October 27, 2020 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] (archive recording) Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Is that an employee, employees, interim city clerk and city clerk? Is there any public comment for this item? And should I read the, um, the notes? Okay. So it was noted on the meeting agenda? Members of the public may provide oral public comments by signing up at mountain view.gov slash cc underscore speakers or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 952-4023-3281. Any emails received by 4 p.m. today we're forwarded to the city council. Emails received after 4 PM will not be read during the meeting, but will be entered into the record for the meeting. With any member of the public on the line, like to provide comment on the closed session item, if you are in the attendee box, I see a couple. Please raise your blue hand, and if you're on the phone, press star 9. Um, let's see here. I don't see hands up. So, and I don't think we have anyone on the phone, so we will close the public comment, uh, for the closed session, and we will now go into closed session in our other Zoom phone line or Zoom line. So I will see all of you in a few minutes. Thank you.

[00:02:12] (archive recording) Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: 920 dated March 17th, 2020. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no fiscal meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at view.legister.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 the item by signing up at Mountain View.gov slash CC underscore speakers or by phone by dialing 669-9128 and entering Wominar ID 952-4023-3281. Any emails received by 4 p.m. today reported to the city council. Email is received after 4 PM will not be read during the meeting that will be entered into the record for the meeting. And I'd like to ask the city clerk now to do the roll call. Thank you.

[00:03:09] (archive recording) City Clerk: Council member Clark.

[00:03:11] (archive recording) Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[00:03:12] (archive recording) City Clerk: Council member, Hicks.

[00:03:13] (archive recording) Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:03:14] (archive recording) City Clerk: Council member, Matichech.

[00:03:15] (archive recording) Councilmember Lisa Matichak: There.

[00:03:16] (archive recording) City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[00:03:18] (archive recording) Councilmember John McAlister: Here,

[00:03:19] (archive recording) City Clerk: council member Ramirez.

[00:03:21] (archive recording) Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:03:22] (archive recording) City Clerk: Ice Mayor Kameh. May I be Koga?

[00:03:26] (archive recording) Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Here. Thank you. We are all present. We will go on to item three, our study session, 3.one on the Parkland dedication ordinance update, and we have a staff presentation by our senior management analyst, Brady Rubush. Is that right? Hopefully. Yay. All right. Thanks. Welcome, Brady. and I know we have John Marshard as well, right? Community services director. Thank you, welcome.

[01:07:18] Senior Management Analyst Brady Rubush: Good evening, thank you, mayor. No, you nailed the name. So all good. Good evening, city council. Tonight, I will be presenting on the Parkland Dedication Ordinance update. This has been a big team effort. You can ask the PRC when I present to them. I usually start with what I call my thank you tour to all the staff that have helped us get this to where we're at right now. Um, so tonight we actually have, um, John Marchant, uh, the community service director with us, RT Shravastova, the assistant city manager and community development director, Angela LaMonica, the real property program administrator, and Lindsay Hagan, the deputy zoning administrator, all here to help us. We also have Diana Fazelli from the city attorney's office, who has been in the trenches with us, making sure we're abiding by the Quimby Act. And then a special thanks to Renee Gunn and Don Cameron from Public Works. We've also been looking over our shoulder and making sure that everything looks according to what public works needs for this update. So with that tour and a big thank you to our awesome team. I'm going to dive right in. Okay. And can everybody see it? Am I good? All right. So, just over a year ago, uh, staff brought the 1st review of the Parkland dedication ordinance to city council for a study session. Uh, a review of the ordinance was added to the uh, council goals work plan as an item. Um, there were, uh, there was a study of the North Bay Shore precise plan and uh, residential development feasibility that called out Parkland and Luffy's as a uh, uh, major financial obligation and difficult for financial feasibility. There was also the North Bayshore development on pair Avenue that created the 1st Popa approval for the city. And through that, I think it raised a lot of questions about kind of the direction of the parkland dedication ordinance and where we'd like to go with Popa open spaces. And so, in October 2019, we brought the ordinance before you. And at that time, we received direction to pursue a 2 phase approach to updating the ordinance. Phase one is what we'll be going over tonight and what we're trying to achieve in the current council goal cycle. Phase 2 is items that we intend to look at after the 2020 census comes through and more in conjunction with our parks and open space plan update. The idea being that we'll have better statistics, better numbers, and we can really dive into the, um, the update. The land requirement is 3 acres per 1000 residents. The park types, size, and service area, as a table in chapter 41 that dictates a wet size park, serves what radius around it, and then the density formula is, uh, I'll dive into in a bit, but that's kind of the meat and potatoes that helps us determine our uh, parkland requirement and the in Luffy, um, for each new residential development. So the objectives for tonight. As I stated in phase one, we're looking at calculation certainty and looking at open space credits. really around the, uh, in addition to the calculation certainty, we really felt that there was a need in the open space credits to provide greater certainty. So we hope that the updates that we present provide greater certainty in requirement and in process both for the developers and for staff. Um, We wanted to expand the opportunities for public open space citywide through this. We also wanted to look at city costs and potentially reducing those. Um, kind of the the big buckets in terms of city costs in Park and Luffy's is really land acquisition, design and construction, and then, um, the operations and maintenance, which is general fund or shoreline fund, not Park and Luffy's, uh, for parks. So those were kind of the major city costs we were looking at as we went through this update. And then we wanted to also bring into the considerations, the residential residential development feasibility. And what was brought up in that North Bay Shore precise plan study and also what was raised as part of the R3 zoning update that you received a few weeks ago. And so, um, these are kind of the objectives that we were hoping to address through our updates and that we hope to review with you tonight. So as a quick refresher, um, this is the calculation for the Parkland in Luffy. So, uh, A is the uh, required acreage per density, so that goes to that density formula item that we're going to update in phase two. B is the number of proposed units. So technically that is the net new market rate units, which I can dive into later. Um, and then C is the fair market value per acre of land. And this is really the one that we're hoping to provide some more certainty and clarity on both for staff and for developers. Um, I wanted to note that the reason uh, there's a lot of, um, uncertainty, if you would, around this one is that unlike our other fees, this one's tied to the land value, which can fluctuate a lot more than other uh, fees that are tied to, um, CPI and to, um, other specific mechanisms. And the reason for that is because under council policy K15, our primary, uh, our priority, number one priority for use of the fees is on land acquisition, 1st within the uh, parks and open space area of the development, then within one mile of the development and then citywide. And so that's why it's tied to land value and treat it a little bit differently than our other fees. It has to do with our priority one for using it. So, to help set the land value and provide fee certainty, there were 3 considerations. Um, in terms of setting the land value, this was the frequency in the timing, um, staff is proposing to do an annual appraisal by a 3rd party, uh, that will set a range of values per density category listed in chapter 41. We would tie this process to the city budget process so that it would be adopted with the master fee schedule and the adopted city budget. And essentially, the land values would be set from July one to June 30th. We are proposing a range of values per density category in order to address our 2nd consideration, which is the geographic location. By providing a range of values, it allows our real property program administrator, Angelo Monaco, who's with us tonight, to set the land values, using the appraisal range, but then also taking into consideration, the location, the density, and really any unique situation that may arise with the land. Um, and then lastly, and probably the part that I think our development community uh, is most excited about for this particular slide is the document requirements. Um, so we are proposing to, uh, provide in the uh, 1st 30 day response to an application, what the land value would be, um, what the Parkland dedication requirement would be based off of the application and the density provided. And then the fee that would be calculated from that. We're also proposing to start including the actual numbers and the conditions of approval. Currently, the conditions of approval talks about the parkland requirement, but it doesn't provide the exact number for each development. So we would just explicitly state what the Parkland requirement, land value, and or in Luffy would be for developments, thereby locking it in and tie it into our permit process. So that leads us to the 1st question that was in the council report, which is does the council support staff's recommendation for conducting an annual appraisal and adopting fixed land value ranges effective on July one in conjunction with our budget process. And I'll come back to the council questions at the end, but I'm just following the report. Um, so the next part that we're gonna talk about is uh, the open space uh, credits. Um, Currently, we have 4 uh, Parkland credits uh, in the ordinance. Two open space, one historic resource and one tied to affordable housing. Staff is not proposing any changes to the historic resource or affordable housing ones. We're just really focusing on the open space credits. We currently have 2 open space credits, the private open space, and then the North Bay Shore publicly accessible private open space credit, which is Popa, which will be referencing later. And what we're proposing is to, um, have a citywide Popa open space credit and then are asking for direction on the private open space credit going forward. So what is a Popo open space? Um, so, uh, Popa Open Space would basically be space that is above and beyond what a, uh, what open space requirements are already required for a development, and therefore should be looked at more like a dedicated park that the city doesn't own. And I'll be happy to clarify terminology throughout the presentation and questions. But basically the land remains privately owned by the developer, but there's a public access easement put over it. So that the public have access to it. The going back to those city costs, the advantages to this is that the city doesn't have to pay for the acquisition costs. The city doesn't pay for the design and construction costs. The developer would. And then the operation and maintenance costs would be on the developer as well, and staff is proposing for Pope Open Spaces to be in perpetuity. The other advantage to this, and this will come up when we talk about the private open space, is that this open space does count towards the city's parkland goal of 3 acres per 1000 residents. So what staff is proposing is to have a minimum size of 0.4 acres or the minimum that's in the precise plan, um, and it must be a contiguous 0.4 acres. Currently, both open space credits in the ordinance have a one acre minimum size requirement, and that is the biggest barrier to achieving that requirement and to really having developers pay for the design construction and ongoing maintenance of our open spaces. And so because of that, staff, uh, we're looking uh, to lower the threshold to 0.4. I will say that the PRC is recommending a 0.5 acres. They felt that 0.4 was the minimum. The city was willing to go and wanted to get to something slightly bigger and more significant for more what the city wanted, not what they were willing to go to. Um, Then for maximum credit. So for 0.4 to one acre, staff is proposing up to 75% the value of the land. Um, and then for greater than one acre, this would actually fall under alternate proposal and be up to 100% the value of the land. Really tonight, the minimum size and the maximum credit are the 2 pieces that we are really asking council to look at and provide feedback on. Um, the other items in here we feel our, our, address our, um, the other concerns we have for achieving more open space and having quality open space. So the applicability of this one would be citywide and does not count towards zoning requirements, so it has to be above and beyond the other, the normal open space being required, and then citywide as compared to the North Bay Shore precise plan credit, which is the only Pope of credit we have that is only available in the North Bay Shore precise plan. The other details are what staff believe will help provide a public park like space by having a prominent location, highly visible, minimum 100 foot dimensions. Um, The require signage, hours, accessibility restrooms, and hydration stations. There was a number of questions we received throughout the process of what we mean when we say that it would have to follow public park like requirements and standards. So these are just examples of what we're looking at in terms of what we would require. Um, and then it would have to be publicly accessible and maintain in perpetuity. And the approval body for it would be city council. It would be reviewed by public works, community services and community development as necessary. But the ultimate approval authority would be city. council. On top of the open space, we also are recommending an updated list of elements. The current elements in the ordinance really don't have any requirements around them. And so what staff is proposing is a list of elements with minimum service levels. We didn't want to go the route of minimum size because we felt that that could result in cookie cutter spaces or it could result in certain elements just being much more desirable because they're smaller and getting a lot of pushbacks. So we wanted to provide some flexibility and creativity for developers in their designs. Um, the classic example that we, that keeps coming up is actually the picnic area. And, um, how would you sit 15 people and you can sit them through 8 tables of 8, 2 person tables in a long strip, or you can sit them at 28 person tables in a big square, but it just provides a little bit more flexibility in terms of how a space can be designed. and incorporate other elements as well. So this differs from the approach of the current ordinance, which actually has a minimum element requirement. And again, staff are not recommending a minimum element requirement. We're recommending that 100% of the space be filled with elements, but you have flexibility as long as these minimum service levels are kept for the different elements. We did want to call attention to 2 specific elements. The maintain natural habitat space. This was previously the uh, landscape park-like quiet area space. And uh, PRC and uh, some feedback from the public, we heard that that space, that that element was not very well defined and uh, there was concerns that would kind of fall into empty dead space in one of these uh, Popo open spaces. And so staff took that feedback, actually maintained natural habitat space was one of the recommendations we had received. and was asked to put canopy coverage goals around it, seating around it, and more like educational signage. And so that's really what staff has proposed here. And so we just wanted to call that out because it's a little different from the current list of elements. And then the other one is Park Trail. Um, this one staff uh, has gone back and forth a lot on how to effectively uh, bring in a park trail element. And in its consideration. We were trying to think, how could we put up parameters? Oh, we were thinking, how can we put up parameters that, um, would provide a trail space or a trail that we would want, that we would typically spend our parkland, uh, fees on once the city had them. And so we put in these parameters about what they need to connect to, uh, the class they need to be, the size that they would end up being, and, um, really feel that what we're proposing here is going to provide us good part. It's good park trails. It's also important to note that the minimum requirement is 0.4 acres. So a pathway to the open space would not classify as a trail. It would really have to follow these connections. And so we didn't expect, we wouldn't expect to get just a pathway as the proposal. It would really have to be a pathway on top of the open space. And we wouldn't expect to just get, like I said, a one pathway as the entire Popa proposal. It could happen, but we don't anticipate it just in practice. So staff is also proposing an alternate element in alternate proposal section. Um, well, as staff went through this process and really looked at the ordinance, Uh, we felt it was important to not spend too much time crafting the ordinance and addressing issues that might be one-offs or unique or wouldn't be um, incorporated as frequently as we would hope to see. And so the alternate element would be limited to, um, one per open space credit, and it allows a developer flexibility to be able to provide something unique and something different, but is comparable and functionality and utility to one of the elements on the list. This also allows the opportunity for future, and if new park elements come out. There's some new crazy senior exercise equipment that we really to get in the park, but it doesn't quite fall into any of our other elements. This allows us to be able to include it without having to worry about updating the whole ordinance just to be able to get that element. The alternate proposal, um, is another situation where uh, staff didn't want to, uh, start crafting the ordinance for these very large, uh, unique opportunities for open space. Um, We felt that anything greater than an acre, we don't typically see right now, and we wouldn't anticipate to see much more of it, um, there is, will be opportunities in the North Bay Shore area and the East Wisman area potentially for some of these larger residential developments to provide larger open spaces. But again, for the number of credit applications we would receive from each of those areas, we really didn't want to craft the whole ordinance around that. So this alternate proposal section allows these larger spaces with a lot more flexibility to propose something unique and creative. It also doesn't box the city in in terms of what we can ask for because we don't have to make it fit this ordinance either and can provide more creativity and kind of get more what the city wants out of it. Um, the big thing with this is that staff is, uh, recommending that, um, these spaces could qualify for an additional 25% credit on the land value, which means that, uh, uh, PopA open space over an acre in size would be eligible for up to 100% the value of the land. And so I wanted to be clear about that as it comes up in our council question later. Um, this is a new piece uh, to the ordinance that staff feels very strongly about and received a lot of feedback from the PRC in public on. Right now, the ordinance doesn't have application requirements, and by building in application requirements, staff feels that, um, one, it provides greater uh, certainty to the developer and to staff and a council when you have to ultimately approve it about what's being provided. Um, and it also, uh, there was a lot of concerns by the PRC about these spaces going through a different public input process than our uh, current public park design input process. And so the hope was, is that this really, one provides an analysis for that public input process. And then 2 calls attention to the open space as it goes through the public imple process so it doesn't get lost in the overall development review. So a written description, a dimension site plan, and then these 2 analyses, one of the elements at the 5 closest parks, or Popa open spaces within one mile, and then an analysis of demographics, including the demographics of the proposed project. We hope that what this will achieve is that it'll achieve an analysis of the area. Make sure that we don't get too many of the same element in one area, um, but also allow for council when it ultimately gets you and staff as they're reviewing to really make sure that, uh, the city gets what we want for that community. So if the area and the proposed project are look like it's all 3 bedroom, 4 bedroom units, and they're going to have a ton of children as part of it, then maybe we want to have a 5th playground and taught lot. But subsequently, if the area is very high in seniors, maybe we don't want to go with the playground, a tall lot, and the city could ask for a different element to be provided. And so we really feel that this would provide that opportunity and the backup support for us to make an informed decision as a city. So with that said, um, this is the 2nd council question in the report. It's broken up into 2 slides because there are a lot of parts to it. Um, so does council support a Popa open space credit that is available citywide with a minimum size of 0.4 contiguous acres, staff recommendation, or 0.5 contiguous acre, PRC's recommendation. Um, the revised element, replace the landscape, parklike, quiet area element, with maintained natural habitat area elements, or feedback on any other elements. And then the credit percentage. Um, staff is proposing a tiered option of up to 75%, the value of the land for PopA spaces, PopA open spaces that are one acre or less in size, um, and up to 100% an additional 25% credit of the value of the land for alternative proposal PopA open spaces. Um, PRC recommended a 75% flat credit for all Popo open spaces irrespective of their size or if they fall under this alternate proposal. And so that's why we have this alternate in here, that was PRC's recommendation. And hustling along. The last big piece is the private open space credit. Um, so the reason that staff have the report and presentation and item divvied up this way is that we felt that the Popa Open Space credit really checked a lot of boxes for a lot of the different stakeholders. Both the city, staff, developers. And with the private open space, um, staff went back and forth on all the different values and who it benefits and how much benefit the city has. And so we really wanted to come to counseling and get greater direction on it. Um, so, our Parkland dedication ordinance follows the Quimby Act, which is our state legislation, which the goal of it is to offset new demand from residents of new developments on existing open space. So if you remember back to when I 1st started rambling about the calculation requirement, that variable B is the net new market rate units. So that is the new residence coming in from a new development, and then what is their impact on our existing parks? And so staff believe that some sort of private open space could offset the impact on existing parks. So we wanted to include a credit for consideration. In addition, we wanted to be clear that the quality of the private open space. We would expect to be of a high quality if it follows the same parameters as set forth by the Popa. Um, it would have to go above and beyond the zoning standards, um, which we believe means that it would potentially offset the impact on existing parks in the surrounding area because residents would be using this park like space. And then it also enhances the quality of life just in the area by offsetting that impact. Um, we also wanted to be clear that only the elements listed in the credit section would count toward the credit, so it would still have to follow that Popo model that we've that we're proposing. Um, it would have the opportunity for an alternative element should something unique arise, but, um, really, uh, by following the Popa model, we expect it to be quality open space. So with that said, here's the table that's in your report that compares the 3 options. Um, The PRC did recommend option one. They felt that the Popa credit was the way that the city should go and was of the most benefit to the city. If the barrier was 0.4 acres or 0.5 acres was lowered, that publicly accessible was a fair trade-off. So that's all of the non-applicables and 0% in that column. Um, option 2 uh, basically keeps the same acreage requirement, the one contiguous acre that's currently in the ordinance, um, but lowers the credit from 50 to 25%. Um, again, we haven't, we've not received many applications for this credit, so we wouldn't expect to receive a whole lot more if we kept it this way, but it does sort of provide an option for these larger, unique situations where we might get, um, a larger private open space. Um, and then the, uh, and then I wanted to call out an option too. Uh, there was a little typo in the report, which I apologize for, um, under the alternate proposal available. It did say that you could get up to 25% additional credit for under the alternate proposal, but under option 2 that wouldn't be happening because it would already be one acre greater. So it would already be achieving the size that would give it the option. So I wanted to call that out. Um, and then option 3 is to align the open space with the PopA credit in terms of the minimum size requirement, but still having that lower max credit of 25%. Um, and this goes again with the belief that, um, the open space that would be provided under the parameters set up by the Popa proposal would still provide quality open space and that would still take away the offset or take away the impacts um, on existing parks by new residents. Um, the other way to think about this, and Archie is a lot more uh, eloquent at describing this than I am, but it was really to kind of look at our open space and creative ways to get open space as a spectrum, where we have our dedicated public parks, um, as kind of the the number one highest priority, 100% credit. Then you have POPA publicly accessible at 75%, private open space, at 25%, but still allowing us another option for achieving open space, and then obviously get Indian Luffy. As has been said before, and if other reviews, you know, it is difficult to assemble land and to acquire open space in the city of Mountain View. And so we are seeing the majority of our open space coming from these dedicated land that is associated with residential developments. And so this would just potentially be another way to get more open space along that spectrum, but add a lower credit. And so with that, council question three, does council prefer option one, option 2 or option 3 for the private open space credit? And I will say that, um, we are not, If counsel would like to modify any of the pieces of any one option. Staff is open to that. We are not locked in, that you have to choose all of option 3 together. That question has come up, and so I just wanted to address that. And for uh, the sake of everyone getting a break from hearing me, that is the end and uh, any questions.

[01:32:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Brady, um, since this is a study session, we're gonna go to public comment 1st and then we'll bring it back to council for questions and deliberation. So thank you. So, um, if there's any member of the public wishing to speak on this item and you're in the 10 day box, please raise your blue hands, and if you're on the phone, please press star 9, I see 3, yes, any others? Let's go, um, well, let's, uh, let's go with 3 minutes then, and we'll start with Albert James. Please, unmute yourself then, welcome. The timer should be there, there it is.

[01:33:37] Albert James: Thank you. I'll have my own timer because I'm showing a few slides as usual.

[01:33:44] Unknown Speaker: I might be able to do both for you too. Okay. 12nd here. I'll pull up yours slides just one moment. Actually, I think I will want you to use your own timer, so...

[01:34:02] Albert James: Okay, I can start starting it. I'll wait till I slide. I can start without the slides. Um, yeah. Good evening, council members, Mayor Jave Koga. Um, I'm really happy to see this come forward because uh, what happened last year when you approved 777. Yeah, X likeways. West Middlefield. Um, you gave a $6000000 credit for Fort Bay for this chunk of land, which I think hardly qualifies as anything resembling a real park. And that's because, you know, there were no minimum dimension requirements, and they even got credit for this private open space, which included a swimming pool, you know, which the public is never going to be able to use, and accessibility to this place is poor to begin with. And so I doubt any of the public is ever going to use this as a real park. Next flight, please. So I really like the, you know, staff's work and kind of nailing down one of the minimum requirements of things. And I, but I still think some of the elements do need a minimum dimension that don't have my playgrounds, picnic areas, exercise areas, and then maintain natural habitat space because, you know, maybe 60 feet is way too big for some of these, but I think if you don't do that, the developer can just go ahead and put a little, you know, 10 by 10 piece of land with a picnic tape, or 10 by 20, say, with 2 picnic tables on it, and try to get credit for that. And, you know, my experiences, they're going to try to get every amount, every dollar they can because that's what they should do. They're trying to make as much money as they can from this. So I really or since this is a study session, I would really urge you to have staff go back and maybe have the PRC recommend some minimum dimensions for some of these areas. Next slide, please. Um, in terms of, yeah, the whole idea. I mean, I think we have to go back and remember, we're trying to get more park space for the general area. And that's why I'm really for option one in terms of the private open space. I really don't think you want developers to section off places within their complex and have it only for their tenants because that sort of encourages a, you know, a gated community environment where those people don't have to go out and interact with the rest of the neighborhood. Um, and just show you what the current situation is in my neighborhood. It's the steering plant area. Uh, currently at that last open space study in 2010, you can see we had an open space deficit, uh, shown by the red area. And most of the open space is actually schools. It's not even really a park. So we were just talking about open fields. And because the approval of projects last year, including 777 and 1001 North Shoreline, I predict that in 2025, the deficit, when those projects are completed, deficit will look like this. It's even worse. So you really, we would have to add almost double, you know, with the current open spaces. So I really don't want the developers to get credit for those private spaces that the public can't use and we really need more money for public park land. Thank you very much.

[01:37:11] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to Dennis Martin. Please un meet yourself.

[01:37:18] Dennis Martin: Good evening, mayor and counselor, Dennis Martin, speaking on behalf of BIA Bay Area. And um, I wanted to, uh, uh, direct your attention, uh, recognize uh, the letter we've submitted uh, regarding this issue. Um, in general, um, uh, we're supportive in the direction that that the city seems to be going here by providing more options for developers to satisfy, uh, private, uh, uh, open space and park uh, requirements. Um, but, uh, uh, we do have some recommendations. One of those would be that, um, you should keep the private open space credit, um, to allow developers to provide that kind of amenity to their, um, to their tenants. Um, and um, still take the burden off of local parkland. Uh, in addition, um, we're in support of the uh, POPA. But let's be clear, the city is getting um, Parkland here, uh, without having to maintain it, own it, build it, or accept the liability for it. And so there should be more weight given to that type of facility. They're quite a great amenity to the community. And there can be a great amenity to the development itself. Um, and so, um, to encourage them, um, you should up the percentage of uh, credit that's given to uh, these um, types of facilities, uh, increase the, uh, should, I say, lower the threshold by providing another level at about a 3rd of an acre. And then from a half an acre, and then from an acre. And stairs step up to about 150% of land value rather than just 125%. Provide, uh, go out there, provide a little more incentive, and I think you might be able to find uh, some takers on that. Let's be clear. The city doesn't have a lot of land to satisfy, uh, their part goals. And so, uh, it does take a partnership with the private development community, uh, the schools, um, and, uh, and other entities where possible to, uh, to provide the recreational amenities, uh, that make up a great community. So, We're hoping you provide more flexibility through this, but we are glad to see more certainty as well. Because of the appraisal. And please take a moment, if you will, to look over those appraisal instructions. Um, we are encouraging that the city expand onto all land use types, um, expand geographic region where needed, uh, so that you get a greater array of comps. Adjust for considerations like location and size of the plot, and then apply weighted average to the property types that are in the mix of comps that are being evaluated for the appraisal. So thank you very much for your time and we'll talk to you soon when you bring this back. Thank you.

[01:40:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, pinging Lee, please unmute yourself.

[01:40:33] Ping Lee: No. Hi there. Hi. Okay, I really also appreciate our jeans on comment on the minimum sizer comments. I think that was very good. So 1st off, uh, thank you to Parks and Recreation Commission and city staff and city council for working on this project. So another resident married JTO and I earlier sent a letter to counsel, in which we strongly agree in encouraging ways to be more flexible and creative for open space in that view. And my particular hope is that we can also find opportunity to provide the community with equitable green spaces and connectivity. So an upgrade, uh, and updating the parkland dedication ordinance, I would like to see more emphasis in considering green design that supports environmental sustainability and our urban forest. This may be having a minimum level of canopy coverage, and integrating made of landscape plants, and the use of natural sustainable materials. And I would like to echo the importance of ensuring that appropriately accessible open spaces are obviously welcoming to the community. And if possible, inviting to all abilities and outdoor activities, serving more than just organized sports and playgrounds. I particularly appreciate the service objectives and open space credit elements of the park trail and maintain natural habitat space. So I'm wondering to promote inconnectedness and natural habitats, would it be possible to further encourage and incentivize these elements? I think a diversity of climate resilient, native trees and plants that help with less cookie cutter open spaces contribute to neighborhood character and encourage active living. Secondly, would it be possible to explore an urban designer resource for developers to consult or utilize? I think, um, we're seeing that the community is highly interested in more quality, open green space, amount of view. And we can see it with a recent concerns about school fencing. So I know in the near future, the council will be reviewing the next phase of the Parkland ordinance, as well as the R3 zoning requirements, comprehensive multimolar plan, for an open space plan, community master plan, and a pedestrian master plan. Um, I think with each of these, it presents an opportunity to incorporate tree canopy, natural elements, and create a network of green connectivity through our city. So overall, I think it would just be wonderful if all of our residents could enjoy the benefit of green space just by stepping outside their front door. All right. So thank you so much for your time.

[01:42:57] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in the 10 bucks? Uh, yes, Alex Brown. Go ahead and unmute yourself.

[01:43:06] Alex Brown: Yeah, I just wanted to agree with the last speaker, okay? Yeah. I also want a large connected network of green space. I think nature should be the rule, not the exception. Thank you.

[01:43:17] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Anyone else wishing to speak? Anyone on the phone? If not, I will close public comment and bring it back to council for any questions and deliberation. Um, Yes, council member McAllister.

[01:43:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, um, on the green speed, the canopy. You're saying you're going to try to get a campaign in 5 years, but when we have residential developments, they'll show us a, you know, 20, 20 years out that we're getting to a 25% canopy. So, How do you expect to get something within 5 years?

[01:43:57] Unknown Speaker: So I think the idea behind that element and that five-year goal was more for preservation than new planting, and I think it was leaving this opportunity for tree groves that are already there that may just be able to be expanded a little bit or something like that, to be perfectly honest. We put together this element in the last 2 weeks, 3 weeks since the PRC meeting. And so it probably should be vetted a little bit more by our forestry manager and kind of what we're looking for in terms of goals, um, and what is really feasible. But, um, I think the reason for the 5 years and the 90 to 100% canopy was much more, uh, to try to encourage preservation of tree groves that are already there that are already robust rather than, uh, encouraging planting and go, you know, tearing one down to put it somewhere else. And so I think that was where we were coming from a sort of the aggressive timeline on that one.

[01:44:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Also, um, on prior developments that are on El Camino, we've been requiring that there would be a pathway between the property between Latham and El Camino. That's open to the public to try to allow crossing through that. How would you, those were required. Under your new proposal, how would that be viewed?

[01:45:20] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay: Hi, so this is Lindsay, the deputy zoning administrator with the planning division. Um, it's a great question. I think the way we're approaching this, um, these, this ordinance update is really that, If we have an existing precise plan that already identifies, uh, connectivity, you know, such like the one you're speaking of, um, through private property, then that is still a requirement of the project, we would still say that that is, uh, the development would need to address that as it moves forward. Um, in terms of this uh, credit. It's really this trail. Um, It's really about looking at citywide. Not all areas of our city are covered by a precise plan where we've had the opportunity to look, um, at, you know, developing networks through private property. So this is kind of a way to introduce, uh, or incentivize those connections, utilizing some of our existing plans, which is why that trail element references public facilities, um, major public, uh, roadways as well as our existing bike and pedestrian master plans, which, um, really only cover the public right away. And so this trail network would be, how can private properties add to that network, creating a denser network throughout the city. So, um, in those cases, we would look at whether it was a precise plan requirement that it wouldn't qualify for this credit. It'd have to be uh, somewhere that was identified elsewhere.

[01:46:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Anyone else with questions? Yes, council member Hicks.

[01:46:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I have a couple of small detailed questions. One is one of the developers asked whether we could allow private infrastructure beneath the POPA space. Um, So, uh, so I'm wondering what would be the strengths and weaknesses of doing that. I imagine that the strength would be that it would allow, it would allow more possible space if there were an underground parking garage or foundation or something on top of that could be a park. The minus might be that maybe certain trees wouldn't grow well. But I'm not an expert on in any way on landscaping. So I'd like to know the strengths and weaknesses before I would decide on that, that particular item. And then I have an additional question after you answer that.

[01:47:49] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay: Sure. So, um, yeah, as you point it out with the Popa, um, open spaces, it would still be privately owned land. So it does allow the developer to consider building infrastructure under that land. Um, like the parking structure or utility lines, which helps, um, kind of in the efficiency of the design and construction of those projects, being able to utilize that space underneath. Um, and, In terms of, uh, maybe some of the things to consider in that in those situations is, as we're pointing out, is we would have to look at, um, kind of the ability to plant above it, um, if there was an underground parking garage, for example. However, we have plenty of examples in the city where we have had, um, preserved trees. Um, with parking structures below them. Um, and then the other thing is really just that, uh, I think, at some point, uh, somebody did raise this concern as well is, is, if they needed to repair the utility line, um, they would have to access, uh, the, the property and, and the concern being, how would the, uh, community know that that was happening? And, Just to be clear, if they were wanting to kind of modify any of that infrastructure underneath, they would still have to come to the city for permitting, and so we would require, you know, proper, um, notification and closure. in those cases.

[01:49:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you.

[01:49:16] Unknown Speaker: I can piggyback on that. In terms of the park design, that's part of the reason why we built in the analysis of elements and of the kind of the demographics. Obviously, certain elements are going to work better on top of a parking garage, a game core, potentially, um, if we could get a large turf field for, uh, as an example for youth sports. That would be something that we would be looking at. Um, but it would be harder to get the maintained natural habitat area potentially given the restrictions of like a garage underneath it. But the other piece of it is that it's not necessarily going to be just garages and Lindsay might be able to correct me if I over- overspeak here. Um, but it's also, you know, utility lines and other items where we would still expect that a chunk of the open space could be used for maintain natural habitat area. It just would also make their development, in theory, cheaper and easier to build because they wouldn't have to go around this open space that we would have as a dedicated park.

[01:50:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So if there's not more on that, I have a 2nd question of some trade-offs. Um, you talked about, uh, with, uh, council member McAllister's previous question about, um, the, a certain tree canopy within, what was it, a five-year period? I also got comments from the public. Um, about, and you said it was to maintain trees that were already there, which I strongly, um, support. So, uh, on the other hand, members of the public who were interested in natural landscape spaces had said that, um, certain native species may not be able to get up to uh, that, that canopy within that, uh, within the 5 years. So I'm wondering about those trade-offs if there's any way because I would like to do both of those things. I would like to have natural habitats. I agree with the public speaker that those are very important as we develop. Um, so I would like to have natural landscaping and natural, you know, trees, native trees. I would also like to save the trees we have. So is there a way of doing both of wording that so that we can do both?

[01:51:31] Unknown Speaker: Absolutely. I think when we get to that particular council question and looking at the elements, that that would be the direction, as I stated, it's a very new element and clearly hasn't been baked in the oven long enough. So, I think asking us to kind of look at exploring to make that particular element, uh, achieve a a greater, um, sort of variety of species and really, uh, both new and existing, um, is something that we can, we can visit and we'll, we'll bring in our uh, portion roadways manager and really get, get some specialty expertise on it and kind of how we can craft that.

[01:52:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. And then I have just one question. Those were detailed questions. I have one kind of macro question to kind of get a perspective on what we're talking about, and I know there's a lot of public concern about, um, how our parts are distributed throughout our different neighborhoods. And my understanding is that our perks in the not counting, uh, the shoreline park, that our parks in our neighborhoods are mostly are either owned by the schools or at this point we don't have a lot of purpose. So, so city owned. And my understanding is that the city owned parks are just a little over 50% and that the school owned parks are a little under 50%. And I just want to do the, if you could tell me what those, um, just to show the importance of what we're doing, you know, that, um, we need to up that from 50% because it looks like we may be losing some of the access to the school parks. So what can you tell me the numbers, the school owned versus the city owned? The percentage.

[01:53:17] Community Services Director John Marshall: Yes, I can do that. Council member Hicks, John Marshall Community Services director. So, um, not counting the parks in the North Bayshore. Um, the city has a total of 189 and a little bit more acres of land. And, uh, of that, um, all between the Mongue Wisman school district, and, uh, the high school district, they they sum up to 44% of our current parkland and then the 56% remaining as city owned.

[01:53:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. So what I think we're trying to expand that 56% and that's super important.

[01:53:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Cancel member, Matt, check.

[01:54:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So a couple questions. Um, something that's really important to me is to make sure that it's obvious that these parks are open to the public. And I appreciate what was already thought about. Um, I was wondering if we would also be able to like name these areas so that it would seem like a park.

[01:54:35] Community Services Director John Marshall: And I think that would come down each, um, as we go through and develop this, the idea of, um, an agreement for each of the developments that has a POPA, we would be able to identify the items to make it similar to a city park and that's one of the items that we could look at, yes. Okay. And I'm not sure if her T has any other additional comments on that.

[01:54:59] Aarti Shrivastava: No, I was actually thinking the exact same thing. John, we could put in requirements that could make it look more like a public park.

[01:55:08] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And one of the other things that we have in a lot of our public parts is public art. And I was wondering how we might be able to, if we can incorporate that somehow into the requirements for a program.

[01:55:26] Community Services Director John Marshall: And I'm going to invite RT to go ahead and answer that one.

[01:55:30] Aarti Shrivastava: Uh, yes, I think I think we chatted about that a little bit, uh, council member, um, The, the, the city is, we've put this project on hold, but we are working on, um, a visual arts, um, a plan and a strategy, which could potentially include art. That would be provided by the, um, by private development. Many cities have that. Um, and when they do have that, one of the items that are required to show on their plan is the general location of where that art would be provided. So in case of a POPA, it, um, the council could, um, ask for it to be provided in the, um, in the POPA space itself, so that's one way of doing it. The other way of looking at it, and I think, um, We want to be able to careful because, um, we don't yet have a way to to convert improvements on a popa into parkland dedication. Uh, dollars. At this point, Popos only get credit for the land that they provide, and the area that they provide. So inserting a public art element would add another feature that really wasn't contemplated in the credit mechanism. And so I think this is one we might have to take back and maybe, um, it might be that the public, um, the visual art strategy might be a better option there than, uh, than, um, through the parkland credit. So it's something we might have to take back a staff and review, um, and bring back the council.

[01:57:14] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: It comes with a functional art and not a standalone piece.

[01:57:18] Community Services Director John Marshall: Yes, and I think, um, we could certainly throw that into, um, an encouragement to say that, you know, benches and play structures that have, um, sort of art, um, are highly encouraged or, That's certainly something we can do.

[01:57:36] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. And then, um, We talked about, uh, we talk about, um, like the 75% credit or the 100% credit. But I noticed on page 15. Um, it says uh, a tiered option of up to 75% credit. Um, So, does that mean you could get like a 50% credit? And how, how would that be decided? Or what would it be decided on? Or is it just 75% for the whole thing and not really scaled?

[01:58:13] Unknown Speaker: So that is mirroring the current ordinance, not the tiered part, but the, well, the tiered part 2, where the private open space is 50% and then the publicly accessible open space in North Bay Shore is 75%. Um, the way it is currently written is up to 75% and up to 50% the value of the land, technically giving council ultimate discretion and authority to approve a lower credit percentage if they think the open space doesn't qualify for the max percentage. Um, I think it's our general belief as staff that if they follow the parameters that we've built in and the requirements and it does, you know, they do the analyses and it goes through the public input process and ultimately gets to you, we hope that it's a public open space that warrants the whole credit. I don't think we want to go through all that to put a bad open space forward. Um, but technically that the up 2 provides uh, some discretion for counsel at the ultimate decision making point.

[01:59:10] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. That was very helpful. That's all I have. Thanks.

[01:59:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Anyone else have questions? If not, um, Oh, did I say at hand? No. Okay, uh, can we pull up the council, um, the questions? We'll go through those. I'm sorry. Yeah, there we go. The questions for council. All right, number one. Council discouncil support staff recommendation for connecting an annual appraisal and... Okay. Um, yes, vice Mary,

[01:59:53] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: I'd like to start us off. My, sorry, my, I thought you saw my hand and where I was trying to sneak in one last question. Um, but I can also kick us off once more question. So, um, I just wanted to ask staff, you know, one of the things that we've spoken about as a city is trying to promote kind of better connectivity. And I know that, you know, part of that is reflected in park trails, but I think kind of overall trying to create maybe more, like greenways, green spaces and kind of being forward and thinking and what those look like. So I'm just, I wasn't sure if, as we're discussing like the Parkland dedication, if this is the time where we can kind of discuss those or I should hold that off to when we're, you know, to discussing. Yeah, for example, like the tree master plan, the pedestrian master plan. I'm just trying to figure out kind of where to insert that because I think that staff was also talking about kind of the different intersections. For example, you know, reaching out to, to the city's forestry, um, individual to kind of discuss tree canopy, you know, all these things I'm kind of seeing as interconnected, and so I wasn't sure if I should say that as like a comment or, um, you know, this is the time to, to discuss that.

[02:01:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, good stuff. Mind answering?

[02:01:29] Unknown Speaker: Can you summarize that question again? I'm sorry.

[02:01:32] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: So we're, as we're, as we're discussing the parkland dedication ordinance, I'm seeking clarity from staff, if this is also the, the time where we can talk about, you know, we're, uh, we were discussing park trails. Um, Uh, we're talking about how we're going to dedicate land. I think there's an overarching conversation about how we create a better network, perhaps even, you know, better park network throughout our city, and maybe how we can be creative and how we do trail extensions or maybe how we do extensions, um, you know, for the pedestrian experience between, you know, parks, whether those be city parks or publicly accessible open spaces. And so I see those kind of as kind of uh, green ways. And I am asking if, you know, now is the time where we provide that input as we're discussing this correctland dedication ordinance, or if we should be including that at a, at a later time, because we're going to be discussing many different things, you know, um, We're talking about our comprehensive multimodal plan, you know, we're talking about our parks and, um, an open space plan, the community tree master plan. I'm wondering injuring where do I insert it into the conversation so it doesn't get lost. So I'm asking that question now. Thank you very much.

[02:02:51] Unknown Speaker: Um, so you can, Reference a desire to have these plans integrated. However, I think through the, um, talking about parts and trails specifically. As we go through the next phase, phase 2 of this update, the, um, the parts and open space plan will then reference those other plans that have been, um, completed to date and and identified. And so I think there is an opportunity for that to happen. And I think it is staffs, um, it will happen intuitively in order for us to get through the update of the next parks and open space plan.

[02:03:35] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. I think, you know, we, uh, tend to talk about things that have to do with, you know, other areas, and as we're talking about the parkland, dedication ordinance, we're referencing our North Asia precise plan and how this, what we decide tonight is going to kind of basically, uh, be the new standard. And so I just want to make sure that, you know, we're kind of open and transparent with that for both the public so that they know when to provide, be providing that input. But also I think for counseling sales, understand when that input is desired. So I just wanted to make sure, um, thank you for that. And I also want to thank staff for clarifying that as we're talking about the different options. Um, we can also kind of do, do a hybrid, if we, if we search you. Um, I see council member Ramirez's hand up, so I don't know if he's wanting to get into comments, but I think for question one, um, the answer from me is yes.

[02:04:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Counselor Ramirez.

[02:04:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. And so we're going question by question or could it be helpful to just do all of them at once?

[02:04:44] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: If you're able to do all of them at once, that would be ideal. I just wanted to say we work on a tight timeline today because one of our presentations for a regular meeting has a time certain. So if we could try to get this done by 630, that would be great. If not, I forget, it looks like it's, we're going over. We'll have to come back to the study session after the regular session. So if that's motivation to keep your comments succeed, that would be great. So yes, go ahead.

[02:05:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Oh, I'm happy to respond to all of the questions and I think I could keep my remarks pretty brief. So for question one, uh, yes, I support the staff recommendation. Your question to, um, uh, I'm comfortable with the staff recommendation of a minimum size of 0.4 acres for the, the polka and just very high level. Um, I, I like to think of sort of the relative priority of what are 3 major options. Um, so, in my opinion, uh, creating open space is a higher priority over providing a fee, and the dedication of land is a higher priority over a POPA. Um, so that's, that's sort of how I'm thinking about, um, the, the relative, uh, priority of the options. Um, and in that, and that's the reason why I'm comfortable with a slightly smaller, uh, uh, park size. I would rather have, you know, point a .4 acre COPA than, you know, if that's the difference between the payment of a fee and a propa, I'll take the propa because it's immediate open space. And as we've seen over, you know, the past many years, uh, spending the fee, uh, and creating new public, um, you know, uh, open spaces is very difficult. Uh, so for question 2 B, um, I'm, you know, comfortable with the, the staff recommendation for C. Uh, again, I think, you know, it's always difficult to, to land on a, on the right number, but, um, if, if 75% is a reasonable credit for Repopa. I'm fine with that. Um, I do struggle with the, the additional 25% for the alternate proposal for open spaces over an acre, and the reason is, I think once we get to a 100% credit, that makes, that sounds to me like the dedication of land is functionally equivalent to a POPA. And in my mind, dedication of land is actually a, a more desirable uh, outcome for the city. So, maybe we can, I would, I would want to supplement that with something a, a little bit more, um, exciting. So if you're providing, you know, an acre hope about with a tool or community center, something like that, then I think it could justify, you know, an additional credit. But, um, you know, just for an additional acre at that point, I think we need to work on incentivizing the dedication of land. Um, for question three. I'm, I'm fine with the, the PRC recommendation, the, the one exception is I, I could justify a credit for private open space for, um, very specific developments that cater to a, a, targeted population. And I'm thinking, for instance, memory care where you might have seniors who could not be in, um, uh, you know, a public open space because, you know, they, they may not be, they, it's a more vulnerable population, same development development to the disabled residents. So that, I don't know if that's helpful direction, but I feel that's, I would be a lot more comfortable providing credit for, you know, uh, private space when there's a vulnerable population involved, but just for a general, um, uh, residential development, I, you know, I, I, I think, you know, I feel my business is creating open space for the community, not just for, uh, not just higher, inequality, amenities for, for new residents. Um, if it's helpful, a few other really quick things. Um, maybe it's part of a phase three. I think we should explore a nexus study to, um, to be able to provide a park impact fee on commercial development. I think it, you know, there are p- employees who use our open space as well. And I understand that, you know, as we create more popas and provide some, hopefully, incentives for dedicated open space, we'll see that, you know, the fee that we collect will diminish over time. Um, and we might be able to supplement that a little bit with, with applying a parking pack fee on commercial development. So, would like to explore that. And then, um, I also would strongly support, um, flexibility, um, or, or some kind of in some, you know, with development standards, if, if that will help incentivize developers to dedicate land. So, I, I, one of the things that's attractive about a profile was described as, you know, you can provide utilities that are underground. You know, it has less of a negative impact on the development than the dedication of land wood. And so I think we need to be really creative and thinking about, you know, what are things we can do to make it more attractive to dedicate land and that might be exploring some flexibility with the development standards. Um, you know, and again, that's, that's, uh, not just, you know, here's an additional story or whatever, but, you know, it will make the difference between paying a fee and, you know, here's half an acre or, or a full acre of land dedicated to the city where we have control over and perpetuity. Um, and, and the difference was because, you know, we helped make the development proposal more feasible. Um, so that's, uh, that's everything. Thank you very much for your work on this. I think this is this is a great start.

[02:10:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Council member Hicks.

[02:11:03] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I'll start by banking staff as well because I know this is complex and multi-layered and I was, um, I was impressed in my private briefing and all the questions I could ask and get answers to. Um, so I'll, um, well, I'll start by saying I, I generally concur with what, uh, council member Ramirez has said, I'm going to answer the 1st and last questions 1st, um, in terms of the, uh, way of this, council, the question number one, do we support staff's recommendation for uh, conducting an annual appraisal? I would say yes, and as long as there's some way of adjusting if the project has really taken too long. I wouldn't want it to drag on for a very long time and and be stuck with a lower land value. So that would be my only, um, My only question about that one. And then the last one, uh, I'm going to go back to the 2nd question because that for me is the more complex one about private open space. I'm actually very much against uh, giving any credit for private open space. And the reason is, well, uh, one of our residents, Mr. Jean said, I, I just completely agree with them that it, it would, uh, there would be the tendency to create, um, gated communities and I can, I think it would very easily happen there, there would be a number of apartments with nice, uh, with nice private open space, but also a number of smaller residences in the same area with no open space at all, and no parks. And people would would be completely left out and um, and I also do think that the purpose of parts is to have, I mean, it's about public space. It's about public goods, and it's also about, um, which actually the Terabella community has talked to me about a lot too, is, it's about, um, creating community among people. And not just people within your own apartment building, but the, you know, the general neighborhood that you've moved into. So with that, um, question number two, uh, which is about a minimum size, I would go with staff's recommendation of of .4 acres, or even possibly, even possibly less. Um, although I I don't want to go so small that we're just saying that, you know, a bush under a window is a park or something. Um, The, uh, replacing landscape, park like quiet area would maintain natural habitat area. I would agree with that and I would like to encourage more of that. And the credit percentage. Um, I'm a little bit, I'll go with the rest of council and that I'm a little bit agnostic, but I could go for a tiered valuation and just give much lower credit for smaller spaces if that was, um, something that worked out. Um, And, Then yeah, and then I guess my, my last comment is that I, I'm particularly concerned about tree canopy and natural habitat within our, our park space because I recently learned that our park space, our canopy of mountain view. I learned this from the nonprofit canopy, is closer to the percentage of East Palo Alto, the organization told me it's 18%, East Palo Alto's is 15%. They said, and Palo Altos is 38%. Anyway, what I'm wearing is that our tree canopy could improve, and so I'm particularly concerned about that. Thank you.

[02:15:04] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Councilman Clark.

[02:15:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: Sure. Um, I mean, I have to. I just want to say the reason that where canopy isn't close to politics is because we actually build things, um, and you know, eventually when our tree canopy, all the trees that we're planting, we're planting far more trees than were there before, and eventually, and, you know, a handful of years will probably far outpay Palo Alto, um, and then they'll wish they'd built some things. Um, um, um, to get back to the questions on question one, I, I do support your, the staff recommendation on, on the, um, in the annual, annual appraisal. I think, having the, um, you know, additional certainty here, and I, and I framework in place that, um, that the development community, um, is comfortable with is, is really important. That's one of the things that we heard over and over, um, over the years for, um, For, um, for number two. Um, I I'm okay with the option A, the staff minimum of of .4 contiguous acres. Um, and um, and I, and I really like the revised elements that you put in place, especially for respect to trails. Um, Um, so I, I'm okay with, um, with minimum sizing and .4 particular sakers and the, um, and the revised, um, element guidance that you provided. Um, The, um, I think what's more, what was, um, so for the Popa open space credit. Um, you know, I think having that city wide is, is good. Um, I think having it, um, tiered is probably better. Can, can staff remind me, did, did you make a specific recommendation here? Now I'm blanking because I was so focused on free. Um. So, uh, staff's recommendation, um, kind of holistically with it all together is, uh, private open space would be at 25% the value of the land. Open space would be 75% the value of the land, and then there's a proposal for a 25% additional credit for spaces over an acre that would fall under this alternate proposal. Yeah, I think that's fine. My only, um, my only comment there was. where is it? Um, It's in one of the tables. But I, I think, and I think this starts to move into, um, the private open safe conversation. I think the, the, the one thing that I, I am a little uncomfortable with is when we get into private open space is just option 2 um, I, 11 contiguous acre is, is really large and I, and I, I, you know, we may have one or 2 existing private, um, open spaces that are that large, but I, I couldn't think of any, and I just, um, I think, um, uh, something of that size starts to get into the realm of, um, you know, folks that talk Gated communities, if you have a one contiguous acre, private space, then I think that starts to, starts to cross the, um, the threshold for me, um, and and maybe not necessarily something that we want to incentivize as much. Um, But, um, unlike some of my colleagues, I, I actually do think, um, there's a lot of value in private open space, um, even if it isn't publicly accessible, um, I've benefited from that in a number of complexes that I've lived in over the years and the, in the, and it's not, and I certainly still go utilize the public parks, um, for, you know, quest park and and jogging and all the other things. But in some cases, that means that you aren't, um, you know, residents of a, um, of a complex that have a pool aren't going to be signing up to utilize the public pools and putting an increased, um, an increased burden on the pool than all the programs associated with that. And um, And this idea that I'm somehow less social and don't want to interact with my neighbors because I have that private open space and don't maybe wouldn't utilize a public pool if I had a private one. Um, I just don't think is is accurate. I think that's blown out of proportion, and I, and I think there's a lot of value in having small, um, private open spaces, whether they're, you know, small dog parks or, um, or pool areas or terraces or barbecues, where, you know, you can utilize those amongst your neighbors and be neighborly. But you can also still go to Costa Park and barbecue when you want to meet the rest of the neighborhood. And so, and, and for the times when you're just, um, you know, socializing with, the other than your complex, that takes, uh, that removed a little bit of a burden from utilizing our those public spaces, which, you know, during normal times and, um, are, are pretty heavily utilized. And so, I think there is some, some value to the city and the general public of having these additional small amenities in some of the larger private, um, developments so that they aren't necessarily taxing, um, the neighborhood. And because I hear, I hear a lot of people say we don't want this really, really dense development because that'll, that'll put an increase, um, you know, burden on our parks and all these other things, but then at the same time, they argue that they shouldn't get credit for having their own parks so that they wouldn't burden the public as much. And it's just uh, an incongruous argument to me. So, um, anyway, that's a long way of saying, I, I would, I would actually support um, providing some level of credit for private open space. I think there is value to the city. Um, and then just an overall comment, like Counselor Ramirez said, the key here is, um, you know, we can collect arc fees all day long that landed really, really expensive. And, and I place a lot of weight on getting, um, on getting, um, land for parks, whether that's through a land dedication, or even better in my mind is if it's privately, um, privately maintained and privately owned, but we have an easement over it. In my mind, that's like the best of both worlds because we're not spending money to maintain it. We have an easement over it. Um, and and it's still completely publicly accessible, um, subject to our, um, to whatever agreements that we have in place over time. So that in my mind is, is, is the most valuable. Um, so to the extent that we can, just like we did with schools, land dedication is far more valuable in my mind than just school fees, and I think, you know, on the parks front. Um, it, it would be the same for me. So to the extent that we can incentivize land dedication or even um, privately owned publicly accessible spaces. Um, I would be willing to put it um, put any reasonable incentives in place there that we can. Thanks.

[02:21:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Counselor McAllister.

[02:21:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, question one, yes. Question. I'm gonna do a quick yeah. Just surprise you all. Quick too. I'm going with the PRC, the 5 acre, 5 point acre. B, that's fine. C, I was uh, When we were doing the soprano property. I remember, uh, constant number Clark said, you know, we'll do .75 for North Bay Shore and everything else will stay the same. It's a surprise to see him change that. So I don't support 75. I'll, I'll, maybe go 50. Um, I just don't think it's, uh, It's it's an innovative way to go somewhere, but I still think 50% is quite a good credit. And when council member Hicks said something 0 credit. I was going, whoa, I like that idea because I know some of the park PNRC people said the same thing. So, uh, I think being credit too much is, uh, is not the right goal. So, that's what I got to say. Thank you.

[02:22:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Very surprising. Uh, Counselor, not a check.

[02:23:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, so I'm going to stop the saying that, um, I think it's interesting that none of the nearby cities, the surrounding cities, have coca, um, and that they would be the 1st. And also, I really appreciate the PRC's input on this. Um, that it was really good input. Um, so question one, yes. Question two. Um, I, Also, I think I got the PRC recommendation of half an acre as the minimum. And, I do like the description for maintain natural habitat area. Um, but I do think we need to address, uh, the tree can be there because I do think it's important to preserve, um, the trees that are already there. And, um, as we said, they're not all going to get to 9800% in 5 years, if it's new. Um, for CD. Um, I also believe that 75% credit is uh, too heavy, uh, because I do want to, um, Council member Ramirez said, to me, what's most important is, um, to dedicate our plan, and 2nd is polka. And so, um, I don't want to make UPA more attractive than dedicating land. So, um, You know, I, I'm surprised council member McAllister said 50%. Um, but uh, that would be more along the lines of what I'm thinking. And, um, I would say that I'm open to potentially having a credit, um, more, uh, things like the trails that are not a requ- part of a requirement that's already been fine, but like an added bonus, uh, to a development, um, that is helping to further our connectivity goals. Um, but I would want it to be more park-like than, say, trail-like, um, like the connectivity between Lengtham and El Camino that was mentioned. It's pretty stark. And so I'm thinking something more green, more trees, more rush, maybe some benches, um, but also provide that connectivity. And let's see, question three. Um, I agree with the PRC to um, eliminate the credit for uh, private open space. Um, we do have requirements for common open space and those don't go away. Right? Yeah, so um, we would still have common open space in uh, new developments. Um, I want to add a couple things, uh, that I don't want them to be lost and that is the discussion about public art. Um, I would like to follow up on that. And then the other is, um, Council member Ramirez mentioned, taking a look at an impact fee on commercial development and I am absolutely open to doing that. Um, and he also mentioned incentivize, and so much to, uh, let's see, to my notes here, kind of cryptic, sorry. Um, incentives to dedicate money and I agree with that one as well. Thanks.

[02:26:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. My swear, if you could continue from question 2 on.

[02:26:40] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Question 2 A, I'm, uh, yes, to the staff recommendation for, um, B, um, yes, I agree with the replacing. Um, and I like the comments related to tree canopy there for item B and making sure that we include that for C for the credit percentage. I, I'm open to the fact that, um, I think council member Clark mentioned this, you know, much of the city does have, um, development, and so opportunities for open space, whether they be, um, popas or private open space are going to be ways that we can kind of increase, um, our open space in the city. So I like the tier options. I think that. You know, I'm open to putting it as percentages, but I also I almost would want to see it kind of how we've approached community benefit, which is if you provide certain tiers of the community benefit, right? Those are, uh, you know, um, kind of we have the high priorities in terms of, um, you know, these are the top things that counsel wants to see as a community benefit and then it tears down. I think I'd rather see it in those type of tiers than just percentage tiers. Um, you know, I think one of the, one of the items that I'd like to, you know, pursue is the, you know, uh, trade the park trails, right? And I think trying to get our um, city, um, network increased. And so, you know, so many people are wanting to take, you know, walks, bike rides to enjoy fresh air these days, given the pandemic. And so to me, it's more about, um, you know, uh, giving, giving credit in terms of the community benefit you're bringing, um, than than percentages. Um, and then for question number three. Um, you know, to. I'm, I was open to option 3 because if we're, you know, looking at .4, um, for, uh, acres that that's fine. I think that the, The thing I'm having trouble with is, um, you know, the, the, again, the credit and the percentages there. And so, you know, I want to be open to, to generating more open space, which were, which is why I'm, you know, even interested in looking at this private credit as an option. Um, But I, I'm not sure that, you know, getting 75% plus an additional 25% is where I'm at yet. Thanks, Mayor.

[02:29:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I'm sorry, were you for option 3 or no?

[02:29:30] Unknown Speaker: I think I'm leaning towards, I'm leaning towards that, but I think the, the Mac, In the, the briefing that I received it was like 75% plus they could also get an additional 25% and I wasn't open to that additional 25%. So, So it'd be option 3 at 75% max. So. Right.

[02:29:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. Um, so for me, uh, with question one, yes, I support it. Question two. Um, I'm gonna go with .4 and this was because I was thinking about just the sizes of these parcels and that there's not a lot of um, parcels, I believe, that would be big enough to be able to get to .5 is pretty challenging, so it just has more flexibility. I've been going with .4. Um, B, yes, I, and I agree with the comments about, um, the importance of tree canopy, so please emphasize that. And then for the credit, um, I agree with, uh, comments made about, for me too, it's about, um, giving as much space, open space, park space as possible, um, that's publicly accessible. And so, um, it's, I think that having the higher uh, credit at 75% and I'm fine with the tier. I couldn't, seems like it could get us there more easily. And so, um, I would say, and just in general, and this ties into question three. Um, my real interest, and I think someone else mentioned it, is to have permeable um, developments in as much publicly accessible space, open space as possible. And I know our current PRC member and former mayor talked about this very often about these private developments becoming more, you know, fenced in and gated in and private space where that's not accessible to the public. And that's really, I agree that that's not the direction and I think we should be going. I want to continue to keep our city as open as possible. So, to do that, um, and to encourage more, either land dedication or popas. Um, I'm open to higher credit in getting that. But on question three. I actually, I agree that we should not be getting, giving credit. And the reason why I, I, I know the developers want it. But, um, frankly, you pay for it, the, the buyer, it's a buyer or a renter, um, pays for it. They, you know, they pay for the amenities, they pay, and part of that, I think, is the open space. So, the incentive there for the developer to do it is that they would get, I believe, a higher price for their units, if they have private open space, but it doesn't really serve the public. So, in that regard, I am not open to giving any credit for private open space. Um, so I appreciate that. Thank you, staff, and thank you. PRC for your travel on this. I agree with the um, follow up on um, commercial impact fees and um, the flexibility and development standards to incentivize land dedication. Um, And, um, I actually like Councilman, I manage your comment. I think it was on Q question QC, um, if they provide like a, some big or facility, like the pool or whatnot, that we could give them additional credit, but it would have to be something significant like that. So with that, if I, um, to summarize, they had, for question learn, unanimous, um, In question 2, we had, let's see, one, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4.4, 2, 4.5, uh, B, question 2, B was, yes, 2, C, 12, 3, 45, for 75%, and 2, 4, 50, and then question 3, I had I for no credit, one for option 2 and one for leaning option 3. And I think we had the comments about, yeah, tree canopy, public art was the other one that was brought up. And then land dedicate incentivizing the dedication, commercial impact fees. I think that covers it all. Did I miss anything from any council members?

[02:34:05] Unknown Speaker: Oh, sorry, over. Okay, go ahead. I was just going to say, it doesn't matter from the toll, but um, for the, for the last question, I was, um, I was, um, I most like the framework of option 3 uh, 3 I just wasn't very articulated saying, but it doesn't really matter.

[02:34:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. So, one option 3 and one leaning option 3 then. And then Counselor Hicks? Did you have some comments?

[02:34:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: The 3rd question if I, if I understood right, most people said no and I, I did as well. But I did like council member Ramaz, uh, possible exceptions for like memory care, just very exceptional situations. I thought that was a good point.

[02:34:50] Unknown Speaker: Agreed. agree with that too.

[02:34:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, great. Anyone else with any other last comments? Did staff get anything?

[02:34:59] City Staff: Confirm with all of counsel that we heard for 2C that we had 5 at the 75% into at the 50%. That's what I had down, yes.

[02:35:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Um, anything else? Is staff? Is that good for staff?

[02:35:21] City Staff: Yes.

[02:35:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, staff. And um, due to time, we will move right into our regular session and I'll call a break later. Um, so we can do our switchovers. And let me find my regular session, script here. All right. And so, um, I would like to call the regular session, our council meeting of October 27th to order at 6.30 p.m. and, uh, this, in my usual announcement, this meeting will be conducted in accordance with state of California, executive order, and 2920 dated March 17th, 2020, all members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. Members of the public fishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountain view.register.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 the item by signing up at MountainView.gov slash CC underscore speakers or my phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering Libinar ID 952-402-33281. Any emails received by 4 p.m. today, we're forwarded to the city council. Emails received after 4 PM will not be read during the meeting, but will be entered into the record for the meeting. All votes will be taken by roll call vote. And if you could all please join me in the pledge of allegiance on your website, um, So, uh, I pleasure allegiance, to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Uh, so before we go into our next item, uh, I do have an announcement by council member McAllister. I thought we were going to do this after public comment, but that's, And we're going to do that now?

[02:37:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, if you are ready. Okay. I am uh withdrawing item 9. one. From consideration for the council. I initially put that up after hearing many candidates and the public talked about how they were interested in packing the quote packing the RHC and I was concerned about fairness and equity for both sides, for rent control to be a true working model for everyone. It has to be fair for everyone. I find it sort of ironic that a lot of the comments that they were referring to Mitch McConnell and the Senate, and yet they were, uh, looking at doing the same thing. So, I didn't want to be part of the decisiveness that is writing up our city and our country. I figured I want, I didn't want to be part of that. I want us to be back to the normal, congenial, professional, respectful way that the city of Mountain Dew deals with each other, and to have considered this going forward, would have just added more to the quote, nastiness of this campaign, and I wanted us to be working together, because when we all work together, we won't have great success. So I am withdrawing. item 9.0. one for consideration.

[02:39:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Counselor McAllister. So item 9.1 is being pulled from the agenda, so we will not be discussing that this evening. Thank you. We'll move on to item 3 presentations, 3.one. We have an update from our Mountain View Busman School district in Mountain View, Los Altos Union High School District Superintendents. We had decided we'd like to have invite our partners in our community to come and give us updates more often. And so we wanted to start with our 2 school districts. You know, we have another one that we will uh, probably bring a, um, invite to another meeting. But this evening, we have, um, uh, Superintendent Ayende Rudolph, um, the Mountain Viewersman School District, and uh, Noway Meyer, from the Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District, who will provide us an update on various topics. Um, and so what we'll do is we'll have their presentations um, by each superintendent and then um, go to council questions for each one at a time and then open it up for public comment at the end. So I'd like to start off and welcome Dr. Rudolph. Welcome and thank you for making time and bonus this evening.

[02:40:16] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: All right, good evening. you hear me?

[02:40:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi, great.

[02:40:21] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: Um, so I, you know, I can bore y'all with a 70 slide deck in a heartbeat, um, but I want to keep it pretty condensed. So, uh, I think my counterpart over in the high school district isn't bringing a, a deck either. So I'll just simply talk about 2 big items that I think are impacting the city. Um, the 1st one is obviously where we are, we're reopening. Uh, and then the 2nd one is, uh, I guess what is now everyone's favorite topic, which is uh, perimeter controls around the school. So why don't we start with the easier of the two, which is talking about reopening under COVID, and then we'll go to fences afterwards. Um, so we are sort of in a unique position. Um, I know that, uh, Kimber has talked about, um, sort of where we are in terms of her, her weekly updates, which I find informative, um, that she starts off the meeting with. And so, you know, Mountain View, um, is unique in comparison to some of our districts by, um, our neighboring districts by, um, its demographics. And what we do know, and what our major concern is, is around sort of the most impacted population, which is a Latino population, which is a lot higher and a lot more substantial in our district than in other places. Um, so we have uh, foregone the option to open up yet. Uh, we built a pretty robust, um, business learning platform. Uh, we are currently working on providing internet, uh, to are looking at options to provide internet to all of our students, but we have purchased hot spots. We have went to a completely one to one environment, uh, for our students. We have, um, probably, uh, purchase every type of, uh, cleaning, uh, PPE that you can think of, um, and are currently preparing, uh, to reopen. Now we have had COVID exposures. And so, uh, in the coming days, we're going to be, um, listing our own internal dashboard that shows the number of exposures, the number of students that have been quarantined as a result of the exposures as well as the number of cases, and then you can even on that dashboard C, where we are, um, like which schools have been impacted. Uh, we did, we do have support, support pods that open up at Castro. We're currently looking at the possibility of opening some more just so that people are clear about the difference. Um, so to support pods, follow the county's guidelines of a 12 to one ratio. Um, and we have some, some of our after school providers like the YMCA and right at school and Newton are all providing these, but we are looking at kids that are at risk that are really struggling, uh, and bringing them in also. And so the next 4 may now be bringing back the cost of that, um, so that we can sort of examine there. But that doesn't mean that we have, um, that we're bringing kids back in in front of teachers. We're still negotiating, uh, the working conditions behind, uh, bringing parents in, uh, sorry, bringing students in to our school district. Um, which is a major component, so that brings me to the next point, which is that we are currently working on what we like to call uh, readiness dashboard. Um, and so this, uh, readiness dashboard will show you different metrics that we're tracking, um, and sort of how close we are to being complete before we can move from what we call stage 4, which is what we currently are in to stage 3, which is the, uh, just is high, the hybrid version of that. Um, and so we're, we continue to track that information and then compare ourselves, uh, to other districts across the board. We also are reporting out on how our performance is doing. We have notices a slide with our eldest kids. Um, not so much with our, um, our younger kids, which is actually where we thought the slide would be in terms of performance, but it still is an area of concern for our board in terms of, um, where what we need to handle. Um, so I feel really good about where we are, our, like I said, our distance learning program is a lot better than what it was in the spring. Our teachers are working really hard. Uh, and where our board is focused on meeting the needs, whether it is the digital divide group, providing devices to everybody, or whether it is, you know, making sure that we have internet across board. Um, so that, Is the end of that one. You want me to jump on the fences or do you want me to allow you to ask questions?

[02:44:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, yes, well, why don't we get questions, any questions? for Dr. Rudolph? Yes, counselor McAllister. Could you ambulate yourself, counselor?

[02:45:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, I get old. Um, thank you. Um, thank you for coming. Give us the update. Uh, I've been having a conversation with uh, your board member Connolly, about internet. You know, as you probably have not heard that I have been a big proponent of getting citywide, broadband throughout the city, and she was telling me about a program that you got about $500,000 on that sort of mirrors with San Jose, one of the schools in San Jose is doing it. And I was wondering, um, If I understand correctly, that was sort of more of a temporary fix. And have you guys, if we can get you some partners like the city or whoever to start building a more permanent foundation that can be expandable over time. Is that something that you could bring to your board to look into or is time of the essence and that you need to get something up and running now?

[02:46:13] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: Yeah, this is a great question. So I don't think that this is a project that's going to happen quickly. Um, So we are working on a proof of concept approach using what is called CBRS. Um, and CBRS is a, um, it's a, it's like a channel, um, a radio station that will broadcast directly to our devices. Um, it has better penetration, but it also has limitations in terms of its range. And so right now, I think it goes up to a couple 100 feet and then, um, in the springtime. They are going to be releasing sort of the access points that allow you to broadcast amount out. Um, and obviously, you know, you can cover a whole city if we can partner um, with everyone. Um, you can cover them and get a lot, a lot deeper penetration. I guess. Um, so I think we're, we're definitely open to it. I think it's going to boil down to, you know, what are the logistics. I don't know what the requirements are, um, and just sort of figuring that out, but it's definitely one of the options that we still have on the table. Um, you know, we, we have a temporary solution right now, but I think we're, we're looking at this as a long term solution, um, not a, um, you know, not a, this is a, a, addresses this need moving forward. We, and I say that because we plan on staying in one to one, moving forward as a district. So we will always provide a device to our care regardless of the age and we always want them to happen in that access. And so figuring out a solution for that, um, means that the we need to have the whole city or at least the kids in the city need to have access to it. So, yeah, I mean, we have the superintendent from the high school, so hopefully maybe, We can get some synergy going here and get quite a few people involved because we all have a common goal is to try to improve it.

[02:48:11] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, you would like to continue, Dr. Rudolph?

[02:48:19] Dr. Rudolph: Yep, sure. So the 2nd topic, which apparently is a lot tougher than COVID. Um, is talking about permanent controls. Um, and I want to say this up front because I want to, I want to make sure that people understand sort of what the actual problem is. Um, so, you know, the problem for us is we have a great agreement, uh, that we're working on updating with the city that allows us to provide green space, and that the city maintains and uses for athletics, and we, uh, want to continue that partnership, we think it's a very unique partnership. Um, and we want to make sure that people have access after hours to our green space. Um, but at the same time, we have a couple of concerns that have been raised, um, over the last couple years, right? And, um, it started, uh, sort of earnestly after, uh, Parkland. Um, we now scan everybody's driver's license when you come in to make sure that we don't have any sex offenders that come in because we've experienced that. Um, it increased as people started talking about, uh, dog bites, and then it sort of came to a head, uh, when we were working on a massive facility plan, and every single principal at the time noted that there were serious concerns about perimeters and how many people have access. Um, and so since uh, that time. We've been working on what does permanent controls mean? We've also talked about the need for cameras. We want to add additional lighting, uh, and then we've also talked about electronics white cars for all of our doors. So, all those other items, as well as adding bathrooms to parks to, you know, keep people out of the school sites and stuff like that. Um, so all of us to say like, you know, there's a big comprehensive plan that we've been working on. But what I've noticed is that this is now sort of devolved into a, you're either pro fence or you're not offense, and I think I'm gonna, you know, John and I must have been, uh, exchanging notes over text a little bit earlier today, because I think ultimately this, you know, the, the issue about perimeter controls offenses, uh, especially in the communities of Landos and Monteloma. It's not really about fences. It is about how do we assure that every single adult that works in our schools or every parent that comes to our campus or every student feels safe. Um, and we, you know, so we plan on bringing back some updated designs, so our board on November 5th, um, to talk about sort of where we are. And then after that, we plan on scheduling some additional meetings with the community, especially the 2 communities. I mentioned Montaloma and Lando's, with the expectation that, you know, maybe fences may not be the right thing, but we need to move past the point of, you know, it's either prof, you're either profans or you're against the fence and solve the actual problem, which is we have a serious issue about safety and security that we need to address. And we, you know, in some of the meetings that I've sat in, uh, you know, I've heard people say like, well, yeah, I walked this campus during the school day. which we're not supposed to be doing. Uh, and we shouldn't expect teachers to, to walk up and address people and we shouldn't have kids to get bit by dogs. And nor should people as, as we deal with COVID and we look at the increasing of outdoor learning spaces. We shouldn't have people who have to worry about this. So I say this the same, you know, and I know city council has been hearing about this also, just again, to reiterate the points, right? Number one, this is about safety and security for all of our staff and our students. But I acknowledge that there are, and I think the board acknowledges that there may be other solutions to this particular problem. It's going to take us as a community to start dialoguing and having discourse about solving what that problem, how to solve that problem. The 2nd one is, is that, you know, again, we, in each one of our designs and our commitment is to make sure that people have access after hours and on the weekends, but also that we make sure that these campuses are safe by adding additional lighting and other safety precautions to make sure that these these screen spaces are really functional, similar to the way they are. I mean, I can go to Crittan at any hour. the night and pretty much see people on the track and using the bathroom and not have to worry about anything taking place in the school. Um, so we've had a lot of community meetings thus far. We plan on holding some more. Um, like I said, with the 2 communities, but I just wanted to give the, uh, city council sort of an update of where we are and our commitment that will, will find a solution and it may just take us a little bit longer than what we originally planned. But, you know, I believe that if we start having dialogue about this instead of labeling each other as extremists. Um, I think we will be successful in coming up with a solution that really meets the means of everyone.

[02:53:18] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Um, yes, I think, um, let's not labeling anyone extremist is the, I think the topic or the the theme of our community these days. So let's get advice from our committee. Do you have some questions?

[02:53:34] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Dr. Rudolph, for coming and updating counsel on what's going on at Mountain View Wisman. Um, I think this question might be for the city manager or for the city attorney. So, you know, we received quite a few, um, people reaching out to to counsel in a variety of ways. Um, and so, uh, about, about this issue and I, I think I'm just seeking a little clarity in terms of, you know, how counsel is going to interface with this issue or what, you know, what's kind of within counsel's purview because I think some, some people asked me about a vote that's happening about the fence and so I just was hoping that staff might be able to provide a little clarity.

[02:54:15] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Sure, I can provide some comments and the city manager might have additional comments. These relationships with the district are governed by master agreements and then subagreements for each school location, and we were able to locate one historic master agreement, and it doesn't provide the city with any absolute power over what facilities the district can install and how, but it does require for the districts to confer with the city. and obtain the city's comments and concerns regarding any of these installations and, uh, you know, the presentation before the PRC was one opportunity and this is another to provide comments and there can likely be more, uh, on a staff level if, if, if additional comments today are made by council members. So, uh, in short, the agreements require the district to reach out to the to the city like they're doing right now and obtain comments and concerns regarding any installations.

[02:55:27] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Great, great, thank you. Okay, that's my question and I see others in the queue, so I'll let them ask their questions as well. Thank you.

[02:55:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry, Counselor Mattercheck, Medacheck. Apology.

[02:55:47] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, We're just looking for questions now, what if we have comments? Do you want those now too?

[02:55:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sure, that's fine. Let's just have a conversation.

[02:55:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, just want to make sure. Um, so I do have a question about outreach. Um, and when the school districts are doing outreach, um, who like, how are you deciding or who are you reaching out to?

[02:56:17] Dr. Rudolph: Uh, so for this one, uh, it started off with, um, our 1st real outreach, what's the safety town hall that we did? So we met with MVPD. We've done safety audits that way. And then it sort of expanded from there. Um, we did have meetings that were, um, so in this case, it went, um, after that meeting. We confirmed from PPD to talk about just site, safety and site security, um, which led to the, the oddest. Then we put this. We sent out flyers to everyone, because this was part of the bond measure. Uh, so that went out um, after the bond. Um, we then, or so, sorry. There were staff meetings in between there, um, then came to bond. And then we did actually the bond passed earlier this year. Um, and so we, had community meetings that were scheduled, that ended up not taking place, um, just because of COVID, and, you know, at that time we weren't really using Zoom the way that we are now. Um, but we did meet with focus groups, which comprised of representatives from every single school community. Um, and it was sort of brought, it was elevated at that point that parents were concerned that you would have people walking on, uh, campus through, um, uh, as they were dropping kids off or they would be there. And that sort of accelerated our plan because we're like, well, part of reopening and one of the things that our unions have, have at least brought to our attention is making sure that we have safe and secure environments. And then during that process, um, we scheduled community meetings, uh, to to reach out to different areas. Um, some of them with joint ones, so like Huff and Bob had a community meeting. The Monteloma had its own out there coffin. Stevenson had theirs. And so we, we did a round of those, um, and then we have, we're setting up some more now that we've seen sort of some of the issues that have arisen.

[02:58:15] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, um, I guess I'd like to make sure that, um, yeah, in the spirit of working together here on this, that, um, we also include, um, people who don't necessarily have children in the school districts, um, because a lot of folks, um, do use the fields, who are not, um, parents of students in the school. So I want to make sure they're capturing them in the outreach. I think neighborhood associations. Um, you know, just groups that are, you know, the city are great ways to get the road out as well as social media. Um, and I want to make sure they're using all of that. Um, to make sure they're reaching everyone. So it doesn't come as a surprise that these meetings are happening or what might be the outcome of these meetings.

[02:59:03] Dr. Rudolph: Yep, no, it's that's really fine. Um, and we are, uh, I think our, uh, our meetings have, especially the Monto. I mean they've had upwards to a couple 100 people, depending on the meeting, people who are not in the schools, and that's one thing that we have heard, it's just ongoing dialogue between them and the rest of and the rest of the school community.

[02:59:28] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I certainly, um, received quite a few emails with concerns about this. And, um, you know, I do understand the perspective that if there's like a barrier, it kind of says, uh, instance can be perceived as a barrier, that, you know, you don't have access to what's behind this. Um, and so I appreciate that there will be, um, additional discussion on this topic and that alternatives will be looked at. Um, I think that's really important because, you know, we all really enjoy our uh, parks and open space. And similar to our earlier conversation, we want people to know they have access to, uh, Probably owned, publicly accessible open space. We also want people to know that they have access to the fields when they're not in use by the school and to make that obvious. So, um, I do want to make sure we're exploring our alternatives, sounds like we are. Um, and, um, I think we want to go thinking on that, um, so that we maintain, you know, the good relationships between the city and the schools. Thanks.

[03:00:36] Dr. Rudolph: Right. Not a problem. I would say we've even talked about Eagle Park. Um, I know maybe 34th of it is surrounded by a fence and has sort of these entrances. And so even for the Montalama community, we've taken some of their ideas and said, could we model the fencing after what we see over at Eagle Park or in other particular areas? And I think, you know, you're right. We have to we have to find a particular solution that meets the needs of all of our stakeholders.

[03:01:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, uh, Council member Hicks?

[03:01:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I was going to mostly say that I raised the points that council member Matachek raised, so I'll be short. Um, I I mean, thank you, uh, Dr. Rudolph, for coming and speaking to us. I was particularly glad to hear that you're open to alternative solutions and engaging more with the community. Um, because, um, although you're the public safety outreach to, uh, to students and parents, apparently brought up a lot of agreement that there was a need for perimeter controls and fencing. It seems like everything I heard, all the comments I've gotten, and listening, I listened to the parks and rec comments, they were quite the opposite. So we seem to have, you know, some very different opinions at different times depending on how the question is asked. And I'm very concerned because at this point, the mountain he was in the school district, uh, owns what is 33% of our total park space that's distributed to neighborhoods, and for particular neighborhoods, particularly Monaloma. Um, it's a much larger percentage than that. So I'm really glad to hear that you will be looking at alternative ways to address this. And I hope we have, uh, you know, kind of a more robust way, and this, this is kind of a short end, I hastily put together way for counsel, comment, and I'm hoping that we can, uh, come up with some more thorough way for us to work together on this issue because it is a really important component of our public park space. Thank you.

[03:02:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thanks, Siri.

[03:02:55] Unknown Speaker: Thank you, I think Councillor Matachek and Hicks touched upon a couple points. And I think one of the things that I do want to say is kind of, um, no matter what the path forward is, I think something that came up during our Parkland dedication ordinance was kind of clear signage and how do we make sure that people have that coer signage so that they know if there are hours. Um, you know, um, that they that they see that. Um, you know, so it's not just kind of the community outreach and having the meetings, but it's, you know, how do those space kind of spaces live on in perpetuity and having that information remotely available. Once any type of decision is made, which I know is still in progress. So, I really appreciate you coming, Dr. Rudolph, and kind of the openness to have variety of discussions as well as, you know, openness towards the path forward.

[03:03:46] Dr. Rudolph: We really appreciate the opportunity. Thanks.

[03:03:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And customer Ramirez?

[03:03:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I agree with all of my colleagues. I appreciate the opportunity too. provide a little bit of input. I'm grateful that you are expanding your outreach also to, um, to not just the constituents that you serve within the school districts, but to the community at large who, uh, take advantage of the, the open space that, that, that you're providing. Um, and so um, it's, it's encouraging to hear that you are open to suggestions, um, uh, like council member Hicks, I listen to the PRC, um, meeting. Uh, and I just wanted to give uh, John Marchand and CSD staff, um, a shout out and express my strong support for them. I know it's, it's probably felt like taking on a project that is not the city. Um, and there's, there's been a great deal of public outreach and I know CSD staff have done a tremendous job and, um, supplementing the work that the school district has, has been doing to make sure that uh, our community is well informed and, um, and, you know, is aware of opportunities to participate. So, uh, thanks to city staff or um, providing uh, assistance uh, in in the work that's being done. Thank you.

[03:05:01] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And, um, I just wanted to add my thanks, Dr. Rudolph, for making the time to come this evening and share, um, and that give us an update and regarding the offense, um, issue, I guess we're, we've received quite a few emails and, um, it sounds like there's, um, some misunderstanding or mis- information out there too. I was hearing about big tall black fences and that, you know, already decided and so forth. So this is really helpful to get a better sense of where you are in the process and it sounds like you're doing the outreach and appreciate that. I do agree with my colleagues if, um, you can expand the the reach, um, to, um, the neighborhoods and so forth. That would be great. I do, you know, as a parent, I do understand and share concerns about safety. My girls have been in lockdowns over the years. Um, and so I do appreciate that concern that it's, it's a real concern. So, um, and um, but yes, I appreciate that you're still open to different options. Um, I think there's a lot of ideas out there in our community. We have a very active one. So, um, I appreciate your openness to all of that. And we will be sure to, um, communicate with us, like, to communicate with us where you are and, and, um, please share with us, you know, how they can, they can provide their input and we'll be sure to get that out too, to the folks who contacting us. So is there anything else from your end, Dr. Rudolph? Council members?

[03:06:41] Dr. Rudolph: I'm good, I actually have to jump off. Like Dr. Westover is here, can I answer any additional questions if you need.

[03:06:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I think we are good. Thank you very much.

[03:06:50] Dr. Rudolph: Alright, thank you. Have a good evening.

[03:06:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: You too. And Dr. Meyer, welcome.

[03:06:57] Superintendent Dr. Meyer: Thank you. I'm going to see if I can. Share content, um. Let's see. Whoops. Okay. Okay. Hmm. If I could ask Lisa, perhaps Lisa was going to help me with a presentation.

[03:07:50] Lisa: Sure, let me get that up for you.

[03:07:51] Superintendent Dr. Meyer: Thank you, Lisa. First of all, I would like to, um, thank, um, Dr. Rudolph and, um, Mountain View Wisman, we enjoy the partnership that we share and a lot of the things that he mentioned. We also are working on as well. And I have a, um, very brief, um, presentation and I will go through it, but I want you to see, um, some photos that share some of the work that we've been doing. All right, thank you, next slide. Um, 1st of all, one of the things that we've been doing to frame the work that we have been doing with distance learning includes focusing on equity and access. And so, um, this is something that really has come up around technology, around connection, around safety and around wellness. Next slide, please. And to show you where we are, what you can see. We've started with 4 phases. We started with a safe staff return. We've continued with distance learning, and we will have distance learning definitely for the 1st semester, and we're planning for the 2nd semester right now. We have safe cohorts, which include groups of 15 students or fewer with one or 2 adults, and we're in the process of having these cohorts right now, coming back. And then finally, we hope to return sometime in the next semester with a traditional return with all of the safety precautions. Next slide, please. Okay. Since the distance learning and since the pandemic, I want to share that we created a new program that was an independent study program and we have 181 students who are involved in this program, and we call that option B, and it's full remote learning, and it's provided by a content provider. And we also have all of our teachers to thank for option A, and they currently have a schedule where they do distance learning directly for 4 days a week. And then on our Wednesdays. We have professional development for the teachers. And during that Wednesday, we provide, um, information and support for students, including office hours, as wellness, um, activities to help them support their wellness during this difficult time. So parents have, in essence, the choice of A or B, and A, may start to come back during the next semester, and B, will remain online for the entire year. Next slide please. I wanted to show you what we're doing right now. So we are targeting students with disabilities, English learners, students who have been disengaged during the spring and during our 1st few months. And so we've called them up and asked them to come back into our classroom. So here's an example of a cohort of our avid students. And they are in the classroom doing the distance learning with the teachers on providing the distance learning via computer. Next slide. This is a picture of our tutorial center. And so students are receiving tutoring, et cetera. And we have some adults you can see in the room that are there supervising. And so these cohorts travel together, and we keep them socially distanced, as you can see, and they are provided support by supervising adults. Next slide, please. Um, I want to address the question and comment that came up about technology. We are also speaking to Mountain View Whisman and to other organizations about Wi-Fi access. We also have one to one and we'll continue that upon return. We have 230 hotspots that we have checked out. We have delivered over 3500 Chrome books and we have new Chrome books that we're purchasing and we're switching them out with the older ones that we have because the older the newer ones, of course, are providing better support for the streaming that we do. We provided, um, earbuds for our English learner students. We are working with our families on their tech issues because they now have the devices, but the Wi-Fi has been the challenge. I want to thank the city of Mountain View. I want to thank Kimra and John Marshawn. We called and they immediately agreed to support us with a senior center cohort. So we realized that our students have difficulty traveling across town sometimes. And so we are planning a cohort with disengaged students at the senior center, and we will have our staff there, and we're hoping also we will be able to provide them with a place to pick up food. So thank you for your partnership on that. Next slide, please. You can see here a picture of one of our classrooms that is having a cohort on the left, and the teacher here is working side by side, and the students have their masks. And then on the right you can see what the classrooms, we have them ready. So right now we're in the process of matching staff and cohorts of students. And so you can see there what the empty classroom looks like as well. Next slide, please. As we prepare our facilities, um, it's not unlike when you go to the grocery store, you can see we have the tape on the ground, 6 feet uh, across, and we are, um, have the stickers, we have signage, we are, we are doing everything we can to prepare, and as was mentioned, we are also working with our teachers and our, in our bargaining groups to have that discussion of what a safe return will look like. Next slide, please. Um, in our offices, we have a lot of um, staff that are there right now. So you can see here we have our safety taxiglass and we're preparing all of our offices in closer quarters. So they are also safe upon return. And currently we have our campuses closed. So, um, we do make appointments for families to come in and we make sure that, um, we have a process in place for that, but walk in traffic is, um, not allowed at this time. Next slide, please. Um, this is what we expect our classrooms to have and we have these plexiglass carols that will be around the desks and the taller, um, um, plexiglass protection you see in the middle. Those will be purchased for teachers so they can have them in front of them and you can see they can move a little bit. It's very odd, as you can see. But um, we're doing what we can to um, make sure that we protect everyone physically from the COVID, of course. And then next slide. We have purchased an electrostatic sprayer. We have one for each campus, and then, um, these, um, filters, MERV 13 filters are being used, and, uh, we actually had a webinar today, an hour on on the filters, and the HVAC, because that's a critical part of, um, having the air, um, safe for our students. Next slide, please. All right, so, um, some of the things that we're doing, we are, we currently will not have instruction, but rather the cohorts for our 1st semester. We're continuing to monitor the cohorts. We are focusing on supporting students with disabilities, as I mentioned, but we also have students who need mental health support, and so we are creating pods for them as well. And we are also realizing that students who are at home that may not fit in these categories also need that interaction. So we are opening it up a little bit further for clubs and other groups that may want to come back. And so we're continuing to match these groups of 15 with adult supervisors. Next slide, please. This is really just a snapshot of what we're doing. And if you want a lot of detail, we have that available on the front page of our website, we have a framework that we've created. that shows you the timeline and the details about facilities, instruction, and engagement. And we're very proud of this document and continue to update it as we have more public health information. And with that, lastly, I want to thank you for inviting us tonight, um, we're very excited about the hard work that's happened, but we do miss our students, and we can't wait till we have the opportunity to have everyone back on campus. So, with that, thank you very much.

[03:17:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you, Dr. Meyer, do we have any questions or comments? From council members?

[03:17:21] Unknown Speaker: I just want to thank you for all of your hard work. As a parent, I really appreciate um, all the thought and work that's been put in and um, my daughter is enjoying our distance learning and uh, it's uh, yeah, it's very, it's going quite smoothly, so appreciate all of you. in your birthday.

[03:17:40] Superintendent Dr. Meyer: I'll pass that on. Thank you.

[03:17:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thanks, Ryan McAllister, yes.

[03:17:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, thank you, uh, Superintendent. I just want to follow up on your broadband and how you guys are, well, do you have a budget that's, you're looking to find, uh, experimental or temporary things where if you got more money, we could get a nice permanent type of, uh, broadband throughout the city.

[03:18:03] Superintendent Dr. Meyer: We are we are actually in discussion with Dr. Rudolph and Dr. Westover and certainly board member Connolly has been in contact with our board. And so we are having that conversation. We did receive a very nice, healthy budget from the state of California, but our last remaining funds, I think we have 3 to 4 good ideas on how to spend that same pot of money, as I'm sure you're familiar with that concept. So, um, but yes, we're definitely interested because really that Wi-Fi will continue. And we will have students who find this mode of delivery, um, better for them once we return. So we do plan to continue that program where we have online access for students. So, absolutely, Mr. McAllister.

[03:18:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you have these, uh, geographic. Are you able to tell the geographical where there's dead spots and does it is it similar to the elementary school district or students aren't able to get broadband?

[03:19:06] Superintendent Dr. Meyer: I would say we definitely share those same spots, but we also have additional spots that we were finding in um, in Los Altos as well. And, um, and we certainly see, um, competition for Wi-Fi in our families as we have our meetings and as our students are trying to stream, um, you know, whether dense, um, materials. So, um, but yes, we are, we're, we're seeing the same, um, dead spots, but we're also seeing, um, just, uh, weaker Wi-Fi, um, depending on the family, family needs.

[03:19:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

[03:19:45] Superintendent Dr. Meyer: You're welcome.

[03:19:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Anyone else? Oh, yes, vice fair.

[03:19:55] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Thanks, Dr. Meyer. Um, and I just want to say thank you to you and to city staff on working together for the, um, you know, the putting together the cohorts, and I know that both, um, Mountain View isn't in, and MBA, they have been working on kind of the pause, the learning pause, and trying to make sure that we're helping to meet the needs, and there's been a lot of coordination and collaboration between all of us, and so, um, you know, thank you for all your doing, and I just wanted to also be able to to think staff for that. And hopefully as we're kind of moving towards, um, being able to have in person instruction at some point in the future, we can continue to both communicate and collaborate and we, we tend to get a lot of questions that run the gamut, so appreciate you being here tonight. Thanks.

[03:20:44] Dr. Meyer: My pleasure. Thank you.

[03:20:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. So I'll now take open this up for public comment. If there are many, any members of the public wishing to speak on this item on the presentations by our school districts. Please. If you're in the TV box, please raise your blue hand, and if you're on the phone, please press star 9. And uh, we'll start with Jane Lee. And ask for 2 minutes on this item, please. If you can unmute yourself, Mr. Lee. Mary, uh, yes, there you go.

[03:21:18] Jane Lee: How much time do I have?

[03:21:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: 2 minutes.

[03:21:22] Jane Lee: Oh, I thought I was gonna have three.

[03:21:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: It depends on how many, um, we have in line and and just where we are on that agenda.

[03:21:29] Jane Lee: Well, bear with me. Um, You just wiped out my, um, I, um, Can you take me out of the full screen because I can't see my, uh, there it is, because I wrote it all down. Okay. Um, my, I'm a long time Mountain View resident. No, I was on the planning commission, environmental planning commission back in the 1980s. As a child, I attended Slater elementary school at Gladys and Wisman Road. And I also attended Graham Junior High School. In the 1950s and 1960s. The schools of both the Mountain Elementary and the Wisman Elementary School district, they're straining with the influx of the baby boomer kids. At the schools, which were all basically the same. The playgrounds were for recess, consisted of an asphalt area. For tetar bar, 4 square in basketball. There was also a small play area with an, uh, Bark ground cover for slides, swings, and air ground. The asphalt grounds and classrooms covered only half the land. The remaining land was a dirt field in the field was one constructed baseball backstop and some portable backstops on wheels. The kids played under dirt field and there were a lot of skin knees. Skinned knees and other injuries. There were school nurses back then. When the school, when the city started to build public parks, a partnership was struck with each elementary school district where the city would build parks adjacent to schools and improved those dirt fields. The schools provided the fields, land, and the city provided additional land and financed the building of all the park facilities with grass ball fields, sprinkler systems, tennis courts, bathroom facilities. It was agreed that the new parts would be accessible by the students for recess and the neighborhoods, generally, neutral park access. Today, it appears that the school district, Today, may I finish? I'm going to need another 30 seconds. Today, it may appear.

[03:23:40] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We have a lineup, so I'm going to have to.

[03:23:43] Jane Lee: Well, my most important conclusion is coming up, so please bear with me. Today, it may appear that the school district contributed very valuable land to get only a few ball fields. However, in the 60s, 1960s, there were plenty of undeveloped land, orchards, greenhouses and family farms. The city could have procured for parks. Land was not scarce like today. I believe the city owns the park improvements and facilities built on school district land. I also believe there's an established mutual easement on all the parkland, which by contract, or if not, then after half a century by adverse possession. The school district cannot unilaterally fence the parklands. Okay. Into the house proposed.

[03:24:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, I'm sorry, your time is up. Thank you for your comments. We're going to move on to Jim S. Please unmute yourself. You can begin. There you go. Um, you're breaking up. Could you try again? Hello? Um, you're still breaking up? Is it? Okay, well, I'll come back to you, um, if you wanna, call back in. I'm gonna go to the next person and then I'll come, I'll come, I'll come back to you. Thanks. I will go to PB. If you would like to unmute yourself.

[03:25:23] PB: Yeah, hi there. Can everyone hear me?

[03:25:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[03:25:25] PB: Hey there. Nice to meet you, mayor, and council. 1st time caller, long time listener. I spoke with, uh, I just wanted to call in to see if we can get the uh, leaf blower issue on the agenda at some point. I spoke with a bunch of people, including uh council member Hicks, and uh, we were talking about.

[03:25:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we're actually been on the presentation for the schools and so, um, you can speak during our oral communication, which is I don't...

[03:25:58] PB: Okay, cool. Thank you.

[03:25:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No problem. Thank you. We'll go to Heather Scholl. You could unmute yourself, please.

[03:26:09] Heather Scholl: Hi, um, I'm Heather Scholt, a member of the Montaloma neighborhood and also a parent of small children who enjoy using the playground in your, um, Montaloma school. So I definitely simplify it with the families that are disturbed that their playground is going to be, uh, taken away, potentially one of the options that the school is proposing. On the other hand, I also am not very happy with the idea of the school district fencing off our park, right through the middle, which is going to make it much less usable for a lot of the activities that happen there, everything from soccer games to our ice cream social in the neighborhood. Um, people who are running the circuit around the, um, various tracks there. So, I feel like none of the options that we've seen so far are viable. But at the same time, I understand the likelihood of something happening there is high. If our park is blocked off, I would like to know what the city is planning to do in order to make up for that park space. How are you going to, um, make sure that we have more facilities? Could Thaddeus Park add a bathroom? More um, playground structures for larger kids, um, older kids? Could you prioritize purchasing land as it comes available in the area? There's a sort of decrepit shopping center in one corner of the neighborhood that is ripe for redevelopment. There's space a cross-ring store that looks like it's getting redeveloped. There's plenty of options. Even the Google Land, I think it's technically Palo Alto, so can you work with Palo Alto? There's a corner of the property. It's completely undeveloped. They're perfect spot for a park. Um, I encourage the city to find some options for the neighborhood should we end up losing our park space. Thank you.

[03:27:58] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to Robin L, if you can unmute yourself, please.

[03:28:04] Robin L: Hey there. Um, it's nice coming after, uh, up after Heather. I also live in the Monteloma community and I thank you. Um, I'd also like to ask the city council to, um, really think hard about what the options are, what if and when the school district does decide to, um, fence off parts for all of Montalomo Park. Um, I'm not sure that it's going to be the way it is right now where there are no fences. Um, I don't believe that we will get to a, a solution where, um, none none of the park space, uh, where any, all of the park space is still available to the community at all hours. And so I would really encourage the city and the city council to, um, like Heather said, explore other, um, ways to make the neighborhood whole again. And I'd also like to understand from the city how, um, the city is prioritizing who is, um, scheduled for these park, um, spaces outside of these school hours. You know, if the school district does end up fencing off any parts of the of the fields, um, between that and having organized youth sports pretty much scheduled most evenings and almost all through the weekend. You know, the neighborhood really only gets, you know, will get, you know, access to the park. during the, you know, 8 PM to 7 AM hours, which I don't really consider that really a park space, nor do I think, I mean, it might be slightly creepy anyway. Um, so I would just really encourage the city to think deeply about how to make the neighborhood whole as well as who it has access to the park. I understand youth sports are really important. I also think that neighborhood access is as well. Thank you very much.

[03:30:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Well, uh, go to gym S. Welcome back. You can unmute yourself. Hello? GMS, are you with us? Maybe not. Well, uh, let me go to Jill Rakshaw and I'll check Jen again. Jim, would you like to mute yourself, please?

[03:30:47] Jill Rakshaw: Are you able to hear me?

[03:30:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, yes, I'm sorry, if I can go back to gym. Let's go to gym. And then we'll take you after that, Jill. sorry. Jim, yes, welcome.

[03:30:57] Jim S: Oh, yes, okay, good. Um, so in Mountain View for quite a number of years now, I spent my entire childhood and education going to schools here in California, both public and private. Um, most of which had an open space plan where there was no fence and I felt perfectly safe for the duration of my academic career. Um, but in fact, I even go far, so far as to say that the few times that I did attend schools that were fun stuff, that I thought that that was a much worse experience for me as a student. Um, irrespective of what it was for the community, the schools with fences felt like Walden fortresses or jails more than more than they did schools. And the schools with an open plan were a more inviting atmosphere. And similarly for the community. There's like pathways right next to where the offenses were proposed to be put in. And realistically walking along a giant fence pathway, um, is not a nice experience. And I think that it really does harm the city as a whole to have these giant fences all around the area that people going. I also wanted to comment on some of the community outreach. I feel like, uh, sort of, this is the 1st that we're hearing about it when a lot of people voted for the measure, um, and and sort of approved the bonds for, for the school districts, we thought that we were funding the schools, and I can't think of anyone in my community who, who thought that these bonds that they were approving to fund the schools would be going to building giant fences that destroy the community. So I would very strongly request that the city do everything in its power to communicate to the school district, that the defenses are not a valuable alternative. And then some of the other things that they're considered like additional lighting or additional personnel, whatever it takes, they're, you know, fine, do what you want there, but like putting in a fence is not a reasonable measure. Thank you.

[03:32:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, now get a jill rake shot. Make, make strong. You could unmute yourself, please. Jill. Hello?

[03:33:08] Jill Rakshaw: Um, So, Wizman, the Wizman school district owns the whole entirety of the Mona Loma school and park. It's, And disputed. I mean, It's right there in the plot map from the county. However, what I want to bring up is the fact that the parks and rec department considered this concept, that there was an eventuality, that the school district might want to reclaim their land at some point. And the park's master plan very clearly defines the path to occur when such an event happens. It says, um, that there should be preservation criteria, which includes that, um, a plan should be considered, about the impact of the loss of open space on the city's current and future recreation programming. It should uh, evaluate the city's investments, assets, and development on the property. Um, the quantity of other existing public or private open space areas in the area, and the impact of the loss on mountain views overall park system. So all I ask is that if, in the eventuality, this happens, that the school district does reclaim the space, that they have ownership of, the city follows through with the plan, that it specified in its own parks master plan. That's it. Thanks.

[03:34:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. We'll go to Tim McKenzie. Please unmute yourself.

[03:35:06] Tim McKenzie: Hey, can you hear me?

[03:35:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I guess we can. Welcome.

[03:35:10] Tim McKenzie: Hey, thanks. Um, I'm Tim. I've been a resident of Montaloma for 5 years. I like the park lot. This is the 1st I'm hearing about the possibility of a fence going around it. Um, It sounds like the city council doesn't really have the jurisdiction over it, but anything we can do to keep it open to the public. It's a nice neighborhood. I understand there's uh, There's school safety issues which seem reasonable. I think, uh, echoing the point that, uh, that 2 speakers ago, that his personal tale of having been in places and feeling less safe was pretty compelling to me. Um, but I'd just like to speak up and say, do what we can to keep the park open to residents of Montaloma. Thanks.

[03:35:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing the comments? You can raise your blue hand. I don't see any, and I don't think, uh, the phone callers are on, oh, actually, we'll go to PB.

[03:36:18] PB: Okay, cool. Well, thanks again. So now having listened to this part of the conversation. Um, I go to Monceloma Park every weekend and I would like to see it stay as open as possible. Thank you.

[03:36:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right, anyone else? If not, we will close public comment on this item and um, that will conclude the item. So, thank you very much, Dr. Meyer, and I know Dr. Westover stayed on, um, I'm not in New Westman, so I appreciate, um, both of you, with all 3 of you being here. We will pass along our the comments that we are receiving to the school district. We've received quite a few emails, so we will be sure to get those to the school district. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. And 3.one, our COVID-19 update by HCD manager can go help me.

[03:37:23] HCD Manager: Thank you, mayor. Going to share my screen here. Good evening, mayor and council member. So I'm back tonight once again with the latest COVID update and um, have some, um, interesting news to report from the county just in terms of what, um, is happening countywide and then also really what we're seeing nationwide. Um, So I always start out lately with this slide, which really presents the snapshot of um, the COVID cases countywide and then Mountain View. So you'll see that the county wide cases now are around 24,000. And just for comparison's sake, the last time I presented 2 weeks ago, the cases were at 22,600. So it's an increase of about 2000 cases in the past 2 weeks. Um, you'll also see that the new cases. So this, the number in the orange, the new cases, um, was 123. And this is as of the data as of today. So October 27th. And if you remember in the last presentation, I talked about how we were seeing cases go down. And we were seeing new cases in the 60s and 70s. And so we are now trending back up above 100 cases a day in the county. Uh, the last time I presented the daily case count was um, 97. So it did go up slightly from exactly 2 weeks ago, but essentially what this is showing is that our daily numbers are going up a little bit. And Mountain View right now we're at 656 cases and in my last presentation, we had 615 cases. So it's an increase of 41 cases over the last 2 weeks. So, uh, we seem to be doing pretty well in Mountain View, just in terms of keep keeping our daily case rate down. But it's that county wide number, really, the state looks at. When we think about how we move through the metrics of, the different colors or the different tiers. So, in terms of what's happening in the state. So right now there's 901000 cases. And my last update, there was 850,000 cases. So in 2 weeks, it's about a 50 50,000 increase, um, 50,000 new cases. So I think really what, um, this is telling us is that we're certainly not out of the weeds of this, that although we remain in the orange tier in the county, there are still things that we all need to continue doing. The, the, the public health officer, Dr. Cody, gave an update on Tuesday to the board of supervisors, and she really emphasized things that we've all been talking about over the weeks. Just making sure that you're wearing face coverings, keeping things outdoors as much as possible, making sure that you're maintaining social distance, and really just minimizing your contacts. And what she did was compare all of these to, uh, like having a piece of Swiss cheese, uh, which I know is kind of funny, but what she meant by that was if you layer, um, all of these measures together, um, but they may have holes in them individually, but if you layer them together, it provides a lot more protection. And so the biggest piece really is just the face covering piece. Um, just making sure that when you are out, um, you're that you're wearing a face covering. And something that I heard from the presentation that I thought was really interesting was that the public health department staff conducted a series of interviews with countywide residents who had recently tested positive. And a few themes emerged from those interviews. And The biggest one was the transmission mainly seemed to be occurring within individual households and also at work or carpooling or from social gatherings or visits, what we've all been hearing. Um, they also found that a lot of people had an incorrect perception that the level of risk from their relatives or their friends was a lot lower than their risk being around strangers. So the transmission they're seeing is really happening when people are just letting their guard down. typically around folks that they know. So I think really just making sure that we are, um, thinking about social gatherings and how we are, um, outside of our own households, that this is really how the virus is spreading. So, uh, the big takeaway from this is just continuing to follow all of those things that we're talking about. And I also want to point out that, um, One of the things that the county is really emphasizing is that we don't want to go backwards into the tier. We want to be able to stay where we're at. So that we can have the maximum amount of businesses and activities open, at the level they are now and hopefully move into the next tier. So to the extent that our data and our numbers continue to rise. Um, it is something that they will be looking at at the state level. And so hopefully we don't go backwards. And then the other thing is, I think we've all been hearing that there are, um, quite disturbing national trends, and international trends with the case rates right now. So, in the United States, daily case rates are up to about 55,000 cases a day or more, which is a big jump over over 25% jump just in the last few weeks. And we are actually closing on the peak cases nationwide that we were seeing in July. So we are certainly increasing the cases nationwide and then there are also a lot of cases increasing internationally and especially in Europe. So, um, bottom line, again, wearing face coverings is important. The pictures you see on the screen are reflective of a campaign that we will start doing very soon in Mountain View, where we're going to be reflecting, um, our, not only our employees, but our residents, um, just in various activities, just making sure that they're being safe and covering their faces. So, We just want to make sure that we stay in that orange chair and that we're doing everything we can to stay safe and healthy and and not continue the transmission of the virus. So part of that is going to be testing. So I'm really happy to report that we have, um, provided almost 9000 tests, um, since the end of July in Mountain View and this is an increase of around 1100 tests since the last report out. So we continue to do a great job with our testing at the center for the performing arts. And those next 2 events are October the 28th. So tomorrow. And then also November 3rd. And then we still continue to have the drive up testing at our shoreline athletic fields, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday from 8 to 1230, and then El Camino Hospital is still doing ongoing appointments Monday through Friday from 730 to 7. So I would encourage everyone to go to SCCfreeTest.org to take a test. so that we can continue to make sure that our folks in our community are getting tested and that we're we're keeping those numbers up because that is something that the state looks at as well. So turning to updates on our rent relief program, if you look at the yellow part at the bottom of the screen, we have expended about $3.10000. We are still seeing about an average of a little over $2000 for the assistance checks. And the total program funds are 3.9 million. So there's about $800,000 remaining in this program. I also wanted to highlight, as I mentioned, the last time, um, city employees that have had to adapt and and work differently. And I wanted to highlight our employees at our deer Hollow Farm. And in particular, I want to highlight Jessica Morgan, our senior recreation coordinator, and Lisa Cornelius, our recreation coordinator. And what staff has done over the past several months is, is really wonderful with having to keep up the care of the animals and they've also transformed so many of the events that they did for children and schools to online events. So, um, all the animals have been cared for during shelter and place, and since the farm has been closed to the public, uh, our staff has worked with the library, to prepare virtual tours, to the community, which have been really well received. And uh, we've also transitioned our in-person school field trips into virtual field trips. So the program is now a mix of pre-recorded tours of the farm and then live Q and A's with staff. And a total of 115 classes have booked a virtual field trip just between October 2020 and April 2021. So we're expecting to reach about 2600 students. They've also transformed. Normally we have spooky times at the farm. And this year we're taking that a virtual. So, um, they just wrapped up the virtual tour and we hope to roll that out soon, but I do want to thank them for everything they've done and we're really looking forward to being able to open the farm up to. Students and kids once we move out of this. So that takes me into just Halloween. Um, so right now, Halloween and Dia de la Smartos activities and celebrations will certainly look different this year, but we just want to encourage everyone in the community to stay safe and really think about different ways that you can have fun and meaningful experiences with your children. Um, and I do want to re-emphasize that that trick or treating door to door does remain a high risk activity just because it increases contact with folks. So what I was essentially talking about a few minutes ago. Also, parties are high risk. And so really thinking about how you can celebrate in a different way. So I wanted to let the community know that right here, at City Hall, our Civic Center Plaza and Pioneer Park, we have our, um, activities here that you can see. They're they're really cool photo, photo op opportunities and we've kind of transformed it into a, I guess, a spooky celebration, not only at night, but also during the day. And I really want to thank our community services staff for doing this. And this event is open from October 19th to November 2nd. Um, so residents can go and explore these different displays at their own leisure and just check it out and come and take some pictures and we'd love to see people's pictures in front of these photo ops. Then I also wanted to mention that we have our virtual council neighborhood committee meeting on Thursday, and this is with the Monteloma, Farley, and Rock Street neighborhoods. And the median starts at 4 o'clock, so it'll be from 4 to 6 this Thursday. And then in a bit of good news, we are having our very 1st ever virtual grand opening of one of our city parks. So Wyandotte Park. We will be having our virtual grand opening event actually this Friday. October 30th and the park is at 2254 Wyandot Street. And we hope to be able to broadcast it live. We're still working out some of the technical pieces of it, but if we're not able to do it live, it will certainly be on YouTube. Um, after we have the virtual grand opening, but I know this is very exciting. We haven't opened the park yet during COVID. So we're looking forward to sharing that with the community soon. And then lastly, I wanted to mention, um, about voting in California, and I know that, um, there's been a lot of conversations nationwide and across the state about, um, election security and ballot box security, and I wanted to, um, not only let the council know, but the public know that this is something that our county is taking very seriously, um, making sure that everyone can vote and that votes are secure. So this includes providing multiple methods of voting. So, um, on the screen, you can see that we have different ballot box drop off locations here in the city. Um, and also voting center locations in person, open this Friday, um, from 9 to 5 and that's going to be October 31st. Actually, sorry, October 31st is Saturday. So Saturday through November 2nd, um, 9 to 5 and then on election day, November 3rd voting at 7 AM to 8 PM. Um, the registrar voters has also, um, made sure that they are just really doing as much as they can to keep everything um, secure. They are doing audits. They're doing manual one% recounts. They're counting and processing, every vote by mail ballot, every provisional ballot, every conditional voter registration ballot. So they're really doing everything. They can to keep things secure. Um, then lastly, I did want to know that all of our law enforcement agencies across the county have, um, been meeting about this over over the last few weeks and are really keeping an eye out for any form of voter suppression that may occur. So this includes not only cyber attacks, um, that may happen, but also physical attacks or any disruption, um, to the voting process whatsoever. So we're not expecting anything in Santa Clara County, as I mentioned. Um, the leadership has uh, really done a good job of, of really making sure that that everything is secure and that everyone can vote, but um, countywide, we are being prepared not only within each city, but um, at the county level as well. So I wanted to also make sure people knew that. And with that, that concludes my presentation and I'm open for any comments. Questions.

[03:52:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, city manager. Do we have any questions from council members, counselor McAllister? Can you unmute yourself, please?

[03:52:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Everybody smiles, except when you say that, then they get mad at you. Uh, Are we out walking old Yogi the other night and we went past a house on Barcelona? If you really want to see a really nice decked out yard for Halloween. Barcelona, it's off of Martins. And it's a little side court. They got Harley. They got, it's really nice. So go check that out. There's another one on Eunice. Uh, just passed the uh, this Cooper school. So they might be mad at me, but they put a lot of effort in into it. So if you're out driving around or walking. Check these out because they are really, really, very elaborate. And I think we should give them some kind of reprise, but it's, it's, People are getting into it, and it's great to see that people are enjoying Halloween.

[03:53:19] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Council for McAllister. I'm glad you mentioned that. We actually had a home decorating contest through our community services department. So we had judges, um, drive around Mountain View to vote on their favorite homes and there were homes that got awards in different categories. And so you can check out our website at mountain view.gov slash monsterbash, and you can see a PDF of where all of the houses are. And area, including the one that you just mentioned, and that it also gives different routes. You can go to the houses. So the winners and runner-ups have actually received custom signs that they can place in their yards or entryways. So, thank you for mentioning that.

[03:54:00] Councilmember John McAlister: No, glad to help out anytime I can. Thank you.

[03:54:05] Unknown Speaker: How's the house on Franklin Street doing? I have on Franklin Street.

[03:54:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, Franklin. Anyway, anyone else with questions? Council members questions with this for the city manager? Nope, if not, we'll go to the attendee box, if there are any members of the public wishing to comment on the city manager's presentation, please raise your blue hand, or if you're on the phone, please hit Star 9. And I don't see anyone, so we will close this item. And, um, let's see, we're going in about 3 hours, so I was gonna suggest we take a 10 minute break, um, before we get into the next consent calendar. I also did want to, um, mention uh, a few folks weren't here earlier, item 9. has been pulled from the agenda, so we will not be discussing that item this evening. So let's go ahead and take a 10 minute break and be back at 8 o'clock and we will see you then. Thank you.

[02:52:10] (archive recording) Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Member requests otherwise. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? You don't see any. So we will now go to the public comment. If any members of the public would like to speak on an item on our consent calendar, please raise your blue hand if you're in the 10 day box and hit star 9 if you are on the phone. And we will start with Eric Colberg.

[04:06:12] Eric Colberg: Oh, you can hear me?

[04:06:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, hi there.

[04:06:16] Eric Colberg: Hi, good evening. My name is Eric Klberg. a homeowner and a resident of old Mountain View. How many notes, sorry? Wait, I got 2 minutes? Sounds good. So I'll cut straight to the chase. I think we should explore a band of gas powered gardening equipment for 3 big social justice, the environment, and of course, noise. The social death this issue is simple to me. Landscippers?

[04:06:39] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry? I'm excited to interrupt you, Mr. Kelberg. We're actually on the consent calendar. And um, your item is actually not on the consent, but um, if you can wait until item 5 oral communications, uh, that's when we can, um, have public comment on any item that's not on our agenda this evening. I apologize for that. Hold on a little bit longer and we will get to you. soon after this. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we will go to, um, it's a phone number that ends the last 3 numbers 213 if you can unmute yourself, please. Let's see I'll try again. There we go. Should be on.

[04:07:23] Mike Bowman: This is Mike Bowman, right? Jump the gun as well. So I'll wait till the non-agendized items.

[04:07:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. We'll get to you after this. Thank you. We'll go to Alex Brown. And if you can unmute yourself, you should be on.

[04:07:41] Alex Brown: I got it. Yeah, I just wanted to take this opportunity to say it. I still think that the Shoreline bike ped bridge is gonna be a waste of resources. That there is going to get very little actual bike or pedestrian usage.

[04:07:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hey thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment on an item on our consent calendar? I don't see anyone else, so I will close public comment and bring it back to council. Uh, so I will entertain emotion on the consent calendar unless there's further. Actually, they've done our comments. So, yes, if anyone would like to make a motion counseling, we got a check.

[04:08:27] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you So I will move the consent calendar, including item 4.2. Adaptive resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, approving the application for statewide park development at community revitalization program grant funds, through the state of California reposition 68 program, to be read entitled only for the reading wave, attachment prior to the council report. Item 4.4. Adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View approving cooperative agreement number 04 dash 2745 between the city of Mountain View and the state of California Department of Transportation Caltrans, for improvements to the state highway system, from the California streets and highways code sections, 104 and 130, for Caltrans's review of the project initiation. document. Which is the project study report, project report, and environmental documentation clearance faces for the Charlotte Boulevard at Highway 101 bicycle pedestrian bridge, project 16 dash 60 and authorizing the city manager to execute the agreement in an amount not to exceed $320,000 to be read entitled only for the leading wave, not as attachment known to the council report. And item 4.5, introduce an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending chapter 19, Article 8, division 5 of the Mountain View city code relating to electric vehicle charging parking spaces, to be read entitled only for the meeting wave, and set 2nd meeting for November 10th, 2020 attachment one to the council report.

[04:10:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Okay. Thank you. Another submission by Counselor Ranachek, 2nd by Council member Clark. Any further discussion? On the consent calendar. If not, can we get a roll call, please?

[04:10:34] City Clerk: A member Clark.

[04:10:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[04:10:36] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[04:10:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:10:38] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek.

[04:10:39] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:10:40] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[04:10:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[04:10:43] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez.

[04:10:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:10:45] City Clerk: Ice Mayor Kamei. May I be Koga?

[04:10:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Nice.

[04:10:50] City Clerk: Thank you. The motion carry 70 with no abstention.

[04:10:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. We'll go on to item. Five. So this is uh oral communications. This version of the meeting is reserved for the persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda, including leaf blowers. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes, depending on how many we have speaking, I will set the time accordingly. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items. If you are in a 10 day box and would like to, um, speak, please raise your blue hand, and if you are on the phone, please hit star 9. And we have quite a few, so I'm going to set it to 2 minutes. And actually, we'll not. Yeah, let's go 2 minutes. We'll start with cat worm, and please unmute yourself to start talking.

[04:11:45] Kat Wortham: Right, can you hear me?

[04:11:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, we can.

[04:11:48] Kat Wortham: Awesome. Thank you. So hello, my name is Kat Wortham, and I'm here today to invite you to join us. Our 16th annual applied materials, Silicon Valley Turkey Trot. And to participate in our mayor's cup challenge. This year, the Turkey Trot produced by the Silicon Valley Leadership Root Foundation will be virtual for the safety of our community and vulnerable populations. But with so much tremendous need in our community. Support for our 5 local beneficiaries. Excuse me, is needed more than ever. This includes 2nd harvest of Silicon Valley, 2nd harvest Food Bank of Santa Cruz County, Health Trust, Alfarer Kids Foundation, and Housing Trust. So, for the past 15 years, we've donated $960000000 community, and this year, we hope to surpass 10000000 Your involvement can get us there. As you know from past years, our mirrors cup rewards, mirrors, council members, and city managers who register for our race. This year, points will also be awarded for tricky chat related outreach posts and newsletters, e-newsletters, and social media to your constituents. Points are also available if you'd like to champion these efforts on behalf of your council. Uh, I will leave behind our point scoring sheet, then leave behind, and I will email it to you in this nice virtual world. Um, thanks again for your support of past Circle Valley turkey shots, and please enjoy Thanksgiving. Thanks for your service to the community.

[04:13:10] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you so much and yeah, that's what I look forward to the information and uh, get some sign ups and. We'll go on to Erica Peters. Please en route yourself to start speaking.

[04:13:25] Erica Peters: Hi, my name is Erica Peters, can you hear me?

[04:13:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, we can. Welcome.

[04:13:30] Erica Peters: I represent a small group of Mountain View residents who are helping prepare for the possibility that the current presidential election could lead to an unprecedented power grab. We are encouraging people, especially community leaders like yourselves, to read and sign the pledge at choose democracy.us, which states that in addition to voting ourselves, we will insist on all votes being counted, and that the democratically elected candidate becomes president in January. They are also holding a peaceful nonviolent event on Wednesday, November 4th, from 430 to 6.30 p.m. at the corner of El Camino in San Antonio, to communicate the importance of counting all the votes and protecting the results of the election. We invite everyone to join us in signing the pledge at choosedemocracy.us and coming out the day after the election and beyond if necessary. Thank you.

[04:14:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to PB. If you can unmute yourself to speak, please. PB. Are you...

[04:14:37] Patrick: Like this? Mm. Don't think so. So, um, well, I'll try back. I'll try back with I'll try back later.

[04:14:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Let's go to Eric Celberg. Welcome, Mr. Colberg. If you can unmute yourself.

[04:15:00] Eric Colberg: Hi, can you hear me?

[04:15:01] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, welcome.

[04:15:03] Eric Colberg: All right, thank you for the opportunity. As I mentioned, I think we should explore a ban of gas powered gardening equipment. Um, to be clear, that's not just leak rows and the main reason there's social justice, the environment, and, of course, noise. The social justice issue is central to me. Landscapers who come from disadvantaged groups have to continually deal with the harmful health effects of gas powered equipment, while those who can afford to hire them have largely been insulated from those same effects. Frankly, I think it's sad that none of the previous initiatives we have had in this area reached critical mass, unlike Palo Alco and other Bay Area cities. But since COVID drove a massive shift to working from home, I believe more of the folks driving demand for gas powered gardening equipment are now directly experiencing its impact. So I assume there will be more appetites for action. And I hope that any new restrictions would put the burden on property owners like me for compliance and our overall community to fund a buyback program like San Jose does. Landscapers have it tough enough already. On the environment front, I think about both the immediate local environment and the broader climates. Anyone who has had landscapers around the local environment impact. If my windows are open, I can smell the fumes for at least an hour after a typical session, even if it's a few doors down. This adds up, according to the carb. Total small engine emissions will be more than twice those from passenger cars by 2031 and running the best selling commercial gas loop floor for an hour creates around the same amount of pollution that's driving from LA to Denver. Many of us have already invested in efficient vehicles, and now it's high times tackled with next source of engine pollution. Finally, the noise issue is pretty obvious for those who have to work from home, so I won't belabor that point, but I would note, I'm not in favor of a restriction, but it's based on noise levels alone, mainly because that may lead to the use of muffler, on gas powered equipment, without solving the pollution or social justice issues. I'd rather see the noise benefit as a side effect on something focused on the environmental and social factors. So to sum it all up, it's a real problem. I know it's going to take carefully balancing different interests and I request that the city council begin explored. Thank you.

[04:17:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to Tim McKenzie, please unmute yourself.

[04:17:13] Tim McKenzie: Hey can you hear me?

[04:17:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yep, it's, yes, Ken. Welcome.

[04:17:16] Tim McKenzie: Oh, thanks. Hi, I'm Tim Resident of Monte Loma. Earlier this month in Wolf City, Texas, there was a physical altercation. Um, and then an unarmed stranger intervened and de-escalated the situation, and when the police showed up, they shot and killed the unarmed black man who stepped in 2 strangers fighting. That was Jonathan Price. He died earlier this month. Last week in Illinois, Marcellus Stinnett, with a 19 year old black man was shot and killed by police, the officer who shot him was fired. It's, um, and just yesterday in Philadelphia, um, Walter Wallace was a man who uh, had mental health issues and was on medication according to his father, was shot and killed by police. This is something that is happening all over our country. People have been speaking to you repeatedly about this, asking for things to happen. This has happened in our backyard in Redwood City in December 2018, Kyle Hart, who was a teacher in Palo Alto, who was having a mental health crisis, was shot and killed by the police. We need to reallocate resources from the police department so that when we have public safety issues in our city, we're not sending armed agents of the state who are trigger happy and not in de-escalation. I know, this is happening all over the country. Don't wait for it to happen in Mountain View. Take action, defund the police, reallocate resources so that we don't have armed agents of the state showing up with guns when they are not needed. Thank you. And thank you, constant member McAllister, for withdrawing your item 9.one. You've restored some of the faith in my faith in municipal governance that I had lost when you when you had brought it up. So thank you for that. I respect it.

[04:19:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to John Wiley. If you can unmute yourself, please. Let's see. All of the talk is not available. Um, So, Mr. Wiley, it says you have an older version of Zoom. So, um, oh, I guess we need to promote you the panelists. So let me do that and see if we can get you on. That way. Let's see.

[04:19:46] John Wiley: Hi.

[04:19:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: There we go. Hi there. All right. are you?

[04:19:50] John Wiley: I'm fantastic. Hi, I'm John Wiley. I live in old Mountain View. Um, actually, before I get to this topic, I just want to say how wonderful this dose of actual functional democracy is, uh, in this current environment. It's kind of fantastic. Um, My issue is about lake blowers. My son currently attends elementary school, remotely from our home, my wife and I both been working from home, and a constant challenge is the droning noise from leaf blowers, similar lawn equipment, during this time, so many of us are working from home. During COVID-19, perhaps we can constrain the time in which these devices are used in residential areas to minimize disruption to kids. People working from home. I agree with previous uh previous speakers, uh, with regards to the social justice issues, the climate issues. Um, and I ask that the council add this issue to an agenda very soon to address the immediate need. Um, but also, um, obviously to, to also take into account the, the, the climate impact that it has as well. Thanks. That it.

[04:20:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Uh, well, go on now to Donna Davies, please, and meet yourself. Miss Davies. And then I'm going to.

[04:21:01] Donna Davies: Can you hear me, Margaret?

[04:21:02] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, thank you. How are you?

[04:21:05] Donna Davies: Just like Eric Colberg and John Riley, I request very simply that the council add an agenda item for a future meeting. On bearing gas powered leaf blowers, and very possibly other landscaping tools. So thank you very much.

[04:21:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to, um, next class. I think it was Mike Palmer at 213 the last 3 phone number numbers. If you can invite yourself. Let's see.

[04:21:42] Mike Bowman: All right, this is Mike Bummer, and uh, I was on sustainability task force, uh, both one and 2 and I was the author of several of the recommendations. Uh, one of the recommendations, uh, it was specifically, uh, P3, uh, items one and 2, which was to reduce emissions from landscaping equipment, which is a topic that many of his folks are talking about. Um, uh, we didn't look, of course, at COVID at the time. And so uh, now with the uh, advent of COVID and as it's a respiratory uh, disease and has been known to, um, hurt people that have respiratory uh, uh, symptoms, uh, it makes accelerating, uh, this, this action, which is currently scheduled for the 2021, 2022 time frame, and, and moving that up. Um, and in particular, uh, what was adopted, uh, by the council in the, uh, sustainability action plan was just the incentive portion of the recommendation that, uh, the working group uh, provided, uh, the uh, ban of the gas blowers was not uh, a recommended or was not um, adopted at the time. However, I think it should be reconsidered, given the COVID situation, and also as part of the task force. We thought about both a carrot and the stick approach was more effective in actually moving the needle. Uh, so I would urge the council to accelerate the timeline for this, uh, the, uh, sustainability action, uh, plan item 3, that 2, uh, and add a phase in to the ban on gas, power equipment. Uh, there are a number of cities, uh, Palo Alto, Los Altos, our neighbors, and most recently, Porto Valley, uh, that have, uh, have leaf blow, blood bands. And so we can leverage those ordinances. So I urge the council to take action in this area. Thank you.

[04:23:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to see if PB if you're on. Please unmute yourself to speak.

[04:24:00] Patrick: Okay, thank you. I was unable to get off me at the 1st time for some reason the button didn't appear. Apologies. Thank you for hearing me. Yes, my name is Patrick. and I wanted to request that the council has an agenda item for ghastly floors. Specifically Danny then. Thank you.

[04:24:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Thank you for waiting and coming back. I'm going to... We're going to Alex Brown.

[04:24:29] Alex Brown: Hey. Damn, I, I don't know where Lee Fleur again came from, but as Council member Ramirez can attest, I've been complaining about that for a while now, uh, Also, thank you, Tim, for your comments. Uh, And that the social justice when it comes to police violence is something that we do need to address. But most of all, I wanted to talk to Counselor McAllister, and thank you for your attempts to try to make sure that you had to say in appointing me to the rental housing committee. Uh, before you were turned out. I'm sorry that your efforts, uh, didn't succeed and that you were cowered by the mob. It's a shame, because I know that you were doing this all for me, and I thank you for it.

[04:25:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Well, good in, Benina. Shampuan, well? Oh, sorry if I didn't pronounce that correctly, if you can unmute yourself, please, to speak. Ms. Fanina? Hmm. You try to unmute yourself. Pennsylvania?

[04:25:54] Benina Shampuan: Oh, okay, no, I thought I had done that, sorry. Yeah, for time efficiency, I'd be fast. I just want to fully support um what every Colberg. Uh, Mike Barmer and others have said about uh, studying the issue of uh, leaf blower and the pollution from uh, gas that has been used. And I fully recommend that the council implements P3, which was a measure recommended by the task force. I thank everybody who tries to promote some kindness and some health and peace in times of COVID so that Mountain View remains a beautiful city and with the variety of unfair and disturbing issues in the world. I hope we can start with leaf blower and continue with beautiful garden and beautiful nature and peace in the city. Thank you.

[04:26:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And we'll get an eating, kidding, please unmute yourself.

[04:26:56] Public Speaker: Thank you. Hi there. I would like to say that renters all over Mountain View. I relieved that item 9. is removed tonight. Why are they relieved? Because they remember measure D. Measure D was initiated by this council. and sought to weaken rent control, and make rent increases of up to 10% much more likely. When renters remember the faces of council members Abbe Koga and Lisa Matachek on the flyers for measure D. Renders remember the footer of these flyers, paid for by the California Apartment Association. Renters and the members of the community who find renters to be an integral part of this community. Carry the working assumption, but this council majority has more respect for the California Apartment Association than for its own residents. We wonder who suggested item 9. the council member McAllister. We wonder who connected the California Apartment Association, to work with the firefighters, to promote anti-renter council candidates. Renters are relieved that their trust is not restored. Thank you.

[04:28:11] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right, isn't there anyone else who would like to speak? If so, please raise your blue hand or press star 9. I don't see any, so I will close item 5 or.

[04:28:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes. Would I respond to that woman? Um, city attorney? Is that allowed?

[04:28:32] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: The product prohibits any action from being taken, uh, and best practice is not to, uh, be in a discussion about non-agendized items.

[04:28:44] Councilmember John McAlister: It's not a discussion, it's a matter of fact.

[04:28:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: If you if you like. Yes, we allowed that, so please go ahead and come from McAllister.

[04:28:54] Councilmember John McAlister: I took the item off the agenda because as I said, I did not like all the diversiveness in the city, and I wanted to start a healing process that when you imply that I had an outside agency, uh, was, uh, shameful. I am sorry that you failed to feel that way, but there was no other force, other than just common decency, in trying to make the city a better area. So next time, please get your facts. Thank you.

[04:29:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Counselor McAllister, I appreciate your comments. Yes, there's a lot of assumptions and misassumptions being said and um, I think I would like, I hope that we can move beyond this and and start the healing process as well. Oh, gosh, item 6 public hearings, 6.one, the zoning ordinance amendments pertaining to successfully accessory dwelling units, ADUs, and we have a staff presentation, my assistant planner, Brittany Whitefield. Welcome Ms. Whitehill.

[04:30:01] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Hi, thank you. Just getting this set up really quickly. All right. Well, good evening, and uh, thank you, mayor and members of the city council. My name is Brittany Whitehill, and I am joined tonight by planning manager and zoning administrator Stephanie Williams. The item in front of you consists of zoning ordinance amendments pertaining to accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. In fall of 2019, the governor signed into law several bills amending multiple government code sections related to accessory dwelling units, ADUs, and junior accessory well units, JADUs. This legislation became effective on January 1st of 2020. In spring of 2020, staff brought proposed zoning ordinance amendments related to ADUs to the EPC for recommendation and a city council for adoption. Before the 2nd reading of the proposed ordinance, the item was pulled from the agenda for further evaluation. The updated version of the proposed regulations have been further refined and reflect the latest information and interpretations available from the California Department of housing and community development on the numerous housing bills adopted earlier this year. Zoning ordinance amendments are required to be reviewed by the Santa Clara County Airport Land use commission, the ALUC. On September 9th of 2020, staff presented the draft ADU Code Amendments to the ALUC. The ALUC determined that the proposed amendments are consistent with the comprehensive land use plan for Moffatt Federal Airfield. And on September 16th of 2020. Staff brought the updated zoning ordinance amendments to the EPC. The EPC unanimously recommended that city council approved the zoning ordinance amendments. Since this item was last reviewed by city council, staff has made several revisions. A definition section has been added to defined terms specific to ADUs and JADUs. For the single family ADU standards. Staff has added a requirement that the front setback of the ADU be consistent with the front setback of the underlying zone, and eliminated the minimum 10 foot separation between ADUs and other structures. The 30% maximum rear yard coverage requirement, and the requirement for ADUs to be constructed in the same architectural style, and with the same materials as the primary residence. For the JADU standards, staff has clarified that a JADU can be allowed within a single family home on any residential site, as opposed to a single family home in the R one district only, and staff has removed the 800 square foot maximum for an ADU on a site with an existing or proposed JADU. And this recommendation is consistent with a state law that was recently passed that allows both an ADU and a JADU to be located on a single family law. No substantive changes to the multifamily ADU standards have been made. However, staff has organized the single family, multifamily, MJADU standards into separate tables for clarity. Stuff has revised the proposed parking standards to clarify that no parking is required for an ADU with no bedrooms. Staff has revised the development standard exceptions section to clarify that any development standard can be waived to allow for an 800 square foot ADU, then to clarify that heightened setback standards do not apply to an ADU located within an existing building. And lastly, staff is reorganized various standards related to ADUs and JAD use for clarity. In conclusion. Staff recommends that city council approves of proposed code amendments, and this concludes staff presentation and we would be happy to answer any questions you have.

[04:34:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. Any questions from council members? Yes, Council member Hicks.

[04:34:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: We got a, um, I got an email from Joyce Yin on our environmental planning commission who works as an architect and has worked on ADUs and she had a number of suggestions of things she'd seen in other cities, which maybe I'll pass on for some other time. But among them was the possibility of doing educational workshops, the city doing educational workshops. Um, with members of the public, and I'm wondering if that's something that you had thought of or that you would be willing to add to, um, you know, the repertoire things associated with the ADUs and JADUs.

[04:35:11] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: So at this point, we've been working on developing a handout on, you know, for the public to have as a resource. And maybe I can defer to either Stephanie or RT if they want to speak to the possibility of some workshops.

[04:35:27] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: I'm happy to jump in here. Um, um, council member, uh, Hicks. I think that's a great idea. Um, and we thought we'd start with, 1st of all, making the ordinance more readable. Um, and we'll be glad to see that we've created a lot more tables, um, to make it uh, clear, uh, work on a handbook after which we can maybe do some outreach, um, especially with um, people that we see, um, often who are architects, um, and can maybe just become communicators to the rest of the public. Um, you know, do some sort of a webinar. I think that would be great. Thank you.

[04:36:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry, I've been on mute the whole time. If you are, um, in an attendee box, I would like to make a comment on this item, please raise your blue hand, and if you're on the phone, please press star 9, we are in public comment. And I don't see any hands. And no one on the phone, so I will close this, I, uh, public comment and bring it back to council. Council member Ramirez.

[04:36:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'll move to introduce an ordinance of the city of Mountain View amending sections of chapter 36, zoning ordinance of the city code to update accessory drawing unit regulations to align with state law, to be read entitled only for the reading where, and set a 2nd reading for November 10th, 2020.

[04:37:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and vice mayor?

[04:37:23] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: I swear. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. I'll forget the motion.

[04:37:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you very much. So you mentioned by council member Ramirez seconded by the vice mayor. Any other discussion on this item? If not, could we get a roll combo, please?

[04:37:39] City Clerk: Council member Clark.

[04:37:41] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yep.

[04:37:42] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[04:37:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:37:44] City Clerk: Council member Matachek.

[04:37:45] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:37:46] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[04:37:48] Councilmember John McAlister: I just want to ask the vice mayor what motorcycle she was riding there, but it is a yes.

[04:37:54] City Clerk: Council number Ramirez.

[04:37:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[04:37:58] City Clerk: Counsel, Vice Mayor Commay.

[04:38:00] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, I swear it wasn't me, John.

[04:38:03] City Clerk: Nabi Koga.

[04:38:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I

[04:38:05] City Clerk: live in K70 with no extensions.

[04:38:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. White Hill. White Hill. Apologies We will live on to item 6.2 The public hearing on the downtown business improvement areas and we have our staff presentation by business development specialist. If you need to welcome Ms. Chu.

[04:38:26] Business Development Specialist Chu: Good evening, mayor and city council. Tonight we are holding the 1st public meeting in the annual renewal of the process for the downtown business improvement areas. The 2nd meeting will take place on November 17th, 2020 to approve the renewal. There are 2 business improvement areas. BIA number one includes all businesses along Castle Street and side streets. DIA number 2 includes businesses in the 100 to 300 blocks of Castro Street. The BIA assessments generated from the areas are used for specific programming and services to support the downtown Business Association. Any changes to the area, including fee structure and boundaries, may require a majority vote by the downtown businesses. In the annual report prepared by the DBA, the 2021 projected revenues from both areas are approximately $40,300. Tonight, city council may discuss the BIAs and receive any comments or inputs from the members of the public. There are 3 recommendations for counsel tonight. Preliminarily approve the downtown association annual report, adopt resolutions, declaring intention to levy and assessments of BIA's number one and number two. This concludes staff presentation. Thank you.

[04:39:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any questions from council members? I don't see any. I'll open this up for public comment. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak on this item? If so, please raise your blue hand if you're in the attendee box and press star 9 if you're on the phone. I don't see any, so I will close public comment and bring it back to council, Councilman Rick Clark.

[04:40:16] Councilmember Chris Clark: Maybe we preliminarily approve the downtown business association annual report, um, to adopt a resolution of the city council. This is the Mountain View Aquarium, this intention, the levy assessment for the downtown Mountain View Business Improvement Area number one. To be read entitled only for the reading wave, instead of 2nd or study public hearing date, on November 17, 2020, attachment, one of the council report, and 3 that we adopt a revolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, dequiring its intention to love the assessment, from the downtown Mountain View Business and Grumen Area number 2 to be read entitled only for the reading wave, for the public hearing date of November 17, 2020, attachment to the council report.

[04:40:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and Councilman Medachek,

[04:40:57] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: one 2nd motion.

[04:40:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So we have mentioned by council member, Clark, 2nd by counseling on your Medachek. Any other discussion on this item? Lower your hand. Can't send me a check. If not, can we get a roll call vote, please?

[04:41:14] City Clerk: Cancel number Clark.

[04:41:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[04:41:16] City Clerk: Council number Hicks.

[04:41:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:41:18] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek.

[04:41:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes,

[04:41:20] City Clerk: council member McAllister.

[04:41:23] Councilmember John McAlister: I support you. Oh, no, I'm sorry. I.

[04:41:26] City Clerk: Has the number Ramirez.

[04:41:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:41:29] City Clerk: Hi, Mayor Kame. May I be Koga?

[04:41:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi.

[04:41:35] City Clerk: Thank you. Thank you, motion carry 70 with no extensions.

[04:41:38] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We'll go on to thank you, Miss 2. We'll go on to item 7, new business, 7. It's agreement with thecology, Mountain View, for recyclable materials, organic materials, and solid-based collection services, and may have our staff presentation by our solid-based program manager, Larry Copley. Welcome this topic.

[04:42:04] Solid Waste Program Manager Lori Tuffley: Sorry, hello, good evening. Let me just share my screen with you. And can you see that and hear me okay?

[04:42:17] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And don't, I don't see the screen yet.

[04:42:22] Solid Waste Program Manager Lori Tuffley: You don't see the screen.

[04:42:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No. Oh, right, no. Let me see it. Thank you.

[04:42:37] Solid Waste Program Manager Lori Tuffley: Thank you. Sorry, because my 1st virtual calculator.

[04:42:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: That's awesome.

[04:42:43] Solid Waste Program Manager Lori Tuffley: So, could you be your council members? I am Lori Tuffley, and I'm a solid waste program manager, and also I have here with me tonight Assistant Public Works director, Damian Skinner. So the council is asked to consider approving a new agreement with racology to provide collection services for a 10 year turn beginning July 1st, 2021. The recology agreement is one of 3 that make up total solid waste services for the city. Processing services are provided primarily by the smart station under a memorandum of understanding with Sunnyvale and Palo Alto. And landfill disposal is at Kirby Canyon through an agreement with waste management. All of these agreements expire near or at the end of 2021. The process to establish new service agreements began with adoption of a 0 waste plan in October of 2019. Some of the initiatives outlined in the plan to reduce waste have been incorporated into the proposed agreement. Also, in October, council reviewed options for procuring new agreements and chose to direct staff to negotiate with the existing service providers. The maccology negotiations are now complete. While the processing and disposal agreement discussions are still underway. A pro forma to evaluate your ecology service cost against a projected standard indicated the city is getting good value. Ecology made some reductions in overtime and equipment maintenance costs in response to the results of the pro forma. Counsel reviewed the scope of services for the new agreement in January. All current services were to be continued, and normally the vice services were identified to support the city 0 waste goals and meet SB 1383 regulations. SB 1383, you might recall, is the law that requires a 75% reduction in the amount of organics that are going to landfill by 2025. Your services to be provided by oncology include organic service at all of the cities nearly 600 multifamily complexes. Twice you have a collection of bulky items at multifamily complexes that are not now eligible for the on-call cleanup program. Recology will follow a reuse protocol, which includes several methods to redirect appropriate items to one or more reuse organizations. A route auditor will ensure compliance with SB 1383 regulations for contamination and participation monitoring. New outreach signs attached to collection vehicles will be piloted on 3 routes. And for colleging will assist with the city's illegal dumping cleanup efforts by collecting abandoned bulky items when assigned by staff. We buy services including expanding the organics, the commercial organics program, to every mountain view business. Outreach and technical assistance will be increased to handle additional organics customers, provide the school's program, and expand special event assistance. Technical assistance costs also includes starter kits for the new multifamily organics customers, and all supplies for the schools. On call, cleanup program collection methods will be changed. To increase the ability to direct bulky, and other items collected to use organizations. The number of appointments allowed will be reduced from 3 to 2 per year to offset some of the additional cost and time needed to increase reuse. Only 9% of residents using the on-call service used all 3 appointments. And that represents less than 2% of all the eligible customers. Residents who have these 2 appointments can still receive a voucher to the smart station. Bad textiles will be collected curbside, and offer to one or more reuse organizations. Multifamily complexes can also opt into this with the central location, central collection location. And finally, as a cost saving measure, the multifamily and commercial garbage routes will be combined. SB 1383 requires standardization of container colors across California. The split recycling, multifamily recycling in organics carts are out of compliance and need to be replaced. While the city is allowed a generous amount of time to come into compliance, staff recommends replacing all the cards in the 1st 3 years of the agreement. The split cards are especially native replacement as they were 1st deployed in 2004. The old cards will be recycled. Recology currently has a fleet of primarily compressed natural gas vehicles. As these vehicles come up for replacement, they're going to be switched to renewable diesel. These, we know the diesel vehicles have lower lifecycle GHT impacts, and they're slightly less expensive to purchase and operate. Recology did recently test an electric collection vehicle in Mountain View. To, um, that the vehicle was only able to run for about 5 hours before needing a charge. And this leads to some collection in efficiencies. But as a technology for these vehicles improved, staff and ecology can discuss possible changes to the fleet replacement schedule to begin transitioning to electric. Recology will continue to compost commercial organics, and we'll begin composting residential organics. The pricing offered fibrocology reflects current operating costs for their composting facilities, and appears to be in line with the market. 2 processing services will be redirected from the smart station to 3rd party companies that recology will contract with. Construction and demolition debris will be taken to the Zanker material processing facility. And commercial recycling will be taken to the green waste recovery facility, both located in San Jose. Staff receive pricing, formacology, for 2 optional service changes. The 1st is weekly collection of the split recycling carts, and the 2nd is discontinuation of the CRV buyback services at the recycling center. However, staff is not recommending these service changes be made in the 1st year of the agreement, but they can be implemented at any time during the 10 year term. Overall compensation for new agreement is shown in the table. Based service cost changes of $371,000 include a CPI increase from the current fiscal year. The ametized cost of replacing the split recycling cards. The reduction from reducing the number of on call clinic appointments. And the reductions to overtime and equipment maintenance in response to the pro forma benchmark. The more revised services, including the multifamily organics, the technical assistance, and on doing services, and then also changes to the on-call cleanup program to increase diversion, uh, through reuse, are an additional $1100000 In total, service changes represent a 7.7% increase over current cost for the 1st year of the new agreement. In years 2 and 3 of the agreement, there will be additional costs for the commercial organics program expansion, and replacement of the multifamily recycling, and all organics cars. Mycology will be compensated for organics composting, commercial recycling processing, and construction degree processing on a per ton basis. Well, the costs are estimated at 3500000 for fiscal year 2122 and won't grow over time as organics participation increases. They will be countered by reductions in smart station expenses and avoided landfill disposal. But staff will not have a complete picture of the processing cost changes until the smart station discussions are completed. The estimated rate impact for the 1st year of the new agreement is shown in the table. These are not the proposed solid-based rate changes for fiscal year 2122, as 30% only ecology collection services. But I've shown them as a way to understand the costs associated with the new agreement. And for context, a 3% increase for the typical 32 gallon garbage cart customer is about $one per month. So, in conclusion, staff recommends the council authorized the city manager to execute a new agreement with macology to provide solid waste collection services for a 10 year term, beginning July 1st, 2021. Alternatively, the council could choose not to include one or more of the new proposed services, or to include either of the 2 optional service changes. And that concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer questions, and I also know tonight that John Savelli, the general manager, for Recology is with us. And also Mark Bowers and Hermanachinacutla, from the city of Sunnyvale, in case there are any questions pertaining to the smart station services.

[04:52:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Kathy. Any questions um council members? Miss Council member Hicks.

[04:52:59] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I mostly got very positive reviews from uh, from residents about racology services. This is the one question I got from residents is whether there was a way to replace, not replace all the organics cards at once, to spread that out over time, so they wouldn't be throwing away so much plastic, and I'd like to know whether anybody has comments on that.

[04:53:26] Solid Waste Program Manager Lori Tuffley: Um, Yes, well, I I, um, We did have some reasons for recommending that they be replaced all at once. However, if the council directs, There certainly are other options we could look at at spacing that out. However, we will have to do it, um, We can't do it just on a time basis of how often people ask for a replacement cart because we only do about 500 per year. And at that rate, we won't meet the SV 1383 deadlines. But certainly, uh, we could look at a 3 or 5 or 7 year uh, period over which we replace a certain number every year. I would have to uh, go discuss with ecology, uh, the cost differentials of doing that.

[04:54:16] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Um, highlight. This is Don Cameron, public works director. I would like to add on a little bit more to that about why staff is recommending more replacing them over the next 3 years. As previously mentioned by narrate, these cards are reaching the end of their useful life. And no matter how we replace them, we're going to have to replace them by geographic area in order to be very consistent. We can't have one household having one color cart next door. They have an older one and we try to keep track of who we replace and what we haven't. So, We are going to need a systematic way to work through the city. of replacing them. Um, they are reaching the end of their life. There are, as we mentioned in the council responses. There's also the mark, the messaging we do with the community to help educate them. And if we have different colors out there. It just can confuse the messaging further. So it still is staff's recommendation that we proceed with replacing the cards over the 3 year period.

[04:55:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. It sounds like it would be a heavy lift. And so unless any, I will drop that unless anybody has any, uh, recommendations from moving it forward, thanks.

[04:55:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: That's not a man a check.

[04:55:36] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, um, I appreciate the in the agreement. Um, we have the ability to, um, make use of the city owned property on Terrafola, uh, for a cook, if we, uh, choose to do that. But I'm wondering, does it have to be limited to a park? Um, given that this is a like 10 year contract, I mean, we really have, you know, no way of predicting the future. Um, if it was, if we needed it for something owned in a park, did we have that ability?

[04:56:15] Dawn Cameron: Yes, we do. Um, the agreement, um, Lori just, Correct me if I'm wrong, and we'll fix the wording and what's being put together. But the intent is simply that, um, we provide them 18 months of informal notice. And then a 12 month formal notice that we are canceling the lease and they need to vacate the property. We do not have to limit ourselves to what our intended purpose is for the property.

[04:56:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, great. Thank you. That's another question I have.

[04:56:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: It's on Ramirez.

[04:56:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I think all of us periodically received questions about what can be recycled and, you know, what can be complexed and things like that. Um, and also just one, I'll try and wrap up 2 questions I've gotten in one question. So what, uh, what compostable plastic materials will the processor be able to deal with, uh, and I think the, the list that I've, even within my family, I've gotten the most complaints about is the sort of the dirty dozen and this, this perception that other, um, hollers will recycle things like black plastic and stuff like that. Um, can you, can you help? At least I'll speak for myself and you help me understand. you know, why we can't accept some of those things in the recycling and at least there, there's this perception that other cities will allow them to be recycled.

[04:57:56] Solid Waste Program Manager Lori Tuffley: Yes, uh, well, I'll try to your satisfaction. Um, regarding 1st regarding compostable plastics, um, at the current time, the recology facilities that will compost our commercial residential organics to not accept any compostable plastics. Um, the reason being that they are, uh, they take a lot longer to break down than other types of organics. And so, uh, they cause a problem, the processing facility and that they have to be screened out, uh, at the end of the processing time, whatever's left of them and and disposed, um, or they have to be put back through for a longer uh, processing period. So we do have some commercial customers, um, who are earlier doctors of the organics program in Mountain View, and at that time, they were accepting the compostable plastics. And so we allow them to continue to do so for now. But new customers, that item is not on the list of accepted items. As far as, um, What we accept for recycling, uh, as you know, that does have to do with the processing facility, and, um, and whether or not a processing facility accepts, um, certain things for recycling depends on whether they have a market. Um, to uh, to put that recycling into, whether they have to sell it or whether they have to uh, pay somebody to take it. So there are not enough markets available for everything. And some facilities are willing to pay more than others. And then it also depends on the equipment. Um, the sorting equipment uh, that that facility has. So we're at the smart station, we are always evaluating and looking to see what materials we can add and change the equipment. For example, we did add the milk cartons. Uh, and uh, soup, soup cartons and things like that recently. So, um, it's probably not a satisfactory answer, but recycling markets are tricky, um, and processors, um, have access to different markets. And sometimes those markets, uh, when they are not stable, those facilities do dispose of some of the materials that people put in their cycling cards. That does happen.

[05:00:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. Any other questions from council members? Don't see any, so I will open this up for public comment. Are there any, if there are any members of the public wishing to speak on this item, and you're in the 10D box, please, uh, raise your blue hand, and if you're on the phone, please, hit Star 9. I don't see any hands, so I will put close public comment and bring it back to council for deliberation and a motion council number McAllister.

[05:01:01] Councilmember John McAlister: I remembered. Okay. I would like to make a motion, that we authorize the city manager of the city of Mountain View to execute an agreement with ecology, Mountain View, to provide recyclable materials, organic materials and solid waste, collection service for the 10 year term of July 1st, 2021, through June 30th, 2031.

[05:01:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And council number Hicks?

[05:01:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, 2nd that.

[05:01:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So we have a motion by Campsung member McAllister, 2nd my council member, Hicks, and I have Counselor Manachek. With comments, we'll open it up for. discussion, last discussion. Got some of the checks. Sorry. There you go.

[05:01:52] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, uh, I just want to, um, narrate the, I think it's a good policy to check in with the market. And so I would have preferred we did an RFP for this service. It's been a really long time since we've done that for, um, collection services. And so, um, what I appreciate that there was a consultant who took a look at the uh, financials and some adjustments were made. Um, I really would just prefer that we had done an RFP. So, um, I'm not going to be supporting emotion. Thank you.

[05:02:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other comments? Yes, Counselor McAllister?

[05:02:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'd just like to thank the staff. Uh, I think, uh, council member Hadachek did it also for the, uh, The potential park down there at the end of uh, Leghorn. That was a discussion that we were doing with Sterling, and they were, uh, taken back when we 1st brought it up, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that as part of the agreement going into it, and I appreciate them responding to counsel and to the potential park in an area that, uh, potentially could use a that kind of park there. So I just want to thank staff for their follow through on that, and that was, that was very appreciable. Thank you.

[05:03:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other comments? Can we get a roll call vote, please?

[05:03:28] City Clerk: On number Clark.

[05:03:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yep.

[05:03:30] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[05:03:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes,

[05:03:32] City Clerk: council member Matt Tech.

[05:03:33] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No.

[05:03:34] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[05:03:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[05:03:37] City Clerk: Council number Ramirez.

[05:03:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[05:03:40] City Clerk: Vice Mayor May.

[05:03:43] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: I'm sorry

[05:03:46] City Clerk: Thank you. Thank you. Now be Coco.

[05:03:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi.

[05:03:50] City Clerk: Thank you.

[05:03:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mission Carrie, 61 with no abstensions and thank you to staff and thank you to every college work, all of your hard work, honest agreements, and it, it was a, a lot that went into it and appreciate the, the work. So thank you with, and with that, we will, don't want to. Item 8 uh, council and staff and committee reports. All right, council member Ramirez, would you like to start us off?

[05:04:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor, very briefly. So, uh, the unhoused task force, uh, did sort of preliminarily conclude, it's work. Uh, we did vote to uh, continue the work in the new year. Um, just because we felt that there was a lot of value in having, uh, cities think about this issue regionally. Uh, and we did prove a set of recommendations that, um, uh, will go before each city council. Um, and it's it's nothing. Uh, I think that that is too out of the ordinary. Uh, I believe uh, we are scheduled already to uh, approved the community plant and homelessness in December. Um, I'll, I'll defer to the city manager, city manager's office on that. Uh, but that's one of the recommendations and then also, um, uh, some, some work to, to implement that plan formally. Um, there were recommendations for cities to adopt ordinances like the safe parking ordinance that not be adopted, some of the changes that we've already adopted to facilitate the creation of emergency shelter, um, and then also the bridge housing, uh, or against San Jose as fast. So we're ahead of the game. Um, but I just wanted to let it, let everyone know that, um, the recommendations were approved, unanimously and, uh, our council will be, uh, just, um, considering them, uh, later in the year. Thank you.

[05:05:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and I did hear from other sources that you were a great participant in the task force. So thank you very much for representing us well. Oh, there, Councilman Clark.

[05:06:09] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so just briefly the, um, um, the investment review, uh, committee met, um, reviewed um, the performance over the last year. And you'll see that in your content calendar next week for, um, for uh, review and approval, but, um, things overall held up. Um, Uh, we're, we're quite resilient. I know the market's been resilient. We've seen that, but even our conservative investments, um, still, um, um, um, you know, solid solid returns for the year. So, um, at least that's in good shape. You'll see that in your consent agenda next week. Um, or in the next the, for the, at the next meeting. And then, um, The other thing you probably saw, um, So we were able to move forward, um, our, um, Well, what I would say was our preferred option for the, um, having, um, methodology from A bag, um, it certainly, you know, I don't think anyone would, Jupiter throw up with it, but it was the one that, you know, RT had worked uh, quite hard on and and generally was, um, certainly more favorable, I think, to Mountain View and, and to eat in the South Bay, and some of the alternative, but um, were put up at the last minute. Um, we're in the public um, review and comment period now for 30 days and I fully expect Contra Costa County and a few of the, um, the other communities who um, put up a bit of a, a battle at the last meeting to put up another one um, at our meeting in November. So, you'll probably hear more about that through the city association. But, um, Anyway, we we moved forward the preferred methodology and it's out there for reviewing comment. I think we'll have one more, um, um, you know, contentious meeting next month, um, but, uh, just wanted you to, to, uh, all know that that's moving forward and thank you to Archie for all the work that she, she put into that.

[05:08:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Well, good, Vice Mayor Committee.

[05:08:09] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you, Mayor. Hopefully you can hear me better now. I'm losing my voice a little bit. Uh, last week, the uh, council youth subcommittee met, and um, we are hoping to have recommendations to council very soon. We'll be meeting next month to go over the yak work plan as well as kind of the final recommendations to council. Thank you.

[05:08:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and we'll get a council member Medachek.

[05:08:36] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, um, I want to record on my attendance at the Silicon Valley Regional Interrovability Authority, we um, appointed a new executive director. Um, and it's Eric Nichol, who was the fire chief in Santa Barbara. And um, the current executive director, um, I guess we still call her chief sellers. She was the police chief. Um, in Illinois, I think it was. Um, She is staying on for about a month to overlap with Mr. Nickel, uh, to bring him up to speed, but, um, I think, uh, We made a great choice and I think he'll do a great job for, um, SVRIA. The system is complete. Um, and so now it's, um, getting all, there's a couple of other agencies that need to get on the board and, um, move into a different phase of it, but it's exciting to have the system complete. Also, I attended the Moffat Field restoration advisory board meeting. And I don't really have anything to report out from that meeting. And as council member Clark mentioned, I attended the investment review committee meeting. Thanks.

[05:09:57] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And Council member McAllister with your assistant. Yoki, well, you had your dog.

[05:10:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Hey, uh, I don't know what the council can do about this, but, Uh, And maybe we can get a community or something, but I pulled 91 point. No, I am 9.one. earlier today. Because I was just very concerned about how the city was was going in a direction that seemed really unmount view. It's just, inner fighting, just, you know, bitterness, signs, um, disrespect, nastiness. Um, you know, started with 2016 where a group of, um, Advocates started getting, you know, really thought they were, you know, whatever they were thinking, that they were thoughts were more righteous. And I know you have the REI. But is there something that the city can do to say, hey, let's get this together? Let's get grips together and try to make this much more civil than it has been in the past. Um, it's really, um, A lot of people that have been around for a while are just very disappointed and disgusted, you might say, with the way things are going. And maybe with the city, with the new city clerk, no offense, Lisa. Now, maybe we can get a code of conduct for potential, uh, um, groups that put up signs, uh, candidates to say, here's, this is what our expected agents are. And if you do something, you know, we can find something or something like that, but it really is starting to get, um, Uh, it is pulling us apart. And that's why I pulled it because I didn't want to be part of the problem where we were still being diverse of. You know, I always thought that we had a problem where, you know, there could be fairness. And this group, this 7 people right here, I've worked well together to find a compromise that was fair and equitable to everybody. And people out there don't understand that we're working together. I mean, everybody says, you know, Chris and I might disagree on something. But as we said, we're, we have the same goal as to get to an answer and he may go one way with an answer. I may go with another answer. If we can get that kind of a committee action or message out to people going forward, that, uh, I think it might be better for everybody and that the city could potentially heal because we're still fighting battles that are 4 years old. And people still think there's a conspiracy out there that every time we do something, oh, big money's making us do something. So transparency, involvement. What can what can we do as a council to help do that? And even though some people call us a lame duck. I know and I and I'll talk for Christmas. He's sort of like Ken and Keller here, but I'll, I'll say that, you know, we're going to work all the way to the very end. I mean, we're not to stop and we're not going to sit on our worlds because we got elected by people. We take our job seriously and we're going to keep working till the very end. And maybe on the 12th. We're still going to be sitting up there going talk. Well, I'll be talking. Chris will say, hey, adios, but also to do it and talk, but, you know, we are committed people and and somewhere along the line, that message got lost. The people just think, hey, we're all crooks and so forth. So, If we get a commission, we get a, you know, something, we get prior mayors to come together and figure out something. So I'm just throwing that out there as something that, that maybe we can look forward to. Is that all right, Christian? Thank you. Do you know, suggest a suggestion now or, um, something to think about. I mean, you know, one week from today. We're either we're dancing or we're digging one or the other. So, um, But it's something that really needs to be discussed. And, you know, uh, probably after the election, we can see. how people react and then sort of build that into a potential model of, okay, guys, this is what we've done. And here's how you should act appropriately. So, I'm just throwing out, so maybe next meeting we'll, uh, I'll bring it up again and maybe some people can think about it and. Put it on the back earlier with the rest of the stuff, but, uh, right now it's it's bad. Thank you. I appreciate it.

[05:14:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, Council Environment, did you have your hand up?

[05:14:35] Unknown Speaker: I do have my hands up, but, um, maybe is, uh, Councilman McAllister said we can talk about this, uh, next week. Um, a little bit more and think about it in the meantime. Thanks.

[05:14:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Um, and I actually, that kind of segues into something I wanted to bring up and ask for, um, support on, and in light of, um, What Councilman McAllister said, um, I, there, definitely there's been a lot more negativity in this, this election cycle. Um, and one thing I noticed was that, um, there's been a proliferation of, um, campaign literature, um, like walk pieces, for instance, on doorsteps, as I've been walking around town and on my doorstep, as well as signs, um, that don't have disclosures. And, um, I, uh, I know that with mass mailings, there are, we, we do have very, um, clear guidelines and that was updated 2 years ago, but, um, I learned that I don't similar disclosure requirements on other types of campaign paraphernalia. Um, as well as just the, the threshold to, um, to require disclosures. And so I was, um, wanted to ask all of you, my colleagues, if you would be, uh, willing to bring the, um, a review, I do a review of our campaigns campaign finance ordinance to look at how we can, um, improve on transparency, um, of the conduct. And, but so, I think, and we can do it. You know, as a part of our work plan as we move into the new year. I would say as long as we get it done by the next election cycle. We should be fine, so we have some time, but I wanted to see if I could get support to make that a work item for the future. So if I can get a show of hand. Um, that would be great. I see. Everyone. Great. Thank you very much. Um, I, I had, I had a couple of other, um, items I wanted to, um, I report out on as well as, um, I guess I'll start with the leaf blower issue that came up this evening. Um, I believe we have the sustainability action plan, an update coming up, and I'm hoping we could, in that context, talk about the floor issue, if that's appropriate, city manager.

[05:17:11] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, mayor. Yes. So we do have a sustainability action plan update coming in the 1st quarter of 2021. And we also had been already having on the summer, I believe, looking at the rebate. Um, but I have talked to staff and what we could do um, since we're already coming back to council on December, the, I believe it's the 1st meeting in December. Yes, December the 1st with the smoking ban and multifamily dwelling units, we're bringing back just the trade-offs and work plan implications and just the timing for that. Um, we could layer, the leaf, the ban on gas powered leaf floors with that, as sort of a health and safety, COVID, environmental concerns, and bring something similar back at the same time where it would be more like the work, the workload trade-offs, implications, how it would layer with the action plan. Um, because as you all know, there are about 90 items in the action plan. So there are a lot of things underway. So we could bring back to council, okay, where are the trade-offs then? If we do, if we, you know, make the leaf lower ban item come back sooner, then what will happen? So if you're open to that, I think we could try and make that work on December 1st just to at least give a framework.

[05:18:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Council members, uh, agree with that? Yes. End up for thumbs up. Looks like we have a majority. Right? Thank you. Um, and then I had a couple other items um, Uh, I went with Colonel Jerry Brown, not governor, but Colonel Jerry Brown. He's the new congressional liaison to the 63rd readiness division. I think some of you have may have remembered Colonel Nap, and so Colonel Brown is now his replacement, and he, um, we had a nice meet and greet, and I'm sure all of you will be meeting him. He's very interested in being involved in the community. Um, County supervisor, Joe Smithian, had a meeting with, um, I can't remember how many, but all the cities around Stanford, frankly, it was about the Stanford, general use plan, and then what they're going into is a community plan update. And so, um, he wanted to include all the cities that, um, may not be actually in the plan, but affected by Stanford, um, development. And so, um, this was a meeting, a series of meetings that, um, it sounds like he's going to be holding to, um, to ensure uh, inclusivity and and making sure that the cities that are affected by Stanford, um, are, are able to give input into the plan. Um, and then I had, uh, I attended the Silicon Valley Clean Energy board meeting on the 14th. And, um, that's part of our cold relief efforts. Um, the board approved a community resilience planning assistance um, program, uh, for each city. And, um, we set aside a $10000 for this program. And based on population, uh, Mountain View, but should be getting a little over 106,000 to help plan for any kind of resiliency projects that we might have, um, on our list of um, projects. So, uh, that uh, that is available and I uh, hope staff will uh, take advantage of that. And they also, um, authorize the 1st steps to enable the clean energy to move forward with an innovative long-term electric power prepaid program. So, like, prepaying, um, our power for our power, we're able to save, um, about $3000000 annually. And this trans action is expected to close next year. It's a part of, uh, we call it a, we're calling it a super JPA with a number of CCAs in the area, um, to be able to source this, um, prepayment program to to save, um, funds for, for all of our residents. So, um, that's a big effort, but quite exciting. And then finally, um, We entered into, uh, or we discussed the merits in this of a joint procurement opportunity among 8 CCAs in North and California, including SVCA, representing more than 2000000 customer accounts, and this would be to target the purchase of long duration energy storage, an initiative that is vital to keep the lights on while still transitioning to a clean and green electric power grid. This initiative is the 1st of its kind and the CCAs, including SVCE, are leading the effort in California. So, lots of exciting stuff going on with clean energy, um, and it's very appropriate timing wise. So with that, we'll go back to Counselor McAllister. If you can unmute yourself. Yeah. There you go.

[05:22:22] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I got nothing.

[05:22:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, sorry, your hand is still up.

[05:22:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, well, it was. That's right. I'm always on.

[05:22:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Council over Hicks.

[05:22:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just have, I just have a question for you, mayor, on your presentation, um, what the resiliency funds can be spent on, for instance, can they be spent on the, uh, like gas leaf, flower rebates? What's the sort of list of things they can be spent on?

[05:22:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I don't have the list with me, um, but certainly, um, you know, if we have ideas, I think the best thing would be to, is to, um, run it by clean energy staff. When you're talking about things like, um, if we wanted to look into a, um, micro uh, um, micro grid, um, you know, storage, power storage system. Um, I, a while back, I attended a, um, press conference um, at one of the Fremont fire stations that have these storage systems. So, um, they're able to, um, you know, keep powered up when we have these shutoffs. Um, and it goes to what we call a virtual power plant, so they're gonna, they're creating a network of these throughout the area. So that when we do have a shut off, they can use this as backup, um, power. So if the city is interested in a project like that, they would, um, be we could source these funds. Um, but I think the, I don't know if they actually have specific, um, you know, criteria, I think, um, they're pretty open to working with the city, so I would ask our staff to follow up. Anything else from council? Anything else from staff? And yes. City manager.

[05:24:20] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, mayor. I meant to provide this update in my COVID update and I just realized that it was missing. So I did want to thank Vice Mayor Kamei for her leadership on the census, and all of the work that had been underway these past few months and also Christina Gilmore, who worked really closely with the vice mayor on it. So I think we all know that the census did end early. And our percentage in Mountain View, I believe, was close to around 76%, which is about 2% more than the last census, which is great. So I did want to mention that and thank everyone for taking the census and thank staff and thank the vice mayor for her leadership. That's it. Thanks.

[05:25:04] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, thank you and thank you, Vice Mayor, for all of your hard work and it's great, we had good results. Um, anything else? Do we have a closed session report, Mr. city attorney?

[05:25:16] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: We do, mayor. Council met in closed session earlier this evening. And voted unanimously to direct the human resources director to proceed with the hiring process for the interim city clerk. When the interim city clerk is hired, there will be a public announcement regarding the interim appointment and compensation details.

[05:25:38] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. And if there's, Nothing else. We will stand adjourned. At 9.20 PM. Um, I know Saturday is Halloween, so please have a safe Halloween. Uh, Sunday is daylight savings, so please make sure to change your clocks. And next Tuesday is election day, um, and without getting political. Just want to say, please go out and vote, um, everything is mail-in. You can drop off at our ballot boxes, um, but please exercise your right to vote. And with that, um, I will conclude this meeting and um, please have a good evening. Thank you very much. Good night. Bye. Bye.

• ← Previous
• Next →