May 12, 2020 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:19:45] City Staff: Quoted that it is premature to ask you to provide this kind of direction tonight. We've heard a lot of questions from council members and public comments about the bridge consideration. In addition, we realize that this question deserves more extensive outreach, including the input before bringing it to council. Rather than answering question two, just recommend that counsel provide general comments about a Chelsea Bridge reconfiguration until it's not additional information you need in order to discuss this at a future council meeting. Then that concludes staff's presentation.

[00:20:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hey, thank you very much. Since this is a study session, we will uh take public comments in the beginning, uh and if any member of the public on the line would like to provide comments, um if you're in the attendee button, please pick the raise hand button at the bottom, or if you're on your phone, test star 9. It's pretty quick, we'll display the timer on the screen, and I see 3 hands up. Um so we'll start with eat again. Welcome. There you go, we should be on.

[00:21:06] Gita Dev: Uh, thank, thank you, we're Albuquerque and uh, members of the council. Um, my name is Gita Dev, and I am with the Sierra Club, Nomo Prieta chapter. Um, the circulation study is is another step in our looking at North Bay Shore. One of the 1st things that occurs to us is that given the post-COVID era, we are not sure that the, in fact, we have a serious traffic problem as we have been thinking that we would, and that's what we would suggest that it may be beneficial to postpone, uh, some of these decisions about major infrastructure issues until uh, a later date. We do feel that the most important areas of crossing over 101 from Mountain View, dips are a very direct connection into North Bay Shore, like Windstrong. So, we are supportive of the length of, uh, modifications, uh, when looking at it, however, I have to tell you that, for a pedestrian or a bicyclist, to cross 6 lanes of traffic, uh, coming off a freeway or off the bridge, pretty daunting. So I would recommend that we do look once again, like Google's idea of putting a bridge, uh, from Leghorn over to landings, to increase the capacity for active transportation, which we find, that a lot of people are, in fact, now, much more interested in, now that physical distancing is an issue for them. The other issue that we'd like to raise, we are not, and we have not been very, um, supportive of a bridge over Students Creek, or 2 reasons. One is environmental. Uh, any amount of traffic, whether it's transit muscles or automobile traffic, which I'm sure will happen when we are all gone, um, will provide a constant stream of toxic brake dust and toxic tire dust onto the creek below. It's just inevitable. Along with that, the lights and the noise, they just make it not very habitat friendly. So, we think that it's really important to keep creeks, uh, as habitat areas, and crossing a Charleston, fragments the creek, from, it's already fragmented at 101, and then it goes all the way to the bay, this would break it into a couple of pieces. And lastly, we really feel that uh, North Asia and Mountain View should be very aware of the fact that Sunnyvale's Moffat Park is going to be an enormous high density development. Actually, now for in the future. Therefore, you're opening the north fish or uh, the traffic, which will be cutting through North Asia, which doesn't even belong there. Uh, if you want Charleston to go all the way to the light rail. Thank you very much.

[00:24:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. DeMarco. I am to Alex Brown.

[00:24:10] Alex Brown: Thank you, uh, as a member of the Northeast community. I appreciate staff, uh, exploring further outreach before making our decisions about area. I use Steven Sea Trail and go up and down Charleston and Shorebird all the time. Uh, the bridge at Charleston. I think we'll conflict with the proposed eco gem from Google's uh Shorebird plan in that neighborhood. Uh, and I think we had more explanation about how this is going to, uh, interview with or work with the different development proposed by the various developers, uh, is warranted. Thank you.

[00:24:57] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We go to Chris Chambers, welcome. And you do, trying to unmute you.

[00:25:07] Cliff Chambers: All right, great. Thank you. Cliff Chambers, resident of Mountain View, and I'm representing the Mountain View coalition for sustainable planning. We sent in a detailed letter, but I'd just like to summarize the key point. Uh, MVPSP is really in concurrence with the staff, uh, direction and recommendations for the student creek bridge. We think that the child skin is the way to go, and the separated bike pad and transit vehicles is also the way to go. We can have some concerns. Um, 1st is, if there is going to be a 2nd like Peg class in it, uh, La Avenida, which does make sense from a transportation network standpoint. It really needs to be a full wedding of the potential environmental impacts of having 2 separate bridges in different locations. And from I understand, from the staff responses to the council questions that analysis haven't been completed. Second concern is, is that those 2 user groups, it should have been included as stakeholders, and I gave several examples of a letter, but, for example, the friends in Steven Creek Trail, had no idea this was going on, and I should have been there. And I also feel that the bicycle professor advisory committee should have had input as part of this meeting before it was brought to council. I assure, uh, settlements expressed earlier about some of the massive investment in road capacity, potentially at the ranks of interchange, before we understand how long range travel patterns might or might not change post academic. I think one of the key questions is whether PDM measures, for example, 15 to 30% telecommuting or the peak is really solved some of the peak congestion problems. Certainly as a predominant landowner. really does have the authority for scheduling meetings and work schedules to make some of this happen. So we'd also like to see congestion pricing study ahead of, uh, any decision for expanding road capacity at bank store. In other words, really look at some of the demand options. And then finally, it really does need to be incorporation of Moffat Boulevard into the circulation study. In the wrong range, it's quite likely the Moffat gate will go away. Uh, and there's opportunities for increased pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and should be included in future, uh, future iterations of this study, uh, for north-based circulation. Thank you very much.

[00:27:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other members uh in the 10 day bucks wishing to speak? Uh, city quick. Do we have other members of the public? Commenting?

[00:28:02] City Clerk: Um, no, I do not have, um, anyone else find up to speak and I did not receive any emails after 5 PM.

[00:28:10] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Great, thank you. So then I will close public comment and bring respect to counsel for your questions. Um, 2 questions for... Counselors, a question. I don't see any uh so when we can go on to. Oh, I'm sorry, I I see now, counseling member.

[00:28:41] Unknown Speaker: Thank you, sorry that my, uh, the bus disappeared on me. I couldn't find it. Um, I do have a couple of questions. So, um, I appreciate all the modeling that was done. And one of the questions I have. I wanna understand if we have modeled a complete buildout. of North Bay Shore. I think I said thought that that was a next step. But I'm struggling to see, um, like what percent of the doable or bicycle capacity, do these alternatives provide? Like, how much closer does that get to 100% of what we need, assuming, um, an SOV of 35%.

[00:29:37] City Staff: We don't, we, we're planning to do more work, that's part of the next phase of the study is to look at the build out, uh, out North Bay Shore and test out several different scenarios, obviously, with, with what's going on now, we'll have to explore some different ideas or additional ideas, such as the level of public attributing and so forth. So, the intent is to test out a variety of different scenarios, working with the uh, with Google and the other property owners in the location to, um, uh, see what the different possibilities are to support the full buildout, and that's, uh, the work to be done over the next few months or, uh, uh, review with you in the fall.

[00:30:25] Unknown Speaker: So, the direction we provide tonight, um, that would be, like, the one scenario for these items that you would look at, this is any other scenario?

[00:30:39] City Staff: Uh, those are, that's still to be determined. I think that, uh, provided, you know, more clarity on the infrastructure pieces will help us to define those scenarios, but we may test out some certain scenarios with and without the uh, additional infrastructure improvements.

[00:30:59] Unknown Speaker: I mean, do you know the current volume, uh, transit, and passenger cars, like I said, would say, um, going in and out, or they show, like the total numbers? I was trying to find that in the, uh, reports we have, and I couldn't find that online.

[00:31:22] City Staff: It, it would be part of the, the manual monitor or something, the monitoring work that's done, uh, uh, for North Bay Shore, uh, which includes uh, vehicles, uh, all types and pigs and bikes and all that. So that's a, that's done on a, I don't know, twice a year basis.

[00:31:41] Unknown Speaker: I was looking at that. And I saw the, um, peak hour and the peak period. And and then there's some tables at the close to the end. So, um, I can't get to look through the whole thing. Are those tables, what tables that show, I believe it is, an hour, are with some ways, to get the children?

[00:32:03] City Staff: I mean, it sounds, and I just, I think it's some, in the report, but there is, the, the tables in the back do have a lot more detail about uh, individual modes and uh, insections, for example, travel, you know, bicycles, using the Steven Street Trail, or the, permanent boot trail, that type of thing is all in there.

[00:32:22] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Um, an attachment line. Well, actually, maybe... additional information that, um, Don provided, and maybe I don't need to get into that. And so if we do go forward with, um, a bridge, and the changes at ring stores. That would impact the number of date waves, so to speak, that will monitor it, and because it would add one over the creek. So would we then add that to our monitoring and consider that in the capacity?

[00:33:07] City Staff: I don't think we would need to do that, yes.

[00:33:12] Unknown Speaker: Okay, great, thanks. That's all I have.

[00:33:16] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Counselor McAllister.

[00:33:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, you know, this for, behind me has lasted a long time, so, I don't know if we have to go, make something work, so, um, I, I still have a, uh, concern about the, uh, questions about the Google Bridge. So, if it's okay for Google to put a bridge at, but it's not okay for the city of Mountain View to put a bridge over there, for connecting. So, if we're trying to minimize a, why wouldn't we allow people to put a change of bridge and they're acting, what they call active bridge, but they cover it all. We have minimize the footprint and minimize the environmental impact. That allow the data.

[00:34:19] City Staff: If I understand your question, I, I think the, uh, our recommendation is that we don't think it makes sense to put a transit bridge at La Venida because it doesn't really connect very well with the Charleston Transit Corridor and has more limited transit benefits. So that's probably the primary reason why we think uh, pursuing a bridge at Charleston would make sense.

[00:34:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, but you're building it principally for Google, transportation systems, since you said, quarter. How many current Google Bus was come in and out of, let's say, Shoreline.

[00:34:59] City Staff: Uh, I'm not positive what it is. Currently, they have given us some estimates over, you know, what they expect in the next couple of years, and it's on the order of about a 100 buses, uh, covering both directions in each hour of their each hour during the peak period.

[00:35:17] Councilmember John McAlister: So, are we, so, is one of the goals of putting Charleston is to increase capacity for Vilbo to run their shows. Between uh Sunnyvale and Mountain View.

[00:35:31] City Staff: But it would help with that, but it also would help relieve some of the impacts on shoreline by shipping those buses across Stevens Creek and over into the, uh, the NASA area where they could then connect over in the sun area.

[00:35:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Academy, not uh, going a step further, I'm thinking, what options or alternatives to, instead of having the spec is running, that we would have some other, free time transportation system. Going instead of having breakfast, need to come up with something a little more sustainable, environmentally, uh, superior.

[00:36:16] City Staff: We have a, as part of this current study, we haven't looked at that in detail, but as you recall, the previous, uh, automated guideway transit study. We did look at the concept of some kind of autonomous transit that could use dedicated lanes. So, uh, the, the Charleston Bridge would be compatible to that vision, if we were to pursue that.

[00:36:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so I get, I know, you know, it's not one of the questions today, but I'm still having a concern with that for billing, that's a comment, too. Um. What would require, how much? Uh, with Google, there is a lot, uh, bravo leader. They we plans from the water district and city of Mountain View to do this. And have you got a preliminary okay from staff to move forward with this particular park?

[00:37:10] City Staff: I think I I'll answer that question. Google is still exploring the option. Uh uh potentially they would design and construct the bike head bridge just out in La Velita. This is in relation to, uh, a couple things, one is their desire to provide an approved bike connection to Sunnyvale, VM Manila Drive, where they're also looking at putting in bike and movement. As well as their interest in being releases for the Alliance Park, with army site, and if that were to come to tuition, then they could design through that site, a bike path, that could be used by the public, as well as for their owners, to connect to this bike pent bridge, which would then connect to the famous creature on the west side and allow bicycles to continue up and connect into a bicycle. So, it is still, um, just, preliminarily, I mean, discussed, uh, they really, yes, they will need, uh, approval from the water district, they will need permits from the city, and the real people need to afford to council for discuss, discussion. Once it, Google is, uh, in a place where they really want it, uh, seriously considered in some kind of.

[00:38:29] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, I think there was a uh question. I still have a question about the husk area parking garage for lemons. Is there any talk of trying to put in some kind of, uh, transit mode that would reduce the need to have that large parking garage? That's a, put it more um, that's not sure instead of the heart, the North Asia. I mean, there's all kinds of options out there. Are these all going to be considered along the line?

[00:39:03] City Staff: Well, when it comes to talking about the landings development, that is coming to you in June, uh, for approval on the tournament, then there'll be a lot more information divided about both the phenomenal landings and the preferred tough garage, and, uh, as part of the, there could be discussions about the transportation impact, and, and what the group have a garage. Right now, for the North Bay Shores, security, feasibility study, uh, and doing our scenario, for work with, that's already been approved projects. What's in the pipeline, which is where the ladies and out, and then it's where the board. And what potentially could be the rest of the build out in North Bay Shore based upon the North Asia precise plan.

[00:39:51] Unknown Speaker: Okay, and uh one question about some of the models that you have. Did you do different percentage of telecommuting that would be gates doing any of these circulation models? So, did you do a 5%, 10%, 20% that might negate some of the, uh, need to do the transportation improvements?

[00:40:18] City Staff: We intend to do that. We have not yet done that. Obviously, this is all happened fairly quickly, so, uh, that would be part of the, uh, the next phase of the work that we would look at different scenarios, uh, related to the, uh, needs for transportation, with the build out of a precise plan.

[00:40:37] Unknown Speaker: Could you just, in, okay, so, there seems to be a lot of, we're going to study, uh, parallel or comparable, uh, compatible projects. So could you sort of walk me through the, you are thought properties of how you came up with this circulation, face or circulation program, a feasibility study, and then the next step, and the next step, and the next step, or what, what, was prior to this, and how do you put them all in a line to say, okay, when you're done, listen, give us a, a real bit of comprehensive, uh,

[00:41:10] City Staff: the study that we've been working on is really, uh, uh, uh, fallout or direction from the precise plan that has adopted in 2017, which specifically identified the need to do feasibility studies of the Stevens Creek Bridge, the Charleston memory processing, and related improvements. And so these were included in the precise plan as, uh, candidates for additional gateway infrastructure improvements. And so the purpose of the study was to follow up on that and evaluate the feasibility of those improvements and see if they should be carried forward for additional development. So that's what we've been focusing on, on, up till now.

[00:41:53] Unknown Speaker: So we're not looking at a big picture, we're looking at specific projects that were mentioned, that we don't know if they are, would be integrated into a comprehensive study.

[00:42:06] Jim: Right, correctly. That's what the next step would be. Which, which, why we have to focus on those 2 questions so that it could help inform as we do the next set of scenario. Do we assume there's a Charleston undercrossing the world one? If not, that just takes a big piece out, and then we look at, can we assume that maybe there could be some loss of cases that restore, and also the location of a potential transit bridge, using Charleston transit, which is directly into the Charleston transit corridor, we feed that into running these next set of scenarios. And when a new factor that's come into play that we've learned with COVID-19 and so on is, we knew that we were going to have to test different PDM strategy. So it's going to take more of this infrastructure to, you know, if it's like demand and have good traffic circulation, active transportation in the area. And so now a much bigger factor in running the exodus scenarios will be a very much higher rate of telecommuting than we have seen in the past, and we can see the benefits that the right.

[00:43:15] Unknown Speaker: So, uh, my last question is, in the, uh, the, uh, talking about bridges. Should we have looked at that? Does that give us a guiding line of what type of bridge or location on the bridge? Or is that was that discussed or uh? So, there was any bridges discussing that they weren't shit, they had, now that homework 1st before we decide on these other bridges, potential bridges?

[00:43:50] Jim: The environmental document didn't specifically include the Stevens Creek bridges in the in the assessment of the environmental document. It is merely identifying a precise plan. There's no further evaluation study, which is what we've been doing.

[00:44:07] Unknown Speaker: So is that going concurrently? The environmental studies of bridges across students speak, along with this,

[00:44:14] Jim: that would be a future phase of the work if, if we were to go forward with the, with the project, then it would be full environmental analysis at, uh, at some point. It's a bit of an iterative process. We need to know. We need to know an... The environmentally. Yeah, multiple alternatives, multiple locations here, if we can narrow that down for the environmental study, the environmental study then informs, um, what the impacts of elected alternative or alternatives are, and that may in turn affect the design. So, It's kind of a step by step process. What we're trying to do here is narrow it down to something that can be studied. I mean, it's a big process to study a project environmentally like this, and if we can narrow it down, um, to a smaller number of alternatives, that'll help with the process.

[00:45:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. Uh, let's see, it's Councilman, I think, and then, nice there.

[00:45:16] Unknown Speaker: I, I have one short question, which is, in the, the previous special one we studied, the, well, we talked about shoreline and the reversible lane, one of the comics, I, I remember being brought up with that, um, not a tremendous number of buses using shoreline at this point, but that, um, that we expected more in the future. So, I'm wondering about sort of the, the possibility for distributing, uh, buses, um, it makes me question the, imminent need, if they have the reversible bus length, to, um, to channel a lot about this on, what's the need, or randomly the need come into play for, uh, an additional, uh, transit bus. Uh, with the Charleston alignment. Like how do those different access points? At what point do they become necessary? Or maybe they're, they're not, but, you know, with the reversible, but, uh, playing bills.

[00:46:27] Jim: So the, the bustling, the turline transit lane, uh, uh, little serves a slightly different transit market that's primarily uh, designed to serve vehicles connecting with the downtown transit center. So, connections to Caltrain and getting people into North Bay Shore. And so the MVGO services, which would hopefully go in the future, would use that lane. Also, uh, there's DTO has a route through there. So, the, uh, uh, extension across Stevens Creek would be more to serve, uh, the uh, commuter buses, longer distance commuter buses, and either campus, connecting service, but uh, mostly uh, operated by Google, but not exclusively Google at this time.

[00:47:18] Unknown Speaker: So would it be monthly to connect the development in Sunnyvale or NASA? Or, I mean, is that a very large part of the affected use?

[00:47:30] Jim: Yes, I think that would be a big part of it.

[00:47:33] Unknown Speaker: Okay, there's also a fair number of uh boxes, there's a lot of Google, but there are other um companies out there, such as into Atlanta classes, that are bringing in employees, uh, from other areas, not along the Caltrain corridor, and they end up on 101, and there is the possibility that Ben City would exit 101, off at Boulevard instead of Shoreline, for instance. And it, it would be, again, a way to move some of that bus traffic off the shoreline.

[00:48:07] Jim: So, those those are very things. You're asking a question about timing. It's only the situation that, um, by time you know you made it. It's a, it's too late because these transportation projects take at least 7, 15 years to get through your design environmental funding and construction process. So there is something to say for at least your long range plans to show what new plans for your overall system that looks like, things you say we're not going to pursue it right now. But is it part of our plan in the future because that can affect future land decisions and other decisions about the transportation network?

[00:48:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. And singer and then Counselor Ramirez.

[00:48:52] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much mayor. Um, I just wanted to follow up on the, the Moffat Boulevard that's been brought up in public comment and, in our discussion right now. I think, um, you know, I'm just curious, it's not considered one of our, um, gateways into North, uh, North Bay Shore, but kind of given the, uh, discussion going on now. Has there been any spot um about including Moffat Boulevard.

[00:49:22] Jim: Um. Which we all have, yeah. I just, uh, we, we have included Moffit in the uh, NASA development potential in our traffic models. So as we do further scenarios, we will get information about the impacts on market, as well as the rest of the impacts.

[00:49:46] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, so would we include that as a potential gateway or is that just a consideration we're taking in or could that be elaborate on that? Because, um, one of the things that I think high level, um, council needs to consider the amount of projects going on in that area? And I know 3 development projects are being constructed or occupied, or we have 8 more in the pipeline, given what's happening, um, on the mouth of property, as well as what's going to be ha- happening on the army property. I just like a little bit more information on if we'll be including nothing and at what point we need to start considering that, particularly when we're talking about the potential for bridges in that area.

[00:50:34] Jim: Yeah, as I said, we, we have included their development plans in our model. Uh, the, from the transportation standpoint, we're primarily looking at the impacts in terms of transit pairs and bike travel, not uh, assuming that the, the additional uh, general vehicle access to that. But, uh, that would tell us, uh, more about the impacts on market as part of the modeling work. But I think, I think when that is brought back the council and we do, uh, further discussion about the Charleston Bridge and the results of the impact on Moffett. I think that's probably a better time to decide to be treated as a gateway like the other 3 or do we not? Um, I think that's probably a better time to have that discussion. We have a little more information.

[00:51:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Mr. Ramirez?

[00:51:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I just one question, uh, just 1st thanks to Steph, for, uh, responding to, uh, the questions I submitted before the meeting. They were with responses. I think were very helpful, but just to follow up on one. Um, staff, sort of, provides some comments on programmatic, uh, solutions to, to address traffic demands. So for instance, you know, I'm interested in looking at congestion pricing and maybe paid parking as, as, uh, as TDM solutions. Um, and I think the, the written responses mention some of the operational benefits of, um, the rain store of interchange improvements in particular, but to what extent could we address a lot of these, the anticipated, um, traffic demand using congestion pricing, uh, and other programmatic solutions rather than through, you know, potentially very costly capital improvement?

[00:52:29] Jim: Well, that's certainly something we we do intend to explore, uh, as part of the next phase, and, uh, you know, we would look at uh, range of strategies, including higher levels of PDM and uh, potentially the uh, benefits of congestion pricing. That's been identified in the precise plan and uh, it's always, you know, been a consideration as something that could be uh, pursued in the future.

[00:52:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But to be clear, Jim, though, that isn't part, uh, congestive pricing study isn't part of the current scope of the North Bay Shore transstation study.

[00:53:05] Jim: Well, it's not in the not the details of how you would do congestion pricing. What we do is, you know, perhaps some assumptions about higher levels of TDN that would provide benefits and then how we would achieve those could be congestion pricing could be one element of that approach.

[00:53:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, and so just, just for my benefit, is that something that, uh, would it be helpful for the council to provide direction on incorporating some of those program, programmatic solutions or are you likely to investigate them anyway in your analysis? Is, is maybe alternatives to, to the capital improvements or, you know, where, where do we need to provide input on, on those kinds of ideas?

[00:53:50] Jim: I think we'd appreciate any input you can provide. We've got some general ideas, but we haven't developed anything, you know, in specifics yet.

[00:53:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great. Thank you very much.

[00:54:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other questions from council members? I just had a couple, um, I asked, uh, this question, my email, and I just wanted to confirm that, my question was, the distance of the span, um, the market side to the, uh, V side across the, uh, Creek, um, and was, is it 600 feet, or yard, or meters, yards?

[00:54:30] Jim: Uh, I think it, I think it'll be uh, provided to you is 400 feet across the creek channel itself and then potentially another 200 to span the Fuji and the uh, easement to the rest of the creek.

[00:54:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. That's a, one of the times down the track. Um, and then, um, my question has, uh, is, uh, the other question is, um, I, I asked for the list of priority improvement in my, like, transportation and business in my, if we chose to, um, not move forward with either or both of these projects, we, we, um, had an opportunity to look through the, the list and move up other projects. Or also talk about gingestion type thing and shade parking and other GDM measures.

[00:55:27] Jim: So, um, if if you look at that list, but it says for both the Charleston Bridge and what was the Charleston Undercrossing a 101. It is it was just to do a feasibility study. Yeah, so the 1st did not include funding for either of these projects, did not include actually saying we're going to pursue those these projects. Therefore, choosing not to pursue either of these projects. doesn't necessarily mean any, that you move forward, for advance, the other projects, because the other projects where this is projects that we are going to do, they are priority transportation of business.

[00:56:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I guess I I'm sorry, go ahead. Now, the purpose of listening to do a feasibility study was to determine, is it possible to do it and do we want to add these projects? And then uh, so they're not, they have not been added, this is the opportunity to decide whether to add them or not.

[00:56:29] Jim: That's correct, at it. And in terms of the programmatic approaches and other ways to address the potential, get, traffic demand and data. As been mentioned, we're going to be running several more scenarios, and one of them would, would be. I mean, I think we were already talking about this, that, you know, we would run it with, for instance, the ringstore free alignment, but we would also run a scenario without it, with, we'll build out a North Bay Shore precise plan, and these enhanced, uh, TDM programs, and see if we can lower the SOB mode share through these programs enough, and, and we'll play them off against each other in the next set of scenarios.

[00:57:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, and then, I would call them correctly, I don't know if I do, um, when we talked about the Savato project. I thought there was, um, uh, we, we required the project to pay for a congestion pricing study. Is that right? Is that correct? And I'm getting older. Let's go ahead.

[00:57:37] Jim: Yeah, um, if they occupy before the, uh, before the, on the space park realignment, and the shoreline 101 off ramp, then they were on the hook to pay for a congestion price instead.

[00:57:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Do you have a sense of what the timing is right now on that project?

[00:57:57] Unknown Speaker: Um, the shutdown has not helped the schedule on the Shoreline 101. I don't know what it's done to Serbato's schedule, um, but it may be more likely that, um, the, uh, our ramp is delayed a little bit more and that they would have to pay for that study.

[00:58:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. Um, there are no other questions. Uh I would like to go to the council questions um and I was gonna I was making an assumption um the 2nd question about Charleston underclassing might be the quicker so um could I take a strong note? Could I be a show of hand to the um for the uh council nurse who support uh staff recommendation to drop the undercrossing and substitute it for the raft realignment project? I'm sure the hands, if you get, one, two, three, two, four, five, six, seven. Okay, so great. Any comments on this item? Oh, cancel Internet, manage check it.

[00:59:11] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I think with all of these. Um, for me, it's kind of hard to give direction on pieces of the picture, North Bay Shore, when I don't really know. You know, kind of what the end game will look like. So while, you know, I think it's okay to, um, look at this. Um, what kind of um, unsettling for me is, the fact that this is coming out through this project, um, rather than the assessment of landing, and the huff garage. So, I feel like we, we need to look carefully at the big picture and not piecemeal, and I'm very concerned that by saying, yes, let's look at this. It's just one piece of the big picture. Um, so I guess, you know, I feel like I, okay, you know, it's okay to look at it, but I, I'm not sure it's going to be the ultimate solution, um, that we move forward with. And so I feel like I want to sort of preserve the right to say no actually, that's not a good idea. Um, my biggest concern about this one is, you know, when we did the precise plan, we talked about one bridge out in North Bay Shore, and tonight we are talking about 3 bridges, over the 2 different creeks, and that is very concerning to me. So, you know, this is a bridge. I'm glad that it's close to 101, but I think we need to be incredibly thoughtful about that bridge if we move forward with it. And I really do want to understand the environmental impacts of it. Thanks.

[01:01:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, maybe I could ask, uh, council members. Is there another question here? Should we be um discussing whether to put this on the list now, or wait, go further. And some other in yours.

[01:01:28] Unknown Speaker: Sorry, my, um, I, I, I, I may have gotten a little lost here, so, uh, our, our, well, we, we're not commenting on the rainstorm interchange, right? So captain never met a check, were you talking about purely the um the crossing over Stevens Creek or did your comments also relate to the rainstorf interchange improvements?

[01:01:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well, I was talking about um. Tonight we're talking about 3 different bridges. Um, and one of those is part of the question, I believe, the mayor asked whether we support it or not, right?

[01:02:09] Unknown Speaker: Yes, sir, is the Charleston undercross and is dedicated business choosing store. Yes, because that requires a bridge.

[01:02:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Oh, okay. All of the projects. Uh, so I'm going to take just the rank stuff, piece 1st and then talk about the Evans Creek, separately.

[01:02:33] Unknown Speaker: If I may just clarify, you know, when you give us direction to say, okay, to drop the undercrossing and continue, all you're saying is, we can continue to study the rap realignment. We're not committing to saying, we're adding that as a prior cancellation food at this stage or to us pursuing it. But that when we run these next to the scenario, Uh, the ramp free alignment will be one of the things that we consider on running the scenarios, but we are not going to run scenarios that has this big undertalking at Charleston under 101. Which, the staff now, is it, that really is not feasible to build, and so we really shouldn't study it further.

[01:03:12] Unknown Speaker: So when you say you, you would um further study it, would you study it in the context of, for instance, the landings project or other development projects coming online in that area.

[01:03:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, okay. Is that work for you, Councilman or Meda check, when you're concerned?

[01:03:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sorry, I'm just, I'm sorry about jumping around, but I just wanna, gonna close the loop on these. But I I understand what staff is saying. I guess my struggle is, and I'm sorry I have, um, I can't separate these all out because I think they're all related. Um, and, um, so I think it's okay to drop the Charleston bungee crossing, but my concern about the other option is, uh, the other, uh, project we would look at on Windstor, um, is that it requires a bridge, and the fact that we didn't talk about this the 1st time we talked about the landings project, and the huff garage to say, oh my gosh, we need to do something different in terms of, circulation because that, uh, configuration with the amount of parking that is at landings and the amount that is required at house to park landings, that's a huge impact on circulation. And so that's why I'm struggling, um, sort of to say it's okay to separate these out because really this is one big picture out there.

[01:04:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, um, the train? Fair enough. I'm just gonna then open it up or comments on both and I think we did answer the question about dropping the undercrossing. So now we're talking about the ramp and then if you wanted to discuss the bridges of bridge or bridges over, um, in Creek Trail. open that up then. Doesn't it work?

[01:05:11] Unknown Speaker: Um, yeah, so, I guess, uh, moving on from, from 3 uh, in back to question one about the, the staff recommendation to focus on, uh, just the Charleston alignment and, and not this is the, well, the need alignment. I think um, Uh, you know, I think, um, death and, I'm not sure, um, my body's analysis listed. Um, I I generally agree with. I think if there's going to be, you know, possibly a bike and pet, um, connection at 11, you know, that may ultimately, that, that would ultimately come to us at some point, but, um, I think that makes, I, that would be, um, more okay with that than I would at having the actual, um, the transit, uh, bridge, uh, live in here, because I, I think it's that pointed out, it, it just makes more sense for it to connect in with the, with the, um, to a proposed transportation network at Charleston. So, um, I think in terms of studying the, um, studying a, a transit connection for a transit bridge that's only open to, to transit vehicles, and then we would have, you know, 100% control over the, you know, the number, the type of vehicles that would be able to cross it and the number that could cross it. I think that's the, the alignment that makes the most attempt. I think um, And I think ultimately it, if that pointed out, like we're talking about a 70 10 year time horizon, and I think it will be important for us to at least have done some environmental study with us to determine whether or not it, it makes sense. I know there are a lot of concerns around that. And I think, um, it's worth doing everything now, it's at this stage to know what may or may not work. I think my preference would be that, um, that we not have a, uh, basically an accurate crossing where, as some pointed out, you may have some conflict between the folks on the Stevens Creek Trail and, um, and, and the trying to cross, um, over from, from one section to the other. And the other thing I was going to say is from a, you know, 70 to 10 year time horizon. I don't think it is, um, I don't think it's feasible to expect, um, all of the, um, the, whether they're, electric autonomous, something or other, buses, whatever vehicles have, better transit vehicles happen to be crossing. We're needing to get between, you know, the, the projects over Moffat and and in the North Bay shore. Um, I don't think it's feasible to put those on 101. Um, and that's really the only other option that they have right now and would have in perpetuity. Um, if we don't at least study whether an alignment is possible there. and do the environment or not. So, um, like a very long way thing. I support, um, that recommendation, a normal one that we, that we just focused on the Charleston alignment for the, for the transit bridge and, um, just with the, and, not so low, you know, a lot of the needle alignment, and then just with the, my, my preference would be that we, we avoid any conflicts between those on the trail today, um, um, that we not have a, a Matt Great Crossing base that would create conflicts, um,

[01:08:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you um anyone else? Uh, I didn't see on the other hand that, um, jumped from under mirrors?

[01:08:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you ma'am. Um, I, I guess, um, the only, I guess concerns I have are, I, I think it, it sounds like the programmatic solutions are going to be explored more fully later on, and I think where possible. I do have a preference for a lower cost solution over a higher cost one. Um, and I think congestion pricing and um, and state parking will be particularly effective. I think the one thing that would be helpful is a better understanding of the operational improvements that we can get from some of these capital improvements, um, that was described in the, the written responses. I think that's, that's where, um, you know, I, I would appreciate maybe a better understanding at least, and so that the rain stop improvements, and I felt, the, uh, a good case for, for the exploration, um, in, in those written responses, and maybe, you know, doing something analogous for the, the Stevens Creek crossings would, would be, would be helpful as well, uh, I, I, I, I think the, the point that staff made about, the time frame we're looking at is important. I don't have any sense at all. I think the other challenge I'm having because we really don't know what the long term implications of the pandemic and the economic, um, crisis, you know, we'll have on transportation demands in this area. And so, it, it all feels very speculative, it's the same, but, but because we're working on such a long time horizon, I do think it, it's, it makes sense to do some further exploration. And so I'm, I'm comfortable with that recommendation just so we can get all of the information they may need in the event. These are important capital improvements to to implement. Um, you know, having that information on hand would be, would be beneficial, you know, but we won't really know until, who knows how many years down the road, but I would feel more comfortable having, having them available than, um, than finding out, you know, too late that we, we really do have to go and do the environmental review. So, uh, I guess wrong with the way of saying, you know, comfortable with the staff recommendations, but I think, you know, if we're able to find lower cost solutions, um, and find other ways of addressing operational impacts, then, um, those, those would be higher priorities, uh, in my list. Thank you.

[01:11:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, I don't see on the other hand yet, so I'll go ahead and comments and then the, I'm sorry, counseling accounting. Just turn on me for a 2nd. Go ahead.

[01:11:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Mayor, you remember 2014 when we were discussing Stevens Creek Trail. and putting a bridge up there. So I got a couple of thoughts, and I do sort of have a, quandary, um, this is not one project, but we're looking at, there's a lot to go into this, but, um, I'm concerned that there's also the part of the aesthetics of putting multiple bridges on Stevens Creek, the, the environmental impact of putting the bridges on Stevens Creek, and so, I haven't seen anything to change my mind about not pursuing, um, nominita. I'm concerned is that we're building. We're looking at building a transportation system now for the present and presses, but not looking for something down in the future, where we aren't building a transit system for Google, and I say, Google, I mean, other people isn't it? But the perception is that everything that we're doing is building the transportation system so they can move their personnel from one side to the other, using the current technology, and I'd rather see us look at something. That gets the 1000 buses off the streets, uh, even if it's an aerial driveway or something, and uh, that's where I'm sort of looking more at, maybe we look at the whole design of, instead of having the Charleston, uh, transit corridor, maybe if we're looking at things that we're digging at, and we're saying, well, we're not building, for now, we're going to build for the future, that we would reconsider other options. And concerning Bridge and Charleston, they say, I don't want to have a bridge, and then, you know, it's supposed to be nature, you're supposed to be able to be out in the environment, and to relax, and let's remind you. But if you're on the trail, all of a sudden you see one bridge, you go down a little further, you see another bridge. And I rather consolidate the bridges as much as possible next to the freeway. Because you get the noise congestion, and as you go further out on the trail, We want the peace and serenity. And so I'm, I, I can't support something at Charleston. At that point. So, if they're, I know there's other components that come along, uh, so, I remember Matt a check was pointing out that there is a lot going on here, but I'd rather do environmental impact. I'd rather see the bridge at La Anita. I'd rather see a try to figure out a transportation pollution using a lot of need it because now we have one bridge that would cover everything and still maintain the environmental integrity of Steven's Creek and the beauty of it. Thank you.

[01:14:18] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Come for a Meta check.

[01:14:21] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: If you want to go 1st that's okay because I've spoken before.

[01:14:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, okay, thank you. Um, so yes, I, I, I wanted to, uh, my comments, um, we go back to 2014 in this discussion and councilwoman McAllister. Um, I remember very strongly that, um, we wanted to see, uh, if we were going to do it at La Bonita. Um, I personally have been, um, opposed to a bridge crossing of Louis Stevens Creek, um, for quite some time because quite frankly, I question the necessity of it. Um, I was mentioned, it's 600 feet from one side to the other, and, um, yeah, and so a bike head bridge. I am completely supportive of. I guess I'm a little concerned about the process and um, Google studying, you know, the lava data crossing, um, that, that was not back to us 1st or as part of this, um, our transportation priority list, um, and also knowing that, we were interested in looking at a lot of data costing. So, um, but, you know, it is what it is, and, um, I, I could support that, uh, if it's a bike head bridge, but, um, they talk about a transit bridge, the reality right now is that, um, there's not a lot of transit other than the, frankly, mostly Google shuttles. Um, and you know, my, my interest right now is to try to lower the SOV. We have not reached our 45% cap. It's still like 55%. Um, but as many mentioned, as mentioned with telecommuting, My hope is that we could get there. We have a new tool that's been proven through the sheltering in place and um, and so, and the other um, benefit of, uh, the sheltering is that we've seen more people out and about walking and biking, and a lot of that has to do with just not having bad traffic, and so, whether it's uses, or, or single walk, you can see vehicles, having less of those, I hope is that it encourages, you know, other active transportation, and so, um, I I just don't see the necessity, especially given the price tag is, I think it was $690000 or so, almost $70000 um, to do the transit bridge that really connects inside of the treat to the other. Um, and also, that, um, you know, we don't know what will happen in the future, but I suspect that if, um, you know, congestion, traffic congestion goes up again, we'll get pressured to allow that to be open to, uh, fewer occupancy vehicles as well, and that's really not the purpose. And my interest here is that we um, you know, improve other infrastructures, so we get other needs, all right, transportation. Um, and you know, with e-bikes and e-scooters, there's so many more, um, options now, and I would be fine to look at a bridge that includes those options, but I just don't see the necessity for a transportation that allows, that food for a shuttle to become. become a past. So, um, I would be interested in just putting a pod on this project. Um, I see, and I understand it's not on the list yet, um, but I, given the workload of staff and the many other projects we have on the list, and there's a lot of bike tread projects, I'd be much more interested in moving forward, if we can, you know, say that capacity to move to work on the other projects more quickly. That's really my interest is at this time. Um, I appreciate counseling number and there's comments way back in 2014. I mean before that, I remember very few people, I think I was the only one who was interested in congestion piping because that was such a, like crazy idea, um, but it seems like it's becoming more and more, um, of interest and the paid parking issue too. I think we can really look at, you know, how do we lower SOV rates? Those are 2 um tools that we could definitely look at using. So I would much prefer that rather than spending the $8000000 on this project. Thanks. We'll go to council member, got a check.

[01:18:51] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, so, um, again, I wanna make sure we're looking at the complete picture in North Bay Shore and understanding how the different projects impact, um, overall volume of traffic. And um, the FOE rate. So, um, I still believe that, um, what we said in the North Bay Shore exercise plan is what we should be following, and that was that we would consider one bridge over students creek, and so, um, as others have said, it's a little bit discouraging to hear that, um, a bridge has been in the works, and we're just now hearing about it. Um. I don't think there should be a bridge down separately, it's on something the city is doing. Um, and I am okay with a bike head bridge, but that should be something, you know, the city takes a lead on. If I just want to help fund it. That's great. Um, and if they want it at La Vida. Um, that's fine with me. Um, I am concerned about, um, a transit bridge, um, because there's, has even been mentioned here tonight. I guess, it seems like the vision is that a transit bridge would be a parallel path to 101 that all of the private shuttles went to avoid 101 and drive in the Bayshore from, you know, Mountain New Sunnyvale through Loffett Field. And I guess I'm not interested in providing an alternative to 101 that goes throughout North Bay Shore. Um, I prefer to figure out how to reduce the volume of vehicles that go in and out of North Bay Shore, and my colleagues have mentioned another uh, a number of other projects that are out there that maybe we look at 1st before we look at building a transit bridge. My biggest concern is the impact on the environment. And as I said earlier, when we were talking about trade bridges, that is so much more than we ever considered in the North Bay Shore precise plan. Um, I just, I find it sort of astounding that we're talking about that. Um, so, uh, boat bridge, close to our Ladanita. Um, I think it's fine, um, but I'd like to look at other things before we look at a transit bridge. Thanks.

[01:21:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Uh, nice Mayor. Can I? Great, thank you mayor. Um, so, I think uh, I'll just kind of frame my, the ones that I'm viewing, um, just before I make some of my comments. Um, I think it was helpful to hear, uh, work out the amount of check was coming from and her, like, 30,000 foot views, so I'm going to try to do the same, um, which is for myself when I was reading, um, this back report, reading the, the thing that stuck out to me was, that we have 2 of the 3 gateways, that are almost completely at capacity, and that are, after a lee rate, percentage for 55% is actually increasing. last year, not decreasing towards the 45% FOV target rate. And so when I was reviewing the 3 questions from the, everything I'm looking at is trying to, to figure out how we can do emotion. Um, away from vehicular traffic and to me, vehicles that, that it actually encompasses shuttles as well. Um, and how are we creating a bike pad network that, um, is robust and a, a better alternative. So, um, you know, I, I heard some of the, the comments related to the rankstorm ramp, the alignment. I think, kind of given where we are right now, it makes sense to, to study, so I was comfortable in that one, the straw pull came forward. I think in terms of questions, number one and 2 Um, for myself, I, I think it was a little bit of a chicken and egg. So that has, uh, said to us, well, it's literative process and we need feedback 1st before we can look into some of the questions. Um, but for me, I feel like to be able to provide the direction next off speaks, uh, you know, mentioned having robots public outreach, um, engaging with our community groups, taking into account our environmental ecosystem, looking at the programmatic elements and changes that could be made 1st before multimillion dollar infrastructure projects. Uh, things that that I feel like I'd like to pursue 1st. Um, while the realignment, um, is something that I am supporting, I think when it comes to the bridge alternative, um. My preference would be, uh, bike and pedestrian as well. I think that one of the things I'm looking for, um, and we talked about it, I think, last week or the week before, are a better circulation and better networks, um, particularly fit 600 feet over the creek, uh, which will have less environmental, um, impacts, and I would assume too, that perhaps it wouldn't be, um, as much of a, uh, fiscal impact on it. Um, I think another consideration is, I know that we're going to hear back in a couple months, how, um, the climate will be, um, related to the, the COVID 19 pandemic, and I think, many companies and organizations are thinking about what their workforce future is looking like, and before we put forward, um, very, very costly infrastructure projects. I would love to hear a little bit more about where, where our business community is, are they going to move more to telework? So, um, that's kind of where I am, where I now, thank you.

[01:25:22] Unknown Speaker: Thank you, council member Hicks. So, I wanted to start off by, um, banking staff for beginning this, the, uh, beginning the presentation, and particularly downtown, I, the, beginning the presentation with, uh, rethinking day COVIDs, because I did, as many people did, get a lot of feedback from, um, from a wide variety of stakelers, from environmental groups, community groups, bike pad groups. Um, trail groups that, that they, uh, would like to be a part of the process from early on and that they, they, believe that kind of, uh, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, so-called design process that they need to be a part of. So I would like, I'm hoping we can make that, um, uh, sort of our standard thing that we do and thank you so much for, uh, starting off that way. Um, and I'm glad we, we heard from several of them tonight, although certainly not all of them, but I wanted to hear from. Um, the, the 2nd thing I, I agree with the general direction that I was taking, I would like to look at more uh, demand management and I think that the pandemic has given up, uh, an opportunity, I, I mean, it's not a great opportunity, but in some ways, an opportunity to rebank, um, things, particularly uh, telecommuting, changing peak periods. Some other things that are not really the pandemic, but the uh, paid parking. Uh, I have heard, uh, more and more used of even e-bite electric bike loans, uh, uh, during the, uh, in subsidies during the pandemic. So, just some really more um, robust approaches to, uh, to, um, our demand management. Um, in terms of the, and then the other thing that the pandemic has brought up for me is that, uh, the kind of recreation that people are, uh, are participating in now is walking, biking, typing a lot. And that was always a predominant form of recreation and the Stevens Creek Trail. I think has always been very important to us, but at least with my experience in talking to people, it's more important than ever. So I want to make sure the steel creek trail is really, in some ways, it's our only linear park. And I just want to make sure that we retain it as the gel that it is. Um, so I'm very sensitive to the environmental impact of multiple crossings. I like to encourage. I think I brought this up. One of the previous meetings. I, I'm fine with bipergens over the trail, even at multiple points. I would like to encourage some of the newer, sleeker, steel bridges over concrete that I, I used increasingly, but I think, although I'm certainly not an expert and haven't like people to look into it, but I think they have somewhat less of an environmental impact and they're also less expensive. So, possibly we could do, you know, more of those and, and fewer concrete bridges. Um, and then I would be willing to put a pause on the exploration, you know, to look at some of the more robust demand management and put a pause on the, um, uh, even at the temporary clause on the, um, the Charleston Bridge at this point. Finish.

[01:29:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Counselor Clark?

[01:29:23] Councilmember Chris Clark: Uh, yeah, I just wanted to share one thought that came up a few years ago, um, and uh, just for giving where the counter is headed on the, one of the benefits of having a, I think when we think transit bridge, a lot of what comes into our heads, we're like, you know, trying Google buses, 7 years from now, if they look today, going, you know, over, the, over the creek, and I think one of the things that we said I'd envisioned was more of a, um, A unique, um, not just uh, space for bikes and pets, but also those, you need a, you need at some point a way for those who aren't as able bodied, um, to cross into the era. And so, you know, maybe you just don't allow really large possibly. Maybe what you create is, you know, like smaller, you know, mostly bike and pedestrian path, but also space for, you know, smaller, you know, electric or, or vehicles that, um, you know, that go to catmistry, ride a bike, or, or walk long distances, very well, have the ability to use whatever form of transportation that looks like in the future. And so, um, I think one of the benefits of having this crossing at Charleston, even if it might, might, uh, my thought there was not that the city would spend 60 something $10000 on this, but we identify, Okay, here is another tool in our toolbox where, you know, as we do, if we end up in a full buildout scenario, We have things that we can require a, a developer to, to mitigate these things and renting that you can require is a bike, head bridge, and maybe one of the, um, maybe one of the crossings, whether it's Charleston or, or whatever happens to be, has some extra space for some, whatever, you know, innovative transportation technologies that may arrive in the future for people who can't necessarily ride a bike or walk. And so that, um, I just want to try and pull it away from thinking about, 7 years from now, giant gas powered buses crossing this thing, and then I think really what will end up happening is something much different, and it would be a quarter that we would fully control. Um, so anyway, that and and maybe maybe we study something that looks different or people just prefer not to study at all. I just, I would hate to not have that as an option of us to require someone in the future. Um, and I, I think if we, uh, that's just not a tool, but, the reason that, it's identified in the precise plan is, it's a tool in a larger buildout scenario that we can utilize, for our benefit, not something that we're just going to go build ourselves, and something like that, we got that with.

[01:32:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I, I wanted to respond to that, I, and I agree, um, and I, I said before, um, you know, if you want to look at a bike head bridge, but maybe make it lighter for the east scooters, the dikes, and you know, I've always, I kind of joked about this before, but I'm half serious, um, you know, the golf carts, but we used to ride during the parade. Um, uh, you know, something like that for those who, but, you know, the pregnant folks, and folks, we can't walk the, uh, 10th of a mile, uh, is understandable, but my understanding of the transit bridge was, you know, there's, uh, uh, um, leech, low, but it has to carry, if it's gonna be for vehicles, and, and that's the concern for me is the environment, as others have said, it's environmental impact of this pretty big bridge. And so, um, I just don't feel that at this point in time, um that's a necessity, and it's become less of a necessity, I would say, now than before, um, so, can, I would like for us to focus on, and my thought was, if we decide not to move forward with this study, could we then potentially look at moving for the GDM, whether TDM, um, options and studying those, um, maybe we'll get one, whether study from Sebato or not, but I would like for us to move forward and looking. those um options instead. Um. If that's the trade-off, is that, could that be the trade-off?

[01:33:57] Unknown Speaker: Um, yeah. could could I sum up then? and I I think I can answer your question. What I'm hearing is, um, support for studying the ramp realignment alternative in lieu of a Charleston undercrossing of 101. And I also seem to have a majority for not continuing to study a transit bridge over Stevens Creek at either location. And so I, I think, you know, that, that'll be the input into the future modeling we do. Part of that modeling, as Jim said, will be, um, you know, some investigation of TDM, and how much do we need to drive down vehicle trips, and, and what is the impact of not having a bridge over, over um, Stevens Creek? And so, I don't think we'll answer all the questions with the current study, um, like we said, there, there isn't a detailed congestion pricing study here, but I think what we can bring back to you is the transportation impact of the infrastructure decisions from tonight, some information about TDM, and some thoughts about further study.

[01:35:09] Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry? We did not. Um, we didn't hear the last piece of here.

[01:35:19] Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry, I hurt myself. Um, what we have tonight is some, um, the, the, the decisions about the infrastructure we're going to study, and so we will do that. There'll be the rain store free alignment, but no transit bridge. We will be able to bring back some information about TDM. Um, and then probably some recommendations for further detailed study of items such as congestion pricing and so on that isn't all in the current study.

[01:35:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I believe that was, um, a good sorry. Thank you very much. Anything else on this item? Is that? and we'll close the study session and we, on to our regular session. Oh, which gears here? Uh I like to call the. Beating to order at 701 PM. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with state of California executive order N 2920 dated March 17, 2020. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe their meeting live may be so at mount view.registar.com on YouTube at mountain view.gov slash YouTube and on comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period. For an item by signing up at mountain view.gov slash DC underscore speakers. Any emails and voicemail messages received by 5 PM today were forwarded to the city council. Email just saved after 5 PM and prior to the close of the public comment period. For the agenda item will be read into the record by the city clerk, and then any voicemail messages received will be played by the city clerk. All votes will be taken by will call vote. Now I'd like to ask the VA click to proceed with roll call, please.

[01:37:30] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Thank you. Council member, Clark. Council member, Hanks. Council member, Matt. McAllister.

[01:37:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Right here.

[01:37:41] Unknown Speaker: I'm number in the eyes. Here Yeah they come back.

[01:37:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Here, thank you. Thank you. All members of the president, we go onto item 3 and we have the presentation, and we ask Mr. Fuller to stay on after the study session, as our 1st presentation is for him. Um, this is a sad day for uh, many of us in the city of, uh, the, uh, happy day for Mr. Fuller, um, as we, um, congratulate him for, um, his long years of service to the city of Mountain View, and um, on his, uh, retirement, and um, this is wrong, but I think it is um, important to read, um, so I would like to read the proclamation in this honor. Whereas Michael A. Fuller began his engineering career as a junior assistant engineer with the West Valley sanitation district in 1988. became a RAM development engineer with the city of Campbell in 1992 and was hired as an associate civil engineer in May 1994 by the city of Mountain View. And whereas Mike was promoted to senior civil engineering, May, 1999, capital projects engineer in September 2002, assistant public works director in August 2007. The public works director in May 2010, and whereas as a new engineer in Mountain View, Mike participated in a wide variety of activities, including reviewing plans for private development and capital improvement projects, developing his city's capital improvement plans and budgets, and planning improvement to the city's water, storm water, sewer, and roadway infrastructure. And whereas as an experienced engineer, Mike solidified as reputation for being responsive and professional, are working on numerous development and infrastructure projects, including sequel analyses, successful closure, and landscaping of the kittens, and 544 acre site landfills. Everyone Avenue improvements in reconstruction in Monte Reservoir expansion design, the senior center, master fan, and new north water sewer, stone water, main replacement. And whereas after my transition to a leadership role, he managed nameless capital project, including completion of the shoreline maintenance facility, the senior center, the childcare center, expensive improvement to the Stevens Creek Trail, and the complex and challenging construction of the reservoir and portable water well at Grand Middle School. And whereas a public works director, Mike oversaw the successful, successful completion, and implementation of major city initiatives, including the city's 1st pedestrian master plan, sea level right studies, the landfill master plan, additional improvements to Stevens Creek Trail, ADA upgrades to city pool, construction of the team center, and shoreline aesthetic shield. The Transit Center, Master Call, in the Calvary Park Detention Basin, Shoreline Boulevard, transit entries, and a water transfer to the city of East Colorado, an expanded water quality program, and completion of the community center, and as Mike is recognized by peers and colleagues, those calm and collaborative demeanor, positive and can do attitudes, ability to come currently track and manage an immense portfolios projects, and skills to act strategically, considering short and long term needs and goals. And whereas Mike is recognized by peers and colleagues as the leaders who care safely about the professional development, and personal well-being of his staff, and as a master griller, and steak slice, they're extraordinaire, at the annual department head, barbecue, very important, whereas Mike is highly respected in his perfection, demonstrated by his selection as American public works association's Vocon Valley chapters, public works later of the year in May 2017. And whereas Mike is recognized as an enthusiastic and capable, rehabilitator, cars, trucks, cabuces, stringards, and all things, mechanical, often scanning the internet for hidden treasures, is looking forward to completing many rebuilding projects. And whereas after 26 years of exemplary public service, and trending and presenting at 100s of council meetings, finding 1000s of plans and staff reports, and giving many hours of dedicated and loyal service to the city Mountain View, Michael retired on May 15, 2020, was that day in our city, because Mike's peers and coworkers, they spent a long and happy retirement, and excited, who will have time to finish this long list of projects, and enjoy the relaxing environment of Ashland. Now, therefore, I am, I'm going out, because when we are in this city, Mountain View, along with my colleagues, I'm a city council, and city staff, doing hereby express gratitude, and appreciation, to micro HLS, for expensive contributions to the employees, residents, and customers, for the city of Mountain View, science, and fields, and, um, that you can tell them the long list of accomplishments, uh, Mark is on every part of the city. And um, we really do appreciate your 26 years of service, um, the the manner, your enthusiasm, your commitment, your dedication. And we will miss you solely, but we really wish you all the best you and I, that's your life and see, is this dream too? Thank you for, thank you for letting us have him for these many years. Um, but we just, oh, yes, we can do that, get back to you and we miss you all the best and um, your next adventures, and if you'd like to say from a few words, nicely, would that just hear from you? Thank you and congratulations.

[01:43:48] Mike Fuller: I'm going to speak out of a buzz. Um thank you. I, I, I would, but I'll be, I'll be brief. Of course, many, many people worked on those many, many projects. Um, I've been blessed with the coworkers, the leadership of this city. Um, I was hired 25 years ago because of something uniquely mountain view. Other cities were laying off and Mountain View was hiring. Um, and one of the things I very much appreciate about this city, uh, is, is the city council. Um, I have worked with many council members. Um, and I very much respect your dedication. The hours are long. It probably seems bankless. Um I'm sure you're not doing it for the money. Um, but it just seems like a genuine dedication to your community, and I just wanted to, since I, I might here at my last council meeting. I just wanted to express that to all of you. Um, thank you to you and your predecessors for your great, um, great leadership of the city.

[01:44:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and I think we have some, uh, council members, they want to say a few words, council members, check. Do you want to say a few words,

[01:45:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: that confirmation was thought on, it exactly characterized your contributions and your style, and I want to add that it has been an absolute joy to work with you. I so appreciate what you have done for the city, um, and the great shake you've left the department in, in a very capable hand. So thank you for everything you've done and all the best. Thank you.

[01:45:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And I'm sorry that, um, the sheltering in place doesn't allow us to get together and celebrate your accomplishments and retirement, but please know that we all, um, truly sincerely want to thank you. Um, I personally have had a opportunity to work with you for almost 15 years now and I just remember from day one how kind and um, considerate then, and patience you were um, in, inviting me along and so, um, thank you again for everything, um, we've done for all of us in city of Mountain View, and we wish you well, and hope you'll come back, maybe once we're out of the shelter in place, we could do a little um, celebration, but again, thank you so much. and um, let's just to the both of you. Thank you very much. Oh, I think city management. Have some fun.

[01:46:24] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, thank you. I couldn't figure out how to raise my hand. It wouldn't let me hear so I just wanted to speak on behalf of the organization and the department head team and thanking Mike for all of his years of service and and I think I can speak on behalf of my predecessors that he worked with that Mike is a consummate professional and he is so respected and so well liked in the organization and I think that he has just really exemplified excellence in leadership and. Also just showing his team what it means to to care and do a good job too. So, I just wanted to thank him even in my, my short time here, um, for working with him and just the work that he's been able to do and and assist, um, Don, our public works director and all the other public work staff, and just thank you so much for everything you've done over all these years, and like I said, on behalf of everyone, we wish you the best. I know that you'll have many adventures ahead of you and and I hope you're not gonna go too far from us. Um, but thank you so much for everything. I really appreciate it and I know that everyone else does too.

[01:47:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Alright, please go ahead.

[01:47:38] Mike Fuller: Oh, um, thank you and the department is in very good hands and Don Cameron.

[01:47:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I, I have a hand that's in the 10 feet box during a, I'm from the public, I'm going to see, uh, Shawnee Pinehouse, is it where you, uh, fishing the steak?

[01:48:07] Shawnee Pinehouse: Hello? can you hear me?

[01:48:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[01:48:09] Shawnee Pinehouse: Bye, thank you so much for everything that you've done to make mountain view, a special city for Audubon and other environmental organizations to work with, and for all you've done, it's not very short, um, and shoreline to protect the birds and their habitats. It's been such a pleasure to work with you. There's no parallel and no equal in the area. Um, I can honestly say that I've been working in this area for 10 years, even this week, which is my last week, um, he helped. We store a little piece of habitat over at Coast Casey for the swallows that are coming back to Nest. So, thank you, thank you, thank you. and um, have a wonderful time retiring. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:48:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other comments? Thank you again, Mike, and best wishes. Thank you very much. And we have a couple of, there's a couple of other proclamations, um, this is a, this is a week, um, so we learned, last week, that, um, today is actually the last day, um, that starting on May 6th, uh, it, uh, this is the National Nurses week, and so I'd like to read a proclamation, um, In honor of national versus week. Whereas May 6th, June May 12th, 2020, it was designated as National Nurse this week to coincide with Florence Nightingale's birthday on May 12, 1820, and whereas registered nurses of the city of Mountain View provide exceptional care to the city's residents, and are known for serving patients with compassion, expertise, and caring, and whereas registered nurses provide leadership and support to clinical services in providing education, care management, risk management, and quality improvement, to ensure care It meets nationally recognized standards of care. And whereas the demand for nursing services is greater than ever due to the aging American population, the increased complexity of patient care, continuing expansion of life, life sustaining technology, and growth of community-based services to support sustaining independence at home. And whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has placed registered nurses along with other healthcare providers and 1st responders at the forefront of fighting the crisis. By risking their own lives to care for their patients. And whereas the city of Mountain View is grateful for the numerous registered nurses in the community, for the outstanding care they provide, which enriches the lives of residents through healing, outreach, and education of the next generation of nurses. Now, therefore, I'm Margaret Adley, program mayor, the CUA mountain, be along with my colleagues from the city council, do hereby proclaim May 6th, May 12, 2020, as national nurses week, signing field, this 12th day is May 2020, but I just want to offer my, um, gratitude on behalf of the sitting for the many nurses out there on the front, truck miles during this, um, pandemic, and, um, we really appreciate and, um, The, the care that I resist provide to our patients in the community. So, um, in the final proclamation, uh, J type 3, um, my, the clerks did not tell me this, I had to learn this from another um, mayor from another city, so we're actually a little late, but um, last week was municipal clerks week. I'd like to read the proclamation on that behalf. Whereas the professional municipal clerk, a time honored and vital part of local government exists throughout the world. And whereas the municipal clerk is the oldest among public servants, and whereas the municipal clerk provides the link between the community, the local governing bodies, and agencies of government at other levels, and whereas municipal clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality, rendering equal service to all, and whereas the municipal clerk serves as the information center on functions of local government and community, and whereas municipal clerks continually strive to improve the administration of affairs Of the clerk's office through participation and education programs, seminars, workshops, and the annual meetings of our state, county, and international professional organizations, and whereas it is most appropriate that we recognize the accomplishment of the city clerk's office. Now, therefore, I'm not going out of code, I'm here to see. Well, we along with my colleagues on the city council, do recognize the week of May 3rd, during May 9th, 2020, as municipal clerks, week, and further extend our appreciation for our city clerks, is being a Jewish, our city clerks, office staff. If you need city click, wander along, secretary, Margarita Herrera, and all municipal clerks for the vital services they perform, and they're exemplary dedication to the communities they represent, um, finance of Earth, 12th May 2020. Um, I cannot think our city clerk and our city clerks office enough. You keep everything running and running well and safely and we're so grateful to have you. Thank you for your service, uh, city clerk, Matish, and your entire staff.

[01:53:35] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Thank you very much, Mary. I really appreciate that. Thank you.

[01:53:42] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you colleagues for your patience during all the proclamations. Um, we'll move on to item 3.4 which is our COVID-19 update by our city manager.

[01:53:54] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Hey, good evening everyone. Let me just share my screen here. Okay, so we are in week 10 of the shelter in place. I think I've started every presentation like this, and um, unlike, uh, other meetings, I have a much shorter update this evening, but I think I have some, um, good things to report some information that's happening this week, and then also some of the regular updates that I provide. So I wanted to start as usual with a together and the update to our donation fund. And so right now, the fund is at $16,400. We have 325 donations that have been given to the rent release fund and 291 donations that have gone to the business fund. And that is um, an increase of, I believe it is approximately 41 more from last week. So again, I just wanted to thank the members of the community who have donated to this fund. They continue to see increases every week and I think it just really speaks to the generosity of of the residents in our community and how much people really care about about their neighbors. And another update that I wanted to provide, that is a weekly update is on our rent release, uh, program update. So as of the 8th, we've had around 1800 applications submitted, and currently we have 306 households that have been assisted, and there's 139 households that are awaiting payments. Now we have around 1400 applications pending, and our city funding that we have provided for this program has been spent um approximately $641,000. And you'll see the percentage breakdown of the area meeting and income. It hasn't really changed that much. Week of a week. We continue to see most of the checks going towards those people who are in the 0 to 30% range. um over 50% AMI. And I also wanted to provide an update on the redeployment of city staff. I, I believe that I briefly mentioned this in prior updates, and last week we had 8 city staff, who were redeployed to community based organizations, or who are working on our um, release efforts, and that was about 62 hours worth of assistance. That includes working with uh food delivery, assistance to seniors at their personal residences. Also food distribution assistance with CSA on site. And we have also had 4 staff on site at CSA to provide translation services in Spanish, Russian, and Chinese. And we expect to continue this redeployment deployment during the shelter and place order as. Welcome to Zoo. Enter your participant. You have entered the meeting as a panelist. Attendees can now hear you speak. This meeting is being recorded. You have to wear them. It essentially makes the things mask required. And I also wanted to mention that our police department is hosting a drive-through mask distribution tomorrow. Wednesday, May 13th from 10 AM to 3 PM at the Shoreline Amphitheater lot A, and the police department will be giving away up to 4 free masks per vehicle. So if you need masks, um, I encourage you to come visit during those time, during that time period from 10 AM again to 3 PM tomorrow. And I just wanted to provide some other updates about questions that we have been asked a lot recently. And the 1st one that I wanted to provide an update on is about car parades. And the recent direction from the county shelter in place regarding the prohibition of these car parades or birthday brigades or caravans has really prompted a lot of these questions. And I wanted to provide some context on the county's decision. And it was based about, based on the sensitivity, um, for car-based gatherings, for large events, such as religious services, or think of the Mayo celebration. Um, also for any drive-in movies and things of that nature. And there were public health concerns about that. Um, but that being said, our Mountain View Police Department have not observed any parades and we have not received any um, calls for service for parades. And if we would receive a call, we would only respond based on available resources. So this is not a high priority call for service and it would be handled as those resources are allowed. Um, essentially, our police department is very focused on education of the order. and making sure that our community understands the public health expectations. Um, we did receive clarification that government entities could provide that drive by birthday celebration as part of our ability to provide essential services. And so as such, 2 place cards and make visits for community requests. But I also wanted to provide an update on, on data regarding um, calls for service over the public health order. So currently we have handled over 300 public health order calls for service, and only 9 citations, uh, for 4 separate incidents have been issued as of just this past Thursday, May 7th. And the majority of those have been issued to suspects, uh, for, for crimes that were unrelated to the health order in the community. So we are again, as I said, really focused more so on the education component of the order. And I also wanted to mention, um, the fact that staff is working on a plan, um, for closing Castro Street potentially over the summer, depending on when the shelter and place border is modified. Um, and I know we've received um, different enquiries on this and there, um, are other cities that are looking at this and this is something that staff has been, um, looking at and analyzing, um, a variety of departments are working on this over the past month or so. So we will have more information on what this might look like as uh, the order is modified and obviously uh, we will make sure that we are keeping safety and health of the community top of mind while also making sure that we can promote restaurants um, that may be open at that time once the shelter in place order is modified. So, I did want to let everyone know that this isn't the work, um, and to stay tuned for more information on that. And I also wanted to provide a couple updates from our county. And currently, the county is in process of really quickly expanding their infrastructure or contact tracing. And over this past week, They have reached out to local government agencies across the county, um, and they are looking at having more than 700 um, people in place as contact tracers to perform work countywide so that we can really ramp up our efforts on, um, tracing and investigating positive cases and people with households that may be around people that are testing positive, making sure that they are locating and quarantining people. So, again, this is, um, This, this is something that is in the works right now and the county is really expecting uh more information to come about this in the next couple weeks. Then the last thing that I wanted to mention is that the public health department gives, um, updates to the public every single Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 10 AM on their Facebook page. And this is available for the public to watch. So, um, oftentimes we don't know all of the detailed information that's happening unless we read it in the news or we hear about it through social media, but you can watch uh, these briefings 3 times a week where they will provide the latest information on uh, programs and what's happening in the community, what's happening county wide, but I wanted to make sure that people knew that as well. Then another data point that the county has issued, um, lately is that since uh, March 17th, when the stay at home order took effect, there have been uh, research, there's been research released by big cities, health coalition, that estimates that through our shelter in place efforts, Santa Clara County residents have saved more than 7400 lives in our area alone, just by shelter in place. So by staying home, we've made a collective sacrifice, but it's prevented infection, hospitalization, and a large number of deaths. So, I wanted to thank everyone for continuing to follow, um, the rules in the shelter in place, um, order and just making sure that we're keeping our community healthy and safe. And as per usual, I wanted to remind everyone that the census is still underway, and self reporting has been extended to October 31st. So I would ask everyone to make sure that they're completing our census, and also that they can sign up for our, um, now twice a week, community briefing by texting MV COVID to 22828. And with that, I am open for any questions.

[02:05:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you city manager. Are there any questions from our council members? I don't see any. Um, so we're actually gonna open this up for public comments. Is there any members of the public wishing to speak? Um, if you're in the 10 day box on Zoom, please, uh, hit the raised hand button at the bottom or if you're on the phone, it's a 9. I don't see anyone. Uh, city clerk, do we have any other public comments?

[02:06:15] City Clerk: No other public comment there.

[02:06:16] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Great. Well, thank you very much for the update. I'll close this item and move on to our consent calendar then. Um. So before we proceed. Uh, I have a, a note here, um, on item 4.2, the zoning text amendment regarding accessory drilling units, family daycare centers, and plan community permits, the 2nd reading, based on information we received on Friday after the agenda was published. Community development staff will require additional time to refign the ADU regulation. An appropriate motion for item 4.2 will be to not consider the 2nd reading of the ordinance, but instead, bifurcate the AG sections of the ordinance from the sections related to family daycare centers, and planned community permits, and return to council with the reintroduction of 2 separate ordinances in the future. Um, so if uh, there's a motion, if you could please include that in the motion, I would appreciate it. um, and these items will be infused by one notion, unless any member of the council issues remove an item for discussion. The reading of the full text of resolutions will be waived unless the council member requests otherwise. But any member of the council like to fill an item?

[02:07:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Uh, yes, Jackson versus. I don't want a problem item, but I have to ask the question on it and then put it back in the chat.

[02:07:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Um, let me see if anyone else wants to throw an item. I don't see any. Um, let's see, let me go to the public. Are there any members of the public wishing the based on any items on the consent calendar? If so, please, get the raise hand button if you're in the attendee box on you or hit star 9 if you're on the phone? I don't see any uh, so close uh, uh, actually go to the city clerk. Do you have any other public? I went for any consent items.

[02:08:26] City Clerk: I know, I don't know.

[02:08:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you. So why don't I go to New Council member Hicks with your question?

[02:08:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: My question is on 4.7 which is the, I won't read the full title, but the, um, Rory seal resurfacing. Um, so, um, a member of the public asked, um, they said that they had been very happy in the past when, when, uh, where, the story field program was, was done in the past, um, that help pedestrians cross that, uh, there'll be solid lane markings included for several feet leading up to the crossing location. So that, I guess, cars weren't crossing in, interrupting pedestrians, and that, uh, that agreed to do that in the past, and he was just hoping to encourage pedestrian safety, um, that that would be continued. So I just thought I would ask that. Thank you.

[02:09:33] Unknown Speaker: As I recall, it was specific to Shoreline Boulevard and we did receive confirmation from our traffic engineers, but that will continue to be part of the striping plan.

[02:09:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you very much.

[02:09:44] Unknown Speaker: You're welcome

[02:09:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Kessler Clark.

[02:09:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: I will. Attempt at, uh, motion, uh, away with everyone, um, so I will move the consent calendar, which includes, um, Item 4.2, uh, which is, uh, to not consider the 2nd reading, of the ordinance, but instead bifurcate the ADU sections, of the ordinance, from the sections related to family daycare centers, and sign community permits and return to council with the introduction of 2 separate ordinances in the future. Um, item 4.3 adopted ordinance and mini chapter 35, the city code relating to the continuation of water service for nonpayment, to be read entitled only for the relay detachment on the council report, and in 4.4 adopted resolution certifying the result. The canvas were returned for the session, the election held on March 3rd, 2020 for ballot, measure D, amendment to the community stabilization impairment act, to be read entitled only for the being made, and 4.5 Adopter Revolution, with spending resolution number 18, 176, of holding the real administrators, approval for the client community permit, a provisional use permit, development review permit, and the heritage tree removal permit to construct a new hotel. And remove 3 air industries at 871 drive, uh, to the rental only per week. You can cancel every click.

[02:11:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, is there a 2nd customer in a minute?

[02:11:23] Unknown Speaker: Yes, I'll 2nd the motion.

[02:11:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other discussion on the concern can I be? If not, actually, have a little call, please, any quick.

[02:11:38] City Clerk: Remember, Clark?

[02:11:40] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes,

[02:11:40] City Clerk: Council member Hicks?

[02:11:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:11:42] City Clerk: Council member about a tech. Council member McAllister?

[02:11:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[02:11:51] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[02:11:53] City Clerk: Bryson May?

[02:11:54] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:11:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Bye. Thank you. Thank you, Mission Trace, for the video with the extensions. Thank you very much. We'll move on to item 5 oral communication. This portion of the meeting is regular for person switching to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Thank you for allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on nonagenda items. But any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on a non-agenda item, um, if so if you're in the attendee blocks, box, please, uh, hit the raised hand button, if you're on the phone, please, it's star 9, and I do have uh, Chris Chambers. Welcome. You should be on.

[02:12:40] Chris Chambers: Thank you very much. Um, I'm here to promote a program called Bike Match, Silicon Valley. Bike Match SD is the program that matches people who cannot afford uh, a bicycle, uh, to those who really need a bicycle. And the program is such that individuals can, you cannot afford a bicycle, then fill out a simple form, and uh, apply to get a, a free bicycle. The priorities for essential trips, but all transportation needs will be cons- considered. And then, we're also been promoting, if you have a bike, in your garage or somewhere else that you're not using, you can donate through the bicycle exchange, and we'll match you with a recipient, and if it needs a bit of work, right to go exchange, a little refurbish the bike, and give it new life, and give it to the person who really needs the bicycle. If you want to help with the effort, you can make a donation, to cover the cost, the bike parts, or pay for, uh, a used bike, et cetera. So, people out of the public. If you need a bike, and you can't afford one or you have a bike, you're not using or would like to donate, or, uh, you like to donate, you could do a Google search for Silicon Valley, bicycle exchange, and there's a form for all purposes, but it's available in English and Spanish, and we're working on getting a version in, uh, Canties and Mandarin shortly. Or you can call 650-417-3091 and leave a message. And I'm doing this as part of a volunteer for the Silicon Valley, Black City Exchange in Silicon Valley, Mexico Coalish. Thank you.

[02:14:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank very much. Any other uh members of the public machine to comment on a non-agenda item? If not, I, uh, city quick, do we have any other public comments?

[02:14:52] City Clerk: No other comments received after 5 PM.

[02:14:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you so I will close oral communication and we will move on to and then 6 public series. Uh, and item 6.1 is the renewal of our downtown Park Maintenance and Operation Assessment District number 2, if it's still your 2021 and we have a staff presentation by our business development specialist, Tiffany Chu. welcome.

[02:15:25] Business Development Specialist Tiffany Chu: Thank you. Let me just um. Oh, could I um, get my green to share? Oh, um, okay, there we go. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. and good evening, honorable Marin City Council. Tonight is the annual renewal of the downtown parking maintenance and operation assessment district for fiscal year 2021. This is the 1st of 2 public hearings to renew the parking district. As a reminder, the parking district is on the map before you in the best line, and it supports the overall maintenance and operations of the downtown public parking system. The districts revenues come from property owner assessment, interest earnings, property taxes, and parking permit revenue. But parking permit revenues are used for ongoing maintenance and operations and implementation of downtown parking permit programs. The purpose of tonight's hearing is to take comment on the proposed annual assessment of $158,606 and to preliminarily approved the engineer's report. Any proposed changes to the report will be revised for the June 23rd, 2020 public hearing. Each year, the assessment formula is uniformly applied to all property owners within the district. And the formula is based on land use and parking requirements within the district. Any changes to assessment boundaries or formula would require a district vote. Each property owner in the parking district. They is notified of the assessment in accordance with state and city requirements. This concludes staff presentation. Thank you.

[02:17:16] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Ms. True. Any, um, questions from health members? Um, my son McAllister.

[02:17:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, oh, this one comes to us once a year. Correct.

[02:17:32] Business Development Specialist Tiffany Chu: This comes to you once a year.

[02:17:34] Councilmember John McAlister: And this could be the last time I could ask about assessment fees. Okay, I'm done because I saw Chris Smile, I did that for Chris. I thought I wanted to do. Thank you.

[02:17:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: After 8 years, Chris. Any other questions, just, uh, council members on the site? If not, I will go to public comment. If there are any members of the public wishing to speak on this item, and you are in the attendee box on zoom, please, just the vase hand button at the bottom, or if you're on the phone, it's star line. I don't see any hands raised. uh city clerk? Are there any other public comments?

[02:18:21] City Clerk: No other public comments?

[02:18:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Wait, then I will close public comment and bring it back to council for deliberation in our motion. Happy to entertain a motion, counselor McAllister.

[02:18:35] Councilmember John McAlister: If I can't discuss the feed on my promotion. So, I, um, okay. Okay, I'm going to adopt the resolution preliminary approving the annual engineers report for the downtown parking maintenance and operation assessment district number 2 for fiscal year 2020 to best 21. We read in title only. Further reading, wave, catch it month for the council report.

[02:19:04] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Counselor, is there a 2nd counselor on the net a check?

[02:19:09] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yep. On 2nd motion.

[02:19:11] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Chris will do it. Thank you, Catherine McAllister for the next 2nd by council member. Any other discussion on this item? If not, because we get a real call vote, please.

[02:19:28] City Clerk: Cancel number Clark.

[02:19:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay.

[02:19:31] City Clerk: Council number Hicks.

[02:19:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah.

[02:19:33] City Clerk: Council number, not a check.

[02:19:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes,

[02:19:36] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[02:19:38] Councilmember John McAlister: For the last time, on the subject. Yes.

[02:19:42] City Clerk: Council member in the end.

[02:19:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[02:19:47] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:19:48] City Clerk: Yeah, the coca.

[02:19:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Mission carry 70 with no extensions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Chu. We'll go on to item 6.2 The tenant relocation assistance ordinance modification, and we have our staff presentation by assistant community development director Wayne Chen. Welcome Mr. Chen.

[02:20:10] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Hi, good evening. How are you all? Let me just take a moment to share my screen. Karen? coming up here. Here we go. Okay I apologize. Um, it is trying to access. Let's see. Here we go. Thanks for your patience. Apologies for that. Um, so wanted to, um, I think, uh, Tim Wong and the seats are very step for, um, working on this item, um, uh, I'm Wing Chan, a super community development director, and I believe we'll also be having Karen Tiedeman, um, who will be joining, um, this presentation, um, uh, guaranteesman from Cold 5 and Lipman help provide the analysis, um, of SP 330. And also to help us understand the complexities of the, of the bill and how it would interact with the um, tenant relocation assistance ordinance. And she'll be here, um, uh, online as well. Should there be any questions? Just a brief background. Um, the trail modification item um, surfaced back in October 2019, when uh, council held a study session on the displacement response strategy. And during that time, there was input to staff to bring trail modifications ahead of other potential strategies. Um, staff went to work on that, and in the meantime, uh, SD 330 went into effect, uh, at the beginning of the year. So we did have to spend some time to understand this new law. There are a lot of components to it. And, um, and it is, um, has the complexities. And so we could spend some time there. Then in February of 2028, uh, council provided the 5 specific, uh, modifications for the, uh, staff to incorporate as part of the trail modifications. So just briefly, uh, the trail has certain key provisions. Um, 1st one is that it is for tenants who are earning uh up to 120% AMI. Um, The, um, uh, relocation benefit is 3 months of the median monthly grants. And there is a provision of $3000 on top of the 3 months for special circumstance situations. And there is a subscription to a rental agency as part of the trail program. Um, it applies to uh, rental units that are under the community stabilization fair rent act. And for units that are not under the CSFRA, would apply to partner building to 3 or our units. Uh, so this slide shows the 5 specific modifications. that the council direct the staff to incorporate uh back in February. And um, the 1st one is to expand the eligibility threshold for the income limits. Uh, the 2nd is to, um, have an additional $5000 um, on top of the $3000 um, already in the trail, to have enhanced, um, assistance by auto term. Um, to modify the uh, payment schedule, the betrayal relocation amount. And then also, there's this component for landlords to waste certain obligations for tenants to provide more flexibility. We'll talk a little bit about that in the later slide. Uh, This item went to the EPC, uh, last month. EPC did unanimously support modifications. There were some clarifying religions, and we'll go go out in just a moment. Uh, and the EPC also did talk about the possibility of, um, staying tuned, uh, better understanding, SP 330, given its newness, its complexities, and potentially, uh, incorporating some of those SP 330 provisions, uh, into the trail, uh, to sort of monitor that. As I mentioned, SB 330 is a new law. There are a lot of provisions to it. There's a replacement requirement component, and um, for the purposes of the trail, there is a, a relocation benefit component within SB 330. So a lot of analysis was just trying to understand. Where does the trail apply? Where does SB 330 apply? And what happens when both apply? So this slide is a summary comparing sort of the coverages for SP 330 in portrayal. And I'll just kind of flag some of the key things for SP330 and trail the AMI levels. The trail does have that 120% AI level. The SP330 is a little bit more complex. Um, what it does is it actually, um, uh, covers certain types of protected units, that includes rent stabilized units, deed restricted units, and it's a bit removed from the rental market, and then, um, and then units that are, um, uh, occupied by low and very low income tenants. And so, for example, if there is a displacement situation where a higher income household is occupying a red stabilized unit. They do qualify for the benefits. So that's sort of the difference with SP 330. And then situations where there are unoccupied units. And there's no way to prove who lived there. And there's a presumption that there were low income residents, so that's that's another layer. Um, a major difference between SB 330 and Trao is a mountain, the relocation. So the trail has a 3 months at a comparable rent, a benchmark. SB330 has um, a methodology where you compare the current rent. And then you, uh, calculate the difference between a comfortable rent and it's 42 times a difference. So that's a, a different methodology and based on the math, it's quite a bit higher than the trail. Um, and you can see some of the other, uh, differences between SP 330 and Trao. The one just to try to visualize this a little bit, just to show the coverage. And these are more sort of conceptual categories of coverage. Um, it is a little bit challenging to try to line them up exactly numerically. But, both the trail on SP 330, uh, covers fully covered slith of our units. And then on the tray of side on the left bar. It also covers units not under the CSFRA, if there's 3 or more units in that building. If you move over to the SB 330, You can see the 3 other categories that SP 330 covers. It also covers the deed restricted affordable housing units. The cover, again, units occupied by low income, their income, folks. And also rental unit that were taken away from the market, which may have caused displacement. And so they don't quite overlap and map onto the trail. But these give you the kind of conceptual categories where relocation benefits would apply. So the 1st item is to add the 5000 to the inclement threshold, to qualify more households, for relocation benefits. And so you can see the income limits for the 120% category. And then you can see the bottom line where you add 5000 that shows you where the income limits have increased too, and that's where the threshold is. So that has been incorporated. The 2nd one is the $5000 for the special circumstance household. And, um, for various circumstances, um, that may require additional assistance to help with the relocation. What this is about. I do want to just, um, uh, flag and report, the modification was, changing the 3000 to 5000. A $2000 difference, but the revised modification is actually $5000 on top of the current 3000 for a total of 8000. So that's the revised modification um that um would be incorporated into the set of modifications. Um enhancemental services that's been incorporated. I won't read the details. And this item is when the tenant, let me see a 2nd payment, uh, there's the ability to get on the 2nd payment, um, sooner to assist with the relocation, um, since that has been incorporated. And then this item was for, um, the ability for landlords to waive the rights, to receive this 30 day move out notice from the tenants. And this was not incorporated because It's actually state law to require this, and so the modification made, the trail guidelines is to say, this is something you can do, landlords on a voluntary basis, but it would need to be voluntary. And then a couple of additional modifications is to actually incorporate a recording of um on the property that there are trail requirements on a particular property. That way, if the property is ever transacted, and the future owner knows that there are these requirements. It's one other way for a future property owner to be aware of it. And then we added a general language just because we're still learning about SP 330 and um, there may be things that emerge that, um, uh, will be applying later on. But the general language allows us to be able to apply the stricter of the trail, or SP 330, or other state requirements as appropriate, and the strict of the 2 with Prabel. So this is the recommendation to introduce an ordinance amending, uh, the tenant relocation assistance ordinance with the, uh, preceding modifications, and that includes staff expectation. Thanks so much.

[02:31:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Shen. Any, check one words, with questions, I was writing. Adam McAllister?

[02:31:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, um, well, one of the 1st tables you did it. Uh, it didn't make sense to me about the, yeah, on that one, it was just unoccupied units with no income documentation. Well, if the units are occupied. Why would, I don't understand that there would be, not applicable. So, why do we thought, how does that play out?

[02:31:53] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, I think that was just additional information that, um, um, it is part of SP330, and I'll ask Karen to jump in as needed, but, um, you know, part of this is just to demonstrate that I speak 330 has, um, a wide variety of provisions and that, um, In the case where, um, under a replacement requirement, and uh, developer is needing to replace the units. But there's no way to document who lived there before, okay, it goes in this 80% threshold, but it doesn't necessarily, um, it doesn't necessarily apply to relocation benefits specifically. Um, and I'll see if Karen has any additional color to add.

[02:32:45] Karen: Hi, good evening. Um, yeah, so what Wayne said is correct. That's BC 30 has a variety of obligations. The relocation obligations don't specifically apply to unoccupied units, but there's still a replacement, obligation that the units have to be replaced, and there's a presumption as to whether those units were occupied by very low or low income helpholds. If on the percentage of very low low income winters. Unless it can be proven otherwise, that they were occupied by, above throwing some household. So that's why that information's there, just because there's multiple requirements in 330, with respect to protected humans, not just relocation.

[02:33:28] Unknown Speaker: Okay, yeah, that makes sense, the replacing it again, so... Okay, then the other last question I have is the, tennis need to be current on their LLR rents, to be eligible for relocation assistance, and that's true for both.

[02:33:45] Wayne: Of the, uh,

[02:33:46] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: I'll, I'll do my best to, um, try to articulate it and again, Karen, if you're able to, to jump in, but the, the, the trail provisions, it, it really hooks to the notion of an event, of a displacement event, and a displacement event, um, um, you know, if a, if a tenant is, Um, behind the rent. And, um, being behind the rent is, um, a provisional where there could be a just cause eviction. Um, then that they wouldn't receive the benefits. So, so, in effect, yes, um, under trail, tenants need to be current under rent. Just be 330 makes it a little bit more, uh, nuanced and complex, and SB 330, as I understand it, is, um, it's, it's whether the tenant is still physically occupying the unit, um, and whether they are current on rent or not is, is, is, is different. Um, it could be behind our rent, but if there's, they haven't been evicted and if, Actions have been taken to, uh, proceed with the eviction, but if the tenant is still in the unit, they would, they would still be able to qualify for the, the location benefits, but I'll, I'll turn over to Karen and see if she has any clarification or additional thoughts to add.

[02:35:21] Karen: Uh, I think the way Wayne described it is accurate. But SP330 adopts state relocational, and you are eligible for relocation benefits into that, um, unless you've actually been evicted. So, if you haven't paid your rent that you haven't been affected, you would still be eligible for relocation benefits.

[02:35:42] Unknown Speaker: Would that be the full market or part of the benefit minus the rent deal?

[02:35:48] Karen: Um, it, that is not specified in the law. I would tell you when we do the location for other purposes, but don't have an agency to acquire property, we would genuinely deduct the owed rent from the benefits. Um, but that's sort of more in practice than we have the actual deadline for.

[02:36:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Captain Ramirez?

[02:36:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I only have one question and that's related to the alternative mitigation language and the ordinance. Uh, so I, I, I, I think, you know, having an opportunity to present, some alternative solution is, is fine, but, um, I'm, I'm wondering whether SB 330 really allows for that, um, and can practice what an alternative mitigation to the provisions in SB 330 might look like.

[02:36:46] Wayne: Um, again, I'll try to take a 1st cut, and then, again, ask Karen to jump in, but, uh, the words alternative mitigations don't appear in SP 330. And so, as we were, uh, trying to analyze and understand SP 330 and Trao. Um, I think I think there's the concept that alternative mitigation under a trail, um, could be allowed. But, um, there need to be a way to demonstrate that alternative medication is comparable or exceeds what is also an SP 330 and that's where the general, a language that we thought was helpful to make as part of the modification is to say the stricter of the two. And then, and then in some ways, it's a case by case basis to, um, see the particulars of any particular case. to apply the filter of the trail analysis and in the filter of SP 330. And and proceed with analysis, um, That that way, without further sort of guidance, of SB 330 pilots alter the medication. Um, the, the notion that we'll have the general provision in the um, trail modification, and evaluate on a case by case basis, with a 2 lens analytical approach. Um, uh, I'll turn over to Karen, let's see if there's not bad. clarifications.

[02:38:09] Karen: Yeah, so part of what SP330 says is that you specifically can continue to include um, uh, local benefits to the extent that they are greater, and at the 330 survive. So if you could come up with alternative medication measures that are greater, and what 330 provides, then theoretically you could adopt those. But you're right. FT 330 doesn't discuss alternative medication measures. It really would have to be greater benefits than FB 330 and the standard.

[02:38:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And um, thank you. Is, is staff comfortable with, with not really addressing that ambiguity in, in betrayal or would it be helpful to, to say something like where SV 330 applies? You know, maybe, maybe we don't have an alternative mitigation option, but where trail applies, then you could provide an alternative mitigation.

[02:39:21] Wayne: Um. Maybe I'll kind of take you just for a 2nd and see if Karen has anything to add, but I, I think that could be a, um, a policy, um, that counts direct. Um, um, that's incorporate, um, part of the thinking, I'm just trying to think here is, um, also the, the, the sun setting, the 5 year sunset, the SP 330 and whether that's something that we need to be revisited, if, um, the P330 sunset, but if it's sunset, maybe, um, it all goes away anyway. Um, but maybe I'll see if Karen has any offer, she's seen any other jurisdictions, um, kind of address this question.

[02:40:06] Karen: Yeah, I don't think anybody else would address this question, but I think, um, you know, we did talk about this this morning amongst staff, I think the language as it stands, the alternative mitigations are subject to city capital approval. And so any alternative mitigation would be brought to you with recommendation from staff, that it has to at least confirm the SP 330 or those units that are considered protected units. So, you could add language or I, I, I think it is really covered because it is a discretionary approval at the city council all the time.

[02:40:42] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: And I would just add to that, this is Christian, uh, Karen's absolutely correct. I do think the language has drafted, provides for that latitude, and um, we drafted, um, specifically, uh, uh, we wanted it to be general to allow for that, uh, consideration, but it will, would take a, a close look by staff, and then also it is ultimately approved by council. So, um, I believe the language is, is sufficient, um, unless there's strong counsel desire to, to make it more, more specific.

[02:41:20] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you very much.. So, my 1st question is, assuming we adopt these modifications on what date would they take?

[02:41:42] Unknown Speaker: There would have, this is a introduction of an ordinance, so then the 2nd reading, uh, would be scheduled. I believe that's in the. 2nd leading is June ninth and then it would take effect 30 days after that. June 39.

[02:42:02] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you, and then the, my 2nd question is just, um, I just wanted to make sure I understood that, um, that was recommending increasing special circumstance payment for household, um, uh, consistent of $5000 to $8000 consistent with, that's consistent with the 777 West Middlefield agreement. Is that what you're recommending today and that right?

[02:42:32] Unknown Speaker: That, that's correct. Okay, I support that. Thank you.

[02:42:38] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other accounts centers with questions? If not, I will open with us for public comments. If there are any members of the public wishing to speak on this item in your in the attendee box, please, uh hitch raised hand at the bottom? And if you're on the phone, please sit star 9. I don't see any uh city clerk? Do we have any other public comments?

[02:43:05] City Clerk: Another public comment received after 5 PM.

[02:43:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you. I will close public comment and bring it back to council for deliberation and uh notion council member Ramirez.

[02:43:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. Um, so, uh, 1st thank you to that for, for bringing this back, uh, relatively quickly. Uh, and I also want to thank uh, everyone at the council for supporting expediting review of the trail back in February when we were, um, um, modifying our, our work plan. I think this is, uh, an important item, um, given that there are, um, you know, there's still, I think, a handful of displacement projects even despite, um, SB 330 and the pipeline, um, that, uh, that this will apply to further down the road. Um, I, so I support the staff recommendations. Uh, I think that the clarification, I, I'm, uh, or the, the modification to the special circumstances, household. I'm comfortable with, that was also, uh, voluntarily provided by dividend homes in their 2310 Rock Street proposal which formed the basis for each of these modifications. Um, and uh, based on, on that, I'm, I'm comfortable with proceeding with that. There are 2 things I would like to, um, see if there's any port for, uh, the 1st relates to language access. So, uh, I asked the question and the, the written question submitted in advance about, um, whether the trail, um, you know, has any requirements related to language access, and it sounds like there, there are some accommodations made when requested, but, um, and this is anecdotal, right? So, I'm not sure if this is a widespread problem, but I think it would be helpful also to provide the notice of intent and any materials related to, um, the betrayal, uh, in, at the very least, the languages, um, that, uh, sort of the most commonly spoken languages in, in Mountain View. Um, and maybe maybe it doesn't have to be, you know, a full replication of the document, you know, in Spanish, uh, Chinese and Russian, maybe there's another way of doing this, but, um, I, I have heard enough times that there are some challenges associated with folks who, uh, who don't speak, uh, English, um, and and consequently maybe have a sort of a delayed understanding or delayed access to. some of the benefits here. So, um, I, I don't know, I, I didn't come prepared with language for this, but um, if this is something that could be, um, incorporated into the motion, um, you know, its staff is comfortable with this. I think it would be helpful just to make sure that folks as soon as they receive notice, um, it's, you know, it's, it's provided in the current language. And then the other, um, modification would be, so I, special circumstances, households. I think are pretty well covered at this point. Um, but if you aren't in that category. So let's say you're 60, um, or, you know, you just don't, you don't need any of the parameters. The 3 months um that you get or uh in in the value of a comparable unit, I think, could help pay for, um, you know, security deposits 1st last month, that kind of thing, but um, you're, you're out on your own for, for moving expenses. And so I, I'd like to see if there's, if there would be support for, uh, a modest addition for, for moving expenses, for non-special circumstances households. Um, and I don't, again, I don't really have a figure. I don't know if it's easier just to do a straight, you know, I don't know if it's $250 or $500 or something in that range. Or, um, if we want to make it, um, you know, if, if we'd rather not arbitrarily select a figure, maybe it just have, uh, the developer, um, you know, reimburse any, any cost. And, you know, the, the tenants who's, who's being displaced would, would simply just provide, um, you know, evidence of, of moving expenses. Uh, so, those are the 2 things I'd like to sort of get interested in, but, um, other than that, other than that, I'm, I'm comfortable with the, with staff recommendation.

[02:47:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: customer McAllister?

[02:47:44] Councilmember John McAlister: We have to introduce an ordinance amending article 8 of chapter 36 of the Mountain City code related to relocations assistance, to be read and file only, further reading, read, and set, 2nd reading for June 9, 2020, and to provide language translations. We're needed. And I don't, I don't want to include a, a, uh, put that in the emotion, but I don't want to do one for living expensive. I'd rather see us, do a little study, and see what uh some prices are, and then I think we could bring that back later, but, uh, I'm a little concerned about bringing out an arbitrary number at this point. Uh, but I am willing to review it down the, down the road.

[02:48:36] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you for submission on the floor. Is there a second? Um oh, I see city attorney, would you like to make comments?

[02:48:45] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: No, I just wanted, uh, maybe I should have waited for the 2nd but I just wanted to identify the section for the record, uh, with the language. Uh, the additional language requirement would be 36.3825 A. one, uh, or, uh, yes, A one and I just wanted to get clarity on what additional languages.

[02:49:13] Unknown Speaker: Uh, I would just say as needed.

[02:49:16] Unknown Speaker: Okay, um, and then 5 as needed, so.

[02:49:20] Unknown Speaker: Okay, I think that would be broad enough to, uh, cover everybody.

[02:49:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, that's that's helpful. Okay, thank you. Oh, um, is there a 2nd company?

[02:49:37] Unknown Speaker: I would 2nd and tell me if I'm doing it. I would 2nd and if I could add, if the, uh, uh, if the council number on McAllister would accept, uh, 2 little changes to that. So the 2 changes are, what if we quantify the moving at $300, that seems like fairly modest for moving. And the 2nd one is something that I think is an easy change in kind of an oversight. Um, the way it reads now, I, which I think is probably a mistake. It says that you're eligible for special service circumstances, uh, payout. Um, it's, you have a child that's under 18, which means 17. But, um, but actually, if you're graduating from high school, normally you're 18 and I would, I think that changing it, I would actually change it to 21, but let me just start with the 18. If you're, um, I think this will affect probably very new family, so not really affect the, uh, it's a, a small change. I think it will not really affect, uh, the developers very much, but I think it stays potentially extremely important to a family. I would hate that you would not get the uh extra payment and maybe have to move into a smaller unit. Because you've had a 17 year old, you know, I personally having um teenagers who just graduated from high school. You know, just getting your, that final year done. I think is really important. So, again, I think that's changing it, at least to, uh, under 19 or, or say 18, that little modification would be good. I personally also, um, like I said, just experiencing, uh, high schoolers. Um, I think it would be important, nanny people are now going on to community college, um, and it's a hope to be able to stay at home with your parents, not move into your own unit, if your family is living in a small unit. I would change it to 20 or 21. So, um, I'm hoping that you'll, you'll go for that.

[02:52:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And someone, McAllister.

[02:52:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I thought there was already for a vision left. Okay. Maybe there was an council question, but I thought I'd start something about moving at the 18 or 19.

[02:52:20] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, but, the way, the place that I read that was a letter from Silicon Valley at home and they said, 20 or 21, but, but at least to, yeah, to 18 rather than 17, as it currently, I think, mistakenly.

[02:52:39] Councilmember John McAlister: I can do it in 19. I think that would be... People still fill out in 19, and, you know, arbitrary 300 and maybe too low, maybe too high, so... I'll, uh, see what if anybody else chimes in on that one, but we'll be good at that, uh, for consideration C.

[02:53:00] Wayne Chen: If I could, um, just add, there is a, uh, moving expense schedule that we understand was published by the Caltrans, and oftentimes, that is a schedule that could be more objectively referred to as, um, as a figure for moving expenses, so we could potentially look into that, um, as an option.

[02:53:22] Unknown Speaker: Welcome over here. Would you accept, uh, review? The, the, the, Mr. Chanza said about the living expenses.

[02:53:31] Councilmember John McAlister: I would accept that, yeah.

[02:53:32] Unknown Speaker: Okay, I would accept that too.

[02:53:34] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Um, this is our tea. Um, I think we'd like a clarification of the languages because it appears that as needed would imply um, upon request. But I think the intention is to start out with, um, translating to certain languages, and as needed, it's not specific enough. We could take the 3 I can send the Veneer as mentioned, since they are the most commonly spoken and that would get better directions. But right now, if you're limited to stream versus as needed. Then, you know, when does the affair, you can have some other dialect that someone speaks? We could add upon request, they could do additional, but I think the intent of this change was to have all the languages um be done at the same time, and and not to wait for a request. So, we would need to know what as needed meant, we had to go translate that. Um, we can also add upon request, we can translate to a language that is maybe not commonly spoken, but okay, staff would like, like more clarity on which ones we start out with, uh, when we start with English. That's fine, that's the request.

[02:54:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, and I, I would just want to add to that, I, I, that's what I was getting at earlier, and I think that's the planning director, uh, that, that's a good, good change, while we're on this topic of, of clarity. I just wanted to check with either the planning director or, uh, Mr. Chen about where the other, uh, specific amendments, uh, that council member Hicks brought up to make sure that we refer to them by the specific section in the, in the document.

[02:55:27] Wayne Chen: Yeah, yeah, thank you very much, uh, uh, city attorneys. So a couple of files are certainly uh ordinances won't place. The other option, and that could provide greater flexibility, in case, there are other modifications that may, um, uh, wish to be made by counsel is to put them in the administrative guidelines. So we could put moving expenses with a reference, for example, um, to the counter moving uh, schedule and the guidelines. We could also put some language in the guidelines regarding, essentially, um, I think the intent is a, is the, is the language access plan, uh, provision, and we can, we can specify in their, um, certain sort of baseline languages, but I think customer members is also suggesting that, um, we also take stock of the individual circumstances and see if there are particular needs for particular development and then be responsible to that. So the guidelines could be one way to have the flexibility to make the modifications and update as needed.

[02:56:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Um, uh, and then to sort of respond to that, um, um, that concept. And then as far as the age, uh, the change to the age requirement, uh, would you suggest that also being in the administrative regulations or in the, is there a specific change to the ordinance I'm looking for, and I definitely need to find that.

[02:56:54] Wayne Chen: Yes, I'm, I'm, I also have the trail ordinance up, and I, I probably would just search, and I'm wondering if, Karen, I don't know if you should know it well enough to point us to the direction, that took place an ordinance.

[02:57:07] Karen: Oh, the place in the ordinance is on page 5 and then go back to the section weapons. So it's under definition, 36, 38.15. That's very special circumstances, also, for defines, SO J 3 is a household with one or more minor children under 18 years of age, and I think that's being supposed, although we should get this clarified, is, is it under 19 years of age, or is it 19 or under?

[02:57:45] Councilmember John McAlister: 19 around her. Okay. And I think for clarity sake, that should be an amendment to the ordinance, to the section you just referenced, Karen, and then also the, uh, Section, a reference earlier, 36, 3825, uh, the notice of intent section, that should be also, uh, modified to, uh, Actually, one A there, uh, the language would be no, provide notice of intent, uh, in, uh, languages similar to, uh, provided in, uh, other relocation context, uh, or we can just list the 3 main or, uh, as needed, uh, for a particular household, and then we can still bolster that in the administrative regulations. And then just to be clear about the moving expenses. I, I want to be careful about that that is, um, referred to in the ordinance, that we amended, uh, as needed, uh, tonight.

[02:59:06] Wayne Chen: Well, no, I was going to say that we ex- you know, staff would, you know, review that as a potential guideline. Not that we're not adapting it. We would just review it and then come back and adopt it. If needed.

[02:59:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, okay. And if if the seconder was uh. Okay with that, then we could proceed with this with the 2 revisions that I just read, and uh clarified, we could proceed with that.

[02:59:44] Unknown Speaker: Wouldn't it be similar and less time consuming rather than bring it up as another item to just do it in the way that Mr. Chen suggested, incorporate it now. It sounds like, uh, uh, the way you're suggesting it, just to bring it back to us yet again, and being corporate.

[03:00:06] Councilmember John McAlister: But we don't know what the amount is, and again, I don't, a lot of me bringing some arbitrary number unless we know that it's accepted or it's common. They want to be fair, but if we, you know, if we said something without looking at it, that would not be responsible on my part. uh question. Do we need to bring it back again or can we bring it back as part of the 2nd meeting?

[03:00:33] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Uh, no, we should uh, we should not add that as uh, 2nd reading.

[03:00:37] Unknown Speaker: I, I just, um, I think we should, address it tonight, and I'm looking for the section where we can add an amendment, uh, or, um, a secondary motion to include that in the administrative guidelines. Mr. Chen, do you know uh which section that would be, um, referred to the, the non-special circumstances, um, category that that was referred to?

[03:01:13] Unknown Speaker: The problem is, we don't have amounts tonight, and unless you have that, um, so that's why I don't think we have a decision on this item, so either we, um, pass this, uh, trail with, without living expenses, or those non-special circumstances, or we set an amount, or we direct staff to do the study and bring it back to council. Those are our 3 options, I believe, which.

[03:01:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, thank you for that clarification. I'd agree with that. So I'll go back to counseling member McAllister and ask you, uh, what you would like to do is part of the motion. And I, I, I, I, um, with her hand raised, so when I get to her too.

[03:01:59] Councilmember John McAlister: I would refer living expenses for staff to return to the report. The council number 6 is the 2nd or do you support that?

[03:02:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sorry, I'm having trouble with unmuting. Oh, no, I would rather just uh do an amount tonight, uh, uh, but if it's no one else will support that, then I would go along with aesthetic.

[03:02:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We can go ahead and vote on this and see how it goes. Um, so this will be to direct stuff to do a good study and bring it back to council. I can also never mention it. Thank you for your patience.

[03:02:42] Unknown Speaker: So yeah, my question was, um, do we have any idea and Mr. Kim? Did you say how train or Caltran? Caliban? Catrans, yeah. And I don't know anything about this, so do they specify like by science of household or how far you're moving, like the dollar amount, or how does that work?

[03:03:07] Wayne Chen: So it's an allowance that's used for relocation and it's based on the number of rooms in the household, and I'm looking for it online, but I can't find it. So it varies based on the number of rooms, and it's based on analysis of actual moving costs throughout the state.

[03:03:23] Unknown Speaker: So, um, actually, I'll 2nd the motion, Mr. McAllister, if you, if we just don't cover moving expenses.

[03:03:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, emotion doesn't include it, just to, to have staff come back to review it with force. And that's fine with me.

[03:03:44] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, a second, that motion is, uh, comes from a big boat. So, yes. So then, um, the secondary, the counselor met a check. um, Mr. lastiva, did you have some comments?

[03:03:57] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Sorry, I just wanted to clarify with the city attorney that we are looking at, um, the language provisions could be referred to the language access plan that Wayne is going to talk about in the administrative guidelines. So we say in English and subject to the language access plan required. Um, that way we know exactly what, what languages we have to provide in it.

[03:04:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, that is that's actually better. Yes. I'm fine with that. I just wanted to make us flexible on that, you know.

[03:04:33] Wayne Chen: May I ask a clarifying question for the analysis? Would that be, in addition to the potential relocation costs that may be, um, an SP 330 requirement, uh, which is the 42 month differential. Um, um, so would it be in the trailer? There might be moving expense component. Um, and then we would run the SB 330 filter and, um, have, have the filter, uh, with the moving expenses.

[03:05:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Why don't you bring both? That way you have a comprehensive study for us.

[03:05:11] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, council member Clark.

[03:05:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: Uh, um, a little awkward, but I, I just, um, I would prefer not to have this come back to us, but again, Um, I would prefer to just say like, look, we're giving you a lot of, um, giving you a significant chunk of change that you can do for what it used for whatever purpose, and that includes moving and all these other things, and so to go out and do an analysis and have a separate moving component. I'd rather just increase the trail amount, frankly, and not specify it for moving or whatever. But, um, I'd be fine. I would either pick a number now than included. Or I would just say, you know, moving is part of the expenses that we're already covering by providing you this additional amount. Um, I just, I don't want to go as a staff study this and bring it back. So I would either, I would either just go with the staff recommendation as, as we put it or, um, or I would, um, choose an amount tonight, or you can address it from the administrative guidelines if you want. But I, I just, I don't want to have to go through some other trail meeting. Um, it's, it's really important and we, I haven't worked really hard to get this to it really quickly. I hate to have to go back to another analysis of some other component of the trailer.

[03:06:33] Wayne Chen: Just, um, if I made some some information, I did find what appears to be guidelines of, um, Caltrans, um, cost scheduled. This was from a few years ago. So we can look for the 2020 schedule or 2019 schedule, but just as reference, the, uh, kind of the 2014 schedule and they have 2 provisions. It could be the actual cost for there's a fixed moving schedule that is provided. And for example, uh, one room at the 2014 rate is 450, a dorm style of the 125. Store rooms is 1295 and 7 rooms is 2090. That shows with examples. So it kind of gives you a sense of the schedule that that's used and it's probably been adjusted um per currently. Um, but just to provide that information.

[03:07:23] Councilmember John McAlister: So, modify my own motion. And then if somebody wants to make a 2nd motion afterwards, other state moving expresses off at this moment, and then, uh, that will, uh, you know, somebody wants to make a motion for moving expresses, they could do that afterwards. Uh, so, um, the motion's been amended to take out, leaving expenses, uh, casting a matter check, the 2nd or do you support that?

[03:07:51] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I'm fine with that.

[03:07:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. um go to counselor Ramirez.

[03:07:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, not, not to belabor the point, but uh, so, S, the, the provision, I'm looking at the staff report page for, uh, the SV 330 relocation provisions do include actual and reasonable moving expenses, and I don't know if there's 8 guidance for exactly how that's, that's done, but, um, so in, in some, when, when that's B 330 is figured those, Those moving expenses would be required, and I assume there's some standard that we would have to incorporate for that case. But, um, and it looks like it's not going to be included this time around, but if it does come back in the future updated trail, whether we simply extend whatever definition is used for moving expenses from SB 330 into the trail as well.

[03:08:51] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Uh, uh, this is our key, uh, Chivastava. I would like to respond by saying that our next step on trail would be to look at SB 330 take a look at what one of those um provisions uh council may want to include. Um, that is part of the displacement strategy and when we come back, we can, we can bring that back uh together in one package. Um look at the moving expenses as well.

[03:09:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and uh, just for, for my benefit council member McAllister, so the motion is the staff recommendation, plus the language access plan, plus increase the, the age or, or, I guess, children and families for special circumstances to ni- 19 and under, is that right?

[03:09:36] Councilmember John McAlister: That's correct.

[03:09:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Thanks, singer.

[03:09:42] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you.

[03:09:43] Unknown Speaker: Um, I, I'm kind of glad I waited for all of this to work out just to be able to to share that um, I'll be supporting the, the modified motion, uh, the final, hopefully, modified motion, for my counselor, for McAllister, I'm not a check. Um, you know, I just wanted to take this opportunity to think that, uh, I know that we brought this up during our council goals and I, I was kind of afraid this would happen. We would say, hey, we just wanted to use wider tweaks, and then I would come back and we'd say, oh, and include these. Um, so, so I, I also am grateful for my colleagues for showing the restraint, um, as well, because I think the idea was that, you know, we really wanted to make a couple tweaks. Um, and as I think, um, uh, Clark said, you know, get not to come back. Um, and so I, I'm kind of happy with the place that we've landed and really appreciate um, our take comments that we can, we can look up movie expenses at a later time and we have more information. I think, given our expanded trail, uh, what's going on with SB 330. I think it would also be interesting to see how those work in tandem, and if there are any type of, um, places that are missing once those, those are working kind of in, in conjunction with each other since this legislation, just put into implementation in January, and the world is a very different place now and they live in January, but, and it continues to be. So I think, um, the more time that we allow, um, to kind of see how their, our new revised trail, NSB 330 work in conjunction with one another is kind of the best way to go. All of that to say. Thank you again to staff and I will be supporting the emotion. Thank you.

[03:11:36] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other comments by council members? If not, there's a notion, like, council member Medachek. Um, should we get a low call vote please?

[03:11:52] City Clerk: Council member hit.

[03:11:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes,

[03:11:57] City Clerk: Councilman McAllister. Captain McAllister?

[03:12:05] Unknown Speaker: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[03:12:13] City Clerk: May Abby Coda.

[03:12:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Bye.

[03:12:18] City Clerk: Thank you. Thank you. Motion K 70 with no extensions.

[03:12:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. Thank you, Steph, um, and we will move on, that's item 7 council staff, committee reports. Are there any council members that reports? Yes, council member Ramirez.

[03:12:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I don't have a report, but uh, I, um, spoke with uh, the city manager earlier, uh, that the county board of supervisors, Day, uh, directed, uh, their council to return with uh, an extension to their addiction moratorium. I think subject to, um, some state actions. Um, and uh, what, uh, the city manager and city attorney had suggested is, um, for us to, to provide similar direction. So once the county takes action, that we would come back with a simple extension to our own, um, addiction moratorium, um, and just sort of align with, uh, with the, um, the expiration date that the county's adopting. So I wa- I wanted to see if there was, for um, returning, um, uh, about whatever time appropriate. I'm not exactly sure what the time frame of the county is, but before the end of the month, with just a simple addiction, more extension.

[03:13:39] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, question, so, they didn't actually adopt one today, they directed stuff to come back with. So that would be, possibly next week, next Tuesday, is like 8?

[03:13:52] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, I believe it's the 26th is their, their bring back date.

[03:13:57] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Um. So question I have on this is our last meeting of the month is next Tuesday, so does that have any, I could suggestions or reclinations on how we should post me? If there's interest, I guess.

[03:14:15] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yeah, if there's interest, it would it would probably be suitable. I know that nobody's really thrilled about an additional meeting, but it would probably take the place, uh, take the form of a, a short special meeting, uh, after the 19th may be too soon, so there, there may be, if there's council support, there may be a need for a short special meeting to consider just this ordinance extension.

[03:14:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so, uh, let me get a, let me ask my colleagues, uh, if you can raise your hand if you would support bringing back the, um, extension of the moratorium based on the county's, um, order, um, to be, uh, um, discussed in, uh, loaded on it, a special meeting, um, after Tuesday, May 26th.

[03:15:11] Unknown Speaker: First June, right?

[03:15:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, counseling, we, we adopted the state or the county's moratorium. They're going to be reviewing it. So we, we were asking that, we, our timeline was that we would, after they made their determination, or before their determination. So, um, the, the question was with me, right to come back for a special meeting after the county has, uh, most likely, extended their moratorian, and they're looking at doing that on May 26th, and we don't have a council meeting scheduled, um, until June 9th after next week, the 19th, so, would you be willing to do a special meeting before? or after the 26th.

[03:16:09] Unknown Speaker: But if they don't mean, if they impose a moratorium, then we wouldn't have to leave because we already, there is a moratorium, in fact, correct?

[03:16:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, the only, the difference is that it does, the county more time does not apply to mobile home. Okay, that would be the only real change, I believe. So, um, we, we also have the, the, the noticing differences, but the county doesn't specify, for instance, I think we require that a tenant has to provide notice for their landlord, as their inability to pay rent within 7 days, and then documentation within 14, and the, silent, I think, on those parameters.

[03:16:55] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yeah, that's correct. There are a couple local provisions that I'll call them that cities in the county adopted their own ordinances have city specific. The main one is, of course, the mobile home applicability, but there are, as Council member Ramirez correctly states, other procedural, uh, requirements specific to Mountain View, which, which landlords have been following, and tenets have been following. So, yes, there are some local provisions.

[03:17:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So the question again is, um, whether counsel would be willing to, uh, have a special meeting after Tuesday the 26th to consider an extension of the moratorium based on the counties. If you are, would be willing to, would you please raise your hand? 2, 4, 6, 7, so that's unanimous. Thank you very much. We'll probably pull for a date that works for everyone. Okay, can we do Zoom?

[03:18:01] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes. Expecting movie doing it by Zoom. And also there's just, there's a little more flexibility with special meetings, there's only 24 hours notice, so that, that'll make it a little bit easier.

[03:18:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, thank you. And then, uh, student manager?

[03:18:18] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes. Thank you. I don't know why I'm not able to read my hand. Thank you, mayor. Um, so I did want to clarify that this would be like the emergency medium that, that we called previously in March, um, where it could be as, as the city attorney said within 24 hours, and been looking at the date of May 26 that, that is a Tuesday, and I am imagining that there might be some indication of the shelter and price order being modified around that time period as well. Um, just because that's right before the end of the month. Um, so I did want to just just make note of that, but we only have that uh, 24 hour time period and you can hold the meeting any day of the week, like we did um, on, on that Friday in March. So just FYI about that.

[03:19:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Anything else, council member in here?

[03:19:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: No, that's all, thank you.

[03:19:16] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Uh, Counselor Medichick?

[03:19:21] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I'm sorry, for me, had a meeting with the capital finance committee, which is capital Amanda Clark, Captain of Rivera, and me, um, to discuss the capital budget for next fiscal year. And we are recommending some changes. Thank you.

[03:19:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Counsel them, uh, vice mayor can May.

[03:19:44] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Um, so I just wanted to um, think the city manager for her report, her um, during her COVID update. I know many of us have probably been receiving numerous emails, particularly about face coverings. And so I just wanted to see if colleagues might be interested in, um, passing a resolution, um, uh, regarding face coverings. I know that, um, the Mountain View Police Department will be distributing face mask tomorrow, and they've actually collected through donations, um, 5000 face masks. And among my idea is that it would be more of a, an educational opportunity to let people know about face coverings. I think they're still, even though, the county put forward, what they did. There's still a little bit of infusion, I think, and then you need to wear them and when you don't, um, and so I just wanted to see if others might be interested in something like that.

[03:20:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No, it's very showing hands, uh, interest in a resolution.

[03:20:56] Unknown Speaker: Oh, I, I guess, if I could ask that, what would that mean as opposed to an, an ordinance currently, but, the county's order?

[03:21:06] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: So, I know other communities have looked at ordinances and, you know, really, it's been something they want to be related to enforcement. Um, you know, I'm not looking to add more, um, stuff, uh, time to add it to a new project. I can get some more uh with the resolution, hopefully, um, kind of similar to what we did, um, in other cases, you know, a recognition, um, a, a base coverage rather than something that, um, would be enforced by, uh, by the, they, they, they, and ordinance and be something punitive.

[03:21:49] Unknown Speaker: Oh, I guess I made more clarification, that is just a resolution, and if you're not looking for enforcement, I think that's basically what is the recommendation of strong recommendations from the county, but also the county owners shows if you are a business that wants to open, your employees and customers are now required to. Or face that, so uh, what in addition are you looking for then?

[03:22:21] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: I think it's more of the educational component. If there's no interest, then that's fine. I think we I've received a lot of personal feedback that um. You know, residents would like to see the city do more related to face covering, um, and make it a mandate. I prefer to go to the resolution route to try to promote folks to wear face coverings and an educational opportunity about the benefits of doing so. Um, when I have been out. Uh, people are not wearing them still, um, and though it is highly encouraged. So I think it would be perhaps maybe a symbolic gesture of, you know, but it's something that I was just trying to see if there was interest. So if there was not, then that's fine, but I thought I'd put it forward.

[03:23:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so, um, I'm sorry, could I get a share of hands with um, for those interested?

[03:23:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I have a question about. What's the, you know, where staff is really working on other things right now. What? How much staff time and what are we actually? We're just saying, hey, where at face pass? I'm trying to get more, what's involved and the end result?

[03:23:39] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, yeah. Uh, I said, you want to answer that or staff, uh, city manager?

[03:23:47] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, council member McAllister. I think I can um provide some contacts on this. So, I think the difference between a resolution and an ordinance is, the rev- the resolution, um, obviously you would just reinforce the current county order that's already in place, but also provide information uh, in, in terms of the education, uh, like vice mayor, commit, education to the community that, this is required when you go into business, it is required, if you work in a business, and that, the police department is passing out, these free face masks, and that they have, um, various face masks. that are available to be donated, they have different, um, campaigns going on where they're like tomorrow when they're going to be at shoreline passing out, base masks, so I think it's more so just the education component of it, whereas an ordinance, um, An ordinance certainly would require more staff time, it would require more analysis. It would obviously take, um, of more of an enforcement component, uh, for the police department, and, um, you know, I know that there's a lot of, um, interest in this, but I'm, I'm not really, um, sure that the police department would truly be able to enforce this, and a lot of the people that might be enforced might be more of our homeless or unstable housed residents, um, which is why the police department is handing out base mass, um, to that population to make sure that they, they do have a mask. So, I, I think a resolution, could be an option for council to make sure that, uh, you're just informing the community of what the county order is, and also educating about the benefits of wearing the mask and what our police department is doing to help provide those masks.

[03:25:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I understand that, but what's involved in the personal resolution of just doing all this informational stuff you're talking about.

[03:25:46] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Oh, so I think it would be just drafting the resolution and so I see it being more of a simple, perhaps a 2 page document. Um, something similar, but, um, we've already given a lot of information and updates and it would just be putting that in there the form. So I think it would be a lot simpler to do as opposed to import it certainly.

[03:26:09] Councilmember John McAlister: But once you do your resolution, You're saying we're going to be educating all these people. So what does that mean? You're going to be making flyers, you're going to go to the website, you're going to.

[03:26:16] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Sure, certainly. I think we could do all of those things. We would definitely be able to post it on our social media channels. We would be able to make sure that we are sending emails about it wired. We already have the 100s of wires, um, that we've passed out to the community, um, so I, I think it would just really essentially be, um, a continuation of what we've already been, should the council be interested in that?

[03:26:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, there will be taking that time. It's not a simple resolution, we that's it, and then there's more, more involved with staff time.

[03:26:52] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Well, staff is already passing out players. So this is already something that the police department is doing weekly. And so, and also our multilingual outreach program is also passing out flyers every week on our efforts, um, for our homeless and unstable house, um, our food distribution efforts. So we are producing flyers every week, so I see this being something that, uh, we could incorporate as as part of the flyers. It would just be, um, another informational, um, piece of information we're handing out. Thank you.

[03:27:25] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: I'm just saying measurement car seat. I mean, I think it's just my intent was only to maybe codify and formalize what's already been existing. the police department. Staff are already working on this, and this was just to further highlight the efforts that staff are already doing, not to do any type of an additional workload.

[03:27:46] Unknown Speaker: My question is, um, since you're doing all of that anyway, my question, I'm not sure what the, the need for the resolution is, and I also, um, I guess my, my concern is when we do something like that, it can also be misconstrued the other way, that it, it's been organized, and, you know, we might be getting calls saying we enforce this, and so, I, I guess I, I just question whether it might actually confuse folks more than help clarify.

[03:28:17] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, but let me go ahead and take us. I don't think I can see to show the hands yet. So if you're interested in the resolution, could you please raise your hand? too. Thank you. Oh, I can't for McAllister.

[03:28:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, we had a meeting last week, uh, and it was not a good meeting in the sense that bridership is down, 78%, ETA is losing $180000 a month, and they expect to be in an operating deficit of $34000000 for the year fiscal 2020, but that doesn't stop them from doing a, uh, Notice of necessity to buy property for Eastridge light rail without having a dollar amount. So that was one interesting thing that they're moving forward with. And another deal that we voted on was to uh, put express lanes on the southern part of best, uh, state route 85 south of 87. Um, I voted no on it because 237 had a report on the express lanes, that are 3 lanes, and what it did. Yes, if you were in the express lane and you paid money, you moved along, but it took the 2 general purpose lanes, it sold down by about 10 minutes. So, um, they are working on an estate route 85 study, but express lanes, when you're only at 3 lanes across, is uh, contracting things too much, so, that is what I did, and that's what's happening at BK. Thank you.

[03:30:10] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other, uh, counselors, support? Um, I have a couple, uh, actually, counseling another, um, and I participated on a phone call last Friday with the, uh, strong, um, organizer, one of them, Jennifer Loving, from destination, home, um, and you probably noticed, but you didn't mention it, but they raised another round of spending. It's about $140000 dollars. Um, they're about to finish closing out the 1st round out of $110000 that went to about 4500 applicants. Um, if we did find out that, um, about 140 folks from Mountain View did get some assistance from the 1st round, uh, 2nd round, we're focusing on individuals who do not qualify for other assistance like the stimulus package assistance from the federal government. Um, and so they, they're asking for, um, assistance in reaching out to, um, those populations, um, I sent the information of which you are multilingual outreach, uh, pain, and they've actually already, um, distributed the information to a lot of the grassroots organizations, um, but, um, I'm ha- happy to email that to all of you as well, if you can get the word out, that would be great. And this funding actually is not just for rental assistance as my understanding, it could pay for other expenses. So, um, uh, that so please get the word out and then, um, we I participated in the mayor's call with, um, county superguides for Spindy Chavez, um, about testing, um, tracing as, as the city manager, um, um, reported out, um, oh, and, I guess the, we explained that, that they, are reaching capacity to do the goal of 4000 tests a day, um, that they're not, are not getting the election, the specimens. Um, part of that is that, um, has a lot of appointments that, and people don't go to get to the appointments. Um, so, we were talking, we talked about, um, now we're going to be meeting weekly, but just, talking about communications and getting the information out, and get, reinforcing, emphasizing the importance of, if you have an appointment, make sure you go there. Um, we also are still exploring that possibility with test site in North County, um, perhaps, it's very much different way centric right now, where the test flights are, so maybe if we get, we set it out, or people will make their appointments, so, um, those like conversations we're having, but, um, learning weekly, which has been really helpful. So, um, counseling and healthy. did have something else? You think I left? No, okay. No. All right. Anyone else? Is there anything else? Um, if not, it's very close session report, Jenny.

[03:33:19] Jenny: No quote session reports tonight.

[03:33:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you very much, so then we stand adjourned at 858 PM and the next city council meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 19th, 2020 at 640 PM. Thank you very much everyone. Have a great evening and please stay safe and healthy. Take care.

• ← Previous
• Next →