February 23, 2021 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] (archive recording) Unknown Speaker: Um, Leslie, no. It's the Parks and Rec character. Uh, he that was uh, Rogers background.

[00:00:08] (archive recording) Unknown Speaker: Oh, I was gonna say, I haven't heard of that person.

[00:00:13] (archive recording) Unknown Speaker: Fictional fictional character. Hi Kimbra.

[00:00:19] (archive recording) City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Hi everyone.

[00:00:21] (archive recording) Unknown Speaker: Hi, Christian.

[00:00:24] (archive recording) City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Hi, everyone.

[00:00:26] (archive recording) Mayor Ellen Kamei: Are you here? Lisa?

[00:00:28] (archive recording) Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I am.

[00:00:29] (archive recording) Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, and your sound is great.

[00:00:32] (archive recording) Councilmember Lisa Matichak: You know, because this is the good laptop. I wrote a, I put a sticky note on it. It says the microphone on this laptop is good.

[00:00:41] (archive recording) Mayor Ellen Kamei: Oh my gosh. Does anybody ever... So, um, I have to recuse from 555 because of where I live. So, um, Lucas and I were, tentatively, you know, talking about him running this item. N dash 29 dash 20. 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 wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountain view.legistar.com. On YouTube at mountain view.gov backslash YouTube, and on Comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral, oral public comments during the public comment period for any item by signing up at mountainview.gov backslash CC underscore speakers, or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 991-6464. Any emails received by 5 PM today, we're forwarded to the city council. Emails received after 5 PM will not be read during the meeting. But we entered into the record for the meeting. All votes will be taken by roll call vote. And we'll move on to item two, which is roll call. I'll ask our interim city clerk Bonderlinen to do the role.

[00:03:30] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: So, November of a go-go.

[00:03:33] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here,

[00:03:34] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Hicks.

[00:03:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:03:39] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Lieber?

[00:03:40] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Here.

[00:03:41] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Medachek.

[00:03:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here,

[00:03:44] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member, Shoalter.

[00:03:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:03:46] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice mayor Ramirez. Absent, Mayor Kamei,

[00:03:50] Mayor Ellen Kamei: here. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:03:54] Mayor Ellen Kamei: So, we'll move on to item three, which is the study session. I am recusing myself from this item due to my real property interest, which is in close proximity to the proposed site. So before I leave and in the absence of Vice Mayor Ramirez, um, do I have a, uh, nomination of anyone who would like to, uh, leave the meeting. I'll turn to council member Mattachek.

[00:04:20] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I would like to nominate our most recent Mayor, council member Abbe Kuga to run the study session tonight.

[00:04:30] Mayor Ellen Kamei: And I see council member show Walter's hand, so I'm assuming that's a second. is that right? Okay, great.

[00:04:36] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[00:04:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: So I think that we do need to take a roll call vote on this. So if we don't mind, interim city clerk Vanderlinden, do you mind taking the role?

[00:04:45] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Wait, Mayor, come may, Council member, Abicoga?

[00:04:49] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Got it. I.

[00:04:53] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Also, my my hit.

[00:04:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[00:04:57] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Liever?

[00:04:58] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[00:04:59] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Melachek?

[00:05:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[00:05:02] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Shel Walter?

[00:05:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[00:05:06] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor come May.

[00:05:07] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:05:08] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Ocean carries.

[00:05:09] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right. I will turn. I will turn over our virtual Gabrel over to our most recent mayor, Council member Abbe Koga, and I will see you all for the regular study or the regular session. Thanks.

[00:05:23] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for allowing me this honor, I think. Um, so we will go into our study session, um, and it is, um, 555 residential development project at 555 West Middlefield Road. Um, does anyone have, um, any disclosures that they would like to make from the city council? In terms of any meetings that were held, et cetera? Yes, council member might check?

[00:05:55] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I met with the applicant. And I have been to the project site on my own and with residents, and I've also met with residents.

[00:06:05] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you, Council member Hicks.

[00:06:10] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, I also met with the applicant and residents, and I went to the site as well.

[00:06:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: That's my Michelle Alter.

[00:06:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I met with the Alpacant and visited the site and have met with some residents as well.

[00:06:24] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And counselor labor?

[00:06:26] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I met with the applicant.

[00:06:28] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And I too have met with applicant as well as neighbors and visited the site and um, I think that is, It for disclosure. So we will go to the presentation, and I believe it's our senior planner, Diana Pancholi, will be doing the presentation. welcome, Diana.

[00:06:53] Diana Pancholi: Thank you, mayor, and members of the council. My name is Diana Pancholi, senior planner with the city's planning division. Um, and I have with me tonight, Stephanie Millions, our planning manager and zoning administrator. The purpose for tonight's study session is to provide council with an update on a proposed project and receive council input on a project changes since the gatekeeper authorization for a residential development at 555 West Middlefield Road development. The 14.5 acre project site is located um. Sorry, I don't know if you're able to see The slides, the 14.5 acre project site is located north south of Meadowfield Road and comprises over the complete uh, block between Middle uh, Moffat Boulevard, Highway 85 and Cypress Point Drive. The existing site is developed with 402 apartment units. The associated surface parking lot and amenities as well. It's part of the general plan. Sorry, as part of the gatekeeper authorization in 2015. City council authorized staff time to work on this project, which was proposing a general plan amendment. And a zoning amendment to add 323 new residential units at the site by replacing the surface parking lot. The project was further reviewed by EPC and city council at a 2017 study session, where council provided for the direction, uh, which included many things, but primarily, you know, more refinement for contextual design and preservation of heritage trees on the site, and also including higher BMR units, uh, which will include um, moderate income housing household units as well. Following that, the applicant has worked with staff and has revised the project significantly. And the similar to today's study session, EPC reviewed this project changes in earlier this month on February 3rd, 2021 at a public hearing as well. The project as proposed will be uh, adding 329 units, uh, replacing the surface parking lot, and will also include dedication of a one. 4 acre park along Cypress Point Drive. As I mentioned here, since the initial gatekeeper authorization and initial city council direction at study session, the applicant has revised the project. These are some of the major changes that have happened over the years and staff would like to get city council input on the changes that are being proposed. Some of the significant changes are, you know, the number of units. Initially, it was 324 at Gatekeeper. It increased to 348 at the study session in 2017 and as reports today. It is 329 units. This is still in compliance with the FAR, the height, the setback regulations of R 4 zoning district as proposed through the gatekeeper request. In terms of BMR units, Initially, it was 10% lower income units, which was in compliance with the regulations at that time. And as proposed today, the applicant is proposing 15% inclusionary units. Which is in compliance with the city's current BMR ordinance, which was updated in 2019. One of the component of the project is a partland education, when the gatekeeper authorization was done, the proposal was for one. 148 acre park. But we got a lot of council direction and comments on the project design, and the applicant has revised the design. Trying to save more trees, including a bicycle pedestrian pathway, and the current proposal is for one. 134 acre parkland dedication, and the remaining parkland fees will be uh, in terms of the park, uh, in loop fees will be paid. A big component of the council comments and the community input on this project included preservation of a lot of heritage trees on site. During 2017 study session, the proposal was to remove 117 heritage trees. This has now been refined, and applicant has worked hard. So the current proposal is just to remove 62 heritage trees on site. Another thing was regarding contractual design. The project applicant has refined the project design. Initially, it looked very, very, uh, office and commercial looking and working with staff and the development review committee. The design has been refined to look more residential, including a lot of warmer tone materials, variety of materials. Including a lot of step backs and setbacks as well. So the 1st question for tonight is, does the council support the proposed changes or have additional project design conditions or directions for staff to continue with the development review process? As this is a gatekeeper project, and this is not in a precise plan area, a Site specific financial study was recommended for the for the project at the 2017 study session. Staff is still uh, continuing to finish that study, and before the study is concluded, the applicant has actually proposed to provide 1980000 in community benefit contribution, which will be going towards the CIP funds. That the proposal that the applicant has done. And um, the question for counsel is whether they support the applicant's proposed community benefit proposal for this project. At the February 3rd APC meeting, study session, APC was supportive of the project at the proposed density of 51 value units per acre, but they did raise a concern over possibility of future increase in density, provided that the journal plan amendment proposal is to raise it to AD dwelling units per acre. The APC suggested that staff should come back with some creative solutions for city council to consider, which will allow the project as proposed at 51 dwelling units per acre, but would rest, would, uh, come up with some kind of a limitation so that, you know, a lot more density might not be added at the project site later on, after the internment is done. The staff has actually included a couple of options and alternatives in the staff report. And we would like to know tonight if city council can provide a direction on, you know, which journal plan option, they would like to prefer for the proposed project. So this is just a summary of the 3 questions that I just um, that I just went through. As the next step, the, you know, after the council, um, after the council, um, direction will work on for the development review and come back for a tentative entitlement hearing at the end of this year. This concludes staff presentation. staff is present here tonight. The applicant is also present here tonight if you have any questions. Thank you.

[00:14:04] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you very much. As this is a study session, we will go to public comment 1st and then we'll have council questions and comments. Um, I just want to say, uh, we have this scheduled for an hour until 630 is our um, regular meeting start time scheduled. Um, so we're gonna try to move this um, as quickly as we can. Um, so I would like to, um, have public comment set at, uh, a minute and a half place. And, um, and so we will start here. I think I have hosting rights now. So, I will go ahead and start with Kelsey Baines, if you can unmute yourself to speak, please, and welcome aboard.

[00:14:48] Kelsey Baines: Thank you. Hi, counsel. My name is Kelsey Baines. I am with the group peninsula for everyone, and am calling in in strong support for this project. Um, we know how many of our neighbors right now during COVID are living in overcrowded conditions or in substandard conditions, including in vehicles. And our housing crisis, even though, um, you know, the demand is somewhat lessened in Mountain View, because so many people are working remotely. Um, the housing crisis is still very much with us and we need to respond to it. We need more homes. Uh, so thank, Thank you so much for, uh, looking at this project. I think it looks great. The developer has made a lot of changes to make it better. Um, and I think it would provide a lot of great housing in a place with excellent access to services and, um, in transit and all the things people need. So I will leave it at that. But yeah, thank you very much.

[00:15:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, and City Creek, would you be able to put up the, I will, please? I will.

[00:15:57] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, we will go then to, it's a phone number. last 3 digits 443. Please unmute yourself to speak.

[00:16:11] Daniel Shane: Hi there.

[00:16:12] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hello, how you doing?

[00:16:14] Daniel Shane: Good.

[00:16:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Good.

[00:16:16] Daniel Shane: Uh, my name is Daniel Shane, and I represent the Cypress Point community preservation group. Where we have a membership of uh 69 individuals. Uh, we've also obtained uh, petitioned signatures from 217 homeowners in the neighborhood, and we are opposed to the high density, the proposed high density housing development. We're not opposed to development or helping solve some of the housing shortages problems, we would like to see a scale down project. Um, that would, uh, comply with all the medium density existing requirements as they are today. One of our main concerns is the cumulative impacts of all the high density developments and commercial developments that have been proposed, that are under review, that have uh under construction, or that have been completed. And I sent a letter to all the city council members, uh, with a list of all these projects. And because of all these projects, 555 West Millfield is just one of many, we believe 555 West Middlefield is actually of the 14 I've listed. Um, it is one of the ones that is, is, is, is the most ill conceived and a development that doesn't fit in our neighborhood. Thank you So, just, uh, uh, the point, the point is, is that we would like to see a precise plan because of the many, many, many developments that are occurring in this area. Thank you.

[00:18:04] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. You go to Eden Meyer? Can I meet yourself? There we go.

[00:18:14] David Meyer: Thank you, can also grab a coga. Um, I want to say Mariaba Coco, but Council, I don't have a Coga. Thank you very much. My name's David Meyer. I represent Silicon Valley at home, and affordable housing, uh, at the organization that works across Santa Clara County. Also lived in Mountedu for several years. Um, here tonight, I just took express our support for the council, continued to move forward with this 555 West Middlefield proposal. Um, I can talk about, you know, many other things like, well, this project, but I want to highlight why I think this project is, is really kind of reinforcing and a reflection of the success of the city of Mountain View's housing policies. Um, and goals. And I 1st, the 1st thing is, um, you know, this proposal is actually doing supportable component through integrated inclusionary units on site. This is something the city has really been trying to prioritize and make happen, to actually make sure these units get built, and to make sure that the city is in Spain as much in subsidy on building affordable units. So, I think that's, that's one example of where this project is reflecting, uh, you know, the success of the city's affordable housing, uh, policies. Secondly, I don't think that we can really underestimate how important it is. This proposal is providing new housing and existing residential area without displacing current residents. Um, many council members here, members of the community. Remember, going through all these displacement projects that we struggled through a couple years ago, and the city, you know, really took action to to make sure that that didn't happen in the future. And I think that a project like this is a great example of those policies working, we're half of a more dense proposal that's coming forward. It's bringing a new housing, that's not displacing current residents. So, um, I think now we should be proud of that. And again, I think that's that's we're able to do that because of the density. So hope this project can move forward. Thanks very much.

[00:20:11] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. What are the Cliff Chambers? Please unmute yourself to speak. Go, Chris.

[00:20:20] Cliff Chambers: Hi, uh, this is Cliff Chambers, resident of Mountain View, and I'm representing the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. The applicant did make a presentation at one of our regular meetings and I had a 2nd meeting with them. We strongly favor this project, and we really commend all that have worked over this over a number of years. We feel that the applicant has been very responsive to the design changes, which I think are vastly, uh, improved. And as you know, I mean, we really need the additional housing that's there, and there's not the displacement issue, so the additional units are really needed in our city. We do have a concern about that we have expressed previously about the access to Stevens Creek Trail. We sent a letter in that more details this, but trail access from the site is really a major and an important point for us, and we'd really like the developer in the city to really work together to try to figure out something that will work better, because the current access is really not ideal. And we really like to see, we do like to see the increased density without the displacement. And there's a lot of other things that we have discussed in our letter, and I'll just leave it at that.

[00:21:42] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to Corey Smith. Please un meet yourself.

[00:21:54] Corey Smith: Good afternoon, uh, into good evening. Corey Smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. We are a regional nonprofit that advocates for homes at all income levels. We are in strong support of the proposal in front of you and are requesting that you do everything within your power to continue moving it forward. Two comments I wanted to make. About an hour ago, I shared a co-hosted petition. Uh, with all of you on council, the majority of those petition signers are Mountain View residents, uh, and, and, uh, we appreciate locals speaking up in support of housing. We know that that is critical. The other piece that I wanted to touch on is a little bit wonky, but thinking about economic feasibility of projects, and thinking about all of the community benefits associated with this proposal. We are in a climate right now where projects are getting slowed down, potentially stalling and potentially stopping because of economic feasibility. So respectfully request that you do not do anything to this project that would kill the deal. Um, we want to see it move forward. We know that we need to create homes for people. And your support and making sure that that happens is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

[00:23:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: You go to Kathleen Wardham, please unmute yourself.

[00:23:35] Kat Wortham: Great. Thank you, council member, Abby, Quebec. Um, my name is Kat Wortham. I am the director of Health and Housing Policy for the Siliconada Leadership Group. And we are here tonight to express our support for 555 West Middlefield. Um, I think we all know that there is a critical need for high quality housing, especially close to jobs in transit. There's no better place to build those homes than in the city of Mountain View, um, and specifically in this area where you're very close to high quality transit, Caltrain, light rail, numerous bus lines, um, and close to job centers. Um, as you also know, we're experiencing a very deep housing shortage, which threatens the long-term um, ability for our innovation economy to thrive here in Silicon Valley. I think we're seeing that through this COVID-19 pandemic as well. Um, And we're just really excited to see the addition of on-site affordable units, um, building affordable housing on site, allows the city of Mountain View to reach its housing needs assessment or Reno goals. We really would like to see this project, move forward, and not see anything done to stall it. We need housing and we need housing now. So with that, I will close. Thank you.

[00:24:53] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll get it, Robert Cox, please unmute yourself.

[00:24:58] Robert Cox: Hello, can you hear me?

[00:24:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, fine, how are you?

[00:25:01] Robert Cox: Okay, I'm Robert Cox 25. You're a resident of Mountain View, my primary concern with approving a general plan amendment, for this project, R4. That's my concern. I've discussed the issue with a member of the EPC. And was told that there is no legal way to tie the rezoning to this specific project. In the last few years, while serving on the EPC, I have witnessed many development approvals. Uh, be made, but the projects do not get built in a timely manner, as they were originally proposed including this one. If this proposed project is not built, the city could be required to prove a different project at a density of 80 units per acre, without a density bonus and up to 120 units per acre with a density bonus. Such a project would not be consistent with their surrounding neighborhood developments, and could lead to a loss of existing CSFRA rent controlled units. Therefore, I recommend the council either determine whether an airtight legal guarantee can be made that the zoning change can be tied to this specific proposal, and if not delay, the project until the R 3 ordinance is updated. So the rezoning can be tailored more closely to projects like the one being proposed. Thank you. I yield my time.

[00:26:11] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Oh, good, Diane Dezano. Please, I need yourself to speak.

[00:26:19] Diane Dezano: Hi.

[00:26:20] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi.

[00:26:21] Diane Dezano: I live on Cyprus point Drive and I am startly opposed to this project. I think anybody that has been on our street, and has heard the noise that comes from 85 going under Middlefield, would not vote to take down the heritage trees along 85 or Middlefield. There's gonna be over 500 people living there, right along the freeway, and to put them along the freeway, without the protection of those redwood trees is not, um, social justice, in my opinion. Um, our neighborhood, um, thrives because of all the redwoods in our neighborhood. The condos across the street have a lot of redwoods, they spend a lot of money, uh, caring for their redwoods, and it would be a tragedy to see those redwoods and also the trees, um, the street trees destroyed. I think, um, Mountain View has a green policy and is proud of their green policy, and this does not go according to that. Also, why is the city choosing the location of a park in this particular location? Who is this park going to serve? There's 2 parks, 2 blocks away? Is there a better place for a park to be? Or should the one. 3 acres go back into the project, so the trees can be saved, so that, um, there could be more green spaces and the apartments could be being moved back from 85 and middle field. Thank you very much.

[00:28:03] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, you will now move on to Annette Lynn, please unmute yourself to speak. Annette.

[00:28:10] Annette Lynn: Hey, um, my name is Annette Lynn. I am a resident of Cypress Point Lakes, which is very close to this development, and I just want to voice, um, my own support for this project. Um, it's, A big issue housing is um, in Mountain View, and I just, um, think that this is a really great way to address it. Um, without displacing any existing residents, and as we all know, housing is a huge issue in Mountain View. And, um, right now with the dearth of other projects, um, I think that this is a really, um, beneficial one. So um, I'll yield my time. Thank you.

[00:28:56] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to Albert Jeans. Welcome Albert. Please unmute yourself to speak. Robert.

[00:29:05] Albert Jeans: Hello, Albert Jeans, 38 year resident Mountain View. Um, I spoke about this project 4 years ago. That's a study session then. I am still against it. We can never satisfy this. housing demand. Just look at the temperatures in the Midwest this week, right? And here we are basking 70 degree temperatures. People will always want to move here. There will always be an insational demand. The question is, what kind of quality life do we want for our current residents? And the people that we are able to build housing for? I'm not against building new housing. I think it's great that they want to, you know, get rid of the surface parking lots and put in some housing instead. But rezoning for high density, I think, is a mistake. I already have a 1000 entitled units within 2 blocks of my house that's driven estates. And that's over 2000 people. How can this area support another 1000 people? I just don't see it happening. Schools, shopping the whole bit. Uh, I do think that uh, they did a good job on making the place look a lot better. That was one of my big piece with it when I spoke about it 4 years ago. I think they did a great job of saving the redwoods on Moffat that were really softening the effect there. And I also like the fact that they've provide adequate parking up to 2 spaces per unit, which I really think is needed. On the other hand, though, I think they should, the city will have to think about the additional traffic on Moffatt, and I think they should. You know, limit parking, I'm off it, and put it in bike lanes, since a lot of people now be using Moffat to get to downtown and other places. Thank you very much.

[00:30:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Well, good, and David Lovin. You can unmute yourself to speak.

[00:30:46] David Levin: Good evening. My name is David Levin, and I'm the board president of the Cypress Point Woods Homeowners Association, a community of 88 voting household in the city of Mountain View. Directly across the street. We're concerned about the environmental, social, cultural, and economic impact, posed by Avalon Bays redevelopment of its West Middlefield property. Although the project addresses Middlefield Road, the brunt of the projects and negative impacts falls on households along the narrow Cypress Point drive, cul-de-sac. We're sensitive to the needs to increase housing in mountain view. We ourselves are a multifamily community of 88 homes. The medium density zoning accommodates reasonable growth, medium density zoning. Still allows the developer to add another 145 units to its 402 existing units. Medium density will preserve the existing 3 story high limits, which are important to us, and prevent new construction from towering over our 2 story homes. Therefore, we urge the city to preserve our community's quality of life and reject Avalon Bay's attempt to change zoning to high density. And finally, I urge the council to distinguish and give special attention to the comments of neighbors who will be directly impacted as opposed to those with regional or developer objectives, as we are your neighbors and your constituents. Thank you.

[00:32:16] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to Hala al Shawani, please unmute yourself. Ella. Mute.

[00:32:23] Hala Alshawani: Hello, can you hear me? Hello?

[00:32:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oops.

[00:32:29] Hala Alshawani: Hello?

[00:32:32] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oops. Yes, I'm sorry, I was muted. We can do that.

[00:32:36] Hala Alshawani: Okay. Hi, uh, good evening, uh, uh, Mayor Abby Koga and council members. Uh, this is Hala Alshawani. I've been a resident of Mountain View for almost 30 years. I own a property on Cypress Point Drive, and I am there every day to take care of my mom who resides at that condo. Um, I am a great supporter of uh, building high density. Uh, buildings, especially by the transportation area, but I am very much opposed to this project. Because, in fact, the, the effects, uh, and the impacts on the residents and the traffic of this project will primarily go on Cypress Point Drive. Which is a substandard, uh, dead end street, uh, with an adult education center right at the corner of Cypress Point Drive and Moffatt. And if you are ever there, which I am every single day and the classes take, uh, uh, you know, in person, uh, classes resume, it's a nightmare to drive there. There's so many very close, um, accidents that, uh, you know, just about to occur, all the time, so, adding, uh, residency, doubling the residents across the street from Cypress Point Drive, condos, would make that just much, much worse. Um, I also wanted to remind the council that their major goal, the 4th major goal was to promote environmental sustainability and quality of life. for all the residents, for future and current times. So I urge you to apply that in this case. Thank you.

[00:34:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to April Webster. Please unmute yourself to speak. Welcome April.

[00:34:33] April Webster: Hi. Thank you. Um, I am a long term, a 10 year resident of 505 Cypress Point Drive. And I would like to voice my very strong support of the 55 Middlefield project. And I would like to urge council to continue working towards developing more affordable and denser housing in mountain view. With the goal of countering gentrification and increasing diversity and equity in our community. Many of the people who work in the service industry in our communities, the ones who keep our grocery stores like jail, produce on the corner, um, restaurants open, our gas stations running, our hospitals clean, the ones who deliver our groceries and Amazon packages right now so we don't have to put ourselves at risk. Um, these members of our community keep the economy running, And they can't afford to live in Mountain View. I think it is critical that we provide more affordable housing, so we don't end up displacing these essential members of our community. And I think continuing along the path. Ron is untenable and unsustainable, and everyone's quality of life will suffer, not just theirs. I'm from Vancouver, BC, and, um, for a long time, the housing has been moving towards more denser, um, and more affordable housing, especially along transit lines, and very often Vancouver is in the top 10 cities, most livable cities in the in the world. So I, I really don't think that this is going to impact um, negatively on the community of Mountain View. Thank you.

[00:36:05] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to Alex Brown. Please send it yourself to speak.

[00:36:10] Alex Brown: Hey, hope. As always, I'll try to keep this quick. We need more housing. Building is expensive in a lot of ways, and redevelopment is in many ways more difficult than doing it well the 1st time. We should take this opportunity to build as much as we can. If there are concerns about capacity in the neighborhood. They should be addressed by greater investment, not by a fear of progress that paralyzes us and locks us into an imagined ideal past. Please don't permit current residents to harm future residents. The people who occupy these units also count and their need for a roof over their heads matters. Also, the developers know I prefer the earlier design, and I think we need more interesting buildings, and all this nitpicking just leads to a bland and mediocre compromise. I think we should be weird. It's the future. Let's look like it. Thanks.

[00:36:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to Adam Klech, please unmute yourself to speak.

[00:36:55] Adam Klech: Hello? Hi, everyone. Um, so I'm a neighbor of this project and I'm a homeowner near the area. I just wanted to voice my strong support of projects like this one. Um, responsible transit oriented development is the only way to help, um, ameliorate the terrible housing problems we have in this area. And um, I'd just like to see more projects like this, uh, taken on in a responsible way. Uh, to, you know, see the future of this community grow and prosper. And I yield the rest of my time.

[00:37:31] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to Denley Rafferty. Please then mute yourself to speak then. welcome.

[00:37:40] Denley Rafferty: I'm here. Uh, this is Denley Rafferty, and I live at uh, 505 Cypress Point Drive, right across the street from the proposed. project and I'm definitely opposed to it. The increase in traffic will be enormous. Right now, the street is crowded and it will be more crowded with trucks and debris to make the project work. Um, the residents doubling will cause a traffic jam. Ah, and the quality of life of the residents will surely go down. The tree situation is serious. These trees are put there to modify the noise and pollution and with fewer trees. It will, it will be horrible. So I would like to persuade you not to vote for this. I think we need more housing, and we can do it without increasing the, I think we need to maximum zoning. I'd like to keep it at moderate zoning and not increase it to maximum zoning. That's it. Thank you.

[00:39:11] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: We'll go to, is it Elijah Pamer? Can I see yourself please?

[00:39:19] Celia Pamer: Hi. Um, Yeah, my name is Celia Pamer. I am also a member of Green Spaces Mountain View. Um, and uh, I strongly uh, support um, this development. Um, I think Green Space is Mountain View while we are focused on Green Spaces in Mountain View. It's also about our greater climate change and more housing in Mountain View. Well, maybe it does mean some more traffic here would mean a lot less traffic on places like people driving from Dublin and further away. And so that is greener for everybody. Um, and I just, I really hope that we can, um, make Mountain View a place, um, where everyone who needs a space to live, can find a space to live, and so we need more housing, um, so that we can improve access for all of our residents, um, which is also greener, um, in that people are housed. Sorry. Thank you very much.

[00:40:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Are there any other members of the public wishing to comment? If you are in the attendee box, please raise your hand. If you're on the phone, it's star 9. Last call. I don't, oh, I see one more hand. Um, it's a phone number ending in 330. Please send me yourself to speak. Hello?

[00:40:53] Matt Regan: Hi, Madam Mayor, council members, this is Matt Reagan calling from the Bay Area Council. I will be brief. Um, you've heard a lot of the great attributes of this project already, and I won't add to any of the great comments made, but I would, uh, like to draw your attention. There's an item I couldn't help but notice this later on in the agenda. Um, about why there are so few female firefighters in Santa Clara County. Well, the answer is quite obvious, in order to purchase the median home in Santa Clara County, uh, one needs to make a salary of $243,000. Uh, that's 6 times the national average, um, so the only solution to that problem really and that and none of the other problems that are driven by our housing shortage is to increase the supply quite dramatically to match the demand that quite obviously exists. You have a great project sponsor, a great developer, a great project. Uh, a great demand for said, uh, product, um, I would urge you the Bay Area Council would urge you to move forward with this project as quickly as, as is humanly possible. We're already 5 years uh into this uh process and we're still doing study sessions. I think it's time for action so please move forward and as swiftly as possible. Thank you.

[00:42:07] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Right, thank you. and we have Terry Rail. please send yourself to speak Carrie.

[00:42:17] Terrie Rayl: Yes, hi. This is Terry Rale. I live at Cypress Point Lakes, um, Condominium Association. I am not opposed to this project, however, I do want to ensure that the high density is only tied to this project. And that it does not go above the amount of units that are current, or that are currently proposed in the plan that has been given to the city. I also believe that there's 2 things that need to be considered. Number one is that the city really does have to figure out the Stevens Creek Trail Access issue. That has to be figured out. We cannot have all these people trespassing through both Cypress Point Woods and Cypress Point lakes to get to the Stevens Creek Trail to get to downtown, to get to Caltrains. We cannot be the corridor through which all these people trespass to get to where they need to go. And secondly, I do think it may be time for the city to work with Caltrain, because if indeed you're taking down the trees, um, along 85, then maybe it is truly time to put up a sound barrier there, because there will be significant impact to this area. Thank you. My 0 time. Thank you.

[00:43:51] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. Um, that concludes public comment. Uh, and I will close that and bring it back to council, um, for questions. I was told that the developer would like to make a 5 minute presentation. Also, I am mindful of the time depending on, um, how we go, we might. I might, I'd like to have us do questions 1st for council members and then see where we are and then do the discussion if we have time. I'd like to try to wrap this up before we start regular session, but depending on how long we go, we may have to come back afterwards. With that, um, we have, let's see, do we have the developer, applicant available to speak? Mister, is it?

[00:44:49] Joe Kirchofer: Uh, yes, hello. can hear me?

[00:44:52] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, yes. No, we can hear you.

[00:44:54] Joe Kirchofer: Right, great. So, I'm gonna share my screen and I will be, uh, I will be brief because we're very eager to hear, um, your, your, your questions on your input. Um, so my name's Joe Kirchowker. I with Avalon Bay communities. dive right into our project. We're really excited to present it to you tonight. Um, The tan rectangles on this flight are the existing buildings. We are going to keep all of those existing buildings, of the existing residential buildings where they are. We're going to keep all the existing residents. Everyone who lives there right now can stay. We won't be displacing anyone. Um, the white uh, shapes, um, are the proposed new buildings. Building A is in the center. building B is on the left side of the screen and building C is on the right. Um, Just going to hit the highlights really quickly. This is a transit oriented development. We're less than a half mile walk to downtown. We're proposing to add 329 new homes. 49 of those will be affordable. That's up from 10% up to 15%. Um, and as I said, no displaced residence. Um, we're going to give one. 3 acres to the city for a new public park. As Diana mentioned, there's a new pedestrian, a bike path. We've put a lot of time into a thoughtful tree preservation strategy. Um, and we've got a strong commitment to sustainability. These buildings will be be gold, they'll be all electric. Um, I want to skip through some some information here um, on phasing and on parking. Um, and and on architecture, um, I will say, though, that all of these are areas where we've made major changes over the past years in response to community feedback, um, to design review feedback to EPC and council feedback, um, as well as working with staff. Um, you know, for example, one of the changes we've made is to actually reduce the number of parking spaces that will be accessed from Cypress Point and move, um, a whole floor of a garage so that there's a huge new chunk of parking that will be accessed from middlefield. Um, But what I want to spend a little bit of time on is, um, is some views, we've, you know, we've seen the architecture and I think, you know, we've showed it at EPC. Um, I want to talk a little bit about what this is actually going to look like when people visit this site. Um, we've taken a number of photos, um, focused on Cypress Point Drive, because that's where where the focus of the community, um, concerns have been. Um, and we dropped in the rendering. So I have a bunch of little before and after shots here. Um, some of these are from the streets, some of these actually we we offered to the neighbors and the neighbors took us up on, you know, coming in and digging some photos from patios or balconies just to get a better sense of what this will look like. Um, This 1st photo is from the street. Um, it is in front of building B pretty close to the corner of Cypress Point in Moffatt. So this is what it looks like today. This is what the new building will look like. Um, this is, again, building B. This is from the sidewalk, across the street. It's looking at the current parking lot. This will become new homes. Um, this is from a from a 2nd floor balcony. Um, looking again at that same parking lot. There's an one of the existing buildings is here behind this tree. This is what it will look like with the new the new buildings in place. Um, A couple, um, a couple of shots from the center of the street. This is the sort of halfway down Cypress point. This concrete parking structure is on the left. turn into a new park. Um, and again, looking straight across. This is a concrete parking structure that will come workland. Um, and then finally building C towards the end of this street. This is the existing parking lot. Um, will turn into a new, a new residential building. Um, and then looking at it straight on. This is where the street is much wider. It has the large median with eucalyptus trees that will all be staying in place and the building will be behind that media. Um, so I just want to give a flavor, you know, not in an architectural rendering, but in a in a photorealistic view of what it is folks can expect when, uh, you know, for a lot of build these buildings. Um, I want to touch on the project timeline briefly. As some folks have said, we started this in 2015 with a gatekeeper approval. We've been through many rounds of spending sessions, many rounds of design reviews and community input. Um, and that's made the project much better. Um, I hope, you know, folks have been able and, you know, I think the staff report played it out pretty well. We've made a lot of major changes that have addressed community concerns. Um, It's also been 5.5 years. And, you know, now our understanding is that the city's nearly ready to publish the draft VIR. We're on schedule for approval in either summer or fall of this year. Um, that would allow us to start construction in 2023, which would be about an 8 year um, start to finish process, um, just to start the construction process. And the reason I bring this up is that I want to briefly touch on question number 3 on tonight's agenda. Um, We ask that you not create any additional delay by starting a lengthy new general plan process for the project. We've been pursuing this project for over 5 years. We think this is the right way to develop the site. Um, for all the reasons that we've mentioned, this is this is the right building for this location, and that's why we propose it, and that's why we've stuck with it for this entire time. Um, if we are able to earn this council's approval for this project. We have no intention of throwing that approval out and starting the process over with a brand new project, which is what the concern that's been expressed. Um, we're happy to discuss this concern. We, you know, we have some ideas about how to address it, but we do encourage the council to move forward with the project's approval process as proposed. With that, we're very eager to hear your feedback and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

[00:50:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. Uh, so for the council, bring it back to council, if you have questions for staff or the uh, applicant, um, Please feel free to chime in. If you could raise your hand. would be great. Any questions from council members? Uh, yes, council member Mattachuk.

[00:50:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you Um, I do have a couple questions. In the staff report. Um, it talks about strategic economics doing a project specific study for community benefits that will be done this summer. And, um, I want to make sure I'm understanding what's, uh, being proposed here. Is the applicant proposing that rather than wait for the results of that study, that we just, um, provide our input on whether or not the 2000000 in community benefits is, um, what we can go forward with. Um, or are we going to revisit this after the strategic economics study is done?

[00:51:25] Stephanie Williams: I can respond to that. Um, so the applicant is proposing an amount, and I think we're waiting to hear the council's comments. Uh, uh, we always like to do, um, an economic feasibility study just to, um, get additional information and, um, that will sort of inform us, um, a little bit more, but economic feasibility studies tend to be fairly generic. Um, and we don't really know um, the developer's books, so to speak. So it's good to get an initial, um, response or proposal from the applicant, that we can then test. Um, and then what we hear from the council will help us, um, communicate back to the applicant, um, to see if, if there's more interest in doing something different.

[00:52:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. And, um, I just want to clarify the, Current, Moffat Boulevard change area does not include this property. Is that correct?

[00:52:31] Stephanie Williams: I let Diana respond.

[00:52:38] Diana Pancholi: I just was looking it up real quick while we were in this meeting here and I think I found a page that says it's not included. Yeah, it's not, it's not part of the Moffat change area.

[00:52:50] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thanks very much. That's all the questions I have right now.

[00:52:55] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Um, I don't see any. Oh, I'm sorry, council number Hicks. Your hand is very light. Sorry.

[00:53:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I just got the question. So if you're saying it's not in the Moffatt change area, does that mean if we did a precise plan, it would also not be in the Moffatt precise plan? Or could we change that? That's my question.

[00:53:28] Stephanie Williams: Um, I'll try to respond as, if it's, it's not in the Moffat change area and obviously wasn't gone to, contemplated to be part of the precise plan, if the council's interested. We're going to have to take that back and and and take a look at, um, what else we'd want to encompass into a revised, um, uh, precise plan.

[00:53:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you.

[00:53:51] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Any other questions? I have a couple. Um, this is uh, in regards to, when is about parking. Um, is, uh, I think, uh, Counselor Hicks and I living here in downtown, I've discovered. Um, it's not always just about how many parking spaces are built. but where they are built and these underground parking lots tend to be tricky. Folks don't seem to really want to go underground and use them. Um, and so how do we ensure that the residents, the future residents of this development will use those parking spaces in the lot, in the garage rather than parking on the streets?

[00:54:42] Diana Pancholi: Well, usually it is not a uh, condition of approval tied to the project. It is, you know, um, it is an understanding that, you know, people would like to park in their secured parking spaces rather than parking on the street. And that is the under the basic understanding with which we, we, um, look at the projects. Uh, the, uh, the developer can certainly have other kind of mechanisms in place, but, uh, that's the best that, uh, you know, we do under our purview.

[00:55:14] Stephanie Williams: I'll just add that for this project and for most residential projects, they're specifically assigned to units. Um, and are very heavily used as assigned because people can be quite possessive about the parking spaces. Um, they tend not to park on the street if they're given a space.

[00:55:33] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I, I, you know, I, I would. I'm sorry, I'm going to get into, um, a discussion or comment here, but I would question that because I think if your, um, unit is on the street facing the street, I see folks wanting to park right in front on the street. So, I don't know, you know, it's not just specific for this project, but I really do feel that we need to figure out some way of, um, monitoring the parking and so that, you know, these spaces that are very expensive to build are actually being used and not, you know, spilling over to the, um, other parts of the neighborhood. So that would be my, when, yeah, sorry, that became commentary. Um, the other piece, uh, the other question has to do with construction. And again, this is all based on, um, you know, experiences learned, less lessons learned over time, but, um, as, again, counselor hicks knows on our street. We had 2 projects back to back being built, and it was probably a total of 4 years without much rest at all in between, um, that we had to endure the construction, which was quite a lot with, um, cars and noise and, and parking and big trucks, parking in front of our houses and so forth. Um, that's my concern. They're talking about facing this over 5 years. What can we do to, um, you know, make it less, um, onerous for the neighborhoods to have to endure that length of time of construction?

[00:57:06] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: So, um, you know, as part of the project proposal, we are reviewing their phasing plan. I think there was a discussion about the parkland leading back to the to the applicant as well in order. There, there are a lot of competing uh, elements of the project. You know, parking is On street park. Parking issues as important as, you know, as construction noise as well. We do have a lot of standard city conditions, which speaks to construction noise, the kind of construction equipments that needs to be used, the time frame of that. And um, you know, the same construction noise aspect has been uh, is being reviewed and analyzed as part of the EIR as well. But, you know, as part of our standard conditions, Liverpool, we will be following all the high density residential conditions that we have to mitigate any kind of construction noise that comes up from the project.

[00:58:02] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: And I will add that we have the potential to add a construction parking and management plan. So every phase of construction, we're able to see where the parking is and where the materials are stored.

[00:58:13] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Great. Thank you. And finally, um, I thought I had included this in my written questions, but it seemed to have dropped off. Um, it's regarding the general plan or the zoning of R4. Um, I remember way back in 2004. I think it was when we were doing the R4. It was at 60 units an acre. Um, I was told, I asked about that, um, why it's 80 units an acre now. And I was just wondering how that change came about. Was it, um, was there a study done to, with that change, that up increase or, Was it just a council, um, boat decision?

[00:58:55] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: So the density associated with R4 was increased as part of the flower mower project on Evelyn Avenue, um, to align with the high density. The corresponding high density general plan designation, which goes up to Haiti Units breaker.

[00:59:13] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, um, let's go into comments and, um, we have the 3 questions that were asked, um, about design, community benefits and general plan designation, I believe, and then if there are other comments in addition, um, please feel free to add, um, that and yes, let's see if we can, um, do this fairly efficiently. So who would like to start? And I just, I wanted to actually say, say to the public. I know we've received a lot of emails about this. We are not making a decision on this project tonight. Um, this is just purely to provide feedback as we move through the process and the next iteration of Right. Anyone like to start? Council member Hicks.

[01:00:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'll start by saying I'm I'm generally supportive of this project. I, um, you know, I, I thank staff and the applicant and the EPC for all the, the changes they've made, the improvement with trees and driveway and contextual, uh, design and then, you know, it's, it's also obviously good that there's no displacement involved. My big reservation about the project is that it's not included in a precise plan. I think that, you know, this is transitoriented development, where, um, We're an underpass that will, uh, be a pedestrian and bike connection between, um, our traditional downtown, Castro Street, and I think this should be for doing transitorian and development. Well, this should be the 2nd half of our downtown. I should be able to walk from my house near Castro, on Castro Street, to my friend's house on Moffat, with the same kinds of, you know, we're bringing density to this neighborhood. We should also be bringing the same walkability that I have in my neighborhood. I should be able to walk down a wide sidewalk with trees and with, um, ground floor public public uses. The kind of uses that, um, that help people get out of their car. You know, I walk regularly to the drugstore or a dentist or to pick up, you know, eggs or whatever I've run out of, um, at the local market. And I want to make sure that at this point, we're developing along Moffitt in a way that's very piecemeal. The residents who wrote us letters are completely right that there are, you know, up of almost 15 proposed developments there. I don't want it to happen in a patchwork faction. I'm, um, not happy that the sidewalk on Moffat for this, uh, for this development is 5 to 6 feet wide, which is, which is the same as next to my single family home where most of the homes are one story, um, and we can go up to 2 stories as we get buildings that go up to 50 feet, which I support near transit. We can't have the same sidewalks or nearly the same sidewalks that we had. You know, that we had when they were single family neighborhoods, that discourages people from walking. So, you know, this project has been in process for quite some time, but I would encourage, and I don't know what can be done at this point, but I really encourage the, I really want to do a precise plan and not, well, it also means that we have not been able to consider the impact on the rest of the community as well as I would have liked. You know, is Cyprus, Drive, whatever it's called. Is that a shared street that people walk their dogs on, their kids play? Do we see it as a more auto oriented street? I don't think we've really had that conversation. So, I support this project, but I want to integrate it into our, our, the 2nd half of our downtown as well as we can. Right on the sidewalk, if we can at this point. And I don't want to be developing anything else, along Moffatt, until we do a precise plan, I think that that's, I think we're really at the point where we have to do that. And those will be my comments for now. Thank you.

[01:03:36] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, good accounts members she'll alter.

[01:03:41] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. I, there are certain attributes to this development that I, I'm really pleased with. One is the development of a park. Um, I think that, uh, it's going to provide a social focal point for, um, everyone who lives on, um, Cypress Point, and that's that's going to be a big improvement. Um, so, uh, That's important to me. The fact that they have figured out how to do this without displacing any of the existing any of the existing residents is just fantastic. I mean, we have been working on this for years as a city. And the responsiveness to this is really important. It helps the quality of life so much of the people who live there. Another thing that I'm, I'm very, um, pleased to see is the condo mapping of the building along Moffat. You know, we have been talking for years about needing entry-level, um, uh, you know, entry-level, uh, residents, housing units, and um, they aren't going to sell them. They aren't gonna sell them as condos immediately, but they'll be able to over time. I think that's really an important, um, Improvement. Also, it's very close to Caltrain, people are going to be able to walk. Um, and uh, close to the Stevens Creek Trail, and it's going to be lead gold. I mean, those are all extremely positive things. So I'm, um, I'm supportive of this. Of course, the traffic is a big issue. I think the builder has been responsive with the placement of, um, driveways, uh, to help with the traffic patterns and and as they should be. But I, I, I do like the idea of widening the sidewalk on, um, on Moffatt. Um, uh, council member Hicks is is right. Um, you know, we, having a wider sidewalk is much more conducive to, um, you know, to, uh, to people walking more and we want them to walk more and we want them to walk to Caltrans. So, um, that those are my comments. I would like to, um, to do a, uh, a precise plan this for this area as well, but I don't think we want to put off this project because of that. I think we just, um, uh, need to go forward with this one and put make sure that that Moffatt precise plan gets in the hopper as soon as possible. Thank you.

[01:06:12] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, Counselor Marshall, did you have any comments on the community benefits, and I should ask Council member Hicks this too, um, but the 3 questions were about design, community benefit, and general plan designation. Did you have any comments on it?

[01:06:27] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um, I, I, thanks for putting them up. Yeah, I support the proposed project changes. Um, I, I, I think that, um, the applicant has been responsive to both the, um, the DRC and the, the neighborhood and that's great. Um, I, um, I think the benefit, the community benefit is reasonable under the circumstances, it'll fit into where, you know, to the program that's being developed right now. And, um, I think that the existing general plan option is, um, is reasonable, but it would be good if we could figure out some way to put a time cap on that change. I mean, for instance, could we say that the general plan is changed, um, if this project goes forward in the next 5 years, and if it doesn't, they have to come back to us to have that reviewed. my comment. Thank you.

[01:07:28] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, counselor, I'm at a check.

[01:07:32] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, I had some general comments and then I'll go through the 3 questions. And so, uh, the last time we saw this, I expressed my concern about it. And um, my perspective really hasn't changed since that time. Um, I'm concerned that This went through the gatekeeper process when it is not in an identified change area. So I feel like our general plan had lots of community input. And we identified 5 change areas. And that's kind of our contract with our residents to say, We heard what you said, and here are the areas that we've all agreed. We will see growth. And this is not one of them. So I would not have supported this going to the gatekeeper project. And the reason, one of the reasons there's been a, a, a longer time processing this is because the applicant is requesting a change to the zoning. It's not that the city council or the city is, you know, dragging this out. The applicant is asking for a change, which does require more effort. So, and you know, if the applicant had, um, designed a building that was more, um, compatible with the existing neighborhood, it wouldn't have to have been completely redesigned. I feel like there's a lot of things that the applicant could have done. Um, if they wanted this process, this uh, project to go faster. Um, they could have stuck within the current zoning. You know, paid more attention to the architecture in the surrounding area. Um, and it would have gone faster. Um. So for question one, um, I, I still am uncomfortable with the massing of this project. Um, while some aspects have been changed, I would like to see the corner element, um, reduced even more. I'm not one who believes you have to have a statement on the corner. And I think that's what they're trying to achieve. I think it needs to be um, scaled back. And uh, the 4th story needs to be removed. I also think the 4th story needs to be removed um, along all of Cypress Point Drive. While um, it's stepped back. It still adds to the massing. And that's a concern. It adds to the number of people, the amount of traffic and all the other things we talked about that comes with, um, more units. I, um, I'm not crazy about the model parking standard, and I appreciate the comments that, um, council member Abby Koga made. When you have stoops, people tend to park on the street. And so, um, I do want the applicant to figure out a way to have people park in their parking spaces. And not on the street. I would like to see if even more heritage trees could be saved. And, um, I appreciate council member Hicks bringing up the sidewalk because I agree, um, along Moffat Boulevard. It needs to be wider. Especially because, um, even though this is not part of the change area. We want it to be compatible with the change area and not have a dramatic difference as you walk down Moffatt to middle field and beyond. So it should be a wider sidewalk there because I think the rest of Moffatt will be a wider sidewalk. Um. On question two, uh, the community benefits. Um, You know, I think it'll be interesting to see what the study comes back with. But, um, I want to raise visibility of the fact that typically, um, the benefits are greater than the community benefits because this is a gatekeeper project. And so, you know, we've talked Um, about, Some projects that are close to this development that would improve, uh, the area, and I'm thinking that, um, in addition to the community benefits that's calculated, I would like to see the Stevens Creek Trail, uh, designed and built. by this development. It would address the some of the connectivity issues. And I think it would be a nice project to add to this one. And the 3rd question. Um, I, I appreciate the EPC raising this issue. Um, especially because we have seen that, you know, we can't predict the future. And we have seen where things we do today, um, turn out differently in the future. Uh, the project that comes to mind for me is 777 West Middlefield, where that was a gatekeeper project by one applicant. And then after they received gatekeeper status, they sold the project or the parcel to another, um, developer, and that developer came, developer came back with a much different project that was much higher, um, massing and density. And so, um, I appreciate staffs, um, recommendation in the council, Q and A. And I would like to pursue that one, which was, um, keep it as a P district. And then, um, if I could find maybe, uh, staff wants to talk about this one a little bit more. But to me, it sounded intriguing. Um, keep the p district and then create a new general plan, then use designation of 36 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Um, and that would be my preferred route for this if it goes forward. Thank you.

[01:13:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you, and council member labor?

[01:14:02] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you. Well, I wanted to 1st say how pleased I am with the evolution of the design and kudos to um, staff and the applicant for, um, bringing something forward that's much more compatible with the existing area. And, um, I think, just easier on the eyes. And, um, I also agree with the, the, the sidewalk with comments that were brought up. Um, I think that particularly as Moffatt Boulevard becomes less of a pass through. Um, given the the changes at Cal, uh, Caltrain. That it's going to be more important to have, um, a more walkable environment there and, um, you know, reduce speed and et cetera. And I think that a wider sidewalk is. One of those indicators in addition to just being, being very useful. Um, I do think that we have to put some attention into, The issue of the street parking. Um, that, There would be competition with the adult school. Um, particularly in the evening when the adult school has their classes or doing GED testing. Um, the parking lot at the adult school is just not enough to hold folks and folks are coming from work. And they're trying to get to their test and um, So it's going to be important to have some kind of, um, parking control on that. I do really wish that there was, um, some way of doing rent rebates um, for the existing tenants. Uh, obviously, it's a huge overwhelming benefit that this is, this project as it's proposed is not displacing people, but this is a lot to live through in terms of the construction in digging. Um, parking, underground parking is is a big deal. And the project does represent the loss of certain amenities, the loss of the tennis courts. And the loss of the pool for, you know, a period of time. And, and so I'm really interested to see ultimately if there is a way, um, uh, under our rent control, of doing some kind of, uh, rent rebate, uh, during the time of construction. And, um, Then, um, in terms of the community benefits. Um, I'm, I'm eager to see more, um, on that and to understand more about the, uh, relationship between, uh, Caltrans's involvement in the city and and public works, um, flushing through things. Um, but I think overall, this is a textbook example of what we need to be doing in the future. We are historically far behind on housing construction. And there's nothing particularly special about street level parking sheds. taking up, you know, some of the most expensive real estate in the world. And, um, so I'm, I'm very supportive of, of a transition from surface parking to homes, and I, I, I think that we have to do what's in our power to do that, and I am happy to see staffs, um, uh, analysis of the general plan option that gives us the protection against any kind of, shifting and responsibility or deals or anything else and and just doing Um, you know, what we've been, what's been put before us. I'm I'm pleased with. Thank you.

[01:18:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Um, so I will add my comments and, um, I want to thank, uh, staff for their hard work on this project and the applicant for coming back. I am faced with many of the changes, especially on the design of the project. Um, I do agree. Um, I was looking back at our, uh, the last time I think we saw this was in 2017, and, uh, that was the 1st iteration, and, um, looking at the comments, the direction that EPC and the council gave. I think they, uh, applicant has met many of them, answered to many of them. The one that I noticed and council member Mattachek brought this up as well, was the lowering of the 4th story along Cypress Point. I know that they did that for block B and actually think block B looks good. But, um, Black Sea actually at the, you know, end was really, um, it, it wasn't lowered and I know that it was set back, but our specific direction, I believe, was to lower it. And so I would like to see that that change occur. Um, you know, we make these comments um, based on what we see and we've discussed and I think there was consensus and that's why it was included in the staff report. Um, so I would expect the applicant to respond accordingly. Um, you know, I know they folks like to change or try to do something else, but I think we were pretty specific on that. So I would like to ask for that. I think there was consensus and I will add my vote to widening the sidewalks on Moffatt, um, as well as, um, What is that? Yes, I think that was the other one. Um, so overall, um, We need, I know, um, council member Hicks has brought this up and, um, when we did the general plan update, we do have the change area in Moffat, um, the Moffat area, because we were really looking at, um, and it being an extension of downtown and in light of us closing, uh, car traffic on Moffat, uh, eventually with the transit center redesign. Um, I think that we should try to make it um, more pedestrian and bike friendly. So I would support the widening of the sidewalks there. Um, the other area, um, Let's see, in terms of design. I think those were the 2 um, I, I, I, that, that stood out for me. Um, in regards to community benefits. So, um, as counselor manager had mentioned, this was a gatekeeper, and, um, you know, as we've talked about this many times, but a gatekeeper, I look at it as special consideration, um, it is, you know, not a part of a general plan, or a precise plan of change area, or a precise plan. And so, um, you know, these are these one off projects. Um, If I were back going, if I could go back in time to 2015, what I would have done was to move forward, the Moffatt precise plan. This answers, council member, Hicks's, or response to that. And I, and changed that area because we actually were seeing these projects 777 555, the Buddhist temple. These projects were starting to kind of bubble up. And had I been on council at that time. I would have asked us to do that move forward with the precise plan and enlarged the area to include all of these properties. My main concern with this area is traffic. Um, and especially because we're gonna be closing the, um, the, you know, the Castro Street, the, the, um, throughput there. I can see more traffic coming through for folks trying to get to shoreline or to 85. Um, and so adding this much more density is a concern to me, and I really think we have some traffic impacts that we're gonna be needing to, um, to, um, mitigate. And so, for me, going back to community benefit. I expect more than what is in our precise plans with these, with gatekeepers. So I had asked a question in the written questions about a transportation fee, which we have included in North Bay Shore and East Wisman. Um, but, you know, was told that because this is a gatekeeper, we don't have that. I actually expect the same and then some. So, um, you know, I appreciate the $2000000 community benefit contribution being proposed, but I would actually apply that to trans traffic or transportation mitigation. And and then on top of that, what is the community benefit? Um, the park? I appreciate the land dedication? But that, I believe, would have happened anyway because if a project 5 acres or more, we require a park. So perhaps, um, we can require building the park, um, because that usually comes onto the city's uh, responsibility. I like the idea, I guess I wasn't completely understanding of the Stevens Creek Trail and where we are and where we could go with that. But I would support, I think, it was council member Mattachex, um, recommendation that we get the, the, the, the connection there, um, studied and built, um, by the applicant. Um, And so, um, those would be 2 areas, um, build, build the park, transportation fee, and access to Stevens Creek Trail. So 3 items that I thought of off the top of my head. And then finally, with the general plan designation. So yes, I remember our 4 being 60 went up to 80. Okay, I can understand that, but it's a huge gap between 36 to 80 units. Um, and since this is, you know, around 50 or 51. Um, I think we should create a zoning uh, category for that, that, um, that area, that amount. Um, in between. Um, because my instant was mentioned, you know, things change over time. We've seen many of these projects come in, they've come in 3 times, these change projects come in. Um, we don't know what's actually gonna happen until it happens. And so, um, to ensure that we, you know, may keep what's, um, what is being proposed, um, or as close to it as possible. I would like to for us to do the P district and then create a new zoning designation of 36 to 50 dwelling units. Um, Frankly, I would actually like to, I wanted to ask if we can, and I know we have our uh, work plan goal setting coming up, but I do want to re, uh, re establish the Moffat precise plan as a work plan item or a goal, um, look at the actually the area and include all these project gatekeeper projects into it, so we can really study the cumulative, as mentioned, the cumulative impacts, especially around traffic, parking. You know, this is the corridor we've looked at for the AGT, the automated guideway transit. Whether, you know, we're gonna do it or not, at least we should start preparing for it. Um, and I think I would expect these projects to contribute to those types of infrastructure mitigations that we're going to need for the added density. And my final comment too, I just want to say, you know, I appreciate the housing advocates coming and yes, we are, you know, definitely need housing. Although I will say with COVID, we don't know what the future holds. Um, the arena numbers, um, we've, I believe in Cycle 5, we've actually exceeded our total numbers. I had asked the question about Cycle 6, which is coming up in 2023. Um, this project, if it, if we approve it before, June 2022, I believe, but the answer was that, um, it wouldn't count. And so, um, you know, folks are really concerned about Rina, which we should be. Um, I think we have to actually, you know, they'll look at, um, How do we, how do we meet numbers? You know, I've really been questioning what we get if we exceed our numbers. We don't get anything really right now. I'm learning a lot more as I serve on NTC about, uh, with A bag and plan B Area and there's some conflicting principles in there. So, um, you know, I just want to say that, um, I, you know, we've done a good job building housing. Um, we're meeting exceeding our arena numbers, the cycle. Um, I you know, we have a big number coming up. And so I think we might have to look at timing based on that cycle too. Um, so, uh, yeah, so, um, you know, in terms of rushing this through, like, I'm not in a real rush, I want to make sure it's the right, uh, development for this property. And, you know, in terms of the 5 years. Yes, I mean it was a gatekeeper. Frankly, gatekeepers take longer. Could have done the precise plan, gotten that done in 2 years, and then this could have sailed through. Didn't happen that way, so that's why that's part of why we're here. And yeah, had the design originally been really nice that we liked. Probably wouldn't have sent it back. So, you know, time is on both sides, I would say, but, um, you know, it's as much on the applicant's, um, side as, as the, well, I would say even more than on the city in this regard. So, I think that answers all the questions, discount, stuff, do you need me to try to summarize some of this?

[01:28:10] Unknown Speaker: And that would be very helpful.

[01:28:14] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, council member. And then please chime in other if other council members if I miss anything, but I think for design, what I saw was, I didn't get, I guess I didn't get like majority. I don't know, do we need to go back, like, I could ask for the reduction of the 4th story on Cypress Point, um, like hands up on that one. And maybe. Oh, vice mayor is back. Nice mayor, I do.

[01:28:49] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Hi, uh, thank you, council member, Abi Koga, and thank you very much for running the meeting while I was out. I've uh, I've just been discharged, so I, I sound a little bit like a frog. But I'll, um, I was able to hear a good chunk of the, um, of the, the public comment and uh, the discussion and I know, um, we want to be sensitive to the time. So in case it's helpful, I'm happy to give my quick responses to the to the 3 questions. Um, so for the 1st question, um, I'm, I'm supportive of the, the project changes. Uh, I think, um, you know, the, you know, it's, it's, it's been actually very encouraging to see the applicant, um, uh, respond, uh, quite well. I think to a lot of the, the initial concerns from, from the neighborhood. So I'm very comfortable with with the direction things are going. Um. So, you know, if, if, uh, uh, you know, if, I think, you know, if this isn't project approval, so, um, I think it's, it's, it's important to keep, uh, soliciting public input. Um, but, but I think as, uh, as it stands, the, the changes are quite good. And I'm very encouraged to, to, to see where they're going. Um, for brought uh, question two. I support the community benefit proposal. I think the only, the only thing I would want to emphasize is it's really important that the, uh, the community benefit, uh, funding, be reinvested in this neighborhood. This is the area that's going to be impacted by the development. And, you know, wherever the funds ultimately are invested, whether it's transportation improvements or some of the feasibility studies that, um, were described in the staff report, um, I think it's important that, that all of that money, um, benefit this neighborhood. Um, but I think, you know, at generally speaking, the, the proposed, uh, community benefit is, is, is pretty good. Um, and uh for question three. You know, I've been thinking a lot about this. Um, I I appreciate the planning commission. Uh, you know, bringing, bringing this concern up. I think this, this is a, uh, an issue that, that, you know, we have to contend with with any gatekeeper, uh, application. Um, for, for this particular project, I think, the most important consideration in my mind is that we, we treat it, um, fairly and and equitably, uh, you know, we've approved, uh, general plan amendments that, uh, increase, uh, that go from, you know, some version of the medium, uh, density, land use, designation to high density. You know, for instance, um, for us, I think 777 West Biddlefield, uh, East, uh, the East Wisdom Project Flower Mart, and then the Villa Street Project, the Prometheus Project over there. And I think if we're going to treat this project differently, there needs to be, um, some, some justification for, for, for, for doing so. And I can't personally think of, uh, what what distinguishes this project from those other projects where a general plan amendment was, was approved to go up to, to high density, uh, residential. And I'm actually very comforted that the applicant is, uh, is proposing a project concurrently. Uh, you know, I, I try not to reference my, my day job in San Jose, but Very often, applicants will just propose a general plan amendment and a, and a conforming zoning without a project. And I think that's dangerous because we don't know what we're going to get. In this case, um, you know, we have the, uh, we have a very specific project. We have the environmental uh, review. Um, and and I think, you know, if if we want some greater assurance of the project, you know, that's approved, if it if it is approved, looks like, um, or, or, you know, reflects the project that is ultimately constructed. Um, I think, you know, looking at a condition of approval that will require additional discretionary review. Um, uh, you know, if modifications are made, is probably the most appropriate way of addressing that. But to summing up, question one. Yes, comfortable with the, the changes. I question too. Uh, yes, um, uh, I support the community benefits proposal, and for, for question 3, I think, um, I think it was option one in, in the staff report. You know, I, I, I can't, I can't think of a way to just, of, you know, why we would distinguish this from other, um, projects with the high density, uh, residential land use change. Um, so, so I'm, I'm comfortable with, with proceeding with the project as this, and particularly given that the, the planning commission had, had expressed support for the project, right? I understand the discomfort with, with the, the concerns about the land use designate, and use designation change in the abstract, but the project itself was supported. And so that gives me some comfort. I hope that's helpful. Thank you.

[01:34:32] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. Council member Hicks, and if you could also answer, um, community, the question about community benefits, um, in general plan designation, appreciate it.

[01:34:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. Yes, that's what I, that was my intention that I skipped over those. Sorry. So, um, yeah, so I like the Atkins, uh, community benefits. I also like the idea of the Stevens Creek Trail Connection. Um, and also a resident had brought up, uh, sound mitigation, uh, that, uh, possibly because of the trees that are, are coming down, and, uh, you know, as always, if there's any way of, of saving additional trees, I, that, I guess that's not a community benefit. That's another com. So the other comments that I had not addressed. I agree, I don't need a corner statement tower. Um, and any additional trees would be appreciated, and also that it's, it's, it is very important to have a mechanism to get people to use those underground garages, even if it's just public education. I know that when I lived in a nearby apartment. I parked on the street because I wasn't aware of how disturbing that was. So some mechanism, you know, I'm at fault myself. Um, it's just so easy to park on the street if you come at the right time. Um, and then, um, I, as far as the general plan amendment, uh, I would be interested in exploring staff's recommendation, they keep it as a P district and go on from there. Thank you.

[01:36:13] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. So, um, I'm gonna try to summarize. I, um, I think there's, uh, a heard consensus for, uh, the Moffatt widening of Moffatt sidewalk, saving more trees, uh, the Stevens Creek Trail connection. Um, And then, um, I guess, uh, I wanted to, we got 3 for taking off the corner tower. Um, I, I, I guess I need to get a raising hands shown for whether to reduce the, do the 4 story on along Cypress Point right there. Um, Is there majority for that? You raise your hands? So you have to scroll through the screen. I see three. Um, and then, uh, what else is that? Oh, the G, the general plan, designation for P district. I heard 3 is there anyone else? Hands raised for the P district. Let's see 3 there. Um, and then the other benefits I heard, uh, oh, parking controls, is there, um, consensus or majority on that? I see one two, three. I think I'm missing, so. Okay. And then, um, I think council number, labor brought up, um, rent rebates for existing residence. Any interest in that? I would actually support something like that. I do think that the existing residents need some kind of benefit from this. I think I saw 3 there. Um. And Am I missing anything?

[01:38:09] Unknown Speaker: Excuse me, Cal, the dinner plan?

[01:38:11] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, I'm sorry, general plan designation. Oh, the P district. So, I raise hands. And that, I see 3 there. Um. Anything else? Did we get everything? Yes, count number labor.

[01:38:33] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I think the council member show alter may have added on to the possibility of rent rebates. Okay. Uh, and um, then the parking restrictions, I, I'd like to see, um, some, uh, accommodation to, to work better with the adult school. Um, and I know that it's been said here that when people have stoops, they park in front of those stoops. Um, but on the other side of uh, on this side of uh, Central Expressway that I've noticed that that hasn't been the experience that people do park in their designated parking, but then other people come and park in front of the stoops. Um, So I'm interested in the parking restrictions relative to the adult school. And allowing, um, the parking demand from the adult school to continue. That's another,

[01:39:34] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: if I might suggest, because we had, uh, the vice mayor join the discussion. Uh, it may be best for staff, if there could be a majority uh, consensus sought, which would be 4 out of 6 uh, votes, if that's possible, uh, to give staff further uh, clarity on on majority support for certain items.

[01:40:01] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, um, I guess what I'll do is, uh, I've been taking the numbers. I'll just have to ask, nice Mary Ramirez one by one, which ones he supports and doesn't, um, and then we'll get to four. Um, anything else?

[01:40:18] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: If I may, um, just for clarification, I know in the summary, we talked about Steven's Creek connection, but in terms of the general proposal itself, if you, if we can get a, uh, a sense of, um, if you have a majority there supporting the,

[01:40:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'd like to make an African. I'd like to make a comment about that.

[01:40:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, yes, I'm sorry. Well, uh, Ms. Pancelli, did you have anything else and then I'll go to Councilman Michelle Walter.

[01:40:46] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: No, that's it.

[01:40:47] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Councilman Rachel Alter.

[01:40:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, there has been some investigation of the, um, connection of the Stevens Creek Trail. And because of the configuration of um, uh, the streets and and uh, 85. It's really very difficult. So, um, I, uh, there is a possibility of running the trail, uh, sort of against, you know, right against the end of the development and putting something in there, but, uh, I, I, I kind of question whether that's really an improvement. So, I don't think we should be figuring that out tonight. We might say that we would, you know, we would like Stevens Creek Trail improvements, but, um, there are feasibility issues associated with, um, uh, connecting them at middle field. And, and, um, you know, we do not have, uh, jurisdiction over, uh, Caltrain, uh, Caltrans and 85. And so there are some things that just aren't going to work there. And I sort of learned that, um, through some problems when I worked at the water district. So, um, I think we have to be careful requiring, uh, uh, uh, something that may be infeasible. Um, although, You know, whatever we can do to improve the Stevens Creek Trail is always a good idea, but in this case, it may not be feasible.

[01:42:06] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So how, what if we just ask staff to bring back what the possibilities are, um,

[01:42:11] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, that's not, that's a good idea.

[01:42:14] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. Counselor, man a check.

[01:42:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I'm okay with that. I was reading the staff report to mean that we've already done the feasibility study because it says, um, that it's an unscheduled CIP. To design and construct. The pathway. It doesn't say anything about, um, doing the feasibility, so I assumed that was done, and we determined it was feasible. Maybe staff could comment on that.

[01:42:44] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Yeah, so I think the, the idea as the previous study session, uh, that council requests a staff to, um, look into, what's to do a direct connection, from the project side to the trail connection. Uh, the Stevens Creek Trail Northside Trail access point connection was another thing that we looked at, but it's on the north side of Middlefield, and that is the project, which is currently unscheduled and, you know, to understand the design and construction of it, is going to be, um, looked at in future, but it has not been scheduled yet. There is a possibility. Uh, I mean, uh, what uh, uh, uh, Patrick Walter said is absolutely correct when we looked at the feasibility and working with other uh, agencies, was found to be a major hindrance in, you know, completing something in the time frame of the project. But council can certainly, um, direct staff to, you know, use the funds that are coming in through the community benefits to be used for a project in the neighborhood. And, you know, some of the, some of the, um, CIP projects have been mentioned in the staff report, and the Stevens Creek Trail Northside Trail access point is one of them.

[01:44:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. I missed that it was on the north side, so thank you.

[01:44:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So are we comfortable with just asking staff to bring back what the options would be for the trail? Great. Thank you. Um, Anything else? So I need to ask vice mayor. I'm gonna go through these items, if you can just be a yes or no on what you support. Um, I'd say these are, I would categories them under, well, some design and community benefits. Um, So taking off the corner tower on block B to, so basically reducing the, um, the, the stories to, uh, 3 stories.

[01:44:45] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, so, um, I'm sorry, for my benefit, can, can, uh,

[01:44:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: You're muted. Oh, there you go.

[01:45:01] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, I'm so sorry. Thank you. So, and my apologies. For my benefit, can staff or somebody put up an image that shows the location of block B? I'm on my phone and it's not easily accessible.

[01:45:16] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, let's see, block B. The lucky one. corner of Moffatt and Cypress Point.

[01:45:23] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, okay. Um, I'm, I'm comfortable with, with the, the, existing proposal. I feel, um, like what is it, 100 Moffatt, which is on a similarly prominent corner, I think has, um, allows for, for, similar, greater height. So I, I'm, I'm fairly comfortable with the with the current proposal.

[01:45:46] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And then, um, the 4th story, lowering it to 3 along Cypress point, so for block. It's already done for block B, but the block C in the back. Black sea. So it's the back of the project on alongside this point in Highway 85.

[01:46:06] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I see Um, I'm, I'm not, without really understanding the impacts of the project. I'm not I'm not comfortable reducing the hype there Um, and I, I don't think that was it. A concern identified from the, the planning commission, so my, my preference right now is to, to, to maintain the 4th story.

[01:46:30] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Um, parking controls, so that's what we were talking about, how we how do we get uh tenants to actually use the parking. Grudge, um, provided, uh, counselor labor wants us to, um, for the applicant to work with the adult school and in the parking issues there. Just overall parking and enforcing parking. Um, partly at that further.

[01:47:01] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Do, um, I guess exploring it. I wouldn't, again, without, without really understanding the impact to the project. I, I, I don't feel comfortable requiring anything. I think I would be interested in knowing whether we've done that with other projects and if we have what what those controls have looked like.

[01:47:24] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, Steph did say we haven't, and so, um, at least for me personally, my interest was, and us starting to look at that because it is, seems to have, it is an issue that has come up several times recently.

[01:47:39] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, yeah, I think, um, maybe exploring that and and coming back. Um, when this returns to council with, with, what that would look like and some language around that.

[01:47:54] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, the Stevens Creek Trail, I think you just heard the discussion. Um, about bringing up options to the next steps for some connection.

[01:48:04] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Is that, um, is that the same as the feasibility study? Or is this a different request beyond that?

[01:48:16] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So. I think it's, um, it's kind of an all, all capturing. Um.

[01:48:25] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, maybe, I'm sorry, good staff re, reiterate the response on that.

[01:48:32] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Yeah, I think there's like 2 things that I heard so far. I think the question that staff has is whether the, um, council supports the proposal, uh, the community benefit proposal that we have, which is regarding, you know, the applicant is proposing one. 198 million. And then, uh, the other discussion I had was regarding the, you know, Stevens Creek Trail connection in the staff report, we have mentioned that, you know, there is a, there is a CIP for Stevens Creek Trail north side. Uh, uh, trail access point, that is a project, which is not scheduled yet and needs to be designed and constructed. So that is one project where, you know, the community benefit funds could be, you know, council can direct that, um, staff should be, um, the, the benefits from the, from the project should be used for the neighborhood CIPs, and this is one of the projects that has been identified.

[01:49:29] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I see. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. I'm, I'm, um, I'm not ready to, uh, to commit the community benefit funding. Um, I, I would want to better understand whether that's, where the community would like to, just, invest the lion's share of the funding. So I, I'm, I, I, you know, Stevens Creek, uh, trail access is, is important and I think I might ultimately support the, the project, but I'm, I'm not yet ready to, to, you know, commit funding for it from this project.

[01:50:10] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: If I may just, um, explain how staff will look at all the, the council's direction is to, Um, I think we, we understand this interest in looking at other projects in the neighborhood. Um, once the economic analysis is done, I think we'll work with the applicant and and take a look and come back with the community benefit proposal from the applicant. And then uh, we can. Um, try to put together a recommended approach based on the kinds of projects that we're going to have to work with public works. And the council can make the ultimate decision, but I did want to say that we will not be bringing specific CIP projects as part of this project. It's just the funding for potential projects. The CIP process is separate. And will run, will be run separately, and we'll use the estimates from that to help guide us.

[01:51:10] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I, I think I wanted to go through the other items and then, and I come back to the actual question, number 2 question about the community benefit amount, but, um, so if I could just finish up with vice mayor, um, there was an interest to save more trees than what's been proposed. Would you support that or not?

[01:51:32] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I think, so we've, we've provided language and other projects to the effect of, you know, we're feasible. You know, preserve or relocate the trees. And if it's similar to, to that direction, then. Uh, yeah, I think I think that would be, I think that would be a good addition.

[01:51:51] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. And then a widening of the sidewalks along Moffatt Boulevard.

[01:51:58] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Widening the sidewalks. Um, I, um, Right now, I think it's 6 feet, I believe, they're proposing, and, um, the, I think majority of council wanted them to be wider, more like along, that we've done with, um, the others, the 100 Moffatt project. I see. okay. I think, you know, to the, to the extent, feasible, again, this is, I feel badly, kind of, you know, jumping in on some, some more very specific concerns. I, I, I'm not opposed to, to widening the sidewalks and and, you know, where, where we have narrow sidewalks. It's certainly an issue, but I think I would want a better understanding of the impact of the project and, um, and, uh, you know, whether, whether that's, that's an accommodation that, that can be made without, you know, major, uh, need for redesign and revision.

[01:52:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Um, and then finally, there was a, uh, interest in providing rent rebates for the existing tenants during the construction phase due to the challenges of construction that they'll have to endure.

[01:53:19] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, I think the, I'm trying to think of projects that were that's, that's occurred, and the one that comes to mind is Shore Breeze, where there's, um, you know, construction, addition of units in the, you know, in an existing project. And I guess a question for staff. Was there a similar accommodation made? For, for those tenants. Stephanie, do you recall this?

[01:53:57] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Uh, no, I don't believe there was.

[01:54:01] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I, yeah, I, I, I think it's, I feel badly saying this. I think it's, it's a nice thing, but I, I just don't feel comfortable. treating this project. If, you know, if we've, if we have a history of doing that, if that's something that we want to, Um, you know, created a policy level, I'm interested, but, um, you know, I, if we haven't, if we haven't done that for, for comparable projects, then, you know, I have a hard time requiring it in this case as well. Um, and then finally, this is about the general plan designation. Um, uh, there's interest in the P district designation, and then coming up with a news, new zoning category for the 36 to 80 drawing units. Um, so maybe, maybe another question for staff. So the, the, the, The P district is, is the zoning, right? And then the the land use designation would have to be an existing designation that allows for the residential capacity. Um, that the project is contemplating, because, in my, in my, understanding the terminology correctly.

[01:55:29] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Um, yes, you are. So the staff recommendation is to create a new general plan, land use designation.

[01:55:35] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I see. Okay. So I, I'm, I'm not, you know, these are, hey, keepers are hard. You know, I, I, I think we need to really. You know, I, we haven't entertained a gatekeeper in a while, but, you know, moving forward, I think we need to be really thoughtful about how we do this, but we haven't done that with, with other gatekeepers to the extent, I'm, you know, to, to, you know, that, that I'm familiar with. I think the high density land use designation, uh, is, is the most important because that's the only land use designation that allows the project. Um, to proceed if we, if we want the project to proceed. Um. Philosophically, I, I don't really like, um, you know, cite specific, uh, zoning unless there's a, a compelling need to do it. Um, you know, I, I think we, you know, we have conventional zoning districts for a reason, and, and, you know, I, I, I would be interested if, if, you know, the, the community is interested in modifying those zoning districts, like we're doing with R3, I think that's that's important and good work, but I'm. You know, spot, you know, the site specific zoning feels, like, like, an unreasonable accommodation that I'm wary of.

[01:57:02] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I don't think it would be site specific. It's a P district, and then we would come up with a designation that would be, you could be used elsewhere, correct? It's just that time spent to create that, like, or is it?

[01:57:18] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: P district is the planned community zoning district. So, so the, the, the, we have 2 proposals, um, one is to move forward with the current option and the 2nd option that Stafford recommended. Because of the concerns brought up by the EPC and other questions from the council, um, was an option to, um, keep the P zone, um, and then, uh, do a special, uh, a separate general plan designation that could run maybe 36 to 50, for example. Getting close enough to the project that we could use for other sites in the future. Um, as we explained, we're contemplating the R3 and we can see breaking up the 36 to 80 into separate categories, where we could do it a little bit earlier for this project rather than wait for the R3. So I just wanted to clarify that that is another option we raised in response to the applicant's letter.

[01:58:17] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, okay. Now, thank you for the clarification. So I, I think it sounds like it's like 2 different questions within that one. Um, I, I want us to be thoughtful and and holistic in our review of R3, including any modifications to the general plan land use designations. Um, and I, I just, you know, I, I, I can't, I, I just don't feel good about, you know, thinking about that in the context of a specific project when there might be other considerations we'll have to be mindful of. So I, I don't, I, I, I couldn't support, um, the, you know, the, the, the creation of a new land use, designation because that will have implications citywide. Um, with, you know, outside of the context of R 3. Um, and then for the P district, yeah, I'm, I'm, I have a strong preference to use conventional zoning when we can. You know, the, the, the value of the P district would be site specific development standards. Um, and, you know, I, that, I, I don't, I don't know what the value of that would be in this case, since we have a, a, a development, you know, permit that's being proposed, we, we have the design of the project. Um, and since sorry, go ahead.

[01:59:45] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I can respond to that. We, I, if I recall, we used the P district when we were going through the general plan amendment and recite, I don't, well, we didn't get to the precise plan, but we were, because we didn't want to hold up projects until we finished the general plan update. The projects that came in during that time, we had assigned them a TP district. And then once we came up with a zoning category, We assigned that category 2 that that project. So that's how I'm envisioning this to be similar and, you know, we've talked about Moffat precise plan and whatnot too. So, given that there might be some, you know, more holistic, uh, uh, look, look at this area, that's how I would see the P district happening. So it would be just like a temporary placeholder until we come up with a category that works for the site. So, um, so the, the new category would be some version of R 3 then?

[02:00:48] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: It sounds like it could be.

[02:00:53] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I, That, uh, I, I, if, if, you know, I, it's, it's, it's difficult for me because it feels, we don't know what the development standards for the new R3 district or districts will be. Um, You know, and I think the, the, the, the value, because we have a project. I, I don't, really see a lot of value in designing development standards just for this one project and, you know, in, in anticipation of R3 because we may want to do something very different with R3. Um. And and the, the, the, I think, you know, if the underlying intent is to have a protection against the possibility of, for instance, a density bonus. Um, the density bonus would be applied on top of the general plan, land use designation and not the zone, and I think that's. You know, it, which is why something like the, you know, condition of approval or a narrowly scoped, you know, DA or something, I think would, would better address that, that particular concern. Um, like, I, I guess, you know, I, I just don't, I don't feel. Um, it's really hard for me to justify creating a set of development standards specifically for this project, particularly if we don't have a, a full understanding of what the development standards for the new R3. Districts will be. Um, it just, it feels, it feels a little speculative and I, I, I just, I just don't feel comfortable. doing that.

[02:02:41] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Okay. I think council member, we just, the staff recommendation was trying to balance support for the project, not waiting and moving forward, and when we recommended this new general plan designation. Um, we, and at staff level, have been discussing this for a while, and while you're right, that the R3, we don't exactly know where we're going to land. I think breaking it up into 3 categories, right? 36 to 50, 51 to 65, 60 to 80, could, could be the beginning of, of an approach, even for the R 3. Now, we may end up with something different, and that's why we're recommending that. We could move forward with this. So we would address both the EPC and some of the council members' concerns. But not make the project wait for R3. Um, so, again, it's a, it's a middle ground and it will allow us to use the existing EIR, create a planning focused alternative, which would create a new ca- designation.

[02:03:41] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, I wish we had had the benefit of the R3 study session prior to this discussion. Um, just because I, you know, we, we, We may want to do something different, you know, the council may like not to adopt the R3 changes in the end. Um, and I just, I, I, I think. You know, I don't have a problem with the existing development standards. I think, you know, the, the, if, if we were just doing a general planned amendment and rezoning without a project, I wouldn't support, I couldn't justify that. But, but because we have a project that, that appears to be, you know, that was supported by the, by the planning commission, and I think, it sounds like, you know, there's, there's, there's comfort with, you know, with, with the council right now. Um, I, I, I don't see a lot of value add in, in the, you know, in a P district, you know, I think a, we have a P district, in my mind, you know, we need to create development standards for a particular project or parcel. You know, because there's some special reason to do so. And in this case, it's hard for me to, to think of what that, of what that special reason might be. Uh, so I, I, I have a preference to just use the existing development standards. And if we don't like the project, we don't have to approve the project.

[02:05:13] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: No, that's that's perfectly okay.

[02:05:15] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, but, You know, I, I think we, we have a project that's pretty well defined and and and fairly well designed at this and I, I'm not. I'm not sure what the, the value add of, of a P district would be in this case.

[02:05:35] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I could just respond. I would just remind, um, folks that, you know, we had approved the Summerhill project and the Wisman, uh, East Wisman area and that's not moving forward. So that was being designed and spent many years going through the process and it's not happening. And the question is, you know, what's going to come there. So that's the issue is, you know, do we want to contain it to the 50 or 52 or so units per acre or are we, you know, willing to risk letting it go to 80 units per acre. So, and it was a, we had 3 for the P district, so you would have been the tiebreaker, Vice Mayor. But it sounds like you want to stick with it. So that's um, so it's a 33 tie, so that will fail. So I think, um, If I heard then, I tried to take, take count. I got majority support for the parking controls, the Stevens Creek Trail, saving more trees, the Moffatt sidewalk, rent reduction, and then not a majority on taking off the corner tower and reducing the 4th story and block C in the P district zoning. Is that clear? Is that right? And I actually, I know Counselor Rushovelter, you mentioned the sound wall. Is there interest in that?

[02:06:56] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'd say, I think that's quite a project. I don't remember mentioning a sound ball. I'm sorry.

[02:07:03] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Someone had talked about sound mitigation.

[02:07:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I, um, sorry, uh, a resident had and I added that as possibly exploring, you know, sound mitigation because that was important to a lot of residents. But I think it was just me who brought it up.

[02:07:21] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And it, it's counselor, really, Bridget, you want to support letters?

[02:07:25] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Just a clarifying question. I'm wondering from staff, is there information that's already been developed that we're precluding by not going in the direction of the P district? That, that would provide a benefit or a protection for the community?

[02:07:48] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: I think the only option we saw, um, to support moving forward with the current project, but yet keeping the density to what the project is, is doing a P district because we don't currently have a zone. That's limited to 50 Ish units to the acre. The R4 goes up to 80. Um, and so keeping it a P zone with, Yes, um, keep the standards specific to the project. But that's no different from the current zoning for the site, which is P. Um, we're only proposing that to revise the journal plan designation to create a new one. That goes only up to 50 units, as opposed to the only one we have, which goes all the way up to 80. The range really doesn't mean much given new state laws. We have to look at the highest 50 and then we've got 80 so. Um, So, uh, vice mayor, um, expressed, uh, a general support for, uh, the project has presented. And so to be able to, Keep it as presented, we would need to do, um, the P district to be able to, Preclude going up to 80 units, which is clearly something that I think the neighborhood has expressed a strong preference to not move in the direction of.

[02:09:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Right, yes. Okay, well, if there's a way to do so, I'd like to really, um, urge the vice mayor to, um, uh, come along on, on getting more information back on that or some more options so that we at least have the option, uh, to protect the community from something that's not expected and and probably not desired.

[02:09:45] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Actually, council member, if you would support the P district study, then we would actually have a majority to move.

[02:09:51] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes, I do support it.

[02:09:53] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. So we then we have a majority. So that. Concludes, I believe that concludes all the items. Thank you for your patience. I know we went way over, but I think it was a good discussion. So, with that, I will close the study session and turn it back to the mayor. We may want to take a break beforehand. Thanks.

[02:10:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Councilman Rabbi Koga.

[02:10:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[02:10:27] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: If I may, I think it would be good to take the break now and then the mayor can rejoin and then we can get back to the regular meeting.

[02:10:35] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, sounds good then. About 10 minutes, so we'll, if we can rejoin at 750. That would be great. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, staff.

[02:23:43] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much. So we'll move on to item number two, which is roll call. We'll have the interim city clerk. Uh, Monterlinden. Take attendance by road.

[02:23:54] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Also member Abi Koga.

[02:23:55] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[02:23:56] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Hicks.

[02:23:59] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[02:24:00] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Lieber,

[02:24:02] Councilmember Sally Lieber: here.

[02:24:03] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Mattachek.

[02:24:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here,

[02:24:05] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member, show Walter.

[02:24:07] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[02:24:08] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[02:24:11] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here,

[02:24:11] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei.

[02:24:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Here,

[02:24:14] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: thank you.

[02:24:15] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much. So we'll move on to item 3, which is presentations. So we'll move on to item 3.one, which is our proclamation and recognition of the Lunar New Year. So we had, um, asked our visual arts committee member to to Thompson to join us to receive this proclamation. I'm not sure if she's still with us. Is she? Okay, great. So maybe we can move Ms. Thompson over. Wonderful. Thanks so much, and I'll just, uh, read our city of Mountain View proclamation. So whereas today we commemorate the Lunar New Year and join families in California, Asia, and around the world in welcoming the year of the ox. And whereas the Lunar New Year, predominantly celebrated by 1000000s of Asian and Pacific Islander Californians, including people of Chinese, Korean, Singaporean and Vietnamese heritage, among others, in a time of renewal and joy. On the special day, families gather to celebrate and prepare for the arrival of a new year of good health and prosperity. Across the state, parades, community events, their family meals illustrate the rich cultural history and diversity that define California. And whereas as we look forward to a joyous new year, we proudly reflect on the contributions of Asian and Pacific Islander Californians who literally built California. From America's 1st transcontinental railroad, to the farms and small businesses foundational to our state's economy. We also recognize that discriminatory laws, xenophobic policies and mistreatments suffered by Asia-Pacific Islander Californians are a blight on our state's history. And whereas today, in rejecting past prejudice and embracing inclusion, let us join our Asian and Pacific Islander friends and neighbors in celebration. We also encourage California schools to take time to educate our students about the traditions of the Lunar New Year, and past and present contributions of the Asian and Pacific Islander community in our state. And whereas as the door to the year of the ox opens, we wish good fortune, health, and happiness to all who celebrate. Now, therefore, I, Ellen Kamei, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do here probably proclaim today as Lunar New Year. Wonder. Thanks, everyone. To, to, did you want to, um, say any words or tell us a little bit about New Year?

[02:26:53] Tootoo Thomson: Oh, thanks for, thanks for inviting me. Yes, I appreciate it. Thank you. Um, I just uh, fell, um, very warm and uh, the city is making efforts to recommend the Czech culture, uh, importance culture holiday. Um, And, you know, me being Chinese myself. This is one of the biggest holidays in a. So glad that we're doing it. Thank you.

[02:27:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you, Ms. Thompson, and thank you so much for your service to the city of Mountain View on the visual arts committee. We really appreciate it, and thank you for waiting for the, uh, the proclamation. We'll make sure we...

[02:27:31] Tootoo Thomson: It was great pleasure. It was great pleasure. And I, you know, learned something about the project.

[02:27:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, you too. Great. Well, thank you so much. Yeah, happy New Year to you.

[02:27:42] Tootoo Thomson: Happy New Year, everyone. Bye,

[02:27:46] Mayor Ellen Kamei: thank you. Great. So we'll move on to item 3.2, which is our COVID-19 update by our city manager Kimber McCarthy.

[02:27:59] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor Kamei. I am going to share my screen now. Okay. So good evening, everyone. I am here tonight to present the latest COVID-19 update. So what I'm going to focus on is similar to what I focused on in the last couple meetings and really talk about vaccines and where we're at right now as a county. So, um, this is the latest snapshot countywide as of today. So there's a little over 109000 cases right now. You can see that the new case count was 239 cases today. So the good news is that this case count is going down dramatically, which I'll show you in a slide in a couple slides. And Mountain View, we are also seeing our daily case count going down. So as of yesterday. So far, we have around uh, 27, 2800 uh, positive cases right now. Um, this is a slide that shows the dashboard of the uh, 7 day rolling average of the new cases. So you can see the spike. I mentioned this last time at the mid to end point of January where there was an average of around 2256 cases, which, you know, per day, that was a really, really large number. And you can see on the right side of the screen now that now we're down to 274 cases for the rolling average. So, it does continue to hover around that number, and we're hoping that over the next few weeks, um, and certainly over the next couple months is more people get vaccinated, and they're fully vaccinated that this number will start to go down further. So this is the chart that shows right now where all the counties are at and all the tiers, I believe, we're all familiar with this. In Santa Clara County. We are still currently in the purple tier. Um, but there is hope on the horizon that if our numbers continue to stay down. that it is likely that we could be in the red tier potentially next week. So we just found out today that there are 2 Bay Area counties that moved into the red tier today. So San Mateo County and Marin County moved into the red tier. And essentially what moving to the red tier means is that there are more, uh, business sector activities that are allowed to open. So, for example, um, there is some indoor dining that is allowed at this point, I believe that's around 25%, um, indoor capacity, and then there are some other things like gyms being able to be open with certain restrictions. So moving into that tier is certainly a good sign. So we are hopeful that um, we have potential to do that within the next week or two. In terms of vaccines and getting a vaccine appointment, SCCfreevax.org is the website that anyone can go to to, um, get their vaccine appointment. So right now the current eligibility is anyone in phase one A and one B. So essentially healthcare workers, long-term care facilities, and anyone over the age of 65. And then as of February 28th, it's also been extended to workers in certain categories. So teachers, childcare workers, um, agriculture, food supply workers, so certain essential workers, and also emergency services workers will be able to start getting vaccinated on the 28. Um, in Santa Clara County. Folks can make an appointment, even if the vaccine itself doesn't start till the 28th. They can make an appointment right now for those, um, for those vaccines. So we encourage everyone to go to SECfreebacks.org. If they fall into one of those categories, or you can call the valley connection call center, which will help people facilitate the online appointment setting. That is 408 970 2000. In terms of what's happening here in Mountain View at our community center. So we have a no wrong door policy in the county where you can go to any vaccination site for anyone eligible in those categories that I just mentioned. Um, so it is appointment only, as I mentioned, Monday through Friday, 830 to 5 PM. And we have had daily vaccinations, however, around the 800 range. So around 800 per day. Um, they have gone up to almost 900 per day and the goal is to eventually ramp up to around a 1000 per day. So since we've been open just since the end of January, we've done 11,377 vaccines that have been administered there. Um, we've also tried to make some adjustments with the flow of traffic, with the line flow. Um, we've learned a lot over the last several weeks and we have increased more city staff time there. Um, to really help that line management flow in parking. So now the wait time is averaging around 30 minutes. And I know that, um, folks have been giving us, um, feedback and information that they're really appreciative of how the site is being operated. And so I'm very appreciative of staff, and helping facilitate this with the county medical provider there. So this is a dashboard on where we're at with vaccines countywide. So the blue color is how many doses, the 1st dose of the vaccine that have been given. So, so far, there's been 266,000 1st doses, countywide. And that is about 16.5% of county residents that have received that 1st dose. The green in this chart here shows people that have received that 2nd dose. So 105,000, about 106,000 have received that um, 2nd dose and have completed vaccination. So that's about 6.6% county wide. So you can see that the chart is trending on an upward slant. So they are ramping up efforts. But I mentioned this last time, and I'll mention it again. The logistics are there and that there are sites available countywide. Obviously I just talked about our site here in Mountain View. So the issue right now is not will to do it. The issue is still supply. So as supply ramps up and as the state gets more doses, which are then given to the county and the different medical providers, we're hopeful that these numbers will continue to increase and ramp up more and more. So testing is also very important. So as we're vaccinating folks. Um, we are still testing. So right now we've tested about 14,500 tests since midsummer. At our city facilities, and just this year alone, we've had about 2400 tests. You can go to SCC free test.org to schedule a test. You can also go to El Camino Hospital for ongoing appointments Monday through Friday, 730 to 7. And we do have 3 upcoming testing opportunities at our center for the performing arts. Those are on March 2nd, March 11th and March 16th. So I encourage you to go to that website if you need to be tested. Been pivoting to a couple updates on our programs that, um, the council has authorized to, to help the community, not just, uh, small businesses, but also community members in need, our small business grant program closed, and we did receive 143 applications. so far. So right now, staff is reviewing all of those applications, making sure that folks are eligible. Um, they had to meet certain criteria to apply, and then we're also making sure that um, people have valid business license and, and just some technical details like that. But once the eligibility is determined by staff, there's going to be a lottery held via Zoom in early March. So we will put information out about that date and those specifics once we have those details. For the rent relief program. Right now, the average assistant still continues to be around that 2200 a month. Uh, we have a little over 1800 checks cut and we've expended almost $4000000 for this program. So there does continue to be a great need for this program and CSA is moving through the applications as fast as they can. I also wanted to give an update about Project Home key. So we do continue to make progress on this project. Um, we have had to move the, um, The implementation out a little further. So right now we've experienced delays due to the rain that has happened. Um, we've had some construction delays due to some unforeseen soil and different site condition delays. And um, interesting uh, interestingly enough, our modular units are actually coming from Austin, Texas. So we have been impacted by the different power outages in Texas and getting those units to us. So, we're anticipating now that the modular units will be installed in March, and hopefully the 1st couple weeks in March, and then, um, obviously then, right after that in April is when we expect to have, uh, the completion for that. Um, I also wanted to mention that the city of Palo Alto opened its 1st safe parking lot for 12 vehicles. So, um, obviously here in, um, Mountain View. We have 5 safe parking lots. Um, But it is great that our regional neighboring city, um, also open a safe parking lot. Um, I also wanted to let the community know that right now we do have 2 current ongoing advisory board recruitments. So our rental housing committee and our public safety advisory board, recruitments are underway right now, and the deadline to apply for those 2 boards is this Friday, February 26th, then you can go to our website and learn more information about how to apply. And then we also have our city strategic roadmap, community workshops coming up. So just this Thursday, from 6 to 8 PM and Saturday, from 9 to 11. That's actually AM. I hope that no one shows up at 9 PM on a Saturday night. But, um, this is a great opportunity to have the community provide input on our city's highest priorities and give their feedback about um, the vision for Mountain View and, um, it will really help shape our strategic plans. So I encourage members of the community to go to mountain view.gov slash strategic roadmap to sign up for one of those sessions. And we will have other sessions beyond these two. We'll have them in, um, Spanish, Mandarin and Russian. We'll also have a small business, um, community workshops. So we will be announcing further workshops beyond just these two. Then I also, as I do normally wanted to highlight different city staff that have been working so hard over the pandemic and over these last few months and tonight, I'd like to highlight our building and fire inspection team. So, um, Ryan, Raquel, and Tony and left to right order is who you see here. Um, working hard and I thought that, um, it would be interesting for you all to know just how much is actually going on in the city during COVID. So, um, the the target inspection number that, um, the department set at the beginning of the year, just for inspections alone, was 11,500. And so far today, they have performed over 25,000 inspections. So again, the target was 11,500. They're already at over 25,000 inspections and we still have a few months to go this fiscal year. Um, our plan checks and plan checks and permits is the same. Uh, we've performed almost 2000 plan checks and we've issued around 3500 permits. So uh, it is a very, very busy division. Um, we also have made the pivot to a lot more efficient and um, online operations. So right now we have a pilot virtual inspection program, so we're studying the viability of doing virtual inspections for really simple permits, um, for one to 2 family dwellings, and if if that pilot is successful, we're going to launch it with further notification to the community via our website. And we also have our digital submittal and plan check right now, um, via electronic methods. And we have next day inspections available if a request is received by 3 PM the prior business days. So I do want to thank our entire building and fire inspection team for everything they've been doing and just highlight a little bit of the work that they've, uh, been undertaking these last many months. Then lastly, I want to remind the public that, um, we do have a weekly briefing that goes out. You can text 22828, excuse me, MV COVID to 22828 to receive that briefing every Friday. Get the latest information on COVID and other things that are happening in the city. So with that mayor, I will close and remind everyone to mask up and be, please stay safe and healthy and I'm open for any questions.

[02:41:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much, city manager McCarthy. Do any council members have questions about her presentation? All right, so seeing none. Um, I will open it up to public comment. So if any member of the public on the line would like to comment. Please feel free to raise your hand in Zoom, or press star 9 on your phone. And the interim city clerk will display the timer on the screen. I know we're running a bit behind, so why don't we just set it to 2 minutes? Um, and I see Mr. England's hand. So let me know when you're ready, Ms. Wonderlanden.

[02:42:28] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mr. Jensen is helping with a timer and he will get going very soon. Thank you.

[02:42:33] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you.

[02:42:42] Bruce England: Hi, do you hear me? okay

[02:42:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:42:45] Bruce England: Okay, I won't need 2 minutes, so this is good. So I had my, um, 1st vaccination yesterday, so yay, on that. Um, but when I set up the 2nd appointment, they told me I have to go to Levi's Stadium because they don't have inventory at the community center. That seems unfortunate to me and I don't really understand it because if they had the inventory at the stadium, why not just split off some of that and get it down here to Mountain View? Don't make people drive. Uh, over to the stadium. And that also puts people in close proximity. You know, why not split it up? So I've sent the message or the question over to the board of supervisors to see if they can respond to it, but because this is being done in Mountain View. There might be some city discussion involved too. So that's why I'm raising it here. Maybe the city manager can find out. So I just wanted to raise that. Thank you.

[02:43:36] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks so much, Mr. England. Does anyone else have any public comment? Okay. Sure, okay. Missed dead?

[02:43:51] Gita Dev: Good evening, mayor, coming, and uh, council members. I'm Gita Dev at the Sierra Club. I had the privilege of, um, of joining Access Mountain View's meeting on the bicycle plan network for Mountain View. Um, which is a very exciting plan. And very well thought out. I remember it coming to council on the priority list that they were criteria they were going to use. Um, the one thing I did want to point out, and I did point it out, and several people brought it up was something I'd like to bring to the attention of counsel. And that is that, um, Pedestrians are very difficult to get on B packs. And pedestrians needs very often don't get reflected in bicycle and pedestrian master plans. It tends to be just about intersection design. What's really missing is the fact that if you're a pedestrian, you really need a green street with shade trees and good sidewalks. Um, and a connected, and a sign,

[02:45:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Steph, where, where, this is for public comment on the COVID-19 episode?

[02:45:04] Gita Dev: I'm so sorry.

[02:45:06] Mayor Ellen Kamei: No problem. I wasn't sure. I wasn't sure if you were going to be talking about mobility, like access to the to our site, our vaccination site.

[02:45:17] Gita Dev: Oh, I'm so sorry.

[02:45:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: No problem. So we're, um, we're still in the...

[02:45:22] Gita Dev: Okay.

[02:45:24] Mayor Ellen Kamei: No problem. So, um, I just want to clarify. I see 2 other hands in the queue. So we're still on item 3.2, which is the COVID-19 update from our city manager. So we're taking public comment on the COVID-19 update. Okay. Miss Lynn, do you have comments on?

[02:45:46] Robin Lin: Yeah, yeah. This will be quick. I just wanted to echo what, um, city manager McCarthy said about city staff, like, thank you so much for all your efforts these past few. Well, I guess it's now year. Um, now, uh, you know, I don't know if we can give a gold star or do something, but I really appreciate that, um, all the care and effort that, um, city staff have shown in service to community. So thank you very much. I know maybe you get a lot of complaints and some from me, but uh, definitely, really appreciate uh, your all of your thoughtfulness and, um, hard work and effort in service to us. Thanks.

[02:46:31] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks so much. So I don't see any other hand, so I think we can uh, bring this back and uh, close this item and move on to item four, which is our consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. The reading of the full text of resolutions and ordinances will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? Okay, I'm not seeing any hands. Would any member of the public on the line, like to provide comment on an item on the consent calendar. If so, please feel to raise your hand in Zoom or press start on your phone. I think we'll stay with the 2 minutes. All right, I'm not seeing any hand, so I will bring it back to the council for emotion. Council, I'm at a check.

[02:47:28] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I will move the consent calendar.

[02:47:31] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Thank you, council member show, Walter.

[02:47:36] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I would just like to, um, I'm 2nd it, but I would also like to acknowledge the, um, the, uh, report that we got on the female firefighters and how, uh, we have, um, one of the, the highest percentage in the county, and that's because we have taken really, um, uh, explicit steps to increase the number of females in our firefighting, um, uh, department and to, um, and to make their lives better when they're there by providing things like better sleeping quarters. So, I just want to send out a kudos to the female firefighters, uh, and, um, and the whole department for, um, for doing that and the recognition that we've gotten in the grand jury report.

[02:48:23] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much, Councilman Rachel Walter, and we also provide, um, free feminine hygiene products for all our city employees as well. Um, so I've heard positive feedback from those in our um, public safety that that's appreciated as well. Uh, Vice Mayor, Miss.

[02:48:44] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, thank you, Mayor. I almost forgot. I have to recuse myself from the visual arts committee appointment. Um, and I just want to thank, uh, you and council member Abekoga for, uh, uh, for taking on the, the interviews and and, uh, and that process for the card. Thank you.

[02:49:05] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks. So, um, we had a motion, um, to approve the consent calendar from Council member, showwelter. And Vice Mayor Ramirez will be abstaining from, which, what item number is that for? 4.5? Okay, great. 4.5. So we'll do a roll call book. Thank you.

[02:49:28] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Certainly, council member, Abi Koga.

[02:49:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I I'm sorry if I didn't hear me the 1st second. I'm sorry, my apologies.

[02:49:41] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Hicks.

[02:49:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:49:44] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Health member Lieber?

[02:49:46] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi,

[02:49:46] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Tulsa, I'm a Menachek.

[02:49:48] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:49:49] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Also, I'm Michelle Walter.

[02:49:50] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[02:49:52] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Spa Ramirez.

[02:49:53] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[02:49:54] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Maya Kamei?

[02:49:55] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:49:56] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you.

[02:49:57] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much. So we'll move on to item 5, which is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items, but any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on a non-agenda item. If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom and press star 9 on the phone. And we will fix the timer, um, to 3 minutes, since this is our public, or this is our oral communication section. And we will move to Miss Dev.

[02:50:47] Gita Dev: Thank you once again, Mayor Kamei. I will not take 3 minutes Um, I simply wanted to add to what I'd already said about the B pack. That we have looked at the bicycle master plan and there will be a pedestrian bicycle, a pedestrian master plan coming up. Um, however, one of the things that was raised by several people was the fact that trees are sometimes being removed in order to get bicycle lanes along many streets. And sidewalks are sometimes being impacted by signage for the bicycle lanes and so forth. So it's not very conducive to pedestrians to walk. The thing that we would just like to bring up is that during COVID, it came out very clearly that people will walk and they love to walk for exercise. Um, for their kids to walk with their kids. If they have slow, safe streets. And so we really want to advocate for a connected, slow, safe network through mountain view. And that is something we have mentioned to the staff and we, I just wanted to bring it to council's attention. That a connected, slow, safe network where cars go really slowly, and pedestrians and bicyclists have top priority, is a kind of network that many cities are putting in. Many large cities and small cities. Um, the safety is the most important criteria, and having beautiful shade trees is really critical if you're walking. There are many other advantages to an urban forest, of course, but I just wanted to bring this one item up. Thank you very much.

[02:52:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you very much. Shani Kleinhouse?

[02:52:47] Shani Kleinhaus: Good evening, Mayor May, city council. This is Shandy Kleinhouse, from Santa Clara Valley, Audubon Society. I started writing a letter to you all about why birds are important and why urban, biodiversity, and rewilding is important. I think it ties with what Gita just said about trees. But I'll read you just a little bit of it and then I'll send you the letter later later. Uh, during your retreat. When the city goes setting and strategic plan process, council members express their appreciation of hearing words. And there was a suggestion that believability, including aspects of bring infrastructure, urban forest, pollinator corridors, and biodiversity. Could be set aside as a goal by itself, with associated priorities. And I thought that was a really good idea. And here is why, worldwide, the laws of biodiversity has been devastating, and scientists now believe that they were in the midst of mass extinction, similar to what happened, about 65000000 years ago when 50% of all planted animal species disappeared from our planet. In mountain view, mostly in North Bayshore, they're breeding populations of 20 plant and wildlife species that are listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern. The most charismatic of the of these is obviously the boring owls, uh, the San Francisco common yellow throat, black skimmers, white shouldered kikes, even congen, congen tar plant. But some species have been extirpated from shorelines and past 20 years. The California quail or state bird is one of them. And some migratory birds are already suffering. population decline, even common ones that we find in every backyard in the area. And some local species are at the brink of extirpation. The boring out is one of them. The migratory monarch butterfly is another. So For many species, we don't have population trails too. And birds in biodiversity are important to people, to their happiness. There is a using data from the 2012 European quality of life survey to study connection between biodiversity and life satisfaction. Um, In Europe, they studied more than 26,000 people from 26 countries. And they show that an additional 10% in bird species increased life satisfaction, as much as a comparable increase in income. There are other studies that show that happiness and life satisfaction are linked to biodiversity, nature preserving parks, in open spaces and in people's everyday life. So I'm going to write a little more on this and send you my letter and thank you for your time.

[02:55:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Tim Mackenzie.

[02:55:51] Tim MacKenzie: Hi, my name's Tim Mackenzie. I use he him pronouns. I've been a resident of the Monteloma neighborhood since 2015. Um, I'm the chair of the Silicon Valley chapter of the uh, the chair of the labor working group of the Silicon Valley chapter of uh, the Democratic socialist of America. And, uh, in that capacity. I just spoke in front of the board of supervisors of Santa Clara County, who approved a hazard pay ordinance that had passed in San Jose, and then it moved up to the board of supervisors. Um, and now that they've passed it, they're planning on sending it out to the cities, um, in the county and given that we are there. I hope that Mountain View can take a proactive step, and I just wanted to put that on your radar. Thank you for the path.

[02:56:42] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Be Hansen.

[02:56:49] Bee Hanson: Hello? Um, I just wanted to uh, make a couple of comments. In the last couple of days, I've heard from several of my, uh, senior friends in Santiago Villa, that they've received their 90 day, uh, notifications of rent increase. Uh, as expected, uh, the perk owner added a little paragraph, giving himself credit for holding rent increases to 2.9%. Which is the amount that CSFRI is approved for apartment dwellers. Uh, that was expected. But what I did find surprising was another paragraph, they claimed that the recent lawsuit, our neighbors lost against the rental housing committee, had concluded in the decision by the superior court of California, that mobile home residents are not going to be covered by rent control. Uh, he knows that this is just a falsehood. Um, what the, the superior court decided was that the rental housing committee has the, Discretion to decide. Uh, and still has the discretion to reverse their vote if they want to. Uh, he deliberately lied. basically, to residents. Uh, and this is not surprising again because of the letter that he sent to all residents. Uh, recently about rent increases and what the wonderful things that he was offering, which are all bogus. Uh, it's, it's, it's really, it's unconscionable that, that, this man is allowed to, to rule over so many people. Uh, who are many of whom are quite defenseless. Um, this is also the lead lord who has refused to cooperate with the city government in providing the information that the city staff requested. Uh, and it will continue to withhold information as long as you allow him to. Um, so what I'd like to ask you is for to get together in a joint session, with the rental housing committee, and try to expedite, uh, what many of you have said that you were interested in doing, helping us to get our rent stabilized. Uh, and um, I guess I'll, I'll just leave it at that. Um, I would appreciate if you would consider putting that on your agenda by at least September. Thank you. Yield my time.

[02:59:28] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Alexander Brown.

[02:59:35] Alexander Brown: Oh, oh, hi. Hey, uh, 1st things first, I fully echo and support everything that B said. I probably should have pointed this out during the consent calendar, but the work plan status update doesn't address the mobile home protections, which was a work plan item that was approved 3 years ago. 2 years ago. Now, as a member of the Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance, I'd like to formally and publicly request that you pick this issue back up. After last January study session, we were told that we had to wait for the outcome of measure D. And after measured defail to pass, we had to wait for the appeal to win its weight to the courts. And now that the appeal is concluded, we as an organization feel that the city council and the rental housing committee should work together to find the solution to finally provide safety and security for those of us in Mountain View 6 mobile and manufactured home communities. I would love to see the results of a joint session with all 12 and maybe soon to be 13 of you, and maybe me. Uh thanks.

[03:00:28] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So we don't see any other hands in the attendee box. Um, so we'll uh, close uh, oral communications and bring it back to the council for item 6, which is a public hearing. We'll move on to item 6.one, um, which will be uh, 1600 amphitheater Parkway, and 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard project modifications. So I will turn it 1st over to city staff and then ask if the applicant would like to give a presentation. Perhaps we need to move some city stuff. All right, here we go. Miss Horn, can you hear us? There we go.

[03:01:23] Erin Horan: Yep. Good evening, good evening, everybody. Just one moment while I open up my screen. Okay. Good evening, mayor, and council members. My name is Aaron Haran, and I will be presenting this item, along with Stephanie Williams, the planning manager and zoning administrator. Um, tonight's item is for a request to modify 2 previously approved Planned community permits at 1600 Amphitheater Parkway and 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard to construct site modifications, Including relocating interior public access to the exterior of the campuses. The project site consists of one parcel at 1600 Amphitheater Parkway, the Google Plex, currently developed with 4 office buildings, and 2 parcels at 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard, Charleston East. Currently under construction with a new office building. The 2 sites are located in the block between Permanente Creek, North Shoreline Boulevard, Amphitheater Parkway, and Charleston Road. Charleston Park, which is a public city park, sits in the middle between the 2 sites. Both sites are owned by the city and lease to Google. The original approvals for the office developments were in 1995 or 1600 amphitheater, which included an FAR bonus, with the inclusion of public access through the site. In 2017, Charleston East was approved with public access through the building. Google has now been experiencing recent security concerns to their campuses, which has prompted the request for modifications to relocate the interior public access, the green loop path, to the exterior of the campus. Staff has worked with the applicant to provide an equal alternative to achieve the applicant's security concerns, as well as maintain public access and engagement, which will be reviewed on the next slides. Proposed project at 1600 Amphitheater includes relocating the interior public access, as you'll see on the left slide, um, to an exterior green loop path shown in the proposed slide along Charleston Road. The path will replace the existing sidewalk, include a new public plaza with scheduled programming, new artistic security fencing around the main entrances, add a park knoll and VIP entrance on the east entrance, and will remove 31 heritage trees, including mostly non-native redwood trees, replacing with a total of 177 new trees. Here are some views of the proposed modifications, including the artistic fencing on the east and west entries, and the new public public plaza with seating and food trucks. Now, this is for Charleston East, which was approved with an east-west public pathway and retail and cafe uses along the internal path with public entrances along the eastern and western building facades. The project now proposes to not allow public access through the center of the building, remove the public access point from the eastern side, but still remain as an employee access point, and then consolidate the publicly accessible retail and cafe uses on the western side of the building, and maintain the public access entry and exit point on the western facade. Part of this consolidation of publicly accessible space is the introduction of a neighborhood partnership center, which can be used by community members or small businesses for community gatherings, um, or small businesses for community gathering space by reservation. On January 27th, the zoning administrator held a public hearing, no members of the public spoke on the item, the projects were recommended with conditional approval to the city council. A condition is included for staff to work with the applicant on the final design of the security fencing VIP entrance and public plaza. In conclusion, staff has worked with the applicant to address the campus security concerns while also maintaining public access and engagement. Staff recommends the council adopt the resolutions to approve the modifications to both project sites, as well as to authorize the city manager to execute an amendment to the disposition and development agreement for 1600 Amphitheater Parkway. That concludes staff's presentation, and we are available for any questions. I know the applicant will also have a presentation.

[03:06:11] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much. So I think at this time, uh, we'll have the applicant presentation. So if you don't mind, um, Taking your screen off so we can have the applicant share their screen. And I believe it will be speaking on behalf of Google will be Michael Timeoff, Adam Doe, and Chris Allan.

[03:06:37] Michael Tymoff: Great. Good evening, Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramirez and council members. My name is Michael Timeoff. I'm Google's district development director from Mountain View. And as was mentioned, I'm joined tonight by Adam Dell and Chris Alwin, both development executives on our real estate team, and we're here to make a presentation and answer any questions that you may have on the design enhancement projects before you. I'm going to share my screen here momentarily. And hopefully you all can see my screen now.

[03:07:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, we see your screen.

[03:07:16] Michael Tymoff: Great. Excellent. So, thank you, Aaron, for your presentation and um, 1st just a note of appreciation and acknowledgment of the collaboration with staff and for all of the feedback and input, um, that you all have provided to to make these better projects. The goal of these 2 design enhancement projects is to improve on the public's experience, visiting our campuses in North Bay Shore, while ensuring the safety and security of our employees, Google visitors, and the general public. We're confident that our design balances these goals by expanding upon our existing, in the case of Google Plex, and proposed in the case of Charleston East, welcoming of the public. Again, we appreciate all of the input and collaboration with staff to make these projects better. And we're here tonight requesting your approval to allow us to move forward on these very important projects. The slide shows an overview of the combined Charleston East and Google Plex projects, which each adjoin the city's Charleston Park. Existing paths in the park would continue to be open to the public, providing connectivity between the 2 campuses. The yellow lines indicate publicly accessible paths that vary in size, type, and use, and the blue zones indicate the major public gathering areas around the 2 projects. These are in addition to the city's Charleston Park in the Permanente Creek Trail to the west. The proposed improvements. will also enhance access and connectivity with these existing publicly accessible areas, in particular for pedestrians and bicyclists. Google also recently funded and completed both the Charleston Corridor phase one project and a refresh of the city's Charleston park, which I will highlight in a minute. Both of these projects are great examples of the continued collaboration between the city of Mountain View and Google, and we truly appreciate the opportunity to continue to collaborate with the city on making North Bay Shore, a more welcoming experience for all. Briefly, on Charleston Park, um, as I mentioned, we recently completed this project on behalf of the city, um, and are very proud of the design, um, and welcoming visitors um, to this very important park. And while we will be holding a groundbreaking celebration here shortly. It will be virtual due to the pandemic, but we did want to share tonight with you a few pictures of this project. Which further enhances the public's experience when visiting our campuses, and welcomes people to enjoy the many public open spaces throughout North Bayshore. This is a site plan of Google Plex, showing the both design enhancements. These include securing the 4 entrances into the main courtyard at the north, south, east, and west sides of the buildings. It is important to note that we are not proposing to fence the perimeter of the site. Only these 4 main access points into the courtyard. This also shows a new public plaza that is being proposed on the south side of what we call building 43 along Charleston Corridor, and is intended to be the key public facing amenity, which I will, again, highlight in more detail in a couple minutes. Up to the right hand, uh, edge of the, the image, you'll, you'll see the Parknell, which is meant to provide a public connection between Charleston Park and the, in east entrance of Google Plex. And this is replacing a vehicular driveway and uh, Google bus drop off zone that's there today. And then finally, a multi-use trail along Charleston will allow the public to connect both Permanente Creek and a new Greenway leading up to the park mall in Charleston Park. So take a minute just to talk about the security fencing, which we've designed together in collaboration with an international artist named Emmanuel Morell. The sculpture design of this proposed security fence in is based on the number, Google Plex. which is 10 to the 100th power. The design is proposed at both the east and west entries into the courtyard and is made of 10 by 10 panels using the number 0, which mimics the base number Google Plex. Each panel will be a different color for a total of 100 individual colors. This is a view of one of the key public enhancements, which is a redesign of an underutilized driveway and bus loading zone, I mentioned earlier, and creates a meadow of native plants, providing seasonal color, and new habitat for birds, pollinators, and other wildlife, while also providing new tree plantings and seedings for people to rest adjacent to Charleston Park. This is a close-up view of the security fence fencing at the east entry, which has, again, been intentionally designed as a functional, yet sculptural element that serves to meet our security requirements. The Google Plex 2.0 Plaza will provide a number of interactive pop-up experiences such as yoga classes, art exhibits, bike clinics, speakers, and performances. Visitors will be able to grab a cup of coffee, or something to eat and get visitor information at a kiosk. It will be a feature wall with interactive art at the north end of the plaza that will be designed to function as a quirky and eye-catching photo opportunity background for visitors. The plaza also has copious seating, providing a place to rest, take a break, meet with friends, and enjoy the Google atmosphere for both the general public and visitors coming to our campus. By retention zones and tree plantings within the plaza, connect back to the native California plant palette and provide a buffer to the busy Charleston Road. At the west entry, looking east from the Alza Trail connection towards the Google Plex campus. Again, they are artistic fencing, both addresses are aesthetic objectives, while providing the functional security needs for the Google Plex. At Charleston East, the design modifications we are proposing would be to remove the originally proposed weekly access through the walkway through the center of the building, and replace it with a new neighborhood partnership center, public store and public cafe that would be accessible from the exterior of the building. These facilities will be open 7 days a week, except on public holidays and other Google holidays. And important to note that the original proposal for the Green Loop Trail that went through the middle of the building, public access was limited to Monday through Friday from 9 to 5 PM. So we think this expanded offering, both in terms of hours, in footprint, uh, really enhances the visitor experience. This shows in a little bit more detail than 10,000 square feet of public retail and cafe. The retail store will be a hardware focused store selling Google products. It will also sell Google brand and merchandise to the public as well. Anticipate that the retail store will also provide both experiential and interactive activities for the public. highlighting some of our recent work and technology services and products. The cafe will be constructed and operated by Google and partnership with the vendor and offer offering, uh, that will mirror Google's food program to ensure vibrant and healthy offerings, including hot cold and beverage stations. The cafe will be connected to the neighborhood partnership center to the south. As was mentioned by staff, uh, the 3600 square foot neighborhood partnership center is a new offering, um, and we worked very closely with staff on the programming, uh, for this as well as the location. Our original proposal actually had this located off of the Green Loop and working with staff, decided that consolidating this publicly facing use with the retail. And the cafe made a lot of sense. And so we were able to accommodate that change. So the neighborhood partnership center is anticipated to provide a cultural hub, visitor center experiences and a platform for community events and programming. There are 3 components of the neighborhood partnership center, which include a welcoming station, visitor center and lounge area. A flexible pop-up space for small businesses and community organizations, and an event space projected to accommodate community groups of up to 100 people. We have a similar community meeting space that we currently operate in San Francisco, and we will work with our events team to establish a process for community organizations to schedule times to hold public meetings and events. And again, at the suggestion of staff, we're happy to be able to accommodate an event program that would be hosted by Google, and we would curate a number of public facing events approximately 12 times a year in this space. As I mentioned, all 3 of these public facing amenities will have direct exterior access, and there will be outdoor seating areas available for public enjoyment. In closing, I wanted to share 3 renderings of the exterior spaces at Charleston East. This one from Charleston Park, looking back at Charleston East, highlighting the proposed enhancements and other public offerings, the project will provide. This is looking, uh, north from Charleston Boulevard, along Joaquin Road, and you can see in the background, um, the exterior outdoor seating and dining areas um, in front of the cafe and the retail and neighborhood partnership center. These amenities have been conceived and designed to embrace and welcome the public as they visit our campuses in North Bay Shore. We remain committed to keeping our campuses open and welcoming to all, um, and just to highlight on an end on one note, although it's not a topic of tonight's um, agenda. As we recently submitted a framework plan, a preliminary master plan for North Bay Shore. I did just want to highlight that part of that proposal is to convert 34 acres of currently Google owned office campuses and turn that over to publicly accessible open space. This represents over a 3rd of the project area that will be converted to dedicated lands as well as privately owned and publicly accessible open space as well as pedestrian and bicycle trails throughout the neighborhoods to connect our campuses with the residential, um, and other amenities, retail amenities that will be provided as part of that redevelopment. So, in closing, thank you very much. Adam, Chris and I are here to answer any questions you may have.

[03:18:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much for your time off. We'll ask you to stop sharing your screen and we'll bring it back to council for questions. 20 council members have questions for staff for the app kin. All right, so, okay, council member Madachek.

[03:19:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: You just one quick question. Um, if you could bring up the, um, map that shows, um, the Google Plex. I have a question about, um, access there. So, um, I'll try to describe the question here without looking at the, uh, map. And that is, um, Can you still go from, Okay, and the one on the right, the proposed. Can you go through? Sorry, that's so small, I can't read the labels on it. Basically, where you can drive in, and you usually go to the, uh, I think you call it the partner center. Um, and you can continue on north. Can you do that still if you're walking or biking or, but you can't in a car?

[03:20:22] Michael Tymoff: That is correct. So that north-south connection, um, from Charleston up to Amphitheater, will be accessible on foot or by bike. Right now as I mentioned, it does serve as vehicular access. And while the public can meander up there, um, it is not a, um, officially designated pedestrian path. So this will accommodate that path to travel.

[03:20:50] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks. That's it.

[03:20:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[03:20:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I, I, um, have been getting some comments from members of the public about a little taken aback by loss of some of the, um, public open space and suggesting all sorts of things that maybe I appreciate, um, Mr. Time Off, your last statement about, uh, what you additional public open space that you'll be offering, um, in in the, uh, project you're going to, you're going to submit, are you just submitted? Um, so people have asked all sorts of things about, uh, developing space along Permanente Creek, um, planning riparian trees, um, and things like that. So I'm wondering if you'll be able to do some of those things in the upcoming proposal that you talked about at the very end. any of those things that the public has brought up.

[03:21:49] Michael Tymoff: Yes, absolutely. Too fast. No. Absolutely. I mean, part of our landings project, um, that was entitled last year includes, um, significant enhancements along Permanente Creek, um, in addition, we've proposed over in Shorebird, um, expanding on the Charleston retention basin, um, 10 acres of, again, currently occupied. There's 4 buildings that sit on 10 acres, um, that would be turned over to the city to expand the stormwater wetlands and retention area in that area. So habitat creation and restoration building on the work that we've done to date. Um, really enhancing the pedestrian and bicycle connectivity along the existing Stephen Creek and Permanente Creek, uh, bike ways is an important part of that. Um, of note, of the 34 acres, um, there's around 9 acres of, uh, parks and trails, um, boat, both green loop, um, sidewalk areas and other open spaces that are, um, part of creating that connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians.

[03:23:03] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you.

[03:23:06] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Any other questions for staff of the applicant? All right, so seeing then, um, we will, um, ask if there's any public comment. So would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press start on your phone. And the interim city clerk will display the timer on the screen and we'll continue with our 2 minutes. So, think, if we could just, um, maybe stop the screen chair, please, and then we'll pull up the timer.

[03:23:42] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: We can Move on to our 1st speaker.

[03:23:57] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, Tim Mackenzie. Please unmute.

[03:24:01] Tim Mackenzie: Hi, Tim Kensi, he him pronouns. Um, I'm a neighbor of Google. I go on my good days. I go run to Vista Slope right along the Permanente Greek Trail, which, uh, which we just saw on the maps. Um, I'll say as a member of the public. There was a lot of talk about how the public will feel. I feel like fences are not very welcoming and don't really make for an integrated place. Um, I'll just mention that. I'm also a member of the Stanford community. Um, that's a unique place with its own security challenges and it is open. There are not fences. I would actually, I would dislike if there were fences. I wouldn't, I, Stanford and Google aren't the same place, but I'll just say I wouldn't like if there were fences. Although if someone at the president or provost level, which I assume is similar to the director level, were to make that decision, I really wouldn't have much say in that. Um, and I wonder what workers at Google think about that. I know as I mentioned earlier, I'm chair of the labor working group of Silicon Valley DSA and can't help but notice that there was recently the formation of the Alphabet Workers Union. And I think it would be great to get their perspective on this too, because the rank and file workers going in that actually go through their day to day are the ones who are really going to be experiencing the place and hearing their perspective, I think, would be very important as well. But personally, as a member of the public. As a community member, I am opposed to the defenses, we'll be talking a lot about this today. If you remember a couple of weeks ago at Council, when Dr. Rudolph presented about fences around Monteloma, one of the members of the public, actually shared some slides and gave a presentation about, he was a security expert, and he mentioned how fences aren't actually that effective, and it's more kind of like treating symptoms rather than root causes. So I'll just, I'll yield the rest of my time. And thank you for listening.

[03:26:04] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Jesse Connors. Jesse, are you there? Jesse, Jesse Connors, you there? All right, we can try to come back to Jesse. How about Cliff Chambers? Can you and me?

[03:26:40] Cliff Chambers: Yes, uh, thank you, Mayor. Cliff Chambers, resident of Mountain View, and an active member of the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, but I'm talking for myself tonight. I actually just learned of this agenda item. Because I was here for an earlier item. I'm concerned about this. Um, I actively participated in the Charleston East, uh, East Outreach, uh, that Google had. And they presented at our MVCSP meeting, a major sales point was, The access, uh, through Charleston East, which was a, And they raised, uh, security concerns, but as a layperson, I'm not really understanding was changed between 2017 and 2021, perhaps you've gotten the council has gotten more information about that. But I, I do applaud, you know, Google's overall efforts in open space and access. But I'm a little, like the former speaker, I'm a little tired of talking about increased fencing and barriers in, in Mountain View, that, According to experts, do not have, you know, a, a great security benefit. So for me, there's not the justification to go back on the promise for Charleston East through the access. Uh, through that, which was a major uh, sales point, and perhaps there's information that I don't have, which is probably the case. But I think the public deserves to know what has changed from the sales pitch that Google had back 4 years ago or 5 years ago to today. Thank you.

[03:28:32] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Waltimar H. Well, Waldemar, H, you can unmute yourself, please. All right, we can try to come back. How about Gita Dev? Yita, are you there?

[03:29:09] Gita Dev: Yes. I'm here. Thank you. Mayor, can I? And council members. Um, I'm sorry that I too, like one of the previous speakers, missed the uh, agenda item on January 27th, so this has come as a surprise. To us. I'm speaking here for the Sierra Club, Loma perioda chapter. Um. As was pointed out earlier, the green loop was a very integral part of the, Entire, specific plan for uh, North Bay Shore, the North Bay Shore precise plan was based on making North Bay Shore into a final grid that would allow a more walkable neighborhood. Um, for office workers, as well as the fact that we now plan to have, um, up to 9000 housing units and maybe 25,000 residents. So making this area a walkable neighborhood is very important. And um, while I appreciate, Google's efforts at making the new plan. Very interesting. I too feel that. Uh, blocking that area off, creates a super grid. We're going back to the super grid, in fact. We're abandoning, uh, the idea of the green loop. And it raises for me the question as to whether other segments of the green loop are also at risk for similar security issues. So I would certainly take time to scrutinize whether that will be the case. And to make sure that that does not happen. Because keeping this area walkable is really important. And if we lose that open space, I feel that space along a major corridor like Charleston doesn't quite compensate for being away from streets and in nature. And maybe more of permanent degree could be developed as an amenity for the residential public. Thank you.

[03:31:13] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Alexander Brown?

[03:31:20] Alexander Brown: Oh, hey, everybody. I am also a neighbor of Google up in North Bay Shore. Uh, and I do work at Google and I'm a proud member of a Wu, though I'm not authorized to speak on behalf of anyone but myself, and even that's debatable. Like my comrade Tim said, I'm not a huge fan of fences. Uh, I've also not worked in main campus for a while, even before work from home. So it's, I'm not, this is wouldn't in fact my, you know, ingress or egress from work. But damn, if those rainbow fences are amazing. I love amazing rainbows. Can we get more rainbows? Uh, and the consensus in several group chats watching this right now is to please add glitter cannons with the rainbow fences. Also, maybe some way of cycling the hues, so it can be a flowing rainbow, which would be awesome. It's Google. I'm sure Ruse can make it happen. Thank you very much.

[03:32:08] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right, thank you. Jesse Connors?

[03:32:17] Jesse Connors: Sorry about earlier. Um, so I'm a, uh, Mountain View resident and ex Google employee, and I guess my main concern was that I was really looking forward to being able to walk through the new headquarters, and the idea that being cordoned off is kind of disappointing. So I guess I was wondering if maybe there were still going to be tours available of that area and uh, I guess echoing some of the past speakers, I guess it seems sort of a little bit arbitrary just to be coordinating off just this little spot and I'm worried that it'll eventually bleed into other parts of the campus being cordoned off. And uh, yeah, I guess I also just wanted to echo that I don't really like fences, but the ones that you designed are pretty often. Thank you.

[03:32:59] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, Valdemar?

[03:33:04] Waldemar Horwat: Can you hear me now?

[03:33:05] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:33:06] Waldemar Horwat: Sorry about it. Yes, so I'm also a Google employee. I worked in the main campus at 1600 for many years. And I am very disappointed by these, uh, uh, uh, the revocation of uh, public access through the courtyard. It seems like it's designed to segregate Google employees from the public by putting Google employees behind the rainbow curtain. The path along Charleston. I don't think such a path would ever have gotten the 100,000 square foot bonus, uh, when the buildings were planned, because that path duplicates an existing path, which is just a few feet away. So you have 2 paths for the price of one, which makes no sense. And, uh, the, if the goal is to segregate Googlers, uh, from members of a public, which it seems like it is for the courtyard, then the same situation will arise at Charleston East and other locations. So we'll see more fences. and uh, Well, it had all of those things uh, been disclosed at the start of a project, I would have been fine with it, and uh, but I feel like uh, the, this is a bait and switch. I don't know of what has changed in security circles that could not have been foreseen in 2017 when the plans were made. And I don't see why I should trust any promises for public access in future plans. Thank you

[03:34:59] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Great. I don't see. any other hands, so I will bring it back to council, um, for comments and deliberation. Council member Liever, thank you for starting us out.

[03:35:27] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I'll be the 1st one to wait into it. Um, so it, there's been a lot of talk about the, the green loop and, and as I remember presenting the, the green loop was kind of, uh, a sweetener at one point for, um, getting additional square feet of office or, uh, something like that and can staff refresh our, our understanding of how the green loop initially. came to be.

[03:36:01] Erin Horan: Sure. Um, so with the amphitheater Parkway project, uh, in 95. It did get an FAR bonus of 100,000 square feet. And with that, public benefits were provided that included the interior access through that development. Um, and then for the Charlestonese project. As part of the North Bishore Precise Plan does show the green loop through that building that was included with the approval of that project.

[03:36:34] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so there were also actions in 2015 and 2017 that were dependent on or or building on the existence of the green loop.

[03:36:50] Erin Horan: The only actions I know is just the approval of the Charleston East project in 2017. Um, not sure, Stephanie has any other developments that changed.

[03:37:03] Stephanie Williams: Yeah, so, so the green loop that kind of loops, um, through North Bay Shore and provides, um, non-vehicular pedestrian bike access, is a, is a component of the precise plan and is, um, in the vision to be built out over time, not only with, um, you know, new projects, but also, um, through other existing properties. And it was provided for as part of the Charleston East. The, the Google Plex project certainly predated. Um, any concept of a, of a great loop, but, um, it was, um, the pathway and the access through it were, were already there. And so, um, the concept of the green loop was kind of mapped through the center of the site.

[03:38:00] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so under what's proposed, um, cyclists or walkers would need to go about almost a half mile, South, um, and then, um, The same distance to head back up on the other side of the Google campus.

[03:38:27] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Without the cut through across, like in the proposal that we're seeing tonight. Um, It would take away the cutthrough and would leave people having to go a longer distance to get to the same spot.

[03:38:43] Stephanie Williams: The path continues all along Charleston Road, so I'm not sure where you're seeing that half mile drop.

[03:38:54] Councilmember Sally Lieber: So, say, say that someone's coming from the amphitheater, and they're coming past the, the knoll, um, at Charleston Park, then they would need to travel a distance, um, South or, uh, West, and, and then be able to get across, and then head the same distance, um, Back north.

[03:39:25] Stephanie Williams: And they're publicly accessible by paths and ped paths, both to the north and the south, along amphitheater as well as Charleston. And the Green Loop was not really meant to be the only way that people could, could, you know, traverse, um, through, through these properties. It's really meant to enhance and provide, you know, further gradation of these, you know, large properties and just provide more options. And there's also the planned cycle track along Charleston Road as part of the Charleston corridor improvements. Um, as well as the existing sidewalk.

[03:40:09] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And the comment was made that there's already, uh, a path for a sidewalk on, on Charleston, and do we have a schematic that shows how close what's being proposed tonight is from what already exists?

[03:40:29] Erin Horan: Um, I don't know if I could pull up a schematic of that, but, uh, the existing sidewalk, the difference between the existing sidewalk and the new green loop path would be a jog closer to the, the, amphitheater parkway, uh, the Google Plex site. So it would take away the sidewalk that is right on Charleston Road and jog upwards towards the amphitheater site. The new multi-use path is also going to be wider. Um, you know, the multi-use path is going to be 12 feet wide versus a typical sidewalk. You know, like 4 feet.

[03:41:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Anyone else have questions or, um, comments or, um, Yes, council member show Walter.

[03:41:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um, of course, I'm really sad to see the, the, the ability to go through that building. Um, is, you know, as being, uh, taken away or or redesigned out. Um, I'm not sure the best way to describe that. Um, it was very unusual. And, um, but it was, you know, something that we all thought was really, uh, a nice, you know, a great feature. On the other hand, I think the neighborhood um, Partnership center is also a great feature. I've never found, so I, I, you know, I kind of am with everybody about that sad. That's sad. But getting through the Google plex. I have always thought walking through the Google Plex was a mess. Um, it's, uh, you know, you, you go up there and uh, there isn't a clear path, and um, there's not, uh, I, I just found it very confusing, and it's up a big hill. Um, or for North Bay Shore, it's a big hill. So to me, the, um, you know, what is being proposed, um, along, uh, to get through around the Google Plex is actually an improvement. I think. Um, I certainly like the idea of all the the tree lined, um, you know, the tree lined, uh, um, bike way. Um, So, you know, it's one of those things that's definitely a mixed bag, but I feel like the the Google Plex. Of course, you know, nobody likes to be cut off from anything. Um, That, you know, doesn't feel welcoming, et cetera, et cetera. But having a better pathway. Um, uh, for people to go, it will be clear, easier to find, and I think more people will use it than that um, part through the Google Google Plex, which I don't think has worked well. I mean, other people must have experienced it when we've gone, you've gone to events at Google. Um, How, what were your feelings?

[03:43:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Counselor Michelle Walter. Council member Hicks.

[03:43:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I have a couple of questions for the applicant. One is, uh, that, as was kind of raised by some members of the public, was, was this, um, change in the fencing? Was it, uh, I'm wondering how much the, the employees were, you know, was it something that rose from the employees? How much were the employees, um, uh, you know, communicated with, uh, about this. Um, and, um, yeah, since there's a new union, there's an opportunity to talk to employees about, you know, if, To me, it seems like if, if most are all employees are against it, it's not worth doing. Um, so that's one question where, where the idea came from. And then the 2nd question, we, a 2nd question is that there's, there have been questions from members of the public about how this impacts other areas, we'll see, we see one after another, sort of, more dating, one, you know, a series of events. And I guess my 3rd question is, is there any way to mitigate that, uh, by, as again, some members of the public are raised, maybe in improvements along Permanente Creek or any other ideas that the applicant might have.

[03:45:13] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, so I think we're gonna need to bring Mr. Time Off back to answer your questions, council member Hicks. Um, I think he was moved back as an attendee once we went into the council deliberation. Um, and so let's see if we can, uh, We can bring him back.

[03:45:32] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Done. It's been done.

[03:45:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, great. Mr. Time Off, were you able to hear those questions?

[03:45:42] Michael Tymoff: Yes, although I think I'm gonna need help with the 2nd one, but let me let me dress the uh, the 1st one. So there was an assessment by our internal security team, um, that was, that was the Genesis, uh, for these improvements. The, um, security fencing is one element of just an overall um, security enhancement, if you will. Um, and so we've we've done an evaluation across all of our facilities, and, um, that's, again, where this, um, generated from. The last question, the 3rd question, I believe, was around enhancements to Permanente Creek, is that right?

[03:46:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Or any other mitigations, any other public, you know, since there's diminished public access, are there any other places that you could mitigate that?

[03:46:39] Michael Tymoff: Yeah, so I would, I would characterize what we have put forward as, um, replacing the access, um, that is currently provided through if you're, if you're talking about Google Plex, um, to the various amenities and, uh, plaza spaces, the null that we described earlier. Um, we have not planned additional mitigations beyond that. And then I think I'm going to I apologize. I think I'm going to need help on the 2nd question or just have it restated.

[03:47:15] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council Memory Hicks, can you read?

[03:47:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I'm just wondering if this is gonna cause as members of the public have mentioned sort of a chain of events where we're gonna see this at, you know, around all the buildings.

[03:47:32] Michael Tymoff: Okay, thank you for repeating that. I apologize. Um, as we brought forward, uh, the landings project, um, these security issues were raised and addressed in those entitlements. And so, yes, security will be an ongoing concern for us. Having said that, we are committed to continuing to make our campus as a whole throughout North Bayshore, welcoming, and that is integral to the framework plan. I mentioned earlier, the introduction of housing, uh, residential, but uh, securing the office campuses for Google will continue to be a priority for us.

[03:48:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Great, thank you.

[03:48:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Council mayor Matachek.

[03:48:20] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, I want to disclose that I met with the applicant about this project. And, um, I do have a question, and I'm not sure if the applicant, um, has any data or information on this, but, um, it is the courtyard area. Like, who is it primarily used by? Um, I feel like when I've been to meetings at Google. Uh, to me, it looks like employees either having meals or meetings. And do you get much traffic from the public through there?

[03:49:04] Michael Tymoff: Apologies. Um, I'll take a 1st uh, crack at this and then Adam, feel free to, um, to jump in. Um, may need to give him speaking permissions, but, um, yeah, there visitors, um, that are coming to 2 meetings at Google, use it. Um, there are members of the general public that, um, do come. Uh, we do experience a large number of visitors, tourists, if you will, um, that come to visit Google Plex, and they will, um, come through, uh, the courtyard, um, families of of Bugars. But as you mentioned, it is used for outdoor meetings and in eating of Googlers. I don't know the breakdown between between those cohorts, but Adam, I don't know if you have anything to add.

[03:49:53] Adam Dell: I don't think I have much more to add beyond that. Um, I think we don't have any specific data on numbers, so it would be kind of anecdotal to what I see. Um, I could give a little personal reflection on it, and I do spend a fair amount of time in and around the Google Plex, and it does feel like it is majority Googlers, um, or like family members or visitors of Googlers. Certainly there are members of the public. Um, I have seen A number of interactions that are similar to what council member brought up where you kind of see the public get to the east or west boundaries and look a little bit confused on if they're welcome or not. I've seen that a number of times, and I think that was one of the design intentions we brought to this project, was trying to find a way to make it feel very welcoming to the public, where it was very clear where they should travel, and that's why we designed that very large easterly connection from Charleston Park down to the new multi-use path, is we think it's going to be much clearer and much more welcoming to everyone.

[03:50:52] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks. Um, I do appreciate that the, uh, the art is functional, uh, in the in Charleston Park, um, as well as uh, very different looking fence. Um, I feel like I've said over and over. I like functional art and you nailed it on that one. Um, and um, I do appreciate that you, uh, are not putting a fence around the perimeter, so there still is good, um, connectivity, I guess I would say, uh, for people who are walking or biking. Um, you know, I do understand the concern about, you know, does this mean other buildings might be changed, but I think as you, um, put forth proposals for new development, that certainly security is taken into consideration, that so is access. And so I'm hoping that, uh, new buildings that come forward, um, have taken all of this into consideration and we're not sort of retrofitting it later on. Thanks.

[03:52:09] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So, um, if there are no more questions, I'm gonna move our panelists or our guests back to attendees, um, and, um, bring it back for council deliberation. So, um, there's 3 items, um, ones to adopt a resolution, uh, or there are, For 1600 Amphitheater Parkway, the 2nd is a adopt resolution for the 2000 North Bay, sorry, North Shoreline Boulevard. And then the 3rd is to authorize the city manager to execute an amendment. Um, oh, great, thank you so much for pulling that up. So if council has, um, comments on this, um, it will require, um, emotion in a roll call vote. Council member Abbe Koca and then Council member, Matt check.

[03:53:06] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, I actually wanted to ask a question of staff in light of some of the comments that were brought up. Um, the main one being the balance between security and access. And, um, you know, I can understand if this is a one off. I, although I think we did something with landings. Um, you know, the reality is North Bay Shore is primarily um, land that is either owned or occupied or controlled by Google. Um, there's, you know, we anticipate, uh, we know that there are plans for more, um, buildings, office buildings. So how do we uh, how, how do we ensure that we don't, um, close off every, you know, office building, um, that's built out there? Um, especially if we're trying to create neighborhoods and I liken those to like our downtown. We have both residential and commercial and, um, I mean, the property, the offices aren't as big, but there aren't fences around them. Um, so I guess, yes, I'm mostly curious or concerned about how we move forward. Um, in this North Bay Shore area, in light of these new concerns that have arisen.

[03:54:34] Stephanie Williams: So, um, Abi Koga. I'll respond to why staff is recommending approval of this and how we approached it. Um, Uh, primarily, um, we looked at this as an opportunity. What we had earlier was sort of more of a 9 to 5. Um, and and an area that really wasn't clear to people, about the fact that they could travel. And we actually posed this as a challenge to Google to say, um, if it's gonna be relocated, we're gonna take this opportunity to create art, to connect it to Charleston Park, to connect it to existing plazas, to make the frontage of the Google Plex, which is very unfriendly right now, and has parking in the front, and convert it into an active pedestrian atmosphere. Um, and we actually think the combination of the both sides of Charleston Park, the frontages that are being created with the new plaza in Charleston, um, east, and the new plaza on Charleston Park, connecting to Permanente Creek. And then the new facilities of, you know, um, store, retail, and the community center, Along Charleston Park is actually going to be an enhancement for the public. Um, and we feel like it, it's gonna create a community gathering space, um, on both sides of the park, and, and we're gonna use that as sort of a yardstick for the future. Um, hopefully they're not going to be retrofitted. These are new buildings that we can actually design in the future, that balance both security and design. But I think we've done a, a fairly, um, sort of thoughtful job of working with the applicant to to do both in this project. And that's why we're recommending it.

[03:56:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So are you anticipating that there could be something other than fencing, um, to provide the security to these campuses, office campuses, um, while maintaining open access to for the public?

[03:56:39] Stephanie Williams: I think we're gonna work very hard, um, building by building or group by group, to try to limit where the fences are, and we did that here. Certainly no perimeter fencing, if at all there was. It would be um, like artwork, um, along which people could take pictures. And then the area around it, especially the pedestrian atmosphere, which is so unfriendly right now, would be improved. Um, but I think this is a retrofit, and I think we have more opportunities with Shoreboard where you can actually design some of these things. Um, and uh, we're hoping to see a better. Um, just uh, just a better approach overall. Um, uh, but but I think the reason why we're recommending this is because it, it actually creates that continuous active public area on both sides of the park, you know, along the street.

[03:57:33] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, I guess, so I guess, yeah, as we look at the larger plan, we could even look at where buildings go and how you cluster certain buildings together, so you minimize the, and seeing around the buildings and whatnot.

[03:57:47] Stephanie Williams: Absolutely.

[03:57:48] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. Um, so I'll just add my comments. Um, yes, I, I, I appreciate, um, the work that's been put into this and um, I also do appreciate the public's comments. Um, you know, I, I, I did actually look at this and originally my thought was this might be better because, um, I always find like walking through office campuses confusing. And I don't think, you know, it's really clear if it's private property or not and whether you can get go through, um, a campus or not. And so, um, to me, this looked like that has a clearer path to places. Um, I appreciate. I thought having the retail and the neighborhood center on the outside closer to the park would make it more visible and probably more usable in that regard. And I appreciate, I like the public plaza in front of the Google Plex building. Yeah, taking the parking away from there. So, in that regard, I thought this was actually an improvement, I understand the interest in wanting to be able to have shorter distances and whatnot. And so going through campuses. Um, but you know, I I heard folks say this is sad. And I agree. I think this is sad, but it is a statement on where we are. in the world now and we have to, you know, be concerned about security issues. And I know there have been some incidents or attempted incidents around this area. Um, and so, you know, um, nothing is sacred anymore, even the nation's capital isn't sacred, buildings aren't sacred anymore, so, um, we do have to be more mindful of security. So in that regard, um, I think, um, you know, I will support us moving forward on this, but I do want to be sure that as we look at the bigger master plans, um, that we try to minimize barriers and barricades and fencing and find other ways to provide that security while maintaining access for the public. Thank you.

[03:59:57] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Council member Mattachek.

[04:00:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, um, I am happy to make a motion if you're ready to entertain one. And obviously deliberation can still continue. Um, but I will move the staff recommendation, which is 3 things, adopting a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, approving a modification to a previously approved planned community permit, to construct site modifications, and relocate publicly accessible areas. And a heritage tree removal permit to remove 31 heritage, heritage trees, on a 21 acre site, at 1600 amphitheater Parkway, to be read in title only, further reading wave, and that's attachment one to the council port. Two, adopting a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, approving a modification to a previously approved planned community permit, to allow the relocation of publicly accessible areas within an approved 595,000 square foot building on an 18.6 acre site, at 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard, to be read in title only, further reading wave. And that's attachment 2 to the council report. And also authorizing the city manager to execute an amendment to the disposition and development agreement with Google, Google, LLC, for 1600 Amphitheater Parkway.

[04:01:30] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, council member Mattachek. So we have a motion. I see customer member leapers hand up.

[04:01:38] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just wanted to say that I did have an opportunity to meet with the applicant and it was very useful, uh, particularly in the sense of seeing how many good ideas that staff had brought forward of making this a more meaningful space for the community. And if I'm understanding Mr. Time Off correctly. Um, he's told us that the community space will be run similarly to, uh, the community space in San Francisco, and that has become a very important amenity for the nonprofit community in San Francisco. And we do have a real dearth in our area of, of physical spaces for nonprofits to use for a variety of different sized events. Um, so I think that's a, uh, a very important opportunity. But I really agree with council member Abbe Koga, and I'm really glad that she raised this bit. I think that we do need to do some thinking and have some policies about um, barriers on buildings. And I recall when, um, this issue has come up in the past, um, we had a policy that our default was that all campuses needed to be open, uh, to the public. And obviously times have changed, but I think, you know, thinking that through and and having some kind of, uh, overarching conversation, uh, about that would be an important, um, uh, thing for the future. And also, uh, securing the the benefits in some written or, um, uh, durable way that Google offers to us is is very, very important.

[04:03:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So, um, we had a, um, emotion, do we have a 2nd on that motion? Council member Michelle Walter, I see your hand.

[04:03:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I'd like to 2nd the motion. And, um, I also, uh, agree that that, um, one of the things that was so exciting about the, um, the, uh, North Bay Shore plan and and was at such odds with what we were seeing with the Apple development, is the permeability of the sites. And, um, so, you know, keeping the, the, the flow of, um, of residents, if workers, um, moving openly in nature and around the green belt. It is really important to the community and to this plan. So we want to make sure that, you know, that that is maintained as we balance, you know, necessary security means. But, Glad to 2nd it. And also, oh, I, I have used the one in San Francisco, uh, for Waternow Alliance meetings, and it's delightful, and at least the one in San Francisco. My understanding is that they foot the bill for not only the rent, but also the catering. Um, and I certainly hope that that will be the case here. Um, it's a, it's a very, It's a very nice community, support of nonprofits.

[04:04:50] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Hey, thank you. So, uh, we have a motion and a 2nd, um, do we have anyone else who would like to make any comments on this item? Or perhaps we're ready for a roll call vote. Okay. All right, the, the only thing I'd like to, uh, uh, hm, here we go. Sorry. Um, is, um, just the topic of accessibility. Um, when thinking about, um, both of uh, these changes. I was really thinking about not only those of us who can, um, you know, walk or bike, but those who, um, maybe quadriplegic or have ADA access. And so, um, I do want to disclose. I met with the applicant and brought that up and, you know, one of that was actually part of the user experience that they were thinking about when making these changes and I really appreciate that that was, um, taken into consideration. Um, and, you know, I do feel like there, there was an element of placemaking that was taken into consideration. And thank you, um, to our city staff for encouraging that and moving that along. And, um, you know, I really think that, um, I appreciate the, the comments from colleagues about how we can continue the conversation about really kind of making sure that we still have that open feel in our community and that North Bay Shore will be a place where you can get around easily. Um, and speaking of getting around easily, way finding signage was something that I brought up because I think that that's really critical. And I also brought up, um, to the applicant, it would be great to have that in multiple languages. Um, which they were open and amenable to. So I think that they're, you know, appreciate that they're working with us on that and that what they did create was, you know, artistic and as Mr. Vastova mentioned, kind of a minimal, um, design. So, okay, Ms. Vangeland, then you can take it away.

[04:06:55] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you. Tell us a member of big Koga.

[04:06:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Also

[04:07:00] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: remember Hicks.

[04:07:01] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:07:02] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Lieber.

[04:07:04] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[04:07:04] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Melachek.

[04:07:06] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:07:07] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member show alter.

[04:07:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:07:09] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[04:07:11] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:07:13] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kameh.

[04:07:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:07:15] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Ocean carries unanimously. Thank you.

[04:07:17] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much. So we'll move on to item 6.2, which is the vacation of public easement at 939 West El Camino Real. Uh, the item is to adopt a resolution ordering the vacation of a public service easement at 939 West El Camino Real, but vacation is, vacation of the easement is necessary for the construction of an approved development for senior memory care facility, above ground for retail and restaurant uses. This public hearing is being held in accordance with California streets and highways code, with the purpose to hear from all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed easement vacation. For this item, we don't have a staff presentation. Um, so I'll 1st turn it over to council if there's any questions. All right, seeing no questions, I'll open it to the public for public comment. Okay, seeing no public comment, I will bring it back to the council. Uh, for um, deliberation and emotion. Council member Mattachek.

[04:08:38] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: How many questions or comments, so I'm just happy to make a motion on those the staff recommendations.

[04:08:43] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Council member Abby Koga?

[04:08:47] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Sorry, that would include the reading of the title of the resolution. Which is a vacation. of public easement at 939 West Elk Camino real. Sorry. Thank you. Yes, um, I moved the vacation of the public easement at 939 West El Camino Real.

[04:09:10] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And I will 2nd that.

[04:09:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Great, thank you. We have a motion from Council member. And a 2nd from Council member Mattachek. So we'll do a roll call book.

[04:09:26] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Some rabbit coga?

[04:09:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi,

[04:09:29] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council memory hicks.

[04:09:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes,

[04:09:33] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: health member labor.

[04:09:35] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Bye.

[04:09:36] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Metachek?

[04:09:38] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:09:38] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member show Walter.

[04:09:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:09:42] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Ice mirror, Mirez.

[04:09:43] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:09:44] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Bear Kamei.

[04:09:46] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:09:47] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you, motion carries in now.

[04:09:49] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you very much. So we'll move on to item 7, which is new business. Item 7. is the Mountain View Westman School District, proposed fencing. So 1st we'll have a staff presentation from our community service director, John Marshall.

[04:10:06] John Marchant: Good evening, and I'm gonna start sharing my screen here. All right. Good evening. My name's John Marchant. and the community services director. And tonight, I am here to present you information about the Mountain View Wisman, the Mountain View Wisman, school district, proposed fencing project. The city of Mountain View and the Mountain View Wisman school district have had a history of collaboration. Examples include shared use of 2 gymnasiums, shared open space, an installation of 8000000 gallon reservoir under the fields at Graham Middle School, and you can see photos of those on the screen. Recently, the city has allocated approximately $5.4000000 toward infrastructure projects that provide benefits to both the district and the community. In addition to these capital projects, there are a number of initiatives and programs that are long-standing collaborative efforts, including after school programs, enrichment programs, and safety related programs. The 1st joint use agreement with the Mountain View school district was in 1959. And since then, agreements have provided city access to the open spaces, at school locations, during non-school hours, and the city has maintained those areas. As part of its master facility plan, the district identified a need for perimeter fencing to enhance the campus security and safety. In response to public input and concerns received by the city, The district superintendent has provided updates at 3 public meetings. That is, one parts and recreation commission meeting and 2 council meetings. Uh, and those dates are listed on the screen currently. As part of the agreement with the district, the city is able to provide feedback and input regarding the district's proposed fencing project. And on January 26th, the city council approved a motion related to the proposed fencing project. The motion requested the city manager to dialogue with the district superintendent, and prior to the working group for Mona Loma, have the city council create an official statement, position, on where the city stands on the issue. And the direction also included an item to bring back a shared use policy on parts at a later date. Staff is compiled, suggested interest and desired outcomes for the Monoloma working group based on what appeared to be consensus of council comments at the January 26 meeting. There are 4 points listed as interest related to the working group process. In 2 points listed as desired outcomes of the working group itself. And those were provided in your staff report. And similarly, staff is compiled 4 suggested overarching priorities for open space at district school sites, at a high level, again, based on what appeared to be consensus of council members at the January 26 council meeting. Following input from city council tonight, staff has prepared the following next steps. First, the letter from the mayor will be edited to include feedback from the council tonight and sent to the district's board of trustees. Second, staff will take council's interests into the Mona Loma working group that starts this Thursday. And finally, staff will include funding in the fiscal year 2021, 22 recommended budget to complete an update of the parks and open space plan. Staff intends to incorporate both the 2008 recreation plan and the 2014 Parks and Open Space plan into one Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. The project will include an analysis of the existing fee schedule for programs, as well as field use, facility use, and the associated guidelines with those fees. The slide provides the 2 recommendations presented to council this evening. The 1st is related to council, providing feedback on the proposed fencing project, and communicating the city's interest, to continue collaborative efforts, to provide access to open space, and opportunities for input through the monolomal working group. The 2nd is to authorize the mayor to send a letter to the district board of trustees to transmit the council's feedback. A draft letter has been attached to the staff report using the compiled list staff created, and council may modify the interests and desired outcomes proposed by staff. And this concludes my presentation, and happy to answer any questions.

[04:15:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Hey, thank you, Mr. Marshawn. Does anyone have any questions for Steph? Okay, seeing no hands raised. I'm going to turn it to public comment. So we will set the timer for 2 minutes, um, for public comment, um, unless um, other arrangements have been made. So, uh, 1st we will, um, have Word President Devin Connolly speak. We could just pull up the timer, please.

[04:15:40] Devin Connolly: Good evening, Mayor Kamei, vice mayor Ramirez and council members. My name is Devin Connolly and I'm the board president for the Mountain View Wisman School District. Our district believes that our open space is our handshake with the community. We absolutely desire to maintain a welcoming open space. While also meeting the security concerns of a public school campus. Today, we are one of the only districts in Santa Clara County that is not put in perimeter controls to ensure the safety of our students. As school board president, I do not have the same pressures you face on city council to balance the security needs of a large for-profit corporation like Google against the needs of the community for open space. I serve our Mountain View Wisman school district community, but most especially our children. Google's planned fencing off of the Charleston East and the Google Plex campuses will significantly change public access to open spaces at those sites. I have a background in architecture and urban design, and I remember catching my breath. When I saw the original designs from B.I.G. for the green loop in this area and the interweaving of open space and private space that was proposed. There may be few residents close to those properties currently, but recent plans suggest 7000 households will eventually be located nearby. City council unanimously approved fencing off Google's office space tonight, in an effort to meet the security needs of Google. Unlike Google, the school district is not planning to change public access, which since 1959 has been to allow public use during outside of school hours. To provide security for our students and staff, we plan to erect aesthetically attractive and inclusive fencing that will secure the site during school hours. We appreciate your partnership as we move forward in this process, balancing the needs of many stakeholders. Thank you.

[04:17:41] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Tim Mackenzie.

[04:17:45] Tim MacKenzie: Oh, again, everybody, Tim McKenzie, him pronouns. Um, I find it strange that we keep hearing about fencing and being a welcoming community. Uh, this, like, The Bay Area in writ large is viewed across the country as some hyper progressive area, the, the, a lot of people would think that everyone here would be against a border wall, like, oh, the, the Trump wall is a terrible, terrible idea. And then we're talking about making fences in our community to be welcoming. I find it really strange and confusing. Um, well, I've, you guys know me a little bit. I've talked at council for a few years at this point, but I lived in Mountain View for a few years before I really got involved in the teen process of commenting at city council and getting involved in exactly what's happening. So, if this was happening, when I 1st moved to Mountain View, From my perspective, all of a sudden there would be a fence that appeared at, uh, on my way to the Caltrain when I'm walking there. Um, I, I noticed in the, the, in the letter that has been drafted that there will be really open meetings. I hope that this, that the Monteloma working group and everything continues to be really open and that this isn't, we're just saying, yes, we'll put up fences all over the place in Monteloma in North Bay Shore where there's not people living there, but there will be soon. It doesn't really feel welcoming. I look forward to continuing to participate with the school district as this process goes forward, but, you know, with the pandemic, it's a little bit easier to do these things, but there are other things that I have to do in my life other than constantly come to this, and there are a lot of people who don't have the time to do this and aren't even aware that this is going on. And I hope that you think about that a little bit too. Thank you very much

[04:19:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Jim Zoorski.

[04:19:55] Jim Zaorski: I, I, arrangement where I sent my slides to, um, to Sylvia. If she has a copy of my slides, she can put them up and I'm speaking for, at least 5 closer to 12 AB, but I, I, Can you see the slides?

[04:20:13] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Not yet.

[04:20:13] Jim Zaorski: Yeah. Okay. I could bring...

[04:20:21] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: I have the map, just having a hard time sharing.

[04:20:25] Jim Zaorski: Okay.

[04:20:27] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Can you see them now?

[04:20:32] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Something for a weekend has started. Mr. Zorski, it would be helpful if you could learn who you're speaking on behalf of.

[04:20:41] Jim Zaorski: Yeah, so I have speaking on behalf of Bill Lambert, Pamela Baird, Misha Dynan. Oh, here you go. My slides are up. There you go. Bruce England. Vivic Chopra. Rebecca Chopra, as well. A few others.

[04:20:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you so much.

[04:21:03] Jim Zaorski: And then the slides. Do I have, do I have to do this?

[04:21:07] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: I'm sorry,

[04:21:08] Jim Zaorski: sorry, man. I want advance,

[04:21:12] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: yes.

[04:21:13] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: I'm very glad. People who are being spoken for.

[04:21:25] Jim Zaorski: Okay. The people being spoken for on the 1st light as well. as I have about 6 others.

[04:21:32] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Oh, no, I was asking the clerk if she was going to verify the attendance on the Zoom of the people being spoken.

[04:21:39] Jim Zaorski: Oh, sure, that's not my job.

[04:21:40] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Okay. I believe you're on mute, Madam Clerk.

[04:21:50] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you, city attorney Shopra. I did not find Misha Denim. I'm sorry if I'm misspelling the name.

[04:21:57] Jim Zaorski: Okay, okay.

[04:21:59] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Is that person on Zoom or did you alter the name?

[04:22:03] Jim Zaorski: No, that's his name. He's a programmer may or may not be on.

[04:22:07] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Okay. And um, was Pam Baird here?

[04:22:18] Jim Zaorski: She is, she's, I don't know if she's on the meeting. She said she would be.

[04:22:22] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: And Zoe Zaworski, was the other?

[04:22:24] Jim Zaorski: She's on. She's in, she's in the other room on that's on the thing, so it goes, you can't find, right?

[04:22:31] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you.

[04:22:31] Jim Zaorski: Thank you. That was it. Okay, do I advance?

[04:22:43] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: I can advance.

[04:22:44] Jim Zaorski: Okay, okay, so if I say next, that's good.

[04:22:49] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Yes, sir.

[04:22:49] Jim Zaorski: Next. Next.

[04:22:50] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: I guess you can start there.

[04:22:53] Jim Zaorski: Okay, I'm talking in the head of my mom, the neighborhood, on the, on the issue of the, uh, fencing in the park, but not so much for Monta Loma, but for the whole city. The parks issue is a crisis. And effectively addressing the shortage of green space and parks in general impacts the quality of life, our ability to express housing issues, our ability to address issues of social and economic equity. The green space issues we see, it is only going to become more difficult to tackle as land values continue to increase, and as economic growth returns to normal post-COVID. While we are delayed. And and the JUA becomes more difficult. Spark space and opportunities will continue to dwindle and become more expensive. Staff is looking to counsel for guidance, and we ask staff counsel to provide staff with good guidance that they can go forward with. Next. As background. In 1986, my company opened his 1st office on the site of the current computer history museum next. The Shoreline Ampitheater was only 3 years old. Next. The side of the, of, of, I'm sorry, sure my park was 3 years old. Shoreline Ampitheater was a city dump. And if anybody was around then, which I know half the council was, they remembered what it smelled like when it was being built next. And the Google Plex was a pumpkin farm. Next. And finally, uh, right behind where we were at the corner of pair, and it was called Sterling then, was the pair Avenue garbage company, which was now the Microsoft play, uh, uh, headquarters, and it was in, um, inhabited by 8 feral peacocks next. 35 years later, we've experienced a perfect, perfect storm of capital, innovation, infrastructure, and an environment where everyone wanted to live, and it's created some of the world's largest, most innovative companies, which have created great challenges for anyone trying to run the city and plan for the future. Next. So, but growth is like a fire and it needs oxygen and oxygen for many of these businesses or the influx of continuous new talent, capital, and innovation. And as we've been successful, our prices have gone up, our spaces become less available, and it's become more and more difficult to maintain the level of quality of life that we've been expect, we become accustomed to. And so we, our commute that used to take minutes, now take 10s of minutes, and sometimes hours, if you're coming from the East Bay. We like, we need great schools to create that oxygen. And to create the job opportunities and the recreation and park space. Next. Um, so poorly planned uncontrolled expansion not only makes starting growing business is difficult, but it also diminishes the quality of all life for residents. And what this burden inevitably falls on hardest on the lower ends of the economic spectrum who can no longer afford to live here or have to commute great distances. Next. So, The city relies heavily on school property to provide its citizens with park space. Something like 30% of the park space that's listed in this parks and recs, uh, listings of Paul Parks and Mountain View, is currently owned by the Mountain View and Wisdom School District. And if you take the totals that's included as park space for this high schools, it's closer to 88 out of 200, which is closer to 40%. The state tries to mandate a Quimby ratio of 3 when we look at our, um, park space of a 1000 acres park space per 1000 residents. If we include our school fields, which aren't open during the school hours, our ratio is 2.78. When we take them away, it's one. 43. Next, Madam Clerk, what's my time level? I don't know how I'm doing it. can't see it. What am I up to?

[04:27:01] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: I'm sorry, go back. You have one minute left.

[04:27:04] Jim Zaorski: At one minute left. Okay, so let me let me go on this. let me go to the last 2 slides. So we're looking for a strategic partnership through the thing that the win-win-win. A well constructed plan will make the best use of limits, uh, green space we have. Uh, we we looked at the green space of the drifter zone is undeveloped, non-toxic, except for located, and we're looking to this agreement and consider on both sides. The district needs to know that green space that they give the city that's only used 20% of dayline avenues is not like a new park. And the district needs to the city needs to realize that their parklands or district parklands are worth a whole lot more than they were a long time ago. Next. So we urge council to renegotiate the city, MVW's, SD, not Western school district, to acquire rights to Monoman and Cooper Parks, look to improve upon and increase public access to other fields, reach a long-term agreement to allow for greater certainty, coordinate the location of organized sports. And this was Councilwoman Abby Koga's idea away from impacted green space areas, add green space wherever possible. And as the city becomes urbanized, look to provide suitable, less reliant, less space reliant neighborhoods to all, and provide staff with clear guidance. Thank you very much.

[04:28:27] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Kate, Lauren. And if we could reset the timer to 2 minutes, please.

[04:28:39] Kate Lorig: I'm an older, daily mountain, Mount Loma park walker. And fences may or may not provide the security, but we know that they're going to create a safety problem. And that was shown to me today. I was walking in the park. There's a place where it passes a tot lot. With trees on one side and sand on the other, the whole corridor is about 10 feet wide. And I was approached by a child on a scooter. So I got off the path. The kid was wobbly and followed me off the path. And I had to further back up. Had there been a fence where it is proposed, that child would have hit me. And both I and the child would probably have been injured. Um, So my alternative is to walk on the city sidewalks. Terrific. And I have to tell you, I try to avoid those in the Monte Loma area. The sidewalks are often in poor repair. They're raised by tree roots. They're uneven, they're cracked, they're poorly repaired. And when they are repaired, they're repaired with raised asphalt. I've fallen several times. I recently noted that some of these sidewalks have not been repaired for more than 65 years. And how do I know this? It's pretty easy. The folks that put it in, put their company name on it, and the year that they were put in, 1954. So as you look at the fencing issues. Safety of children are is very important. And so is that of the community, and especially of those of us that are older. And I would ask that you would consider both when you consider this issue. Thank you.

[04:30:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Jessica Showhan.

[04:30:45] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Okay, Jessica, because you have an older version of Zoom, I need to promote you to panelists to speak.

[04:31:01] Jessica Chohan: Can you guys hear me?

[04:31:02] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Yes. We here and see you.

[04:31:04] Jessica Chohan: Thanks. Me too? Oh, great. Um, okay, well, I want to thank counsel for your time. Um, bringing the Mountain View Wisman school district fencing proposal issue back to the discussion board. and providing input and direction in advance of the 1st monoloma working group this week, of which I'm a community representative. Through the city's influence. I look forward to a fair and constructive dialogue with the school district and other working group reps that will take into consideration goals of all parties, and objectively come to a decision that meets the needs of all stakeholders. I'm confident that we can come up with a win-win-win solution for mitigating school security concerns. while maintaining open park access. And I'm excited to have John Marchant as the city's working group rep. Uh, I believe by virtue of your feedback, the entire working group will be empowered to work towards the direction you set. Um, I request counsel to provide guidance that takes into account the needs of the larger community and promotes equitable access to green space and health, wellness and safety for the entire community, which is especially evidence during the COVID pandemic. Um, I want to add that I saw on the staff report that new signage is under development. It's my hope that council will provide feedback that changes to signage. Per the staff report may be a potential change to current access for the community. Um for the past 50 years. And based on the current JUA, section 3 A, the city's parks and rec website, and current park signage, um, that it's open from 6 AM to 330, uh, to 30 minutes after sunset. Um, it's my request that changes to access should be aligned following the outcome of the working group, an agreement on a new JUA through discussion in a public session. I want to thank you for your time and consideration here. And I'm really looking forward to working with John Marchant on the upcoming working group. I yield my time.

[04:33:02] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Robin Lynn.

[04:33:07] Robin Lin: Hey there, thanks.

[04:33:08] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Do you have just just one moment, Robin? So I just wanted to let, uh, the public know, so Robin will speak for 5 minutes. Um, and the interim city clerk will check if all attendees are in the room.

[04:33:23] Robin Lin: Yeah, let me give her names, then or give her their names. My name, so Robin. Um, Michael, Michael Hallock. Do you want me to list it or do you want me to go one by one?

[04:33:37] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Um, I just couldn't find Andy Winterhosel.

[04:33:42] Robin Lin: Is Andy here? Should be on.

[04:33:46] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: I I see them.

[04:33:47] Robin Lin: Do you? Okay. Then the other ones?

[04:33:51] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: They were on. So thank you.

[04:33:52] Robin Lin: Okay. Do you want me to name them just for people to hear?

[04:33:56] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Okay,

[04:33:56] Robin Lin: so myself, Rob Allen. Uh, Michael Hallick, Andy Winter Hotel, Alex Winter Hutzel, and, um, Vic Equo. Is that five? That's five. And then there's a presentation when you're ready. Um, Miss Wonderland and.

[04:34:19] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you so much.

[04:34:29] Robin Lin: And I guess while there's bedtime, thanks so much. Uh, Miss Wonderlanden, um, I feel like uh, problems don't stay problems long when you're involved.

[04:34:38] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Very kind. Can you see my screen?

[04:34:40] Robin Lin: Yes, I can. Thank you so much. Yes, basically I'd like to talk about growing up. Um, can you go to the next slide, please? So Mountain View has obviously experienced tremendous growth. And I guess I wanted to quantify it and quantify it in a way. Uh, and how I looked at it is, um, how does has Montaloma's population grown? Um, the last time there was an official count was in um, 2010 for the census. So they were a little over 2500 residents. And so, um, there hasn't been, I guess the 2020 census hasn't been released yet. And so the nearest approximation is looking at the November 2020 elections. Precinct uh, 3402 is conveniently all Monteloma, and there are 3000 um, ballots cast. So that represents over 20% growth in 10 years. And I guess I'll put a pin in it and we'll take a look and see whether Park Space has scaled in that amount. Can you go to the next slide? So on the left, I guess it's a little small, but on the left is basically a map of Mount View, and the park space by ownership, and by size. And as you see, what you see is that a lot of space in Mountain View is actually owned, not owned by the city. In fact, it's owned by various school districts. And the, to help visualize it on the right is when I take those school district parked, um, own sites out. Because in my mind, it really isn't a park when residents are technically only able to access them between the hours of 6 and 730 in the morning and then after 4. Um, at the height of winter, that would mean the community would only have access to these parks technically for 2 hours a day. That's to, in my mind, not really a park. Can you please go to the next leg? And so I really feel like we're at an inflection point. Who does Mountain View want to be when it grows up? Because I think as we densify, each decision is going to be, have so many, each land use decision will have so many quality of life impacts to current and future residents. And, um, on the right is just all these different ways that it could. And I think sitting in on the earlier discussion of the 555 West Middlefield development. I mean, it's clear. There's so many different interests. There's so many different people. who see these little patches. I mean, not little, but these patches of land in so many different ways. And so it's just going to, I feel, be even, this is just going to be how it is. And so, I guess we get to choose, right? Feels like right now we're on the path of 10,000 cuts. And uh, kind of, can we do better? And I uh, if you go to the next slide. Um, the status quo doesn't really seem sustainable. And so what is the stock path forward? In my mind, it's really um, 4 things. Number one, let's let's really admit that we have, um, growing pain. Uh, it's, there are no near term park space alternatives to the communities around Mauna Loma, Stevenson, Crittenden, et cetera parks. They're just none. So let's acknowledge that there are growing pains. Number two, let's assert that the affected communities must have all day access to these parks, especially during COVID, until city the city can identify alternative solutions. These communities are not criminals for using these park spaces during the day. Number 3 Let's really just, um, I hope council can boldly direct and empower staff to work with the community to holistically ideate bold and creative solutions to address these growing pains. Because I think, I mean, I'm, I want to make a difference in my community, and I'm assuming that, you know, the 7 of you as well as all city staff are not, you know, doing this for any other reason, then you want to have impact on your community, and, um, So I think at this point, it feels hard to make impact. Um, and so that kind of goes to number four, which is, can we radically assess whether city processes and structures provide efficient and effective service to all. And this includes staff, residents, developers, businesses, because I think, you know, as process, as growth happens, you know, processes and structures sometimes, um, that worked for previous iterations of, you know, your, your, your organization just are not scalable to new realities. And so I hope that combine these 4 Um, if council would consider taking these 4 steps, we can all really be take ourselves off the path to 10,000 cuts and go on the path where we keep Mountain View great and make it great into the future. Thank you so much.

[04:39:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. We'll move to Alexander Brown and we'll go back to our 2 minutes.

[04:39:58] Alexander Brown: Oh, I would use that time so wisely. I would not. Howdy. I really appreciate Devin's comments. She knows I stand. I still don't like fences. They provide the illusion of security while perpetuating a culture of sedition and exclusion. As the board president noted. The earlier vote in support offenses sets a precedent, making this a viral, and I think, harmful meme. I love to see the danger of precedent become so immediately obvious. Anyway, can we make the school fences even more colorful than the Google fences? Like super gay. But when we make the fence itself sparkly, because I doubt we want to put cannons around areas where children play, because that might actually be dangerous, unlike most of the public, who we're teaching the children to fear. Oh, also, can we bring back the feral pea fowl? That sounds amazing. Uh, I would love to go on a walk and see a bunch of, uh, pea hens, peacocks roaming around. Thanks.

[04:40:56] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Debbie Cunningham?

[04:41:03] Debbie Cunningham: Okay, am I on?

[04:41:05] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:41:06] Debbie Cunningham: Hi there, I'm Debbie Cunningham. I've been a Montaloma resident for 24 years, and my husband and I have owned a house and raised our kids here. One of my major concerns is a green space issue, not just for our neighborhood, but for all of Mountain View. I appreciate how our city takes serious the need for green space, for our residents, for our health benefits, as evidenced by the tree program that we have in Mountain View. How lovely and beautiful our city is. But the proposed fence is in complete contrast to that very beautiful effort. Not only is the fans gonna be an eyesore, as someone mentioned before, the narrow pathways, causing harm and injury, strollers, pedestrians, safety for the elderly, pets on leashes, and more. There's going to be a lack of space to be able to enjoy refreshment and rejuvenation within our own community that will be lost as well as other people that come into our space because we have it. We have people gravitate to our space because it's beautiful. I do not believe that the proposed fence will be as effective. As a security guard or extra persons on the school grounds. These would be really great during operating hours to ensure safety and security. And the whole argument of offense, for the possibility of a live shooter on campus, just does not hold up to the other measures that can be taken in order to calm those fears. I've yet to see the evidence, testimonies, or statistics of teachers or parents or students, expressing these fears, in order to justify the fence proposal. I just ask that you please slow down the process. Consider other less drastic measures, and um, let the community speak. Um, I'm not in favor of how the superintendent has gone along with this and left us out. Um, I'm just asking for more transparency. Thank you.

[04:43:07] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Joan McDonald. Joan are you there?

[04:43:17] Joan MacDonald: Can you hear me?

[04:43:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:43:19] Joan MacDonald: Good. Um, I was very impressed during the discussion about the Google. Revamp. That the, Emphasis, between security and excess, kept coming up, Over and over and over again. And that's exactly what's happening with the park situation at Mona Loma and also at other sites. And the district apparently feels that the security problems are very, very large. And the only way to deal with them is by promoting the building of fences. I hope that Jessica's optimism is actually, um, real. I think that the working group needs to hear all of the various alternatives that people in the community have come up with that are better than the 2 or maybe 3 fence alternatives that have been altered at Mona Loma. As far as we know, when I was on the school board, when it was just the Wisbon district, for 13 years, and we did not have this trouble. And although the law maybe says, The public can't be on the fields, During school hours, lots of people were. And the school didn't use all of the fields in mountain, in Mauna Loma, then, and they don't now, so that one of the alternatives should be, allowing part of the fields. For the community, during school hours. Thank you.

[04:45:21] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thanks so much. Shawnee Kleinhouse.

[04:45:29] Shani Kleinhaus: Good evening. Mayor come in, city council, again, this is Shani Kleinhaus, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. But I want to talk about people and about light pollution. Uh, because light pollution is showing to be linked to so many diseases, and it's not only the pollution, actually, it's light at night in general, and every day there's another study that comes out and shows problems. The last one came last week and shows that premature birth is connected to light pollution. We already know that effective and new disorders, anxiety, depression, obesity, diabetes, vice, thyroid, and prostate cancer, and sleep disorders, all associated with light, in general. And when there's pollution that's worse, but light in general at night causes all these programs. And I heard that this school district is proposing to also have Fencing, not lighting, not only fencing, so that's very worrisome. And especially if you have lighting near Craig, like at Landel School, because that's where it can really impact the wildlife as well. Um, in attracting the, insects and birds to lights and by basically impacting the biological, um, the biological, metabolism and gene expression and uh, hormone control of animals that are walking around there. So thank you.

[04:47:05] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Iende Rudolph, Dr. Rudolph.

[04:47:17] Ayindé Rudolph: Uh-oh. Thank you, everyone. Um, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. As you know, we are responsible for the safety of 5200 students, more than 600 staff members every day. Well, many of us enjoy the open campus field. The realities are staffing rooms regularly have approach path to approach people on campus who are not authorized to be there. Recently, our board of trustees. We see the letter that was signed by all of our Montaloman teachers expressing their ongoing concerns about thought bites, bike thefts, and other safety concerns that would be mitigated by more secure perimeters. Well, I understand that there's a political concern about fencing, I think it is important to note that our masters facility plan calls for the installation of public restrooms, for access after hours, minor lighting that facilitates a safer environment for staff and community members to walk through certain parts of our campus that are poorly lit. And ensure our plan is never focused on eliminating access, but enhance, instead various enhancements. As signaled earlier this evening, protecting adults at their work site is important, even if it comes at the expense of open space. We should care just as much about the adults as we do students, and our teachers who are frontline workers have the clearest understanding of the dangers that face their students and colleagues. We cannot advocate our moral obligation to keep our employees and our students safe and sometimes that comes in conflict with what the public desires. It is extremely hard to find the appropriate balance, and while it is unfortunate, not our organizations are held to the same standard when considering open space, but just like Google, our goal is to keep our employees safe. But more importantly, we must assure the safety of our students. As we all know, Mountain View Westman School District partners with the city provide access to the community, we do appreciate this, and we for recreational leagues as well as other access during non-school hours in return for the help for the city to help maintain the fields. Please understand that the city does, the district does hear and understand the residents' concerns when we believe that we can find a mutually agreeable design that would allow, that would address the parent, students, and employees for legitimate safety concerns while at the same time preserving residents access to school fields outside of school hours.

[04:49:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: More and more. Thanks so much. Sorry. James Fair?

[04:49:40] James Fair: Now can you hear me?

[04:49:41] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:49:42] James Fair: Okay. Uh, yeah, I've lived in the Monte Loba area for over 40 years now. And, um, it's very short of Park Spaces. I'm sure you're getting the hit. Um, And this whole thing about offense is solving a problem that doesn't seem to exist. You know, there's really I don't think there's any need for it. It's somebody's giving them a hammer and they keep looking for a nail. Um, and the amount of park space available to Mona Lomo residents. You know, we've talked about the quimpy ratio of 3 acres per 1000 and if this fence goes in, that's going to drop to under .3 acres per thousand. Um, we really need more park space than that. Um, Part of the problem came up in that the city had committed Montuoma Park to the residents when we were doing the, uh, the Mayfield, uh, then HP moral discussions of outputting in houses over there, and the request was put in for more park space at that time. And we were assured that, oh, no, no, no, you've got the Monteloma Park. You don't need any more park space. We got plenty of park space. Well, it turns out we don't have them off the Loma Park. It turns out there is no such thing as the Montalumo Park. It's just a Montaloma school ground. I would say, you know, not doing anything on fences until you can come up with a solution and increase the park area per the 2014 requirement of 3 acres per 1000 residents. Um, thank you very much.

[04:51:22] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Ethan, Junkie, please. And you. Ethan, are you there? All right. How about if we try heather? Heather, are you there?

[04:51:56] Heather: Hello?

[04:51:56] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes,

[04:51:57] Heather: I'm here.

[04:51:59] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, go ahead. Go ahead, Heather, we'll go back to Ethan.

[04:52:03] Heather: Okay. Um, I just wanted to comment. But I also loved the rainbow fences at Google and that if we are destined to have fences, which I certainly hope not. And um, I've already stayed my position on that. Um, in the past, uh, that they look beautiful and amazing and fun and really capture the spirit of our neighborhood and our community. And that we can, I know that the school district has said that they would make them nice, but I'd like to make them wonderful if we're stuck with them anyway. So bring on the rainbows, bring on the glitter. Well, no, not glitter. Letters back for the sea turtles, as my children will say, but, um, maybe you can get some community input and community contributions to the creativity of the fences. Thank you.

[04:52:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, Ethan, let's try again.

[04:52:55] Ethan: Well, yes, I hear you.

[04:52:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right, sorry, thank you for the help.

[04:53:01] Ethan: Okay, um, so I'm a new resident to Mountain View, wanted to bring a new resident perspective. I actually moved here from Cupertino. Um, and I moved here because Mountain View has a much better sense of community, and I so, I, I, so I hope everybody really thinks about the factors at play there and and how those can change long term, and I think one of those is the open space, and um, how much more welcoming uh, Mountain View feels in general, um, as a result of that. So, so really think about the direction where this would take the community as everybody else has stated. And also, I would really advise or suggest that both the school district and the city consider consulting with real experts in the security concern because, Um, My a little bit of background I have is I've participated as a volunteer in multiple law enforcement and military trainings in shooting response. And, um, as a result of that, I know there are professionals in that space that study these problems on how to, um, react to them and keep people safe. And I'm personally not convinced that offense is going to do anything. Um, and I would also say that there's evidence to suggest offense could be dangerous. Why? Because the number one defense mechanism taught by anybody, anywhere for active shooter situations is to run. Where do you run if you're inside a fence? You run to the doorways of the fence. Well, guess what? The tactical community affectionately calls any and all doorways, fatal funnels, because they funnel targets to them. They are a commonplace for people to shoot. So I would, I would suggest, uh, consulting with real tactical professionals that are expert in these scenarios, uh, to see if the security claims are valid. Thank you.

[04:55:09] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right, so that concludes public comment. So I'd like it to bring it back to the council. Um, for comments uh, and deliberation. Uh, Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[04:55:26] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. Um, the Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. If this meeting goes on for very long, I might have to drop out, but I wanted to make sure to get my, my ¢2 in. Um, so, uh, 1st I, I find the, Um, the comparison to the Google proposal, uh, interesting, and I think, as a starting point, a question for, um, either staff or representative of the school district, but if the council were to send a letter, Um, you know, in the in the strongest possible terms. Said, we do not want to fence installed at this site. Uh, would that guarantee that no fence is installed?

[04:56:24] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, council member Ramirez, I can take that question. So, and uh, city attorney, please chime in if I'm missing anything, but essentially in the joint use agreement, there is a section that says that the, um, city may or should be, um, can confer with the school district. So there's nothing in there that gives the city the ability to outright, um, deny um, a facility's improvement from the school district. But the school district is certainly required to take the city feedback, um, and listen to our interests.

[04:57:01] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I think, I think that's, that's helpful. Um, and and that's one of the, I think the key factors that distinguish, um, this item from the, the Google Access issues. Uh, in that case, we have the authority to accept or deny, in that case, modifications to development agreements or conditions of approval, and we can be held accountable for whichever decision that we make. And I, I, what I heard loud and clear is the council is not enthusiastic about the loss of, uh, public access, but in weighing those considerations, we made, you know, a determination that, um, the modifications that Google had proposed. Um, to, uh, or I guess in place of, the public access that had been provided formally. Uh, you know, were, you know, had merit and and were sufficient to, to justify those changes. In this case, I think, you know, that it, we're, we're advocating. Um, and if the school district uh, has a different opinion, it is, you know, their prerogative to, uh, to come to a different conclusion. And in my mind, I think that the 2 things that we're striving to achieve is to, I think, a state of it in a letter, uh, maximize public access to the greatest extent we're able to. Um, and, uh, and to preserve, uh, permeability. Um, which are important, especially in areas like Mona Loma, where, uh, there, there really isn't, uh, a significant open space. Uh, you know, opportunity. Uh, that's, you know, anywhere close to, to the quality provided by uh, the school district property. Um, so that, that's, that's my interest. I think it's, it's well articulated, well articulated in the letter. Um, and and to the greatest extent, we're able to balance these 2 uh, unfortunately conflicting values. You know, the city's interest in maximizing public space, and the school district's interest and maximizing security. You know, the better, that's that's what I'm hoping comes out of the, the working group. Um, I guess the only other thing I'll say is we, we do have to be mindful of the, the erosion of public access to open space because it does have a significant impact in, uh, how we plan for, uh, the creation of open space as the city develops. And, uh, I know the city manager, I think, has mentioned, um, that in the context of the strategic roadmap and goal setting, we'll be looking at opportunities to, uh, update our, uh, open space and recreation master plans. And I think that will be incredibly value, especially as, you know, we start seeing, um, you know, these kinds of considerations come up. And as uh, we start seeing, you know, more high density development. So that, that's, that's a, uh, a critical, uh, uh, project that I, I'm fairly optimistic, the council will support once it comes forward. Um, I'm eager to hear what, what my colleagues have to say about this. But I, I, I do think that this is, This is quite different from the Google consideration. Um, and I, I, I just want to sort of keep that in mind that, you know, the, the accountability mechanism is is different for each. In this case, no matter, you know, what the city council ends up, uh, recommending. We can't, you know, prohibit the school district from, from making this determination. Uh, so I, personally, I would feel, uh, uh, uh, disturbed by the notion that we should be held accountable for, for, uh, something that we have no ultimate control over. Um, all stuff there and and I'll, I'll do my best to stay on till probably 11 o'clock or so. Thank you.

[05:01:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I appreciate you hanging in there with us. Council member Hicks.

[05:01:51] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, 1st I want to thank the vice mayor for hanging in there this long after hospital treatment. I would, I don't know, think that I would still be here. That said, um, I actually, um, although, uh, vice mayor, I think that, uh, you know, you're certainly right that we're not, you know, able to give or deny a permit in the way we are for, um, you know, for other, uh, for developments and for Google. And I think that, um, I would not want to say that, that, uh, we have, um, no ability to influence things at all. I, I, um, I think that the school district and the city are are in constant communication and partnership. And I think that although we're not, you know, giving out a better denying a permit, For a partnership to be healthy, we have to both listen to each other. So I don't want to, I don't want to start off, you know, with our our 1st statement being that we have no, no influence here at all because I don't think that's the case. And I want to continue to have a healthy relationship. So, you know, I don't want to start making threats or anything. But, um, I actually thought that the conversation around Google fencing was, uh, that discussion, um, could be a really good model for this discussion as well. Um, I thought, uh, a lot of the talks about, well, in particular, what we talked to Google about was, um, no perimeter fencing up the site, and tight fencing around the building itself. And that's, you know, I kind of agree with the representatives of the school district when they brought that up as an example and also members of the public. This is what a lot of the monoloma residents are asking for. So, you know, I think we could, uh, uh, almost solve the situation by just, by just doing what Google did. Uh, type fencing around the buildings. Um, What we talked about with Google was admitting that, uh, you know, for community building, we need permeability and access, perimeter enhancements, um, I mean, you know, trees, landscaping. And more wonderful fences when we do have fences. You know, that, I think that would be a great model. So other things that I might write into any letter. Um, I liked the idea of coordinating the location of organized sports away from impacted green space, which I think came from council member Abby Koga. Um, Also, uh, reviewing the joint use agreement in particular, I think there's been a problem around who gets notified and when. You know, I think the city was notified after the plans were fairly complete when our comments on those plans would either be, um, ineffective or annoying. And I would like to be notified earlier when my comments will not be annoying. Um, And, um, oh, and also, I, I would like, you know, I think there's kind of, I would like, it, it, also the joint use agreement doesn't say who gets notified. And I think that for, because the uh, Mountain Hewisman school district owns what, two thirds of what we now consider our neighborhood parks, I think council has to be notified on, you know, almost anything because I think that, you know, even if it comes to us just through an email or, or, um, just on, on the consent calendar, it, it may, the change that is intended may be more impactful than, um, than the school district, thanks to our, our, um, neighborhood parks. And then, I think this is my last comment right now is that, um, I, we all got a letter from, um, from, uh, the school board president, I assume it's from the, the whole school board, with a number of line items that, uh, they feel they're not paid for. These are things like, uh, um, let's see, I have them in front of me. Upgrades to HVAC. Uh, they need a more transparent and amicable accounting system for fields. Um, equipment that they purchased for Vargas Elementary. So, but, there's a whole list of line items, and I just, uh, wanted to make the author of the, of the, um, letter aware that there are a bunch of things that the city pays for as well. Um, the, uh, council member asked staff what those were, and it was, uh, to the tune of something like $3000000 per year. So possibly one of the things we needed to do was review all those line items. Um, and see which ones are still appropriate and which, when we may be buying things that one or the other party things are no longer, you know, maybe they're out of date because we seem to all be spending a lot of money in ways that maybe are not, um, the best possible way. So um, those are my comments for now. Thank you.

[05:07:38] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member, Metachek.

[05:07:41] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, um, I thought when the vice mayor was talking about, uh, the differences between this topic and an earlier topic, um, he was gonna go in a very different direction than he did. So I'll share what I thought he was going to say because it's my perspective. Um, which is, um, you know, while these both might be fences, um, the, there's 2 big differences from my perspective, and there's probably a lot of small ones too. But the 2 big ones are, first, you know, the Montaloma, open space is a shared use. School, field, and a neighborhood park. Whereas uh, the courtyard between Google Buildings is not. And the 2nd um, is Google didn't propose to put a fence around the entire perimeter, whereas that is what's being discussed for the Montaloma area. Um, so I think they're vastly different. Um, I don't think we would be necessarily discussing this here tonight if what was proposed in Monteloma was similar to what was proposed in for Google, um, as council member Hicks pointed out. So, um, I am, I appreciate, um, the draft letter. Um, I do have um, other things that I would like to see added to it. I'm not quite sure how you want to manage this, um, Mayor May. Uh, do you want us to all list what we would like to see changed and then we'll do a summary as a motion or, And you want to do that?

[05:09:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Sure, why don't why don't I turn to to staff and ask them what would be most helpful and how we are providing our feedback? So, um, Miss McCarthy, is there a, is there a method that you would like? Because I know that couple member Hicks also gave some feedback.

[05:09:54] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, thank you, mayor. So I think, um, if we, if you want to go ahead and say what the feedback is and then we'll just need to get, um, consensus on that to include that in the draft letter. That would be helpful.

[05:10:07] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, I do agree with the, um, comments that council member Hicks made regarding the letter. Um, for me, I would, um, on page 2 when it talks about the following, were identified as the city desired, the city's desired outcomes. For fencing. I think I changed that to perimeter security. Um, and then, um, On the 2nd bullet point in that section. Um, I would say something about, um, you know, if fencing is the, uh, desired or agreed upon solution, that, um, in addition to maximizing community access to the open space, we would also want to preserve the paths that provide connectivity from the neighborhood, um, toward the back of the campus. Um, I also want to add in some of the, uh, items that were in the discussion, uh, last time we talked about this, um, that were part of the motion, and that was, um, that while this letter is specific to the Barcelona working group. Um, we do expect working groups to be formed for other shared use facilities. Um, and I guess I would say, and it's okay if not all of them have a working group. But I would like to make sure that we say that there needs to be good outreach to the neighborhoods, not just the parents of the children in the schools, but the neighborhoods, to, um, let them know, uh, what's going on and to get their input and to see if a working group um, makes sense to form. So I want to broaden this to include that. Um. And. That's probably it for now. Thanks.

[05:12:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Council member Abi Koca and then Council member reliever.

[05:12:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. Um, and, uh, I appreciate, um, the comments that have already been made. Um, in terms of the letter, um, I think it is, uh, I think it's, um, covers our points well. I want to emphasize as others have that. Um, you know, I firmly believe that we can come to some kind of, um, agreeable solution for both sides, so it's not going to be maybe 100%, um, for everyone, but, um, I, I, you know, I do think we can come to some, um, middle ground compromise. And so I would, um, you know, look to continuing to work in a collaborative fashion and I think the letter covers that. Um, I, uh, I think it's already been said. I, I, yes, the, what we did earlier with the Google um, project had actually gave us some uh, suggestions or ideas. So, um, you know, I think that there is opportunity to come up with, um, some other options than what's already been presented. Um, So in terms of the letter and I'll just respond to council member Metachek's suggestions. Um, I, I, I'm fine with the, the, um, change to perimeter, uh, perimeter, security, I think you mentioned, um, and, um, The other option, the only one that I just wanted to, um, I just comment just a little further on is the working group and, um, you know, I don't want to prescribe that so much. I think, at least from what I've seen in terms of, um, public comments and, you know, posts and whatnot, it seems like, um, most of the neighborhoods around the schools are pretty aware of, um, this change of, of this, uh, this, um, consideration of, um, fencing. Um, but I would say that it would be helpful to get some kind of input mechanism for if they were to, if the, um, they will move, if the school district plans to move forward with fencing, um, like the, the design and then, um, I think there's a lot of talk about that and how the Google fences are, you know, are going to be very artistic and, and there might be some interest there from the neighborhood, um, to, um, yeah, have some say in what kind Fencing would go around the school. So um, Yeah, I don't know if we need to go as far as to say we, um, every school should have a working group, but at least ensure some kind of mechanism for, um, good for extensive community input if there is interest in doing so. Um, so, uh, I guess, so that would just be my comments on the letter. I know that was the main point for tonight's agenda item. I do want to mention and comment on the other items as already stated. Um, some of these other, these issues, you know, are, are beyond um, this school fencing, the issue of parks and open space. Um, you know, I think the challenge is, is it's been mentioned, um, as some, you know, some have advocated for the need for more housing. Um, you know, there are tradeoffs there. And, um, you know, we are a limited city of 13 square miles and there's only so much you can build on that land. So, um, I think, you know, that's, but at least some of us on the council have tried to emphasize and maintain a balance of all the needs and um, realizing that, yes, the space is limited. So, you know, I don't, that's why I don't think we should be building in every a house in every open space. I think I think we need to have a balance to be able to preserve our quality of life here. Um, And so, uh, I know that we are doing the parks and open space, uh, plan update. Um, so I look forward to that conversation and and delving into these each issues further then. Um, I think the joint use agreement is also being worked on. So there's definitely been, um, some, uh, input and suggestions on what we can add to enhance that. And then I, I guess, I know my name came up a couple times about organized sports and moving him, uh, moving them off of impacted green spaces and just to provide context, um, And I saw it in the staff report that part of the, there'll be a recreation, um, plan update as well. I believe it's called. And part of this actually came about. Um, if I remember correctly, um, about when in regards to the fees schedule, back in, uh, during the Great Recession, um, we were looking at, uh, trying having to increase fees. And one of the discoveries I remember was that we are, what we charge for our fields was way much, much lower than what our neighboring city of Los Altos charges. And so when you have these combined MVLA, um, organized sports, they were tending to come to Mountain View to use our our fields. I don't know if that's still the situation, but I'm, you know, definitely would like to look at that because I think that has impacted, um, us in terms of the demand and and I don't think necessarily that we should be responsible for for, um, providing, you know, the supply for that demand. So, um, that's, uh, that was my thought around this or issue of organized sports. Um, So with that, yes, I think I will support moving forward with this letter. Thank you.

[05:18:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Council member Lieber.

[05:18:37] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor. Um, I really appreciate all the bullet points that are in the the letter that was drafted. And I would just like to see an amplification of our commitment to our shared constituents. I think that the thing that's been kind of hardest to take about some of the communications that we've received are, um, when folks, uh, given intimation that, uh, we have to care about the safety of the children. As if the city doesn't. And that is our 1st commitment. And, um, really reinforcing, you know, the physical safety and and physical health and mental health of children and families in our community. And I don't think it necessarily belongs in the letter, but I wanted to surface this comment. Is that when there is a fence, um, if there is in the future, um, around playing fields, there are families that will not use that, that facility, even if it's unlocked. And um, whether it be due to language differences or, um, different understandings of, you know, ordinances and things like that, there, there will be families that will be excluded. Um, from those parks just by virtue of offense being around it and having, uh, the understanding, even if it's, you know, incorrect, that it's a place that they're not to go. And um, so I think that we should, um, be thinking about that. Um, in, in the discussions, um, that we have with the district and all the different parties. And, um, I'm also very interested in something that Council member Hicks, um, talked about is getting, um, really grappling as a council with, um, the open space that's currently available. And looking at what alternatives, um, that we have. And, um, also thinking about, you know, the security concerns and what kinds of, um, steps that we should be taking as a community, uh, relative to, uh, gun safety and, um, other issues like that. And so I'd just like to see a, a real amplification of, um, the fact that these are our shared constituents within the letter.

[05:21:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, council member show Walter.

[05:21:29] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, a lot has been said. A lot of good things have been said. Um, uh, I, I, I want. I think that that what we want to make sure is stated very clearly is that our takeaway is that we want to maximize our residents access to open space. That's really what we're after. And we don't care whether the residents are, you know, little guys, um, at school or, you know, or 90 year olds. You know, we want to maximize the access to all of our residents. And, you know, as much as is possible. Uh, there isn't a statement in here about COVID and the period we are currently in. Given all the communications that have gone on about how, you know, there's a penal code about not using, um, the school, the, the, um, the grounds during the school, uh, hours, et cetera, et cetera. I really think we should add a sentence that says, you know, we want to make it clear that during the emergency, while the while the kids are not in school, um, People are welcome to use the um, open space at the um, the schools. And I don't think we've heard anything to the contrary along that line, but I think it would be good because of all the questions that are being raised to just stated explicitly. Um, another thing that bothered me is somebody who was, um, done a lot of stakeholder work. Um, one time, I had a job where I ran a, a watershed council that had 23 signatory agencies. So, so, I, One of the one of the things, the sort of rules of facilitators is they're supposed to be neutral parties. And, um, having the business director for the, uh, the, the school district function. as the facilitator doesn't meet that test. So, I would really like us to request that, um, that a neutral facilitator be, um, be provided. And, um, Then the other thing is, I, I, I just looking at the numbers. I think it would be really nice to have another staff member representing the city. Um, we just have one representative, and that seems like it's putting a tremendous amount of, um, pressure on that one person. And also, um, uh, might be good to have another perspective, another staff member, particularly somebody from the city manager's office. And, and then, um, the other thing, I, I, I just concur with, that everybody has said, um, we have a long-standing partnership with a laundry list of, of, of things that we work on together. And both agencies, you know, both jurisdictions, the city, and the, um, you know, and the public schools, have every desire to continue that. We want to do that. So, so this is really local diplomacy at work. You know, how can we make, you know, how can we get this to, to meet the needs of, um, of all of our constituents and, and, um, keep them safe? So I would like to have a statement about maximizing the residence access to open space, use of the fields, um, uh, all, you know, during school hours during the COVID, um, pandemic when the, uh, you know, the schools are not in session. Um, and I'm interested in adding another seat with, um, uh, a city staff. Thank you.

[05:25:17] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you. Um, so I took notes, and hopefully I got everyone's editions correctly. Um, not sure if you just want me to kind of read out what I heard. City manager McCarthy. Is that would that be helpful to staff? I'm not sure if we can take these in aggregate or if you needed strong motions on any of these.

[05:25:46] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, thank you, mayor. So there are a couple that I think are pretty broad that fit with the spirit of the letter that we can incorporate. There are a couple that are a little more detailed that I want to make sure that there's consensus on council about. So if I could just start at the beginning. Um, so going to council member Mattachek's letter. So, um, I think the, um, change to perimeter security, that's um, something, of course, we can do easily. Um, maximizing the community access, um, preservian paths towards the back of the campus as much as possible. I think that's okay. The question that I would have of council is the next item. Because I did hear council member Abbe Koga, um, talk about this with a different perspective. So in terms of, uh, working groups or some sort of, um, outreach for the other, um, neighborhoods, I would want a straw pull on, uh, that, whether that should be included in the letter, just since there was, um, diverse feedback on that.

[05:26:54] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So, on this topic, I see council member Matachek's hand and council member, show Walter's hand. So, customer matter check, we can start with you.

[05:27:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. I didn't say it, we absolutely have to have a working group for each shared use facility. Um, I said we'd need to determine if we need one for each by checking with the neighborhood to see. Are they aware of that, do they have any concerns? And I'm guessing it's more than Monteloma? But I don't think it is every single site. But I don't know where the balance is. So I just wanted to check to make sure, um, people are aware of it. And then they make the decision on the working groups. Thanks.

[05:27:40] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you, council member, show Walter.

[05:27:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Ditto, what, council member, Matt, check set.

[05:27:46] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Great, thanks. City manager McCarthy, does that provide some clarity there on.

[05:27:53] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, thank you, mayor.

[05:27:55] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. And then we can continue through your list.

[05:27:59] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, thank you. So, I think, um, the other item I'm hearing is, um, from council member labor, the amplification of the commitment to the shared constituents. Absolutely, we can make sure to reiterate that in the letter. Um, Then from, um, council member show Walter, we can make sure to add something about COVID. Um, and how that layers in with with what's going on, um, and being open now while school is not in session. Um, I have been told that there will be a neutral facilitator, um, facilitating the working group, but it's not going to be school district staff. Um, so that will be taking place. And as far as another staff member from the city, I'll need to assess that with staff to determine whether, um, we actually have the, um, resource or ability to, um, have someone from the city manager's office there, but um, I will definitely see if we can make that happen as well. So I think I hit all of the top points. Let me know if there's anything that I missed.

[05:29:08] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Sure. Um, so I think, as we're, as we're incorporating COVID, also being cognizant and sensitive to that, some, I'm not sure if monoloom is doing, um, support pods, um, right now, but I know some of the schools are, so maybe, you know, if possible or, you know, working around that, that topic. I mean, one thing that I did hear that, um, council member Hicks brought up, um, that was of interest to me, was, um, outreach to the city council when there are any changes, um, to the to the joint use agreement or just kind of the heads up that there might be something, um, coming down the pipeline, and I think that that would be nice to include in the letter just for council awareness. I'm not sure how others feel, but I thought that that was a good suggestion. Okay, I see I see nodding heads.

[05:29:56] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So, mayor, if I might add, just as a point of process. So the joint use agreement has been discussed, um, by city staff and school district staff for about the last year and a half or 2 years. Um, and there are some, um, items that, um, they have been talking about for quite a while and, uh, we haven't come to agreement yet on, on some items. So, um, one of the things that was mentioned in a prior meeting was for council to discuss the joint use agreement as a whole. And I noted at that time that that is something that's going to take, it's a big package to unfold and it's going to take um, a lot of time to do that. So I would note that, um, this likely, it's it's better to put this on your, um, your work plan that's coming up, um, because it's, there's not necessarily changes right now that we would be bringing to council. So I think that feedback we can take in a corporate into that project as part of the work plan, certainly. Um, and then I would defer to the city attorney. I know that, um, his office has also been working on it in terms of changing the language in the joint use agreement, I believe that's also something that would have to be, um, agreed upon by the school district, so we can take all that feedback you've just given into consideration as part of our conversations with the school district right now.

[05:31:20] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, that's correct, uh, city manager, that language would need to be uh, mutually negotiated. And I agree with your suggestion about, about the process, how to do that.

[05:31:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right, so, um, we went through, I think our our list of comments and tried to incorporate them and heard some feedback on maybe, um, how some items can move forward. Um, does anyone have anything else that we may have missed on this topic? Council member show Walter?

[05:31:52] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, um, what happened with the checklist that uh, council member Hicks brought up? I don't necessarily know that that needs to be in the letter, but, uh, you know, the idea of the, Checklist that, of, um, things that we hadn't paid for properly yet, and What's going on with that?

[05:32:11] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So, council member, show Walter, um, I think there's a bit of disagreement about what is and isn't on that list. So as I just mentioned, the city staff and school district staff have been discussing, this joint use agreement for.

[05:32:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Oh, okay, so that's included in that. That's fine camera. I did understand that. That's great.

[05:32:32] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: No, that's okay. I think that there's a lot of technical things that stops working out and there may be some misunderstanding between staff that we need to still work out right now, but that is something that we will be working on.

[05:32:49] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Hopefully that answers your question, Councilman Michelle Walter. All right. All right, anything left on this topic? All right. Well, I think staff has what they need. So, um, thank you to Mr. Marshawn, and thank you. Oh, yes. Say Major McCarthy.

[05:33:06] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Sorry, mayor for the late edition. So, I do want to note that I found out that, um, the school is expected to reopen in 3 weeks and there are support pots on the campus. So I just wanted to let council know that.

[05:33:21] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: And for the mayor's benefit, we will need a motion for this item, for the, uh, and I could maybe suggest that it would be, uh, the staff recommendation plus the edits that were summarized by the city manager if there is consensus among council on those edits.

[05:33:45] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, city attorney Chopra. You, uh, you beat me to it. So does anyone have emotion? Counselor Master.

[05:33:58] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Happy to make the motion that, uh, the staff recommendation on the letter with all of the items that city manager. Uh, listed and that we all kind of nodded our heads to.

[05:34:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So, Councilmer, Matt, checkmate the motion, Councilmer, Robert, Koga.

[05:34:19] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: 2nd that.

[05:34:20] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. So we have a motion and a 2nd, so we'll turn it over for a roll call vote to our interview.

[05:34:27] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Tell some member of a coca.

[05:34:30] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi.

[05:34:31] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council memory Hicks.

[05:34:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:34:34] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Lever.

[05:34:36] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi,

[05:34:36] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Manachek.

[05:34:39] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes,

[05:34:39] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Shel Walter?

[05:34:41] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes. Yes.

[05:34:42] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[05:34:44] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, and thank you all for sharing with me this evening.

[05:34:47] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kameh.

[05:34:49] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[05:34:49] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you.

[05:34:51] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So that motion passes unanimously. So we'll move on to item 8, council, staff, committee reports. Do any council members have anything to report? Yes, Council member Show Walter and then Council member Robbie Coco.

[05:35:11] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I'd like to share that we had a, um, a council neighborhoods committee, um, meeting on February 18th, and, uh, I attended and Sally Lieber and Lucas Ramirez, um, of the other members of the committee, and we were joined by Anna, uh, Salvador, Wayne Chen and Lisa Roche from our staff. And we had a great briefing about the neighborhood, um, uh, association grant program, which, as you know, has been going for many years and, and, um, is very popular. We, we decided to keep the same level of support that we have had in the last few years, um, because, um, we just thought raising the amount of money, and, uh, these budget times was probably not a good idea. So we're going to make that recommendation. And, um, And we're, uh, then we went over the work plan. We will be having a, um, a virtual networking meeting of the neighborhood associations in April, and that's gonna, going to give all the neighborhood associations an opportunity to understand the grant program and the application program, and also to provide an opportunity for our neighborhood associations, to share, um, the creative things that they've done during COVID, which with their money. Um, you know, in the past, uh, neighborhood association grants were primarily used for, um, you know, ice cream socials or, um, uh, you know, lots of big get togethers and food. And of course, during COVID, we haven't been able to have big get togethers and food. So people have been very creative about, um, what to do with their money and, um, there is quite, you know, there's some more time before the end of the, uh, calendar year. I mean, the fiscal year, to do more events, so we want to share that with other people. Um, and we're going to have 3 neighborhood meetings. this year as we normally do. And I just like to thank staff for being so well organized. It's very good.

[05:37:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Councilman Robbie Koda.

[05:37:18] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, I'd like to report on a few, um, regional board meetings that I've attended recently. Uh, 1st from Silicon Valley Clean Energy and, um, please, bear with me. I have a kind of some extensive reports, but I think these are important points to, um, to share with everyone. So, um, uh, so clean energy will be, um, adjusting rates. We do this about twice a year, and our rates are based on PG&Es rates. So, as PG&E reduces or increases their rates. We adjust accordingly our policies to try to keep within one% uh, below, uh, of PG needs generation rates. So, we will be adjusting our rates by 2.3%, um, uh, taking effect in March. Um, we also uh, are continuing to build our, um, sources of carbon free electricity, and we just uh, approved a um, hydro power, um, contract, uh, with the central valley project, and this will be, um, adding to our mix of, um, clean power sources. Um, We also, uh, this is something that I think the public, um, maybe, um, aware of or becoming aware of, but, um, historically, most of our customers are billed for electricity usage on a tiered rate, and that will, so the prices are based on how much is used. In June, our customers will be opted into a time of use billing rate as part of a mandatory statewide transition, and these changes, electricity pricing from how much is used to when it is used with higher prices from 4 to 9 p.m. There's been a lot of commercials and, um, notices about this. So hopefully our residents are aware of that change that is coming, um, as of June of this year. I just wanted to also bring it up at this, um, at this time. Um, so that was for clean energy. Um, I attended a VTA. We had a workshop on the, it's called the next gen solutions, I believe. It's basically about the future of light rail, and we had a workshop on this on Friday. Um, uh, this, the board and stuff has been studying what to do, the light rail um, cars are coming to the end of their uh, life. And so, um, they've been studying what to do, whether to just replace them, to change the system, whatnot. Um, there, um, I, I was actually pleased because this is a San Jose delegation, um, mentioned the interest in more innovative new technologies. They're actually studying, um, similar to our AGT study, um, similar systems and to use, um, for in San Jose. And so from the north end and south end. I thought it was great that we, we, um, converged on that idea of, um, you know, of studying more innovative and new technologies that could hopefully increase frequency, usability, time, and increase ridership because the light rail system as it is now is very, um, minimal in its use. Um, I wanted to bring something up from my NTC work. Um, as, as you know, MTC and A bag are basically merging, um, we have the same staff now, so we actually get to, um, talk about some of the work being done on housing. Um, and I learned about a program called the housing incentive pool. There's been about $75000000 put into this. And, um, it's a five-year program. It's, they call it the race to the top incentive. And so, um, the top 15 jurisdictions that produce the most affordable housing in, uh, vice, a certain income category as well as PDAs and T, uh, transit priority areas, will get to share in this pot of funding. Um, as of right now. Mountain View is in 6th place. So we just need to be in the top 15. Um, San Francisco is number one, but, um, I just thought it was great that we're actually in the, in the, in that group and, and I hope that we can maintain that. It's until 2022, I believe, and then they'll decide who gets the 5th, the pot of money. So that we're in the mix right now and I hope we stay there and maybe we'll even move up in the rankings. Um, and then finally, the cities association. Uh, we had a presentation by the Chambers, uh, coalition of chambers, um, asking for support, um, with, of course, businesses, um, our, our own chamber, uh, CEO, Peter, Katz was a part of this, um, discussion. And the other request was that we work with them to, um, ask that the county follow the state's orders in terms of, um, you know, opening businesses and what kinds of businesses and so forth. And I know that's, uh, still an issue of discussion, but, um, I just wanted to mention that request as it came from our own, um, our own CEO Chamber CEO. And so that's it. Thank you so much for your patience in listening.

[05:42:42] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Anyone else with anything they'd like to share? I'll just share. We had a VTA policy advisory board meeting the other week. Where we make recommendations and grateful that council member Abbe Koga has been sending us on VTA so we can be well represented. All right. Um, and then before we close, just want to remind those who are still with us or who are watching, um, that we, um, still have the rental housing committee and the public safety advisory board are open for your applications. So, um, please feel free to do that. I think they're due by the end of the week. All right. So, um, item nine, um, is there a closed session report, city attorney Chopra?

[05:43:27] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There's no close session report tonight.

[05:43:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So that moves us on to adjournment. So thank you so much, everyone, for joining us and our next regular city council meeting. will be on March ninth. So until then, stay healthy, stay safe, mask up, and have a good night. Thank you.

• ← Previous
• Next →