that can be done, because we may not able to do that. And then, um, uh, try to look for direction on E and F, um, if you would prefer we not work on that or work on that. I think it all goes back to It's easy to bring a number back, right? The question is how much outreach is required, because the limited timeline probably wouldn't allow for a lot of outreach. So we're just trying to get a sense of, if you'd like to see these changes, will review the state law and see what we can bring back.

[01:43:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: If it's a trivial edition that doesn't require a significant amount of additional staff capacity, I would like a review of ENF, these were things that came out of the 2310 Rock Street discussion, if memory serves, there were a couple of tenants who were just outside of the income eligibility. And so increasing the eligibility by 5000 helped, you know, get access to the benefits for those tenants. And then the special circumstance households. You know, we, you know, senior citizens and that kind of thing, I think, would really benefit. But, so I, you know, if that's an easy thing to add, I have no problem, including that within a more refined scope.

[01:44:37] Unknown Speaker: Yes, and we did take a look at whether we could bring him back with the ADU. I think the noticing timelines may make it difficult for us to develop an ordinance, but if the council's interested, we could certainly do it in Q2.

[01:44:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So BC and D and what was your E and F?

[01:44:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, based on, yeah, it sounds like staff is comfortable, including that with a more refined scope, so I'm comfortable including those.

[01:45:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So, um, straw vote on those in favor of the modified scope being items BC, D, E, F, from Council question number 10. answers. One One, two, three, four, five, six. Right. So that's the scope. We'll still vote on the item with the dots. Okay, next item is middle income housing strategies. You can do that.

[01:45:42] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Sure. So, um, I pulled this item, um, uh, in the attempt to try to narrow the scope a little bit, um, so maybe the workload impact might go from medium to low. I'm gonna attempt. I'd really like to stay on track for the March 2020, to begin it in March 2020. So I think overall reflection. One in the last year. I think we've done a lot of the city to generate housing at all income levels, except male income. And I really want to be able to move forward with some sort of strategies or opportunities for middle income persons, to be in different housing types. So, um, I have some ideas in terms of, um, perhaps touch points that we're already working on. So I know that in terms of displacement. I think that having some type of, um, thought about strategies for those in middle income would be helpful. In the past, we've also talked about a down payment assistance program, sponsored by the city. Other cities within the state have that as well. The housing trust, Silicon Valley has their empowers, 1st time homebuyer assistance program. And, um, you know, perhaps it's, I know that they partnered with other cities to do empowerment homebuyers' workshops and communities. That could be something that could fall under the scope. as well as affordable housing week that I know is coming up, I believe, in March. I know that there are people who are renting that are interested in, you know, continuing to be able to stay here, and what are those opportunities that we're creating? So... I'm hoping that if we're able to look at some of those strategies, it would help people be able to think about moving from renting to owning, for those in the middle income, because I just don't see us as a city generating those types of units. So, what are programs that we can utilize, or other opportunities we, as a city, can put forward. So those are some ideas, um, for the, for the income housing.

[01:48:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Any other comments? on this?

[01:48:19] Unknown Speaker: So, um, I would agree with the vice mayor. I think we could narrow the scope, um, if I could maybe add or suggest, um, 1st time home buyer down payment assistance program, um, it's definitely one program that I've always been interested in. The other one that the housing trust has in might be more doable in light of the current market, is like an equity share program. So the problem with the housing housing trust programs is that over the years is I have learned is that Mountain View homes, unfortunately, are too high in price, that folks can't qualify for those programs because a lot of them are tied to AMIs. And to be able to afford a home here, you have to like be making more than the 120% AMI, most likely. And the, you know, housing prices are, there aren't enough available in Mountain View to qualify for that 120 AMI cap. So that's what that's where I look at, you know, what the city needs to do or can do to enhance or to supplement the existing programs to really be able to get Mountain View residents to qualify or to take advantage of what's out there. Or if it's not doable. We really need to look at creating our own. So if we could look at that, Um, that would be, you know, would be great, would be fine to limit it to just those options. And I, uh, the other some education, similars, whatnot, that, that's great too. Do these other organizations do the seminar and so forth?

[01:50:09] Unknown Speaker: They do, yes.

[01:50:10] Unknown Speaker: So would you then just ask it to be included in next door and so forth?

[01:50:15] Unknown Speaker: That we wouldn't lead it. We'd just convey the information, say here's a workshop and so forth. And we can host one here. We have in the past.

[01:50:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, the challenge has just been, we don't have a lot of properties in Mountain View that folks can buy taking with these programs.

[01:50:32] Unknown Speaker: And then your thought was that if they gave you a certain limits, the city would have funding to be a gap in there.

[01:50:40] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I think that's something we should be looking, we could look at, or we should look at.

[01:50:43] Unknown Speaker: And do you have a I know it's preliminary, but do you have a funding source?

[01:50:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, I think we would look at, like, our affordable housing strategies. I know the business license tax. There's 20% of that is supposed to go to housing. So there are some options. And we might also have to look at a funding source as part of this. Yes.

[01:51:08] Unknown Speaker: Just a quick comment, since you brought up the workshops as a part of the Affordable Housing Week in March, I know community development is currently working with a number of organizations to bring those workshops to a event here at City Hall.

[01:51:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, counselor.

[01:51:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just have one question, um, for either the vice mayor staff, any other council members who might know, since you're narrowing the scope, what are the things that are, I'm not as familiar with it as I should be? What are the things you're taking off the scope?

[01:51:42] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: So, I think that the project definition on 2.4, it seems a little bit broad. And so, my attempt in discussing it now is that perhaps we can, you know, offer further ideas to maybe, 'cause it just says, develop strategies for middle income persons to afford different housing types. So, you know, I'm trying to give some ideas or some suggestions on how to flesh that out in terms of what I was, what I hope for for the project. I think it's important that we, as a community, are being comprehensive in our attempt to house everyone. Not only should we be looking at, you know, affordable housing, um, and market housing, but what are we doing for middle income? And so we've been looking at, you know, zoning, so looking at revising our row, home, guidelines, looking at our, um, our 3 zoning. Those are all opportunities. I don't know if we can try to encompass that in this project. But as the mayor was mentioning, there are some programs that are out there, and other cities have helped you help do a down payment assistance program, because that is the threshold between moving out of an apartment where you pay a couple 1000 to being able to pay the down payment, which is anywhere from, you know, $400,000 for a home here in Mountain View. It's a really large jump. And as, you know, a community that is 25%, you know, working young professionals. I think we as a city really need to be showing a pathway for middle income families to be able to stay in our community. So I think that's a really important thing.

[01:53:35] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. So you're basically narrowing it to the programs that you think work best, so that it's simpler for staff and more effective is what I'm hearing.

[01:53:46] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: That is the, that's the goal. That's the hope, that's the goal. And I think it's just to, you know, in the past, something that council member McAllister has talked about, is the missing middle, you know, our nurses, our government employees, our public safety, and if you're not qualifying for, you know, as the mayor mentioned, 120%, AMI, there are many people between just over, but not in a place where they... make a million dollars. So. There's not many of us. Maybe that side of the table. But maybe if I had an ice cream empire or the... But I just see an urgency, because last year, we've done a lot in the other categories, and meeting arena numbers, this is another attempt, I think, to help you. Thank you.

[01:54:42] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Did you have comments, Mr.?

[01:54:44] Unknown Speaker: I was just going to fail at trying to remind myself and remind you all of all of the elements that were proposed to be included in this project back when we adopted it in May. It did include many of the components that you just mentioned, Vice America May. And also just wanted to suggest that the staff is not suggesting that this go away, that they're just postponing the implementation of the project due to existing workload priorities. If you look at page 2 of this timeline, it kind of paints the picture a little bit of what our community development housing staff are all working on, and part of the reason for them asking to delay that was just capacity issues currently. So I just wanted to reiterate that for you all, that it's not proposing to get rid of this project. It's still something that's elevated to the work plan and is important, however, they're asking for a delay of a few months.

[01:55:39] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: So, I mean, it's basically moving it from Q1 to Q4. And so while I appreciate the explanation, I am trying to highlight what I see as an urgent need. that hasn't been met. By existing by existing items that we have taken as a policy making body. So I just wanted to use this opportunity to highlight that to my colleagues. Thank you.

[01:56:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Counselor McAllister?

[01:56:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, a lot of these are inner, uh, related, and could this be tied into any other strategies that we're doing on housing, or is it such, so incorporated that it'd be a standalone? Because there's other projects that are going to be coming down the road that we're going to look at. So, there we go. What we got?

[01:56:30] Unknown Speaker: I think I think this might have to be stand on its own because we were planning many of the strategies that were narrowed down. going to be strategies we were looking at. Granted, that we're also working on the R3 and displacement that will help. And that could be one of the strategies, but we're working on that already separately. So, um, I don't think it could be lumped in under our 3 or displacement strategies. you might have to, you know, equity share programs, those kinds of things are very different and would have to be.

[01:57:08] Councilmember John McAlister: So when staff prepared this, were you looking at existing staff, or was consultants, considered as potentially, like this particular item, Could a consultant come up? on board, since it's sort of gathering information throughout the era. Has that been considered?

[01:57:25] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, typically when we look at a project, we look at what staff resources do we have? What expertise do we not have, because many of these areas require expertise, and then we always make the assumption that a staff person is the project manager for it. So we're willing to take on whatever the council wants us to.

[01:57:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, no, we don't want to do that, but I'm just saying, if you even if you had a consultant, you would still have to...

[01:57:54] Unknown Speaker: Yes, you would. See it? Yes, because a consultant will provide a certain amount of expertise to it. But they're not gonna be able to wrap it all off and be staffed. It's hard for, um, we'd have to train somebody to get up to that level, I think. It's hard to just bring someone from the outside and expect them to know all the ins and outs of what they have to do as a project manager in the city. So yes, all of our projects make the assumptions that way we don't have expertise we're going to use.

[01:58:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[01:58:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other comments on this item? Counselor.

[01:58:35] Unknown Speaker: Just very quickly. So I appreciate the vice mayor's recommendations to reduce the scope. I think, to sort of respond also to council member Hicks's question about what are we eliminating? The other key component, I think, that we're addressing through other projects as production of housing, sort of affordable by design, housing that's intended to meet the needs of this demographic. And so I think just sort of, you know, prioritizing some of the programmatic elements that help folks who are, you know, who just need that assistance to, you know, to get into entry-level housing, strikes me as a lot easier than, you know, achieving that goal, which is, I think, very important to all of us, and is also partially addressed in some of the other projects. But I think that's, you know, an example of maybe one major component that we're, we're saying maybe we could push that out. That I don't know if that's helpful, but that's a key distinction, I think, that we're making with this recommendation.

[01:59:38] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So straw vote on the modified scope. focused on the home buyer programs and some education activities. Just modifying the scope. Two, four, six.

[01:59:57] Unknown Speaker: So I guess the reason I'm hesitating on that is because I kind of feel like having a comprehensive, Yeah. I kind of like to see all the alternatives at once, rather than sort of piecemeal. So, you know, I guess I'd like to see it all at once.

[02:00:18] Unknown Speaker: I was thinking about that, too. It was, like, is it worth narrowing the scope to have it, it's the cost bit of analysis, and during the scope, to have it sooner versus, can I live with a six to nine month delay, but have something more comprehensive? That's the top part. Yeah, yeah, I do feel like I'd rather have something more comprehensive. So then why, Chris, did you vote for? What was the tipping point for you on that one?

[02:00:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Well, that's why I was hesitant. I know it does, because I'm still, part of me would rather have a more comprehensive strategy that isn't solely focused on down payment assistance. I guess where I feel comfortable is because we're doing, you know, all the other projects, the R3 zoning, the displacement strategy. RT mentioned quite a few other things that we're doing. So, I think it was an effort to try to continue the momentum on things that we're already doing. where I feel like we would be able to narrow because we already have existing things within the pipeline. That was my understanding, especially kind of given the explanation we just heard.

[02:01:33] Unknown Speaker: Fair enough. Not to speak for stuff, but that's what I heard. Okay, I'm okay narrowing the scope, and then we can vote on whether or not it's...

[02:01:42] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so we will narrow the scope then. Next item is comprehensive modal plan. I'm not sure who was it? Councilor Metachek and McAllister, who pulled that?

[02:01:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, so this one, um, I think the 1st meeting I had with public works, when, after I was elected, I said, you know, I feel like I made a view of all the different transportation options we have through the city, and use cases on if I live over here, in the Monteloma area, and I want to get over here, say, in the East Wisman area. How do I do that without getting in a car? And do some examples? It seemed like a relatively simple request, but apparently it's not. So we have been talking about this, and I appreciate the way staff of scope this to say, yes, we'd be looking at use cases, but we'd be identifying the gaps, and how to potentially fill those gaps, and I think this kind of sets up our transportation projects for a while. So I'm very interested in doing this one, and I feel like the more we defer it. The more we defer getting a more comprehensive plan for the city. So this one, I think, is really important for us.

[02:03:15] Councilmember John McAlister: You all know, the transportation is really important to me. And so this is the, to me, is the foundation for everything that's going forward. So you were looking at a TDM manager, and we're looking for trying to get how we can get the schools involved in the all the different shuttle programs. And, I mean, we may not have all the pieces, but then we can start collecting them because we need to have that overview of what's all out there. So when if we get an AGT going, or do we get, you know, some of our corporate sponsors doing different shuttles and buses and carpals or whatever, or school blessing comes along, how do we get our kids to school? Everything needs to start somewhere. And as we're developing more developments coming along, I always hate to see we're putting a horse in front of the cart, in front of the horse, either way. Because, you know, we're going to do this and this, so we'll think of transportation as an afterthought, and we need to start thinking that in the forefront, so that when we build these things, and we go to those developers, we say, this is what you're going to contribute. And what Tom was talking about is other developments come along with bigger developments, or maybe Don mentioned that, that we need to have a path to show it, here's what we're going to achieve, and everybody else is going to fit into it versus us adapting around it. So I think, even though we may be a little short on consultants, or maybe we need to look at another consultant to expand what we need to do, but I think this is fundamentally one of the most important things that the city is going to do to reduce congestion. in the city. Reduce greenhouse gases, reduce vehicle miles travel, and improve safety on the roads. So I think that's why it's important that we report with this.

[02:05:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Ms. Cameron, did you have some comments from staff?

[02:05:07] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: I do appreciate an opportunity to speak to this item, and to acknowledge that, yes, the conference of modal plan can lay the foundation and help answer a lot of these questions. As you know, the way it was structured was to first look at the fact that we have, like, 18, 25 various plans out there, and putting them all together, the gap analysis, selecting our priority corridors. And it's a classic situation that our workload has been so heavy delivering all the projects that have already been identified in all the studies that it's been hard to find time to get to this one for both the consultant team, as well as our staff. So just to give you a little perspective of what we're looking at here, is we're not saying we want to pause or stop work on the project. And, in fact, we finally just got some deliverables from the consultant, that is starting to set the stage for moving us forward the way we wanted to move forward. The concern is, the thinking was to try to get to you in quarter two, whether study session, with some real results from the existing condition analysis, the overlaying of the maps, what could be these priority corridors. And I don't, I'm concerned, we're not going about to get there in quarter 2 in terms of providing you a quality product, to look at, review, and discuss. And hence the recommendation of moving the study session to September, basically quarter three, with trying to move the draft plan completion. end of the year. And a little more foundation for why, you know, can continue to step back and look at what that's going on with staff, why we did this. In order, you know, we looked at this a couple months ago, and in order to deliver the full scope of transportation plans and studies that's expected of our transportation section. We identified we needed about 5.5 full time equivalent staff. We currently have four. So we're at 75% staffing. We are hopeful that by the fall, we will be fully staffed. So we want to keep moving on all these projects and so on. It's just, we're spread a little thin. Some of the factors that we're concerned about in the spring, and some of the things that trade offs, to think about, that could affect, you know, if we say, we want to just focus on meeting this quarter to study session for conference and model plan, what we may have to pause on or how we're going to keep up with. And this is some new information, you know, as things come to play for us. So, first off, we have our transportation staff working diligently to put together some measure B, bicycle, and pedestrian competitive grant grants, because VT has released that call for projects. For that call for projects, they are setting a 10 year program. We either get it now or we wait 10 years. Those grant applications are due at the end of March. So we had to move one of our transportation planners off the work they were doing and have them focus on those grand applications to position ourselves. The grade separations, another wonderful measure be. We want to keep putting pressure on, keep moving forward, both our great separations, so we don't lose our place in line for what could be $170 million with a great separation money, so we don't want to take from there. You know, we came to you about the El Camino Real, putting in bike lanes and pedestrian improvements, and wanting to take advantage of the fact that Caltrans is going to repave El Camino Real. I know it sounds a long waste from now, 2022. But they have a very long lead time, and we want to do this work when they repave. It would be most cost effective. So they came to us a month ago and said they're still willing to do our work as part of their project, but they wanted us to do the sequa clearance of our own bike and ped work that we want them to do. So, right now, we're working very quickly to bring on an environmental consultant, and this is the same transportation planners, to get going on that sequel analysis, which we have to complete by September, in order to meet to stay on track to get this project into Caltran's repaving project. And I could list about three or four items, just like that, that are just time critical that, you know, we're looking at funding or other deadlines. And that's why we're asking for a few more months, we will keep working on it. But otherwise, we need to choose something else that's gonna give. Thank you.

[02:09:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any questions for? No, Steph. All right, thank you. So, um, this one doesn't sound like it's a scope alteration. So it's just an issue of on regular current timeline or delay. So we'll just leave it as is. And then the last item I see is community workforce agreement. There's 2 more. There's also the... Oh, sorry, we already clarified 312, sorry. Parking structures into the in downtown strategy, parking strategies.

[02:10:08] Unknown Speaker: Um, CWA. I can talk about it. So, um, maybe staff could talk a little bit more about, um, the the project implications. I know that it's been moved to Q1 of 2021. And so the city's been doing a lot related to trying to prioritize, um, wage theft and other initiatives. And so, um, I was just curious if we could hear a little bit more about the, uh, community workforce agreements and why the move from this, from the new timeline.

[02:10:47] City Staff: So there is capacity in the manager's office to begin work on it, but the real crux is the public works department, and its implications on public works, and I think you just heard a partial reiteration of the projects that they're working on, and the timelines that they're expected to meet, and that's the real impetus to request a delay in the implementation of this particular project.

[02:11:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other comments, questions?

[02:11:14] Unknown Speaker: I do. Would it be possible to start it? And then when times comes to go to public works, that it evaluate at that point went to move it over.

[02:11:27] City Staff: I think the preliminary work within the manager's office, we could certainly get that information together, but to bring it to public works, it would have to wait till we would recommend that it would have to wait until a time frame in which they're able to meet that obligation.

[02:11:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Any other comments on this item?

[02:11:48] Unknown Speaker: Well, I have a question now. So, is that a scoping, is that a scoping thing that it can be broken into two parts, or are you saying it cannot be broken into two parts?

[02:11:58] City Staff: No, I don't think it can be broken into two parts, and, you know, wage theft, and also, um, responsible construction. Those are key areas in which public works has input and staff time in order to provide that context in the agreement.

[02:12:16] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. Thank you. But those two items are moving forward, correct?

[02:12:21] City Staff: Yes.

[02:12:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay, great. Yes, Counselor Ramirez.

[02:12:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And just for my benefit, because I know other jurisdictions have done some work on this. There isn't, like, a model ordinance or some existing work product that we could take advantage of maybe to reduce some of that burden.

[02:12:37] City Staff: I'm sure there is, but it still requires us to work with public works, and I think we're trying to express to you that... If there was a way in which we could do it quicker we would, but we're recommending that we wait. And I appreciate that support.

[02:12:53] City Staff: Thank you, and I'd like to mention that, you know, this is only part one for you in terms of talking workload. We do plan to come to you in March with our first study session on the CIP to do a reset on the CIP, because that's the other aspect that is creating a tremendous workload on public works, and the community workforce agreement, and the potential effect on our workload is actually more related to our construction projects in delivering our CIP. And so we need to build all of that into those future discussions, as we also look at how we're going to modify our CIP, possibly.

[02:13:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. So, on this item, do we need to, I don't think we need to change the scope. Right. Okay, I think we are through all the projects, so next steps.

[02:13:50] City Staff: Next step is for you all to vote. I will try to recap the kind of what we're voting on right now. Youth mental health is a vote to for a modified scope of a project with it going back to the youth services committee to rescope the project and take the lead on with some staff assistance. Uh, gun safety ordinance is boating whether or not to add that project D, um, multifamily smoking ordinance is voting whether or not to add a multifamily smoking ordinance work. E is whether or not to add the preparation of an ordinance to require safe storage of firearms. Projects one. on the modified items. We are voting on a displacement strategy, sorry, for the trail modification to come back with specifically with the components from the council questions, question number 10, number item B, C, D, E, and F. 2.4 middle income housing strategies, we are voting whether or not to allow a modified scope, bringing the down payment assistance program within the existing timeline. 3.9. It's just whether or not to accept the modified scope that staff has proposed and 1.4, whether or not to accept the modified scope that staff has proposed. And also, sorry, there's also Project 3.12 for staff to include analysis of a downtown parking structure within the existing downtown parking strategy. Is everyone clear on the items?

[02:15:40] Unknown Speaker: Yes. All right. The key is how many docs? Are we, how many dots?

[02:15:46] Unknown Speaker: It should be, like, four. I don't think we need 14?

[02:15:49] Unknown Speaker: You just choose what you want. Okay. You can only vote on each item wants them, so... Oh, that's... And you don't have to use your gun. 14 votes at once. You might not use it.

[02:16:07] Unknown Speaker: I thought they're probably colored. I only got two. What the hell? Gee, sorry. Can't smell very, please, uh... Control your outpers.

[02:16:22] Unknown Speaker: All right, so we can get up and put our dots on the item.

[02:16:32] Unknown Speaker: Of course. Peach. Oh, this is...

[02:16:42] Unknown Speaker: You put all of them out of check... Yeah. All of them, let me check... Yeah, they covered with balloon.

[02:16:55] Unknown Speaker: Ramirez has red. Yes, sorry. Okay, fine. A cigarette?

[02:17:02] Unknown Speaker: Hey, Nolan. Can we talk about the smoking ordinance?

[02:17:07] Unknown Speaker: I didn't pull it. Oh, they didn't pull. Wasn't smoking, but just... Yeah, it was just a multi family. Just... That was an addition.

[02:17:22] Unknown Speaker: Well, um... I think we did not pull it up. So it was part of Scott's recommendations.

[02:17:42] Unknown Speaker: Right. Yes, correct. Sorry about that, thank you.

[02:20:14] City Staff: All right. So, uh, everybody has completed their dots, so should... Should we just go through and count the numbers? So anything over four moves on, correct? Correct.

[02:20:34] City Staff: Correct. So if it has four more. So, youth mental health, staff will evaluate, um, with the... Well, evaluate the what that looks like as far as the youth services committee taking that project on. Yes. Uh, gun safety ordinance, city wide, D, uh, that will move forward as a new item. Multifamily smoking ordinance does not go forward. Gun storage does not go forward. Trail modification with a different scope. We will come back with amendments to the trail. Question 10, BCD, ENF. 2.4, middle income housing strategies with a narrow scope. Well, you guys voted against staffs, postpone it, so it'll keep its existing timeline with a narrow scope. Comprehensive modal plan, does you guys accept that the modification modify timeline, as you did for the community workforce agreement, and downtown parking strategy, we will now assess how to include the downtown parking structure in that project, and return to you?

[02:22:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Great. All right. Any other comments? No? I got confused. I think we're good, then. Thank you.

[02:22:12] City Staff: You're welcome.

[02:22:13] Unknown Speaker: So, um, will we get a new version of the work plan then at some point?

[02:22:19] City Staff: Yeah, so the next step is for us to really spend some time and assess the workload impacts of this and come back to you with a proposed, updated work plan.

[02:22:27] Unknown Speaker: Great.

[02:22:28] City Staff: For you all to approve or not.

[02:22:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, all right. Great. Thank you. Thank you to staff for all of your work. Thanks to the council. We will move on to item nine. Council staff committee reports. Anyone? Would like to report on anything? Nope. All right. Item 10, closed session report. Is there close?

[02:22:51] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: No closed session reports.

[02:22:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So then we stand adjourned to the next council meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, February 11th, 2020 at 5.30 p.m. in the council chambers 500 Castro Street. And the meeting is adjourned at 8:55 PM. Thank you. Thank you.

• ← Previous
• Next →