April 13, 2021 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Agenda

• 1. CALL TO ORDER / 2. ROLL CALL: Call to order and roll call for the Study Session. (00:00:00)
• 3.1 R3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zoning District Update: Presentation and discussion on the Draft R3 Zoning District Update. (00:01:14)
• 1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Call to order for the regular session and the Pledge of Allegiance. (02:44:00)
• 2. ROLL CALL: Roll call for the regular session. (02:45:07)
• 3.1 National Volunteer Appreciation Week Proclamation: Reading of the proclamation for National Volunteer Appreciation Week. (02:45:57)
• 3.2 Certificate of Recognition to Kammy Lo in Recognition of Cal Cities Women's Caucus Women of Persistence 2021 Award: Presentation of the Certificate of Recognition to Kammy Lo. (02:48:50)
• 3.3 COVID-19 Update by City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Update on the COVID-19 situation by the City Manager. (02:55:14)
• 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: Approval of the consent calendar items, with some items pulled for discussion. (03:08:44)
• 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS: Public comment period for items not on the agenda. (03:13:35)
• 6.1 Minor General Plan, Precise Plan, and Zoning Amendments: Public hearing and discussion on minor amendments to the General Plan, Precise Plan, and Zoning. (03:16:23)
• 6.2 Introduce an Ordinance Prohibiting Possession of Firearms on City Property: Introduction and discussion of an ordinance to prohibit the possession of firearms on City property. (03:42:36)
• 7. COUNCIL, STAFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS: Reports from council members and staff on various committees and meetings. (04:08:29)
• 8. CLOSED SESSION REPORT: Report on the closed session. (04:14:02)
• 9. ADJOURNMENT: Adjournment of the City Council meeting. (04:14:14)

Transcript

1. CALL TO ORDER / 2. ROLL CALL

[00:00:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: view.gov/youtube and Comcast Channel 26. As noted in the meeting, um, agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period for the item by signing up at mountainview.gov/cc_speakers or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 940-9178-7915.

[00:00:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Any emails received by 3:30 p.m. today were received directly by the City Council. Emails received after 3:30 p.m. will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. All votes will be taken by a roll call vote.

[00:00:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: We'll move on to item two, which is the roll call with our Interim City Clerk Vonderlinden.

[00:00:50] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you. Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[00:00:53] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[00:00:54] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Hicks.

[00:00:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:00:57] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Lieber.

[00:00:58] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Here.

[00:00:59] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Matichak.

[00:01:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[00:01:02] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Showalter.

[00:01:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:01:05] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[00:01:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:01:08] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei.

[00:01:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here.

[00:01:11] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you.

[00:01:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So all council members are...

3.1 R3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zoning District Update

[00:02:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, assuming the majority of members are present, we'll move on to item 3.1 which is our multi-family residential zoning district update. We'll hear from Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire and Assistant City Manager Community Development Director Arti Shrivastava. Martin will introduce the consultants who will also be available for questions. So we can have staff join us, great. And for those who may be new to our council meetings, our study sessions, um there's no formal action taken um during a study session. All right, Mr. Alkire are you ready to take it away?

[00:03:08] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Yes, uh, thank you. Let me just upload the presentation here...

[00:03:18] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Okay, great. Um, good evening I'm Martin Alkire uh Community Development Department. I'm presenting tonight along with Arti Shrivastava our Community Development Director. Um also with us are Stefan Pellegrini and Tony Perez of Opticos, our consultants on the project.

[00:03:38] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: My presentation will focus on these three key things with um a particular emphasis on the proposed approach and key questions uh which is the second bullet point there.

[00:03:53] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So the City Council last saw this project in fall 2020 and on the screen are some of the big picture comments that council had at that time as the project was just getting off the ground. Uh I won't read through all of them but um they were in the staff report and uh just note that since this meeting we've held two public workshops uh and an EPC meeting.

[00:04:18] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: The two public workshops that we held uh again in the fall of 2020 uh October and November uh in general uh there was support for uh some of the potential changes that we're talking about in the R3. However, there was some concern over the potential impacts uh a potential effect on uh adjacent neighborhood character uh proposed with with uh the amount of change uh that the uh draft R3 is is looking at.

[00:04:48] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So, uh, I'll just present kind of the overall big picture approach and then walk through some of the details uh within that proposed approach and of course we can always refer back to these slides as as there is a fair amount of information in them.

[00:05:04] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So on the screen you see uh a map of the city with the R3 zoning district in orange and basically it is it is kind of a one size fits all uh zoning uh district if you will. In the sense that the the building heights, the building setbacks, and the building and open area coverage within the R3 are all the same uh and they they don't differentiate within within that large area.

[00:05:31] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So, uh, after some analysis, um the approach that we're proposing tonight is really to kind of break up uh that one size fits all uh development standard uh again focusing on the form and the massing as the initial uh kind of policy um discussion and break it up into four smaller subzones R3A through R3D. So on the map you see kind of the general locations of where those subzones might be located uh and uh in proximity to transit as well. And I'll provide some more details on this as we move forward.

[00:06:09] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, a big snapshot here is kind of showing uh uh at a glance the R3A through R3D subzones uh showing the uh height maximums, showing uh the types of uh the housing types that we would envision in those areas going from least intensive in an R3A stacked duplexes, cottage courts, moving all the way up the scale to R3D the most intensive with uh kind of mid-rise uh stacked flats if you will.

[00:06:42] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, so, uh, we were asked to present kind of an overview of the methodology that was used to create these subzones. Again we've been iterating with the consultant team for several months now. So on the screen is kind of just a step-by-step uh approach to the methodology that was used to uh create uh these subzones and also to locate them within the city. So I'll just walk through these really quickly and then of course the consultant team can speak to them in detail.

[00:07:12] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: But, uh, we started off with just evaluating the existing lot sizes, the building types, physical form and character within both R3 parcels and adjacent non-R3 parcels. Uh then we asked the question can the lot sizes accommodate more intensive building types? Um, again that questions being asked because of the the council direction uh the primary goal for the project that we wanted to study some more. Uh if the answer was yes, then we looked at which building types would fit and be the most physically compatible with kind of the adjacent non-R3 parcels. Uh if the lot size could not accommodate more intensive building types, then we were looking at changes to standards or new standards to allow more housing than uh what is currently allowed in the R3.

[00:07:58] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So then any changes to the standards, the new building types and the lot size information all becomes the basis for uh these new subzones that we're presenting tonight.

[00:08:09] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, I'll just quickly walk through the different uh subzones at a glance. Again, each following the same format. Here's the R3A the least intensive. You see a couple a couple photographs there showing kind of the existing uh built environment within the R3A in a few neighborhoods. And then you see the map that shows the parcels in uh pink uh where those R3As uh would be located. And again the proximity to transit map.

[00:08:38] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh, and then uh here are just some uh snapshot standards of the R3A zone uh focusing again on the form uh and the sorry the building height and the building type. So here you see two and a half stories max uh and you see the different building types that could be allowed duplex stacked all the way to neighborhood townhouse and a few other key standards. And then you see the graphic on the right the example of intended physical character which starts to give you a sense visually of how some of these standards might be organized on a lot and how they might present themselves to the street.

[00:09:15] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh, and then it was also asked to present some pictures of some of these housing types, some of the names of these housing types are not um something we see all the time in Mountain View so in the questions and responses that the council got uh to this item there are these same images but I'll just walk quickly through them here's some pictures of a du duplex stacked again envisioned for the R3A. Uh cottage court uh what that might look like. Um a pocket neighborhood uh probably the most analogous to our small out single family neighborhoods that you see in Mountain View. Uh the fourplex uh building type.

[00:09:58] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, and then we move on to R3B. So again, the same kind of format, pictures of existing character, uh some potential locations of where those R3B uh subzones might be located uh shown in the the kind of darker purple.

[00:10:13] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh, and then again the same uh kind of key standards focusing on form and mass, three and a half stories max, four with bonus, the building types, and then again you can start to see the massing as it's getting a little more intensive on that prototypical lot size.

[00:10:31] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: And then here are some other examples of some of these housing types that could be applicable both to R3A and R3B. You see the neighborhood townhouse some examples there. Um here's some neighborhood courtyard uh developments again being built around a kind of a central organizing open space.

[00:10:49] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, and then we move on to R3C. Um again uh pictures of kind of existing character on Sierra Vista is one one possible street. And then you see the locations of where those R3C parcels uh could be located. And again we can refer back to these uh if council has more questions.

[00:11:12] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: and then again the standards there. And then you can see the picture uh on the right uh is getting a lot more intensive in terms of uh building massing and coverage on a prototypical lot size.

[00:11:26] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: And then here's some additional examples of multiplex that could be applicable both not only to R3C but R3B. Um, some other R3C uh core townhouse uh prototypes.

[00:11:42] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, again you see the areas in dark blue uh where they could possibly uh be located uh could fit into the existing uh neighborhood there. And again you see the pictures of the mid-rise stacked flats uh on Del Medio and California Street.

[00:12:02] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh again, here's the final kind of uh rough standards showing the six stories max uh the building types again and then you can see the graphic where it's really filling out that lot uh prototypical lot size in terms of stacked units.

[00:12:17] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: And then a few more examples uh of these building types for R3C and R3D, the core courtyard uh and the mid-rise uh examples.

[00:12:28] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So, uh this was brought to the EPC uh uh and we asked the same questions that are in your staff report tonight. Uh I'm not going to read through all of these, but uh in general uh the EPC thought this was off to a good start. They did request some more information and analysis which uh we'll talk about in our next steps. They'd like the the variety of housing types uh presented in this uh this approach and so they were supportive of that, but they did have concerns about uh the potential pace of change in terms of uh how much uh new development this would this would kind of uh uh result in, particularly how aggressive uh new standards might be uh in terms of turning these properties into higher density uh projects.

[00:13:13] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: And then they had uh several other comments on the different uh subzones R3A through R3D. Again I won't read through them, but we can refer back to them, they're also in your staff report.

[00:13:24] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh, and then the final kind of uh question we have for council tonight is uh regarding the overlay zones within R3. So the R3 has um two overlay zones which is basically an additional layer of uh restrictive uh zoning controls on properties. There's two in R3 one for height and one for special design.

[00:13:45] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: The height um are shown in blue on the map. And basically those overlays limit uh new development to either one story or two stories. Uh you're not allowed to build a three story uh in these areas. And um this was probably put in place uh due to concerns over uh potential impacts to surrounding lower intensity uh neighborhoods. At the time these were adopted, these are older kind of legacy overlay zones if you will and we're still doing some research on when they were enacted and the uh the intent there.

[00:14:20] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: but essentially for the height overlay zones uh our draft approach is to uh maybe maintain those existing height limits, one or two story, but then supplement them with the new R3 standards. So in other words uh new development in these areas shown in blue uh couldn't exceed either the one or two story height limit, but they could potentially take advantage of some of these newer housing types or setbacks etc with the new R3 standards.

[00:14:47] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: And then the last overlay, the special design, um shown in red, uh these were placed on properties uh near either freeways uh the Caltrain corridor or close to industrial uses and the concern was uh how the potential adjacent uses in terms of noise, traffic, air pollution would affect uh development or future residential uses in these red areas.

[00:15:13] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: We don't see too many permits come in for this, but um we were thinking that again being a legacy overlay zoning district that perhaps we could just replace this special design overlay with the new R3 standards knowing that there's advances in uh you know building design, uh uh soundproof windows, HVAC systems etc that could hopefully mitigate some of those impacts from those surrounding uh uses.

[00:15:40] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, so in terms of next steps, uh again we are looking at a study session for replacement requirements. Again uh the issue of replacement uh has come up uh throughout this project um both concern from the public as well as uh our internal working group we've been working through this and closely coordinating on it. So any changes to the R3 will be coming forward with some uh policies regarding replacements, replacement requirements so uh we are expecting the housing division to have that study session in the fall.

[00:16:12] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh, and then hopefully we will be moving forward with an additional round of study sessions for both EPC and City Council uh potentially in the fall uh because we heard a need for more information, more analysis, and we're in the process of doing that. And of course you see the last two steps there in terms of 2022 when we expect the final uh documents to to come forward.

[00:16:34] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh, so that concludes uh staff's presentation and again the two uh questions we have and of course staff and the consultant team are available uh for any questions. Thank you.

[00:16:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much. Perhaps we can stop sharing the screen so we can get to council questions if that would be possible. Thanks so much. Do council members have questions?

[00:17:02] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, is this the... if it's a study session I think we usually go to public comment first?

[00:17:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great, thanks. Sorry about that. So at this time we can move on to um public comment. As noted on the agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments at this portion um by raising their hand in Zoom or dialing 669-900-9128. All right. So um City Clerk Vonderlinden do you mind pulling up the the timer? We can do why don't we give folks three minutes. Let me know when the timer's ready.

[00:17:54] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: It is ready.

[00:17:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Jeff Gilman.

[00:18:02] Jeff Gilman (Public Speaker): Hi, thank you. Um, my name is Jeff Gilman. I'm with uh the Tan Group and we own the Americana apartments located at 707 Continental Circle. Um I missed the opportunity to comment earlier in this process, um high level we're generally in favor of higher densities and heights um even more than are proposed in this staff memo so that more high density housing can be provided uh to help the jobs housing imbalance in Mountain View.

[00:18:31] Jeff Gilman (Public Speaker): but specifically I did want to note that our property, the existing 16 acre Americana complex um has been identified in the staff memo as an R3C site on page eight and elsewhere in the memo. Um but I wanted to note we already have a formal application into the city, uh the file numbers PL 202127, uh we're proposing to add 254 units um on a portion of the existing 544 unit site. We aren't removing any existing units, um and in July of last year we submitted the state's SB330 streamlining map application so any changes here wouldn't apply to our proposed project that we're working through staff with.

[00:19:15] Jeff Gilman (Public Speaker): However, I did want to say that for the balance of our property outside the scope of work of this new proposed project, we would actually request that um an R3D designation be applied to the Americana site because if we do any future redevelopment uh an R3C designation is actually effectively a downzone. Those densities are less dense than even the multi-family project we have um on site of buildings that were built 50 years ago. So thank you for your consideration, that's it.

[00:19:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Robert Cox.

[00:19:58] Robert Cox (Public Speaker): Can you hear me?

[00:20:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, we hear you.

[00:20:01] Robert Cox (Public Speaker): Okay. Honorable Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramirez and other council members. I'm Robert Cox speaking on behalf of the steering committee of Livable Mountain View. We have already sent you a letter on our positions so I won't repeat all of it here. While we support the concept of an R3 zoning update in principle, we do have serious issues with some of the specifics in the staff proposal. We recommend that the R3A, R3B and R3C categories be adopted as guidelines rather than grants of upzoning by right. This would allow the council to determine on a case-by-case basis the merits of an upzoning proposal and help with the timing.

[00:20:42] Robert Cox (Public Speaker): Replace the R3D category by a precise plan review. The public should participate in proposals that will result in six to eight story buildings near their property. Three, staff report be prepared including options to the council and how to meet the RHNA obligations in the next cycle. This will help everyone envision how the R3 zoning update could contribute to these goals. And four, take more seriously transitions to existing neighborhoods including rear setbacks, parking impacts and the loss of community green space. Thank you for the consideration of our views. I yield my time.

[00:21:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Ellis Berns.

[00:21:24] Ellis Berns (Public Speaker): Thank you. This is uh, appreciate it. Good evening Honorable Mayor, Kamei and City Council members. Ellis Berns, real estate consultant. I've been asked by Mr. Greg Zaan, owner of 918 Rich Avenue to provide comments on the proposed R3 development standards being reviewed by you this evening. Mr. Zaan has owned the property at 918 Rich Avenue for the past 12 years. It's currently vacant, undeveloped, it's three quarters of an acre, flag lot. Mr. Zaan applauds the efforts of the city to update these standards. He knows first-hand how restrictive the current R3 standards are. Since 2010 he has attempted a couple of times to redevelop the property but due to the restrictions of the R3 zoning, he's determined it was not financially feasible and decided not to proceed.

[00:22:13] Ellis Berns (Public Speaker): However, Mr. Zaan is now proposing a project on the site using state density bonus law. This could yield up to 29 for sale units, four of which will be BMR units. To develop the project at the proposed density, the development application utilizes the density bonus concessions, waivers, parking waivers provided by state density bonus law in exchange for the provision of affordable units. Absent the application state density bonus law, the property owner would build approximately 11 fewer units. This proposed project hopefully illustrates why updating the zoning could be significant giving given the city's goal of creating more housing in the community.

[00:22:58] Ellis Berns (Public Speaker): Mr. Zaan supports many of the suggestions being proposed by staff and endorsed by the EPC including the sub-areas form-based zoning that can address context height setbacks and parking within the various neighborhoods. Also, please consider as this R3 zoning moves forward, there is some flexibility to allow exceptions for irregularly shaped lots such as flag lots.

[00:23:23] Ellis Berns (Public Speaker): In conclusion, the proposed modifications to the R3 zoning could result in reducing the number of requests for waivers and concessions providing the neighborhood and developers with a better idea of what to expect in terms of type of development in these proposed sub areas and will likely result in increasing the number and diversity of diversity of housing in the community. A significant goal for the city of Mountain View. I should also note that this particular 918 Rich Avenue is located in sub-area R3 and the proposed sub-area R3-C. Thank you very much, appreciate it.

[00:24:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Tim McKenzie.

[00:24:10] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): Hi, greetings councilors. Um, I just like to say upzoning sounds great. We need more housing. I'm all for it. I'd love to see more housing in the um in the neighborhoods and just have uh two comments. One about the timeline, it looks like around 2022 is the earliest that this will uh this will get passed through. Um someone else earlier mentioned SB 330 which is a great state bill that uh helps prevent displacement, gives people in affordable units have the ability to come back, right of first refusal, and have to be offered uh housing at rates affordable to them. Um so I that sounds great

[00:24:49] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): but I'd say as far as we possibly can go uh while still remaining consistent with state law. Um, so I I think we have to keep and keep uh displacement from occurring as we build the housing that we so desperately need. Um

[00:25:18] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): and and for uh building affordable housing we also have to think about making sure that the afford... the housing is actually affordable to the people who live in it. I think affordable housing count is for like 80% of uh area median income or something like that is the official level where affordable housing begins, but 80% of the median income in our area is still a lot of money comparatively for working class people and not most not many people, there's a lot of low wage workers who don't make that much money. So affordable units should start at the deepest levels of affordability so that we can have an economically diverse community and people can actually afford to live. Thank you.

[00:26:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Philip Cosby.

[00:26:09] Philip Cosby (Public Speaker): Alright, thank you Madam Mayor. Philip Cosby with the Campus City Coalition at St Athanasius. Uh we greatly applaud developing more housing here in Mountain View. But we're a little alarmed that we're having this discussion of increasing these densities and multi-family housing areas without first talking about what's going to happen to the people that presently live there. And so as as Tim was mentioning, we strongly recommend that you consider displacement options similar to SB 330 before you actually enact any changes in the R3 zoning. Thank you.

[00:26:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Yuju Park.

[00:26:59] Yuju Park (Public Speaker): Uh, good evening council members. My name is Yuju Park and I'm with Silicon Valley at Home. Uh thank you to the staff and Opticos for all their work on the draft R3 zoning code update. Uh we're really excited to see that the city is considering updating the R3 code to provide for a lot more multi-family housing while providing for a greater variety of different types while also protecting residents against displacement. Um we wanted to provide a few comments and recommendations on the R3 zoning update for council to consider. The first being that we think that some of the R3 subzones near transit could actually support more density, um and we think this could be done either through a transit oriented development overlay or by changing the subzone designation to more R3C and R3D. Um we think that this is really important to create more sustainable development with reduced parking, increased transit ridership, especially during COVID right now with reduced ridership, and decreased greenhouse gas emissions.

[00:27:52] Yuju Park (Public Speaker): and we actually have two areas we'd like to specifically point out that we think could hold more capacity. Um, one being the Cuernavaca area east of highway 85 on the Sunnyvale border and that's also close to one of the BRT stops. And the Del Medio area that's near the San Antonio transit center and Caltrain stop. Um and that area is also next to the San Antonio precise plan area where seven stories is already allowed. So there would be less concerns about neighborhood transitions.

[00:28:18] Yuju Park (Public Speaker): Um, and we'd also like council to consider the possibility of parcel aggregation in R3A subzones to allow for the potential of higher density and or 100% affordable development in the future. Um and also think that clarification on on how the state density bonus aligns with form-based zoning would be helpful.

[00:28:34] Yuju Park (Public Speaker): Um and last but not least, we're really pleased that this R3 update is being done in parallel with a new displacement policy um and support the coordination with the housing department, um but we are very concerned about the displacement issue since SB 330 does have a sunset date. So we're hoping to see some type of guarantee that um the R3 zoning update will go in tandem um with the new replacement policy as well. Uh thank you so much for your time and we're excited to see how this progresses.

[00:29:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Silja Paimer.

[00:29:08] Silja Paimer (Public Speaker): Hi, uh, my name is Silja Paimer. Um, I am a member of Green Spaces Mountain View and I agree with many of the things that have already been said, so I want to um kind of identify something I I haven't heard yet which is um it would be really nice to see language on walkability um in the increased density. So what I see in visiting friends in Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and San Jose in these large developments, especially those courtyard um based developments, they're often many locked gates which result in them being like large swaths where no one can get through unless they're a resident. And so I would like to see some language on um that these developments need to increase walkability um if they choose to have locked gates, then they should have a right of way access for pedestrians as many of these developments will be between two streets and so could act as a large block um to walkability in these neighborhoods if they don't allow pass through.

[00:30:04] Silja Paimer (Public Speaker): Um, we are also large proponents of um making sure there's language that supports increased green spaces and biodiversity um with these developments as well. Um, but my passion is walkability and being able to access all of Mountain View. Thank you for your time.

[00:30:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Alexander Brown.

[00:30:48] Alexander Brown (Public Speaker): Can you hear me now?

[00:30:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, there we go. Okay.

[00:30:51] Alexander Brown (Public Speaker): Alright. Uh, I won't dally. Uh don't defend disparity. Deny dull discriminatory diminutive domiciles. Don't delay dwelling density diversification. Uh we need to address historic inequity and exclusion created by low density zoning practices. A B C are easy but we really need the D. The biggest environmental cost of a development is in its inception. Instead of using fear of progress to create downward pressure, let's take a forward looking approach. Build better now, build more as we redevelop other zones. Using the existing low density to force projects to provide strictly less housing units than they could justify perpetuates existing injustice. We've sprawled out, now we need to infill and build up.

[00:31:29] Alexander Brown (Public Speaker): I'm much more concerned with how boring the developments have been than I am with their height. It the images in staff's presentation look so much more interesting than most of the recent projects, not that they've set a very high bar. Uh and as for displacement I agree with uh Tim and some of the other speakers we need to codify SB 330 locally to make sure that redevelopment doesn't harm the most vulnerable and so that we can maintain our or expand our stock of affordable housing. I don't have a good pithy way to say that but maybe I'll figure one out uh by the time that study session comes up. Thanks.

[00:32:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. David Watson.

[00:32:05] David Watson (Public Speaker): Hi, uh, I'm David Watson. I'm a member of Mountain View YIMBY. Uh we'd like to start by thanking uh the city for hiring Opticos to uh analyze the feasibility of multi-family development in Mountain View and uh we really like the city's form-based approach. Infill multi-family housing is necessary to achieve our uh missing middle and greenhouse gas emission uh goals.

[00:32:30] David Watson (Public Speaker): Um, I wanted to highlight uh three items. These are also in our letter but they're I think uh you know particularly important things which are um one uh we're hoping for um a transit oriented overlay to allow for a reduced parking requirement uh within some distance of public transit uh along with the new uh R3 specifications.

[00:32:53] David Watson (Public Speaker): um we also think that uh sort of for the purpose of walkability uh the fastest way to get uh really good protection for pedestrians is uh architectural arcades um which uh we uh we we are uh really excited about as a way to sort of um make a a great pedestrian experience um they protect pedestrians from both uh the elements and also give a sense of protection from uh from traffic. Um

[00:33:27] David Watson (Public Speaker): and uh finally um to achieve uh true form-based zoning uh the city shouldn't have any limit on the total number of units in any of the newly proposed R3 designations. Uh thanks for your time.

[00:33:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Nazanin...

[00:33:52] Nazanin (Public Speaker): Can you hear me?

[00:33:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:33:54] Nazanin (Public Speaker): Yeah, I just wanted to um the person who spoke, the lady who spoke before Alexander Brown um I just would like to reiterate um the you know diversity of architecture walking space um if if we can achieve this with every uh new development in mind um that's welcoming and um you know add some sort of tree canopy um maintaining you know some level of walkability through neighborhoods um you know one example is Park Place which

[00:34:26] Nazanin (Public Speaker): um you know one example is Park Place which I think is just a fabulous place to walk through um even if you don't live there. Um so I I would like to reiterate that and also um reiterate that you know housing is not just individual housing or two person housing it's family housing so with all these big projects coming up um it it's important to to have in mind that families also need to live in denser housing um and to make you know allow for that as well. Space for that as well. And that's it.

[00:35:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right, that was our last speaker. So if we could bring it back to council for let's do questions and then we can go into uh recommendations. Do council members have questions? Councilmember Matichak.

[00:35:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So I just have a few questions. Um there's a summary of the workshops in the staff report and I was pretty surprised at the number of attendees, it's a lot more than we usually have. Um so I was wondering if staff could comment on um who the attendees were, were they residents, were they property owners, developers, um housing advocates, I'm kind of interested in um what was kind of the the makeup of the the groups?

[00:36:04] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Sure. Um, our focus was on uh residents and property owners. We sent over 30,000 postcards to uh folks within the R3 and within a certain buffer to the R3. So that was the the the bulk of the folks who who attended. We also did get folks from specific organizations YIMBY, uh coalition for sustainable planning, uh that type of thing.

[00:36:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, and then on page two of the staff report, and it was also partially in your presentation, there was a list of like comments from the council and I just want to clarify that was just a list as opposed to like um what the majority of the council members said. That was just a like a laundry list of comments, is that is that true?

[00:36:58] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: That's that's correct.

[00:37:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. And then um on page seven in figure one there's quite a few um different housing types listed there and I was wondering it seems like there's very few that are typically ownership like um neighborhood townhouses, core townhouses but are any of the other ones often ownership types?

[00:37:38] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, you know, it really depends on on how those uh properties or projects are mapped. That is if they come forward with a a map to to provide ownership housing, a condominium development etc. So townhouses and rowhouses, those types of things, those can be ownership, but also uh mid-rise, you know stacked flats can technically be uh uh condominium ownership units as well.

[00:38:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, so kind of one in each category um or zoning district. Okay, um that's all I had. Thank you.

[00:38:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Councilmember Hicks.

[00:38:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, uh, I have a sort of a laundry list of short questions. So one is and some of them may be for staff and some for the the consultant, is the consultant here? I'll ask them anyway.

[00:38:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: We'll make sure to bring the consultant over or they can read here we go they can raise their hand in and I will promote them to a panelist. There we go.

[00:38:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, great. So, um several of my questions are about how to get variety. Um so uh I I love seeing all the building types and thank you for uh presenting the actual photos. And I just wonder, I guess this is mostly for the consultant, I we sometimes and several of the the people doing public comment have have said we get we tend to get a lot of the same building stamped out over and over again. And I'm hoping that when we do this um form-based zoning that it's a way to um get beyond that and I like the housing types that you've shown.

[00:39:36] Councilmember Alison Hicks: but I'm wondering how you've seen in other places you work, do you tend to get, do developers tend to latch on to one that's kind of the preferred um type and stamp it out over and over again or is there anything we can do to prevent that because um I should say in terms of what several other members of the public brought up walkability I see and and what other people have sometimes bring up vibrancy in denser neighborhoods to stamp out the same type over and over again really kind of makes things less vibrant and makes people want to take shorter walks. So do you have a way of addressing that? Making sure that people developers develop different housing types?

[00:40:15] Tony Perez (Opticos Design): Yes, thank you Councilmember Hicks uh for the question. Yeah, there are a number of ways to address that. Um one way is uh is that we um there a combination of building types and what we call frontage types. And the frontage types are elements such as dooryards, porches, um as one of the speakers just said the arcade or another version of that is a gallery, uh it what what that speaker was talking about. So those are all elements that can be uh attached to the front elevations of buildings and to the sides of buildings as well, uh to change how they relate to the pedestrian, interact to relate to the pedestrian in the first place. So that in and of itself right there can can change a building that otherwise would be the same to look different right by varying the frontage type.

[00:40:58] Tony Perez (Opticos Design): The other thing that you can do is to um and and this can get a little a little complex but it's certainly uh an approach is to regulate the the the number of of choices for building types based on particular areas. So you might say in within this zone on these particular streets we're concerned about this type maybe being overused, so we're going to broaden the list or we're going to regulate um the number of times that can appear on one block. That can get a little um tricky, but um for larger sites it's a lot easier because there you can you can regulate the number of of building types being used on a brand new block.

[00:41:41] Tony Perez (Opticos Design): but um for larger sites it's it's a lot easier because there you can you can regulate the number of of building types being used on a brand new block. But in an infill situation it isn't um it isn't uh usually a problem. Um but but we do do have ways to deal with it. Yeah.

[00:42:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, well I'm glad to hear you do and I yeah interesting to me. Another type of variety is um uh type type of unit in terms of size. How do you make sure that there are some family sized units available that you don't get all um units for um single single people?

[00:42:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm sorry, and before you answer, do you mind uh introducing yourself for our virtual audience please? Thank you.

[00:42:30] Tony Perez (Opticos Design): I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I just jumped right in there. Yes, um Tony Perez with Opticos Design. Um yes, so there are two of us here from Opticos Design uh Stefan Pellegrini the principal in charge on this project and I'm the project manager Tony Perez.

[00:42:46] Tony Perez (Opticos Design): I'll take a I'll take a first pass at that question Councilmember Hicks and then I'd ask my uh colleague Stefan Pellegrini to to take um a second pass at that. You know uh some cities actually regulate lot uh minimum unit size or maximum unit size and that has its benefits and issues. Um other cities have have used the idea of of um allowing an increase in intensity to be to to correspond to unit size. So as the intensity that you can actually achieve on a parcel goes up, it it corresponds to the size of the unit, um uh either going up or going down depending on the city's objectives. Um

[00:43:24] Tony Perez (Opticos Design): but I think the probably the city that has the most experience with that is the city of Santa Barbara in Southern California. They call it average unit size density. Um and so I I just will say that on the many codes that I've worked on um the the market usually deals with that kind of un a situation, but in certain communities that that issue is regulated. And then I'll just turn it over to to Stefan.

[00:43:59] Stefan Pellegrini (Opticos Design): Thank you Tony. Good evening Stefan Pellegrini, principal with Opticos Design. Um just to add to Tony's excuse me uh comment on that um you know um there are sort of a couple of situations where we see um uh larger family units start to occur. Um one is um you know in situations where um uh you can bring certain kinds of multi-family projects to market where it makes sense to build larger units and us could be products that actually um trend toward condominium projects as opposed to um for rent projects. Um

[00:44:45] Stefan Pellegrini (Opticos Design): um in but in um sort of hyper markets like we often experience in the Bay Area, um regulations can actually help to um to maintain the delivery of those kinds of units. And um another example that I think is used uh in uh places like the City of San Francisco is just uh establishing a minimum requirement for a certain number of family units per building. Um which you know essentially sort of sets aside you know a certain number of two or three bedrooms that could emerge in a larger multi-family building.

[00:45:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, thank you. My next question is when I looked at R3D the pictures the sketches that you had, um the sidewalks didn't have trees in them and or not very many and there wasn't a planting strip. And to me that didn't seem necessary, like it seemed like you could easily fit um trees and and this is you know some of the members of the public talked about that being important to them uh biodiversity and landscaping and walkability and I I would agree

[00:46:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I would agree with those members of the public and I just wanted to confirm that that picture was not you know what we needed to do that we can actually put in planting strips and a little more greenery than I see in those R3D pictures. And I guess attach that to as a question about um how much do you do streetscape standards along with this?

[00:46:14] Tony Perez (Opticos Design): being there. Um secondly, uh that that area of the streetscape is something that we are going to include in the standards here, and it's um it's called a public frontage standard. So it's everything from the property line in front of a property out to the curb of the sidewalk um into the street. So that whole area uh can be detailed very differently across the city to deliver different kinds of environments. And so what you're asking about falls right into that.

[00:46:23] Tony Perez (Opticos Design): Yeah, absolutely Councilmember Hicks uh great question and we've received a lot of um input at the EPC and and previous to that and other workshops about the about that part of of um of streetscapes.

[00:46:40] Tony Perez (Opticos Design): and so um first you know that that diagram that you see associated with the R3D, you know that's one way that that R3D could could be delivered and uh we chose the most intense version of that to to be shown and so uh it's

[00:46:59] Tony Perez (Opticos Design): it's a long way to say that around the corner from that there could very well be a a portion with a big lawn next to the curb uh a tree lawn or or a planter with a tree in it and then a sidewalk and then the front yard of a building. Or all of the R3D could function that way as a as a more green um sidewalk and and parkway or whatever whatever however you you use or you call it. Um so unfortunately we just use the more most urban version of that and and that's what you're seeing.

[00:47:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. And then my last question, I should start out by saying, I'm actually a big fan of Opticos, and I'm glad staff hired them, and I knew knew about them before before that was the case. Um and when I I know you have a new book out, and when I thumbed through it, I see that you've done a little work with community land trusts. And I'm I'm wondering uh whether you might have any comments on using those um in in places like this as a third option, because we've had questions about, you know, is there enough ownership? I know people have particularly low income people in the city have told me they don't want to be stuck renting forever. Um and I'm wondering, particularly in places where there's no inclusionary housing, where it's standalone affordable housing, whether you've used that, what your experience is.

[00:49:03] Stefan Pellegrini (Opticos Design): I can respond to that. Um, thank you for that question, Councilmember Hicks. Um, you know, um, there are sort of a handful of community land trusts that are fairly large that are functioning in the San Francisco Bay Area, um, and I think there is sort of an overlap with missing middle and sort of upper missing middle scaled housing and CLTs. Um, we personally don't have a lot of experience with implementing those um or um being in situations where those have been driven by a municipality as opposed to sort of emerging from a non-profit um or a, you know, a third party. Um, but um I would be happy to make some inquiries and and get back to you um to provide some additional information on that topic.

[00:50:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions.

[00:51:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Councilmember Showalter?

[00:51:07] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Hi. Um yeah, I have several questions. I I really want to make sure that I understand um the purpose of the R3 development, um, you know, and and so some of my questions are related to that. And I know you talked about it some in the um, in the staff report, but I I'm hoping you can um, uh, go into it a little little further. Um, one is, what kind of R3 development have we recently seen in um, in the non-precise plan areas that

[00:51:44] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Sure. Um, just to respond to your first question, um, you know, the purpose uh really the goal uh stemming from the council direction was was to update the R3 standards uh with an eye towards incentivizing stacked flats. That that was kind of the primary uh driver of this whole project. Um, and then to your second point about uh recent development in R3, there really has not been uh any uh recent uh stacked flat development in the R3 zoning district uh whatsoever. Most of the development we've seen the last 15, 20 years in the R3 have been either row house, most recently, or small lot single-family. Most of the newer stacked flat apartments that you see in the city uh are in actually precise plan areas: the El Camino precise plan, uh say, as well as the San Antonio uh precise plan.

[00:52:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And also, in in some of those cases where we've seen row house developments, the row houses have been a a smaller number of units than the apartments they replaced, right? So,

[00:52:50] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Yes, in in several cases that is correct.

[00:52:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So the, you know, the displacement is is really, you know, a huge issue. Okay, or replacement um issue. Okay, well well you did talk a little bit about how the the policy development process is for the replacement and the um, and and this R3 overlap. But it was it was kind of general. So so is there I mean, are you expecting to have a study session where we go over both at the same time? Because I I really find that these two issues are um, uh, don't don't separate well. Um, we we really I mean, displacement has been a severe problem in our community for, you know, for many years. It led to the development of rent control, and and um, and now that we're, you know, we're moving forward um, and and we look at our redevelopment, we see that that um, we're kind of developing, when we redevelop some of these places that need to be redeveloped, that there they're fewer units. So we don't want that to go on anymore. Um so I I uh, I I, but but but we can't do the the the uh the R3 without looking at the the replacement. So how are they going to intersect? I mean, are we going to have joint study sessions? Or will they be very close in time? And also, what about the inclusion of the um, SB uh 330 protections? Are we assuming that they will be included in our replacement suggestions?

[00:54:35] Aarti Shrivastava: Councilmember Showalter, I could I could take that um question. Um I think you bring up some really um key issues that we're thinking about. Um the next study session that Council will be seeing is the one on replacement requirements. Um and that will be focused entirely on on the replacement and displacement issue. Um and based on that, we might find that it would be possible to enact an ordinance with requirements similar to, for example, the BMR. Um if the Council wants to provide incentives or quote unquote a a bonus for projects that increase replacement, that's an example of where it could intersect with the R3. Uh as we've done in precise plans. So there'll be parts of it that will intersect with R3 and there'll be parts of it that won't, but will apply to all projects. And so the first study session will outline the various options, and then depending on which options the Council wants us to look at, we will come back with a study session on the R3 that not only goes into more details with the standards, but also on how on the parts that intersect with the R3, for example the bonus or waivers or however else we want to tailor it. Then the displacement response will come back with its own ordinance amendments that don't connect with R3, if there are any, and then the R3 will have its piece. So we have examples of this for example in in the precise plans. We have a bonus for certain projects that do certain things, and we you could theoretically build that into the R3. Examples of where we've addressed issues that are outside of the specific um zone is in our BMR requirements or our tenant relocation requirements. And so there might be areas that might get amended based on that that are not connected to R3. So it's, once we get your comments, it's up to us to sort out which ones belong where, and then bring those within those specific areas. Um

[00:56:47] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So today... So today we're talking about the actual sort of built part, you know, local physical part, and we'll be talking more about the rules um that we want to protect our community with at another time.

[00:57:04] Aarti Shrivastava: That's right.

[00:57:05] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. All right. Well I just I just think that we all feel like, and and and you know, that those those rules and that protection are um are really, really important, and um, we can't completely uh separate them. Um, I also wondered about uh aggregating parcels. You know, you can you have a lot more flexibility in doing to do dense projects well on um larger parcels. So I wondered what we're including here to um to incentivize people to aggregate parcels. Um is that is that part of this program, and can we make it part of the program?

[00:57:51] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, um, the short answer is is yes, because aggregating parcels gives you more development options, but maybe maybe Tony can help to see um, provide a a little bit more detail on this.

[00:58:07] Tony Perez (Opticos Design): Yeah, thank you, Councilmember Showalter for the question. Yeah, typically we address um parcel assembly as an option in in zoning districts so that that people can assemble properties and put a bigger building on it, um and and so the zoning districts reflect that. But we we really work hard to avoid that being a requirement, that you can't do anything unless you assemble parcels. Yeah.

[00:58:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah. Well I think that that one of the things we want to um support as much as possible is flexibility, um so that we can have the variety architectural varieties we want and um and we can support, you know, denser development. Okay, um, and then my other question is, um, how does um how does the state density bonus impact each sub sub-zone?

[00:59:07] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I I can provide a a little bit of information. The the the team is thinking about this. And um part of our our next analysis is to sort of look at what base zoning should look like, so that um the state density bonus would be developed on that base versus what a bonus would look like if the Council is interested in giving a bonus for projects that do more things, for example replacement or or other issues. Um and so I think I think um we have examples in precise plans where that has been done, where we have a clear flow chart that says, 'You get your density bonus um that's given by the state on the base, and then if you do these other things, the city will give you a bonus.' So you can choose one of these two paths. So that's one way we can treat it. Um obviously we have to do some more research, but a lot of it will depend on the Council's determination of what they want to include for replacement requirements. Uh to what extent uh we want to make it um economically uh an incentive or not, it could just be a requirement. So I think we still need some things to work out, but we're very cognizant that we need a base uh on which state density bonus needs to be built, and that ideally we would create a bonus only for city incentives that's separate and and developers would have to choose one or the other.

[01:00:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So the forms that we're seeing on um in the staff report are the bonus? What the, you know, there's a bonus listed uh in that, so what bonus is that?

[01:00:54] Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, thank you for asking that question. Originally, we had started looking at what would a bonus look like if there was a 35% bonus, right? Um, just we took the state for example, right, to say, 'Hey, you know, this would is what it would look like.' But the state bonus has now increased to 50%. Um, you know, we don't know where state law is going to go. Um and so it's clear that um we have to rethink um what our base needs to be and what our bonus needs to be. Um there's a lot of assumptions in the bonus. Um the bonus goes up to, I think, you you looked at the criteria we used to develop, um and so uh what we can definitely tell you is that the bonus heights can't go up above what we have in the in the study because they become economically infeasible for construction and other other issues. So what we're showing you with the bonus is the outer boundary of what can be built. You could certainly build lower. Um, you know, um and some of those will be economically feasible, some of those won't. So we we still have to do a fair amount of iteration is what I what I meant to say, and we we will do that once we hear from you about the about the replacement requirements um and what what we bring back to you is going to be uh dependent upon what we hear at that future study session.

[01:02:25] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Thank you.

[01:02:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[01:02:32] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Um so, I if I recall, um and I think it was mentioned, the purpose of engaging in this um process, I believe, was to try to um address a the missing middle by encouraging the development of stacked flats, which in my mind are ownership units, right? The condominium type ownership units. But um, in listening to the public comment, we had one property owner who wants to expand um his apartment development. So, that sort of um for in my mind um I I feel like with our precise plans, with North Bayshore and East Whisman, we're going to be seeing primarily apart- rent rentals. Um and so what is it, what's special about this where we're going to be able to incentivize ownership stacked flats? Is my first question.

[01:03:34] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, Councilmember, um I I think we've scratched our heads quite a a bit about this, and um I think we'll have to take that comment back and research it because I don't know if um if we can require um a buildings to be ownership have ownership units. Uh we have some limitations in what the city can require. I think we were trying to look at it a different way, which is to say, 'What does it take to build an economically feasible stacked flat condo project? And do our standards um, um, you know, help us achieve that?' So that's essentially how we've been looking at it. But you do bring up a good good question that we might have to research and see to what extent we can move people towards condos. Um I should add that certain building types will lend themselves to ownership. The ones you see in the R3A, R3B are likely going to be ownership uh type units because they're more of the townhouse, rowhouse style.

[01:04:42] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, yes. Yeah, so um, you know, I I guess I might be going into comments, but that that was my understanding and that was what I was interested in. But if it's, you know, to get more apartments, to frankly, I that's all we've been seeing, right? Pretty much the last several years. So I'm not interested in incentivizing more apartments to be frank, and especially if they're luxury apartments. So um yes, I'd like to um hopefully we can get into that more more in detail in the next round. Um, and so then, um, in light of that, um I guess is, you know, we've had the the developments proposals come forward, um I notice that um, like the townhome, row homes tend to be on smaller parcels. Um, and um, I guess that's what I'm getting to is looking at the map on, I think it's page eight of um, the staff report, um, my my concern is in a, you know, I think my my thought originally with this was being to have some, you know, minor tweaks and changes that could incentivize stat flats, but when we look at areas like um, I think this is kind of the Rengstorff manner, along Rengstorff, so I think it's into the Rengstorff manner, maybe Colony areas, where it's all dark purple, um, that's like quite a large swath of geography. And um, I guess my concern with that is um, where how do we incorporate, and I know we've talked about this um in the briefing, but how do we incorporate the amenities? Uh Councilmember Hicks mentioned sidewalks, but what about the parks? We're having all this huge debate about parks right now. Um, you know, traffic concerns. Um, and so then that let leads me to I think what EPC mentioned is like in these larger areas, shouldn't we be maybe looking at precise planning, rather than allowing for all of this, you know, to just be color-zoned a new color? Um, because at the end of the day, you know, it can't just be about how many units. We really, this is our debate we having are having, but we need to have the amenities to support that. So how do we incorporate this if we're going to move towards this kind of upzoning rather than a general plan update and precise planning?

[01:07:18] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I I'll try to tackle this having um been involved in some previous precise plan discussions. Um I think the benefit of having a precise plan um is when an area is has some very special character. North Bayshore is a perfect example of that. You know, you've got ecological issues, you've got other issues. Um and you're trying to target um certain certain things that you can't target with regular zoning. Um the other thing that we've done with precise plans is try to move more more towards a form-based code. We're not quite there with all of them, but we have started moving more more towards that, and and we've developed streetscape standards in them. Um um this particular update actually incorporates a lot of these elements. Um and so I don't feel like a precise plan in each of these areas is going to add or enhance anything more. In terms of I think your issue about location of parks and things, that's something we're going to have to go back and research, because just given the parcelization and the ownership issues, I think um the only incentive that you have to create parks is if you are able to significantly upzone, and you have one or two property owners that own the majority of these areas, which is not not the case here. So I think the city is going to have to work on some options in terms of how do we provide those parks and open space. So even converting this area into a precise plan wouldn't give us any additional tools that we don't already have. Um, but certainly something for us to look at, because um I I we do agree, and I think this team is focused on looking at how do we incorporate those streetscape um issues. Um how do we look at the adjacencies, and we're very much focused on that. When you are adjacent to single-family, you can create form-based zoning um that specifically looks at the forms adjacent to those. So I think I think even the zoning update can achieve the same goals, um but the only issue I think we have to tackle is the parks. Um that one isn't an easy one, whether it's a precise plan or not. Um but we will take that back and research it.

[01:09:42] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, a process question then, if we were to move forward with um these color zones, um are these basically uh the the standards that developers can rezone to? Um and would they still have to go through the process of rezoning? Or are we talking about just um automatically upzoning these areas to these colors?

[01:10:05] Aarti Shrivastava: The intent is to actually automatically upzone. So we have to be very careful about, like we said, what the base is, um and what people get as a minimum. Um because that's something that state law would allow. And then what those additional um amenities are that that you would want in order to get the bonus. And those also have to be very objectively stated, um so that it's very clear. Um so the idea is not for them to go and apply for a rezoning.

[01:10:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. I guess that's where my my concern is is um, like what is the return to the community then? You know, we see the benefit for upzoning to the developers, but the community, you know, I've always said this, what does the community get in return? Um and I don't see that yet. The other concern I have is, you know, when I look at like the RHNA numbers, and we have exceeded our overall numbers, but we're always short on the affordable housing numbers. And you know, based on our inclusionary zoning at 15%, we're never going to reach that what we're supposed to be, if you want to follow RHNA. So, you know, my conclusion is that has to come from basically the city working in partnership with affordable housing developers to build all-affordable projects. But if we upzone this, aren't we going to be um basically increasing the appreciating the value of land, making it more difficult for affordable housing developers to purchase land to build all-affordable units, and how do we address that?

[01:11:37] Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, I think the short answer is is yes. Uh but one one issue that we've been trying to solve for for a fair amount of time is that just given the economics of land, um and um row homes seem to be almost the only economically feasible option on R3 parcels today. That has been stalled a little bit because of SB 330's replacement requirements. But once those are sunset, um we're going to go back to row homes. So if if the Council is interested in seeing those stacked flat types, we at least need to look at that, and we can figure out what density the Council is interested in in in doing. But um you're right. Um other than that, I think we have to look at a series of incentives in order to build a base and a bonus so that the city gets some amenities along with whatever the developer gets. Uh but we are trying to solve for that stacked flat issue because the current standards just don't allow those to be built.

[01:12:42] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I guess I still don't see where that's being incentivized, because we may just end up getting more apartments is my sense. Um, and then my final question, I'm sorry to go long, but um, again a proce- more a process question, but um I guess I'm a little cons- concerned, well not a little, not a little, I am concerned because I look at this and you know when we did the general plan update, it was very community um we received a lot of community involvement and input, and you know I really looked at it as the community saying these were the areas where we can have change and redevelopment and upzoning. But these areas that we're looking at now are essentially outside of those change areas, and so I guess I just have a real concern about community buy-in. I I know you did the focus groups and got 100 people, but when we did the general plan update, we had two, 300 people at these each of the meetings. So I yeah I guess I'm really concerned about process and how we're going to be um rolling this out to the community to get real, you know, to make sure we've done extensive community uh uh um input process so that we get buy-in, again, from the community. So thoughts on that?

[01:13:59] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I I think this team is continually looking at ways to do better outreach and we'll continue that. Um and you're right, this is going to result in some general plan amendments in some areas, and we've been we've been pretty transparent and will be pretty transparent about those as we communicate with the community. But I think I think taking another look at our community outreach plan and making sure that we are building in that input. Um I think this time around, we have the benefit of being able to also look at displacement response and replacement requirements that we didn't with our last general plan because that was more focused on land use. Um we're hoping really to bring those two elements together and reach a a larger part of the community than we we have. Um so there is more more work to be done.

[01:14:49] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[01:14:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Uh Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[01:14:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'm ready to go into comments if there are no other questions, but I just saw Councilmember Lieber raise her hand, so I'm happy to defer to her if if uh she's got questions.

[01:15:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. So I'll go to Councilmember Lieber and then we can go, once we're done with questions, we can go into questions one and two. And then I ask that each council member just let it just provide your answers for one and two um at one time. Okay, great. Councilmember Lieber.

[01:15:24] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you, Mayor. Um, I have already talked with staff a little bit about this, but I I just wanted to confirm our understanding so that the public um can hear it. Um, so looking at the displacement and potentially codifying uh SB 330 uh locally to preserve multiple layers of affordability, we would have a chance to uh take action on that before um looking at the overall issues of of R3. Am I, is that correct?

[01:16:08] Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, I think the next time we come back to the Council, it will be specifically on those displacement response along with all the options, including like you said the SB 330 style, there's a spectrum of ideas. Um the idea that the team has is to make sure that we're able to um put displacement response ordinance amendments in place um that don't belong in the R3 prior to adopting the R3, and when the R3 is adopted it would be adopted along with the other piece that might have any connection to displacement response. So we're we're structuring these in such a way that um that that the folks um who are in apartments now will continue to be protected in the manner that the Council wishes them to be.

[01:17:05] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[01:17:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right, so uh we will turn now to the the two questions um that staff have for us. Um Vice Mayor uh Ramirez, you want to kick things off with question one and two, please? Thank you.

[01:17:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Uh so I'm going to try and make a a persuasive case to proceed with the staff recommendation or something substantially close to it. Um, and I'm going to reference some materials that staff kindly gave to me over a year ago, um when we were I think more uh more actively trying to address the immediate challenge of development pressure within R3-zoned parcels. Um, staff gave me a spreadsheet with a long list of projects uh where there was a uh a displacement impact. Um, and a lot of these addresses might be familiar, and a lot of them may not be. But we have, for instance, 1958 Rock Street, 2005 Rock Street, 2310 Rock Street, all zoned R3, where rent-controlled, naturally affordable apartments were demolished and replaced with sometimes fewer row homes. Uh, 2025, 20- sorry, 2065 San Luis, 208 and 210 Sierra Vista, 535, 555 Walker, 1950 Montecito. Uh, again, all zoned R3, uh, rent-controlled, generally naturally affordable apartments replaced with row homes. 1555 West Middlefield, very similarly. And in many cases, no on-site affordable housing uh, and no park space provided. And where there was a reduction in units, no park fees provided, because the parkland dedication ordinance only applies when there's a net increase in in units. So my hypothesis is that the status quo is is actively detrimental to the community. And I could not support anything that wasn't a dramatic change from what we have now, because the development standards are providing an outcome that we know people do not like. Uh, and many of the questions and the input that we've received speak to that. People are concerned about displacement. The current development standards have been facilitating displacement. Residents have expressed a desire for park space and for affordable housing. The current development standards are not providing those things. Uh, we've had strong support for placement requirements and for robust anti-displacement strategies. Those will only be financially feasible if we have development standards that can enable that that the kind of development that would, you know, allow a developer to substantially replace, you know, naturally affordable units, in whichever way we we we want to we want to implement that. Uh, the current development standards are not going to do that. And I think that if we don't have, in my mind, the intention isn't housing production per se. I'm not seeking a dramatic upzoning simply because we want to unlock new housing units. It's because we want to create the community that, you know, will benefit our residents for generations to come. And the current development standards are not doing that. Uh, so I hope that something similar to the sub-zones that staff are recommending uh will be supported by the Council, um, because I think it will help address the the many goals that we're trying to we're trying to respond to here. The densities and the heights I think will be necessary to make the anti-displacement work financially feasible. Um, so for question one, I support generally speaking the sub-zones. I do think there are areas where we could have uh a higher starting point. So I think somebody had referenced the Del Medio area, where I live, and next to the San Antonio shopping center. I think that's an appropriate area to to consider a uh R3D, um, something along those lines. Um, the area on the other side of 85 was referenced. I think that's another appropriate location. Um, and I also, and this is more question two, I do think exploration of some kind of transit overlay would be beneficial. I think areas that are supported by high-quality transit are going to be able to support higher densities and and maybe things like reduced parking requirements. So I do want to support that as well. Um, and then for question two, I agree with staff on the special design overlay. I don't think there's any need for that. I disagree with staff on the height overlay. I was looking at the maps, and in some areas, you know, there's R3 zoning without a height overlay adjacent to a single-family area. I couldn't justify retaining it for some areas and not having it for others. And the other area I wanted to point out was the neighborhood near um Terra Bella, uh uh on the R3 side, there's a height overlay restricting height, but the the Limited Industrial zoning district already allows for substantial increases in height. So I don don't remember if the Google building at 1001 North Shoreline is four stories or five, but it was very difficult for me to justify saying on the industrial side we can have four or five-story buildings, but on the R3 side, we would have to limit ourselves to one story. It's it's kind of a, I think not not the correct prioritization in my mind. So I don't see a lot of value, especially without knowing the history, in retaining the height overlay. Uh, so those are the general comments I have. I guess just um some additional remarks. I appreciated Councilmember Showalter's suggestion to facilitate parcel aggregation where it makes sense, and allowing higher intensity development when that's done. I would like to explore that. Um, I also support the Planning Commission's suggestion that in certain areas R3A and R3B could allow for greater density. That might be something we could address with a transit overlay. Um, and I also think that over time we should use this as an opportunity to retire some of the older precise plans where uh the planned community zoning where we might have archaic uh development standards um that otherwise reference R3. So I know that's not within the scope of work right now, but I do think that's an important consideration later on. Um, just as a final concluding remark, one of the other reasons why I think we have to be really careful about how we approach this is if we constrain development too much, we could start incentivizing bad behavior. One of the things, um I was talking with a friend in real estate a little while ago about this, uh the Ellis Act uh applies I think for 10 years. Those are the regulations that we have here for rent-controlled units. If a property is taken off the market for more than 10 years, then it ceases to be impacted or regulated by the Ellis Act. If we say that you can't redevelop your land um because of whatever development standards that we're providing here, you know, if we restrict things like row homes and we, you know, make it basically impossible for property owners to derive the value of their property, they might start doing extreme things like withdrawing their properties from the market in order to evade things like rent control, uh and and create displacement in that that way. Um, property owners are allowed to withdraw from the rental housing market if they want to, state law prohibits us from regulating that. So I think allowing the density and the height is important. I think it makes the anti-displacement work feasible. Um, I think we can't allow the status quo to continue any longer. It's not working. Um, and I think staff has done a great job providing some preliminary recommendations, uh, and I look forward to working with you to create designs and guidelines that enable the kind of development that our community wants to see. Thank you.

[01:21:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Hicks.

[01:31:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I would like to make sure that, uh, when Opticos goes forward and makes, um, whether the guide book or whatever, that some of the, uh, prototypes that they show, that they don't show, you know, craftsman homes and Spanish-style homes because honestly that's not typical in this area. But they show mid- mid-century modern, uh, prototypes, that they show, um, you know, some people tell me they feel like they're living in a vacation home near Tahoe in the woods, that we have, you know, streetscaping with trees, not just lawns out front. That we do that we refer to the character of the area.

[01:32:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, um, I, so to sum up, I like things I'm seeing, but I want I want really a lot of strict guidelines. I don't just want to upzone and go forward because I think, like I said, we'll be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. Thank you.

[01:32:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Showalter.

[01:32:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Yeah, I I agree with many of the things that have been said, um, particularly by Vice Mayor Lucas, uh, Ramirez. Uh, thanks for all those comments and sort of setting up the, um, the importance of really equity in, in why we're doing this.

[01:32:56] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, we want to make sure that we, um, we create housing policies and land use policies that, you know, that are really supportive of our community and maintaining the diversity of our community. Um, so for question number one, I, um, I support the the, uh, subgroups that the, um, uh, staff has suggested.

[01:33:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I would like to see, I think them denser than, um, than they are currently. And I think that, um, we we should I'm not necessarily as as happy with the distribution as I am with the with the concept of the subgroups. So the suggestions that people have made, I I think are good ones so far, about like Del Medio, I think Edna Marie, Edna Marie is another way, uh, place to be looked at for maybe upzoning a little bit.

[01:33:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, I think that we so that's that's question one, right? And then question two is about the overlays. And, um, I really think that the overlays that staff has shown us on that map are, um, are they're legacies, and I don't think they're appropriate any longer.

[01:34:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So I would like to see us get rid of those and, um, and uh, institute a a transit-oriented overlay like we have for commercial property. I think that's been really positive over the years and, um, and, uh, the the impacts of being near transit are so important for, um, livability and, and, uh, reducing parking and you know living possibly living without a car, all of those things. So I would like to see us establish a residential transit-oriented development, um, overlay.

[01:34:38] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Uh, I think that we need to include guidance for streetscapes. Um, people have mentioned this before. Another reason is, um, is climate change protection. Uh, I mean, all of that greenery, it, uh, it puts out, um, oxygen and, and, um, reduces our GHG emissions. And it provides shade which reduces temperatures.

[01:35:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: It's good for, um, for our well-being. It's really good for, um, for uh floodwater protection if we ever have any excess rainfall again. So, um, I think having, uh, you know having, um, streetscape guidance is really important. Everyone values the trees and, um, and the greenery. So that that needs to be included.

[01:35:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, another thing I think is is really a significant is how we deal with transitions. Um, normally I think in the past, the city has gone through a couple of variations of that and I I would like staff to come back with suggestions of what what they assume the transition is. I think that a good transition would be one to two story variation over the adjacent building either what what it's built as or what it's zoned for, whichever is greater.

[01:36:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, so but I would like to hear I I think that we should um flesh that out and discuss that more carefully. Another thing I would like to see explored, um, is uh requiring all apartments that are built in R3 to be mapped as condos. Um, we have built very, very few condos in the last 20 years in Mountain View.

[01:36:27] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And, um, uh, I know when I talk to developers about that, they always bring up the, uh, the litigation, um, risk that they are, that's involved with condos. So if we if we required them to be mapped and then they could wait the 10 years before they were sold as condos, I mean it wouldn't happen immediately, but it would allow the conversion of condos that hasn't gone on for a very long time here. So that's another thing I would like us to be thinking of.

[01:36:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So, um, thank you staff for all the work you've done. This is a really big, big project, it requires lots of thinking and, um, I look forward to taking part of it in the future.

[01:37:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Matichak.

[01:37:14] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So, um, I really have concerns about where this project is heading. And it seems like it's really taken a a different direction from, um, the original intent. And, um, I thought the original intent, as, um, Councilmember Abe-Koga and Mr. Alkire mentioned, was to look at ways to incentivize stacked flats that are ownership units for the missing middle.

[01:37:47] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And, um, when I ask the question on figure one, which of those housing types are ownership, um, it was only one in each category, the rest were likely rental units. And so I'm not really sure we're, um, accomplishing the objective that I had for this project, and I think we as a council had for this project.

[01:38:14] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, I feel uncomfortable moving forward with, uh, the staff recommendations or answering the staff questions because I think we as a council still need to get on the same page in terms of what we're trying to do here. Um, because I don't I don't think we are on the same page. Um, and so I would like to do that first.

[01:38:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, what it seems like is being looked at is just um an increase in density um across all R3. And, you know, when I look at how much time went into the general plan and the precise plans and the change areas, I feel like, um, the council deciding that we're going to uh change the R3 zoning without the amount of um input and process that we had for the general plan, the change areas, and the precise plans, is not sitting well with me because that's our typical process.

[01:39:17] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And our community is used to that process, and I would like to continue to follow that process. So I um am more in favor of us saying, you know, maybe we need to update the general plan if folks aren't up for that.

[01:39:37] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: You know, if we want to potentially identify, um, a couple change areas, not all R3, and then check in with our community and get their input on those before we do something that's across the city, um, I would feel more comfortable with that. Um, I'm very concerned about increasing uh density across the board without the infrastructure in place.

[01:40:06] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, you know, we've heard a lot about parks in the past few months. And, you know, I feel like some of us have been talking about parks for years and how important they are and how we need them for our community. And we are not, um, able to have as much park space as we want to have, um, on a per per person basis. And I feel like this is heading in the wrong direction with adding more people without the park space that we want, um, on a per person basis.

[01:40:45] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, you know, I also worry that some of these areas that were identified are not near transit. And so then we don't have the transit infrastructure in place to support the additional growth. So I feel like it's kind of premature to be saying, yes, this is the direction we want to go.

[01:41:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Again, I feel like we all need to get on the same page and we need our community to buy into, um, a process for potentially changing even more areas than we had originally laid out in the general plan. So I I don't feel comfortable at this point um saying, you know, yes or no on the questions.

[01:41:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I also want to point out that SB 330 did stop the displacement. And I know, you know, we're thankful for that. Um, so I I don't have the concern that was expressed that we're gonna continue to see displacement because SB 330 made it incredibly challenging for anyone to redevelop their property, which you know, hey, that's a good thing. Thanks.

[01:41:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, so Councilmember Abe-Koga then Councilmember Lieber, and then I'd like to chime in if that's okay, Vice Mayor, before you get second round. Okay, great. Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[01:42:00] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and, um, thank you to staff and our consultant for the work that's been done. Um, when we talked about doing this, um, I guess you know I I wasn't really sure uh what would come out of it. So, um, it it it's helpful to see, um, see the see the the results, er the first iteration of them.

[01:42:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: But I too, as, you know, as my line of questioning, uh, probably already revealed, um, you know my interest was really to, the focus was how to incentivize ownership stack flats. And, um, I agree with Councilmember Matichak, I'm not really sure where the council, my colleagues are on that question. Um, so I think we do need to maybe step back and figure out what we're really intending with this, our, um, the changes in R3 zoning.

[01:42:54] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I you know I know that some of the um standards are old and outdated, um, I think with 555 Middlefield, you know, project we saw that gap in the 36 to 80 unit, um, count right, and so I was thinking that might be cleaned up with this. Um, I've always been interested in form-based code and, um, so was excited at this opportunity looking at how that could work.

[01:43:19] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, but this is a little bit more than I expected and, um, as similarly with as Councilmember Matichak mentioned and you know having been through the general plan update, um, process, um, I I feel like this is quite a change that we really need to go back out to the community and get that, um, input and, um, buy in before we make these re, you know, these substantial changes.

[01:43:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I could go and, you know, answer the questions just to um answer them. Um, because I don't know, yeah, where folks are. But I would say that, and you know, I think I can even live with a hybrid and as I mentioned, maybe it could be by size of the areas, the geographic areas, but you know, in particular, I'll point out areas that I'm really concerned about.

[01:44:20] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, the Rex Manor neighborhood, there's single family, that's a single family home neighborhood in existence in there. I just am concerned that it's all dark purple. And, you know, and when I was walking precincts in that neighborhood, folks were already concerned with the, um, increase in development, that's where all the you know row homes were frankly getting built and, um, they're much higher than the standard one, two story, um, homes.

[01:44:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And so I guess I really am concerned about transitions and it's just a large, you know, amount of geography that, um, if we're going to add that much more density we really need to look at amenities and so forth. And so for me, um, you know, maybe because I'm used to it, I think the general plan updating and the precise planning process seems to be a better way to look at accommodating amenities, re, whether it's retail or the, you know, standards of of sidewalk, um, widths and so forth, because I've seen too many one-off gatekeeper projects come in when we don't have those standards and we end up with, you know, challenges like we did with 555 Middlefield.

[01:45:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, you know, that that would be my, I think I think we need to have that discussion as to whether we need to revisit the general plan update. It's, you know, it's supposed to go to 2030 and we're nine nine years out now, so I was hoping it would last through my time. But if we need to think about you know starting it in the next few years, um, I I think we need to have that conversation and, um, perhaps it doesn't have to be a full update because I think what's in there is pretty, still quite relevant.

[01:46:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: But when when we're looking at change areas in particular, I think that's where we really need to have the community conversation. And that's my concern with this is we're looking at some major change areas without going to the public about it.

[01:46:24] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I will say that, you know, if we're gonna go this way, um, again I'd say look at the size of the areas, um, maybe they could be automatic upzoned if they're smaller, for smaller areas. But when looking at complete neighborhoods then I think we should look at precise planning.

[01:46:43] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I think we should be, um, when I mentioned this, the two areas, Rex Manor, colony, even the California Street, um, the dark blue, um, I think there's room for upzoning there, but again my concern is where's the park gonna go in that area? Um, in terms of the subgroups, um, I I'm supportive up to R3C, um the D I had questions about in terms of how it interfaces with R4, it seemed to me that it might actually be more than what R4 allows, so I would like to see the full spectrum there before I decide if I like R3D or not.

[01:47:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, and then, um, I've already talked about the issues about affordable housing and so forth as well and how we're gonna incorporate um those needs. Um, I will say with SB 330, um, and someone mentioned one to one replacement, I do think we should, well we will have to, the the study session on displacement, um, or how to avoid displacement against, um, strategies, um, but with SB 330 and you know I don't really know the intent of SB 330 to be frank, because, um, if it was to avoid displacement to just stop development, I think it's been successful in that way, but if it's really to get folks, get developers to do the one-to-one replacement and if I I don't think it's, um, from I remember our study session on displacement, I don't think that's feasible is what staff said, and so they were going to come back to us I think with what that proportionality could be to be feasible.

[01:48:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, you know, SB 330 is in for five years and I think it's in a in a way it served a purpose to give us a pause, but the one to one replacement I believe if I recall our study session is going to be a big challenge. So that's something, and that's why I think at the end of the day if we want more affordable units, the city has to be involved with, um, you know, nonprofit partners, um, to do that, and so we need to make it easier for us to be able to do that. Thanks. And then in number two, um, I'm fine with trying out the strategy. Thanks.

[01:48:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Lieber.

[01:49:02] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well I I'll take, um, number two first, and, um, I I am, uh, I do agree with the proposed approach to the overlays. I am very interested in seeing, um, a transit-oriented, um, uh, overlay, um, for residential.

[01:49:26] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, and in terms of the the first, um, question, um, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with us, um, getting into the weeds of where exactly should the the particular zones, um, be tonight because it feels like it's it's stepping out of our policy, uh, role and into a a city planning role that, um, most of us on council aren't, um, professionally involved in. I know that we do have one city planner on on council.

[01:50:01] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, and uh I've obviously mentioned it before about the the displacement. And I I have the concern that, um, even when it's one-to-one, we have a large number of essential workers, um, right now in Mountain View who could not now qualify for a new version of the housing that they're already living in and and paying on. In the sense that they're paying a larger percentage of of their income to rent than would be allowed to obtain a new unit.

[01:50:36] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, and and so I'm really eager to use the greatest care in in just saying, well people are widgets that we will pull out of one slot and put into another slot, um, you know for all those economic, um, complications. And I do think that the economic complications of COVID will last for a number of years for lower income families that have gone to credit cards and loans and etc.

[01:51:09] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, and also just the the life circumstances, the life impact of of those kinds of things. Um, and then I'm also very interested in the walkability and connections for walking and and bicycling and I'm sorry that I didn't write down the woman's name who was the community member who talked about, um, getting through various blocks.

[01:51:36] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, and that's that's a real issue that we already have in Mountain View is that we have sections of town where a neighborhood abuts straight up to a very large development and you cannot pass through. Um, and so you have to go, you know, really a considerable distance and into less safe bicycling or walking conditions to pass through those neighborhoods.

[01:52:01] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so I'm, um, very interested in seeing what the the, um, pathways would be. I think that the Park Place was a great example, um, because you can pass through the the overall development in a in a very safe way. And you consistently see families walking and biking, um, through there. So those are just, um, uh, some of the, uh, the things that I'm looking at, but I I do want to progress with this.

[01:52:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Um, so I see that Vice Mayor has his hand up, but I'm gonna take a take a stab before we go back to you for for second round, if that's possible. So, um, I know we have the the two questions before us that staff would like to answer. Um, I want to thank staff for bringing this forward as a study session again.

[01:52:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I know you're getting robust discussion from us. Um, but I thought kind of I'd like to to share a little bit about my my thought process as I was approaching the the two questions. Um, so, you know, I think when it comes to looking at development in our city, we've created a road map where we have the general plan. We identify change areas.

[01:53:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: We've gone through three or four precise plans. And now, you know, we're looking at maybe what else needs to be changed or what fell through the cracks. And so I think that's where the conversation about looking at our R3, um, came up initially. And trying to, I think some some colleagues have mentioned, looking at different housing product types and having a variety.

[01:53:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Because I think it's not only the architectural design that I at least personally would like to see a variety of, but it's also the the the product type. Um, and so I agree that's what I thought we were going to be discussing when we um look when we're looking at R3.

[01:54:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, and as I as I approach these these two questions, um, for question one related to the subzones, I was struck by by the map in terms of of equity of the distributions of the range of subzones from A, B, C, and D. It seems like all of the density will be in 94043, which is our most economically disadvantaged part, community in zipcode in in our city. And I think that's where the displacement conversation, um, re really hits home for for me.

[01:54:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, I know that we're still talking about displacement strategies and we're discussing them in tandem, um, but even with some some of the strategies we're looking at, like first right of refusal, or first right of return, um, there there is no guarantee that the the new product, whatever that will be, um, you know where where will people live in the the interim.

[01:55:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So while I like the idea of creating a, you know, subzones or zoning out, or having some sort of perhaps uh road map for how we're approaching our our R3 revisions, you know I think I would have preferred looking at rather than, you know, perhaps economic feasibility, I would have liked to have seen our R3 revisions related to proximity to transit, um proximity to you know parks and open space, as as we're talking about upzoning so that people have those built-in amenities.

[01:55:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I do agree that, you know, when we're talking about, um, greater densities and projects that are going to be, you know, eight stories or more, we we typically talk about some sort of community benefit. And I feel like it a little bit of the cart before the horse, you know, I'm I'm happy to to talk about creating changes and and streamlining and providing revisions, but I also need to know how that's going to benefit our community, both our our existing community and the community that we're we're trying to build.

[01:56:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And I think at least for myself, I would have also liked to see the the subzones as like nodes in our area. As, you know, we've been looking at the precise plans, we've been looking at creating complete, walkable, bikeable neighborhoods with with amenities, and I would have liked to have seen that incorporated into the R3, um, subzone.

[01:56:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And I think those standards, um, rise to the top for me more than kind of the the design standards that were that were in the staff report. Um, and so when it comes to question two about the overlay zones, I I think it makes sense to find a a way to resolve the kind of outdated, um, policies.

[01:56:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm really interested to see, you know, where those came from as staff is investigating the the history on that. I know there's been discussion about doing a transit overlay zone. I wonder at least for could the transit zones be part of the subzone map, um, as as part of the the requirement. I appreciate the the conversation about the parcel aggregation, I think that that makes sense to me. So I'm I'm comfortable to pursue that.

[01:57:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: But, um, you know, lastly, I think there's been a lot about the community dialogue. I think if there's anything I personally learned in the pandemic is that the community really wants to be engaged, really wants to be involved. And if we're talking about, um, this type of this type of density, um, you know I'm I'm comfortable having the conversation, but I want people to feel included.

[01:57:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And in a time when we're able to have virtual meetings and and have different ways to do community outreach, I'd love to have more of that. I'd also love to include that in our multilingual outreach. Today we're we're having this conversation without any of our translators present and I really don't know how robust of a conversation we're able to have on this topic if we're looking at all of the density going into 94043.

[01:58:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I just think that that's something that that needs to be, um, perhaps in the next iteration of of this conversation. All right. Uh, Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[01:58:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor, and appreciating the time I'll I'll try and be brief. Uh, but just a a couple of things that I think are are worth, uh, keeping in mind as we continue the discussion. Um, you know, we're talking about a a conventional zoning district that includes a lot of older buildings, many of which are probably nearing the end of their useful lives. And also a number of buildings, soft story apartments and that kind of thing, uh, that are are unsafe.

[01:59:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I know we've talked about that in the past. I think this is an important opportunity to think, to think about as these properties redevelop, because they will at some point, how can we achieve many of the community goals that we've talked about? Including increasing affordable housing and park space, and minimizing displacement. Because they're going to redevelop.

[01:59:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That's that's what older buildings do. Um, particularly given the existing market pressure, uh, that that we've seen. Uh, leading to a lot of the development proposals that that I was highlighting earlier. Um, and even though I agree that SB 330 has provided us a reprieve, uh, as has been mentioned, it's going to expire.

[01:59:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And relatively soon. And there's no guarantee that the legislature will will continue the one-for-one replacement requirement. Particularly as Councilmember Matichak highlighted, it makes redevelopment darn near impossible. So I can imagine many developers advocating to the legislature for changing that to make development feasible.

[02:00:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so I I feel it's incumbent on us, which you know, I know we're talking about this at another time, but we have to figure out the anti-displacement component, because I don't think we could count on the state to solve that that problem for us. Um, and, uh, the last component of this is keeping in mind that SB 330 passed two years ago.

[02:00:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: We still have these kinds of projects in the pipeline. We're going to have a I think very difficult discussion, I don't know if it's later this year or early next year, about 570 South Rengstorff. A project that will result in the demolition of 70 naturally affordable rent controlled apartments with many lower-income Spanish-speaking families, and replacing them with 85 row homes with no onsite affordable housing or park space.

[02:01:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And the community will be asking us, why didn't SB 330 protect us? And I don't mean to end with such an ominous note, but this problem hasn't gone away. And I think that's why, you know, we have to get this right. And unfortunately we have to get it right the first time.

[02:01:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, but I appreciate a lot of agree totally you know, community input is is essential. Um, I wish we had the luxury of time to think about something like a general plan update, which I would support. I know we talked about it in 2019 and four of us did recommend it as part of the the work plan at that time.

[02:01:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, but I think because we've seen this impact our community so substantially within the past two years, um, we have an opportunity to make our conventional zoning districts work for us. And that's what I'm hoping we can proceed with, uh, over the next year or year and a half. Thanks.

[02:01:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Matichak.

[02:01:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, I think we had quite some time ago talked about, um, you know, we can't imagine SB 330 is going to stay in its current form forever. Um, and that the city should be working on our own version of SB 330, um, because we couldn't imagine that one either getting extended or staying in its current form. So I I would prefer we focus on that, um, before we go any further on this.

[02:02:28] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, and really as you said, Vice Mayor, get this right, because right now we do have a window of opportunity because of the state's SB 330. But I don't know, you know, how long that's gonna last, are they gonna change it before it sunsets. And so I would like to focus on, um, our own version of SB 330 to address displacement and put this on hold and make sure we have a robust community input process before we go forward with changes to zoning. Thanks.

[02:03:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Okay, more hands. Councilmember Hicks and Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[02:03:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'll say something super short just to give everybody time to think over it over whatever. One of the one of the things that came up since I last talked was this overlay zone for when the properties that are very near um heavily trafficked streets. And although I most people, most councilmembers I think spoke in favor of getting rid of that, um, I actually because of changes in building and insulated windows and so forth, I actually don't want to see buildings built, even if you have insulated windows and walls, built right up next to very large streets.

[02:03:51] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, so I don't know the details of that overlay and I'm I'm certainly open to some changes but I I do think that there should be tree buffers between large streets and large amounts of housing. Um, so I would modify that but, you know, I've I've seen as I drive around the Bay Area, I've just seen way too much um housing where you could reach your finger out and, reach your hand out and touch the cars as they drive by on the freeway. And I I don't want to go there in Mountain View. Thank you.

[02:04:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So I'll go to Councilmember Abe-Koga, then I'm gonna turn turn to staff first if you don't mind. So um there was a question about when the displacement strategies are coming back. Can we get have an answer from staff on on that question?

[02:04:35] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes. Uh, we believe it's going to come back in Q4 of this year, so late fall is is where we think it's gonna, uh, we're going to come back with that, uh, for now. And, um, I'm going to check with the teams after the study session and see what additional work we have to do to get there, so that's our estimate for now.

[02:04:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And what, sorry to ask a a question, um, and when is this, when would R3 be set to come back to council?

[02:05:03] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, after a the displacement study session, we would have another stu a third study session on R3. To, ‘cause there's a fair amount of homework we have to do based on what we heard today. Um, and then additionally, any outcome of the replacement requirements are going to have to be, uh, built into the R3 if there is, um, any synergy between those two and the council's interested.

[02:05:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So, yeah, it would happen after that, and, uh, if not we were we were hoping to bring it back later this year, but depending on on how much work needs to be done that might have to be postponed.

[02:05:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So I think just being cognizant of time since we're about 40 minutes over, um, you know, I I want to give Councilmember Showalter an opportunity to speak, but perhaps staff can can then answer, you know, what they what they need from council or perhaps what, um, what potential next steps could be kind of given all the robust discussion you've heard. Um, would be helpful. Okay. Councilmember Showalter.

[02:06:11] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I was just going to say that it seems like with the schedule that staff has has, um, described, that really what is coming next is um a a robust look at the displacement. I think everybody agrees is really crucial. So, um, I I for one am am all for that, but at the same time, I don't want staff to stop working on R3.

[02:06:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So I think that, um, you know, it is important for them to go on, uh, in tandem. And we just need to make sure that the, um, uh, the displacement is is done properly before we we get much further with the R3. But that doesn't mean that they the staff needs to stop working on it.

[02:07:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Alright. Thanks, Councilmember Showalter. So, um, I don't to staff like to to respond about kind of what they what they think could be a path forward, um, given everyone's comments?

[02:07:15] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah. Um, I'll I'll try to summarize and then see if the city manager, who's also been taking some notes, can wants to supplement. I think the one thing we heard, and this was a 7-0, um, the displacement response has to be resolved before the R3 standards are in place.

[02:07:36] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, a whole number of issues that we're going to that we need to continue with. Very, and even enhanced public outreach because we want to make sure the public is brought into this, um, uh, issue and they they understand what's happening in the city. Um, so we're definitely going to work on that.

[02:07:54] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, what we did hear, and as I try to summarize things, was, um, while there is general support for the zones, um, uh, there were there were two councilmembers who had clear concerns about ideally wanting a general plan update. The rest of the council was okay with moving forward. However, there were some large caveats.

[02:08:15] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think there's concern about the R3D, definitely. Uh, there's concerns about the distribution, related to geographic distribution near some lower, um, scaled residential areas, equity issues to make sure that we're looking at that as we, um, as we do that. In addition, there was concern about making sure, um, in the standards, um, about R3D and solving for the R4 issue, um, there were some concerns about that.

[02:08:47] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, uh, additionally, I think council was concerned about streetscape, walkability, um, connectivity, so that mid-block connectivity, a diversity of housing types, how do we get it, a diversity of building types. Um, that kind of summarized the the most of it. I think there was some interest in taking a look at, um, in terms of the overlays, I think I there was general agreement, but there was some interest in looking at, uh, transit overlay.

[02:09:18] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, there were a couple councilmembers who disagreed on the height overlay, but the the rest of the council seemed to to be okay with, um, where staff was going. I think we need to do some additional work on that and give you a couple of options so you can decide ultimately with that. Um, and this transit overlay and taking another look at the criteria we're using.

[02:09:41] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, you know, the connectivity is important. And finally, we have to solve for amenities. I think the whole idea of complete communities is important. Um, for parks, um, you know, neighborhood-serving retail, where it could be located on the ground floor, we do that in El Camino. Can we do that on major roads?

[02:10:03] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: We already looking at that. We try to sort of limit the amount of information we were bringing here just because it was so heavy, uh, but we're looking at all of that. So, uh, I think this group does have a lot of work to do, particularly in the areas we mentioned. Um, but there was there was general support, although there was some concerns mentioned about the about the change areas.

[02:10:29] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, so, uh, we are moving forward with displacement response definitely, enhancing public outreach. And the idea, based on council input, is to, uh, is to continue work on the R3, however, resolve for a lot of these issues that were brought up so we can bring options to you.

[02:10:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: That sounds close to the the notes that I took as well. And I would say maybe some more nuanced in their in their comments about general plan update that I think that the request would be, if that's a direction, could could we, the revisions we're looking at for R3, be compiled into a greater general plan update perhaps at a later date?

[02:11:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I that would be my suggestion/question because I I think one of the things we're hearing is there's an urgency to this issue about both R3 as well as displacement strategies, and that's one of at least that's what I heard. So I don't know if staff can be responsive to the the greater comments about a perhaps looking at a general plan update in the future. Or do you need a council to do that as part of our stra- strategy.

[02:11:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, so, um, just to clarify. Is the is the direction, general council direction to move forward with a third study session and then decide whether to do a general plan update?

[02:12:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I see I see heads nodding. So can can folks perhaps just indicate with a hey a thumbs up or a hand up if they're okay with it.

[02:12:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Councilmember Abe-Koga, is that a hand up for this or would you like to speak? Thumbs up? Okay. City Manager McCarthy.

[02:12:23] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, Mayor, um, just a couple things. I can I get more clarity on the the general plan update on the the support for that? And then I would also note, for, um, a general plan update in general, this is not something that we have talked about as part of the work plan, this is a significant, significant undertaking, um, in addition to any R3 updates.

[02:12:50] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So I I just want to make really clear to council that the work plan is coming to you all on April 27th, and that work plan does not contemplate a general plan update. That is not one of the projects that was added. So if council is desiring to add that, we would need to talk about that and then talk about all the other projects that would have to fall off staff's plate in order to do the general plan update, and then how that would actually, uh, merge with this R3 update. So I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page about that. Um, because right now that is not on the work plan.

[02:13:26] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: If I may add, the last general plan update took roughly, uh, three and a half years of fairly solid, um, work plan effort and community outreach. Not to diminish wanting it, but it it takes a significant amount of effort that's far and above, um, R3, which is, uh, largely code updates on top of some change areas in select areas.

[02:13:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, let's, maybe if I can just chime back in since City Manager mentioned it. So I believe you have what you need from Council as relates to R3, but my, so it doesn't have it's obviously not related to this item, but my question would be given the general plan comments this evening from Council, when we discuss our work plan next week, would that be a, should some members of Council like to raise it, is that an opportunity to request a general plan update and talk about reprioritization of staff time?

[02:14:32] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Mayor, yes. Let me let me clarify that on, um, April 27th, there's obviously time to discuss items. As noted throughout that process, any significant item that needs to be added has to get re-ranked per our normal process, which then means we evaluate it with all of the other projects going on to decide how things shift and re-rank to see if it even can get done in the fiscal year.

[02:15:00] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, when we look at something like a general plan update, which is truly massive, um, you know that that can certainly be noted. I think it would obviously be at the top level for council depending upon a majority view.

[02:15:16] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: And if there are four members who say we really need to move to general plan, what that essentially means is there's a huge shift in the rest of everything that staff is doing right now if we were to take that up right this second. So we would just have to manage those expectations and see what falls off. But sure, any of these things can definitely be discussed on April 27th.

[02:15:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Well, not opening up another discussion, I believe you have the the summary and the direction from Council as relates to this study session. And I thank everyone for staying, wow, almost an hour longer this evening. Very appreciative. I'll take a motion to adjourn.

[02:15:56] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So moved.

[02:15:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So moved by Councilmember Showalter. I have a second?

[02:15:59] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Second.

[02:16:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Second by Councilmember Lieber. Take a roll call.

[02:16:02] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Certainly. Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[02:16:04] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[02:16:05] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Hicks.

[02:16:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:16:08] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Lieber.

[02:16:09] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes.

[02:16:10] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Matichak.

[02:16:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:16:13] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Showalter.

[02:16:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[02:16:16] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[02:16:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[02:16:19] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei.

[02:16:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:16:21] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Motion carries. Have a wonderful night everyone.

[02:16:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you, everyone. Good night. Take care.

[02:16:29] Aarti Shrivastava: it took four years. So that'll give you an idea of how long it would take after which the R3 would happen. So I would say as staff we need some direction tonight on whether the council is interested in us moving forward with R3 or or not moving forward and waiting for a general plan update to be added to the work plan. After which, you know, so it'd be four years after which we take up the R3.

[02:16:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, we have two hands raised. Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[02:17:04] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So I, I guess for me too it's premature to decide this because I'd like to see what you come back with on the R3. If it's significantly changed and you've been able to incorporate all of the comments that were made, then we may be able to move forward but you know, in general, I'll just say that I think this is a pretty drastic change if we keep it the way it is. And so if this is what comes back then I'm going to push for a general plan update. But if there are changes incorporated that makes it more, you know, more have more transitions and so forth, more and incorporates all of the issues of then, you know, I could see perhaps moving forward. But a big piece of this again is going to be community input because we've heard from folks, but these are frankly folks who are, you know, very interested in housing issues and they're mostly the housing advocates from what I saw. But I just have a feeling if you put this out into the neighborhoods and the community, just like we did when we did the general plan update, we're going to have hundreds of other, you know, like residents who average residents going to be interested in this. And so I just want to make sure we do that before we make these changes because these are significant and these are not in areas that were agreed upon as change areas. And frankly the argument for housing in North Bayshore was that it would avoid putting more housing in these other neighborhoods. So if we're not going to stick to that commitment, I think we really need to go back to the community. So that's my number one concern here. So but yes, so I think we need to see what you come back with before we decide which direction to go. Thanks.

[02:19:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Councilmember Lieber, and then Councilmember Hicks.

[02:19:14] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I'm not willing to sandbag every other single thing that we could be doing for a four-year long general plan update. I think in particular some of the pieces of this that really make sense are the transit-oriented development. We have said that we have a very large commitment to sustainability and that's part and parcel of that and being very close to mass transit is not what one of the inherent strengths of North Bayshore. I see that as proximity of housing to jobs but not necessarily to our transit spine which is Caltrain and El Camino. And so I would like to progress with this. I think it does make sense for the community and I think that we can do a great deal of community outreach, but I don't want to get into saying that certain groups are just housing people and so therefore we can set them aside because really the individuals that we've heard from in terms of letters are long-time community members in Mountain View and people that are very engaged in our community and do care about housing because it's one of the biggest issues that we face, frankly. And so I would like to see us progress with this. And I know that it sounded like staff was saying that there would be general plan changes that would come out of this process, and I think that that's really important to note and always having an eye towards the community involvement. But I think that for the sake of our environmental concerns, sustainability, the need overall for housing, we have to progress and not be sandbagged into a four-year position on things. Thank you.

[02:21:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Hicks.

[02:21:14] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I just want to agree I think with more or less with what the two previous council members said. When I was sort of giving my thumbs up to the comments on the general plan what I thought I was giving my thumbs up to was that we would see how staff incorporated all the myriad of suggestions that were made. Oh I also agree I don't want to sandbag all the other things we're doing. But we would see how staff incorporated all the comments that we made tonight and we would decide about the general plan if that's absolutely necessary given, you know, if we're not progressing on the things that people thought were important tonight, you know, the additional amenities in the neighborhoods, the streetscaping, the stemming displacement, you know, all those things if those arent coming together then maybe we would have to look at a general plan update. But I'm not putting that on the table right now or I wasn't when I was giving it a thumbs up.

[02:22:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thanks. I don't, I didn't hear anyone bring up the four years so I don't know how that all started. So I think that we're in a good place where I would say we're now an hour over. So you know, staff will come back for a third study session. I think at this point we just need to decide if we'd like to move forward. I think that the comments about the general plan my understanding was the same as yours Councilmember Hicks. And I think I just wanted to add that caution to staff, that's what I wanted to do because for me we, some of us have been a part of the Terra Bella process. And I just don't want another Terra Bella process where staff works for three years on a change or on an area that was not a change area and that the community has a lot of input that was not received. And then we don't proceed forward after staff working on something for three years. So that's all I'm saying you know is I just want staff to be thinking about this as they come forward and do we need to be looking at that somewhere down the road, not today. Not to do anything today. So that was my understanding. Okay, so Councilmember Abe-Koga and then perhaps I'm hoping staff has everything that they need so we can move on.

[02:24:09] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I just, I'm, I you know, I guess I took offense to the comment of sandbagging because we're not sandbagging anything during the general plan. That one took four years yes, but we got a lot of other things done in the as well. So we're not sandbagging anything and I didn't say that the folks who have been commenting don't count. I'm saying that there are 80,000 people in this city and we need to do more outreach to get more voices in. Thank you.

[02:24:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Well I think that we've had a robust discussion. We all knew that perhaps talking about R3 was gonna be this way. I believe staff has what they need. Aarti can you just confirm?

[02:25:09] Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, yes we do. We'll continue and come back for a third study session.

[02:25:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. You probably have more than what you need. All right. So how about if we take a ten, yes I see your hand Councilmember Showalter. Let's take a 10-minute break and we will come back okay? All right thanks everyone. See you in 10 minutes and Miss Vonderlinden...

[02:36:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: regular and our Shoreline Regional Park Community special meeting of April 13th 2021. I'm going to read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the State of California Executive Order N-29-20 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 mountainview.legistar.com, on YouTube at mountainview.gov/youtube and on Comcast Channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period for the item by signing up at mountainview.gov/cc_speakers or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 940 9178 7915. Any emails received by 3:30 p.m. today were received directly by the City Council. Emails received after 3:30 p.m. will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. All votes will be taken by a roll call vote. So I'd ask all of you to join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I'll ask our Interim City Clerk Vonderlinden to pull it up.

[02:38:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much.

[02:38:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So before we get started tonight, I wanted to announce that the city is accepting applications for the downtown property and or representative of a business, the Performing Arts Committee and the Senior Advisory Committee. You're invited to apply on our website at mountainview.gov. So hopefully you will do that. We'll move on to item 2 which is our roll call. Our Interim City Clerk Vonderlinden will take attendance by roll call.

[02:39:04] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[02:39:07] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[02:39:09] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Hicks.

[02:39:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[02:39:14] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Lieber.

[02:39:17] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Here.

[02:39:19] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Matichak.

[02:39:22] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[02:39:24] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Showalter.

[02:39:27] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[02:39:29] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[02:39:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[02:39:34] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei.

[02:39:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here. Thank you.

[02:39:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. All council members are present so we'll move on to item 3 which is presentations. Our first presentation is going to be in honor of National Volunteer Appreciation Week and I will read the proclamation now. Just one moment. Whereas throughout Mountain View's history, residents have actively volunteered their time and energy to improve our community and make our city a better place to live. And whereas volunteering increases self-confidence, makes a difference in the community, provides social opportunities and a space to learn new skills and connects you to others. And whereas volunteers in Mountain View mentor our children, feed our hungry, comfort our lonely, beautify our green spaces and support our charitable organizations. And whereas our residents have stepped up to the challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic to show immeasurable unity, compassion and kindness by supporting families, friends, neighbors and strangers. And whereas the spirit of volunteerism grows stronger in the face of even the most challenging situations. And whereas National Volunteer Week is a 47-year national tradition designated throughout our nation for the purpose of recognizing and honoring those individuals who give of themselves and to promote and encourage a sense of giving and service by all citizens. Now therefore I Ellen Kamei Mayor of the City of Mountain View along with my colleagues on the City Council take great pleasure in congratulating and thanking our volunteers of the City of Mountain View and do hereby proclaim April 18th through April 24th 2021 as National Volunteer Week. So maybe we can give our volunteers a virtual round of applause. Miss Vonderlinden did we have anybody joining us for with this one? I don't believe so.

[02:41:24] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Not for this one. Thank you Mayor.

[02:41:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So before I move on I'll just say would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item. If so please raise your hand in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone.

[02:41:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right so we can do two minutes Miss Vonderlinden. I know we're trying to catch up now. Tim McKenzie. Hold on just a minute Tim we're going to get you the timer.

[02:42:14] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): Okay I'll keep it brief. I just wanted to take a brief moment and recognize and thank all the volunteers in our community who do housing advocacy. Thank you for all the work that you do.

[02:42:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right those are all the people I have for public comment on this item. So we'll move on to item 3.2 which is recognition of Cammy Lo in recognition of Cal Cities Women's Caucus Woman of Persistence 2021 award. So some of my colleagues may know I have been serving on the, uh, it used to be the League of California Cities, now they've rebranded to Cal Cities. I've been on the Women's Caucus for the last three years and um we have the honor of recognizing a woman of persistence in our community and this year since we've gone virtual, um, we get to honor Cammy virtually. So it's my honor to present this certificate of recognition to Cammy Lo. In my personal view Cammy is an unsung hero. Her commitment to making the City of Mountain View and the greater community a better place to live, work and play is done with great dedication and stewardship. Whether it's promoting youth wellness at Mountain View High School, planning a community event with Leadership Mountain View or leading in our community, Cammy can be found at the helm. I'm so honored tonight to have nominated Cammy for this award and so happy to have her receive it and I'd like to ask Cammy if she'd like to say a few words with us.

1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

[02:44:00] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): attitude. Um, I think my persistence stemmed from being a Chinese-American immigrant, working really hard to put down roots back in the 90s.

3.1 R3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zoning District Update

[02:44:09] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): Thank you so much. Good evening everybody. Thank you so much Mayor Kamei. I am honored and humbled to receive the Woman of Persistence award. I guess you must have found out as my friends and family know that I can be pretty stubborn. If I may take a minute or two to say a few words to express my gratitude.

1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

[02:44:12] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): Um, drawn to the innovative spirit and incredible diversity of the Bay Area, my husband and I decided to raise our family then. Uh, right here in Mountain View and the Bay Area.

[02:44:26] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): Our two teenage sons have both grown up in the public school system in Mountain View where the seed of my volunteerism was first planted by the amazing teachers of PACT, which stands for Parent Child Teacher.

[02:44:41] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): Uh, this is the parent participation school that now resides at the Stevenson Elementary School. It was at PACT that I first learned the true meaning of the African proverb, it takes a village to raise a child.

[02:44:57] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): Um, I got to work with many wonderful dedicated volunteers there to and spearhead an outdoor science program.

2. ROLL CALL

[02:45:07] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): um for eighth graders of Crittenden and Graham middle schools and then later coordinate the Spartans pause student mental health program at Mountain View High School and mentor underserved first generation students through the avid program.

[02:45:25] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): In the past few years, my volunteering efforts branched out to Canopy, an environmental nonprofit that provides tree planting, education and advocacy services to mid peninsula communities.

[02:45:41] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): As we all know, it takes decades for a seedling to grow into a mature tree and it certainly takes a lot of patience and persistence to grow healthy trees and healthy communities. I continue to be inspired by the steadfast

3.1 National Volunteer Appreciation Week Proclamation

[02:45:57] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): focus and efforts of all the staff and volunteers that make up what I call the Canopy Village. The Leadership Mountain View program also helped deepen my connections with the community. Just like growing urban forest, long-term city planning as you all know requires collaboration, patience, and of course persistence, especially when we want to achieve a balance between intentional development and green spaces for all.

[02:46:28] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): And I'm so grateful for the collective continued efforts of the city council staff and community members to try to transform our city into an even more diverse, inclusive, sustainable, and accessible place. I really look forward to a day when our collective hard work bears fruit so everyone in our community can enjoy a greater quality of life and thrive.

[02:46:58] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): Last, I want to give a big shout-out to all the unsung heroes in this meeting space as well as in the community at large who keep their heads down and work hard every day to make Mountain View a better place. Thank you again for the recognition Mayor Kamei. I very much appreciate all you all do for our community.

[02:47:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you very much Cammy. We'll just give you a virtual round of applause. It's such a great thing to honor you today as we're talking about National Volunteer Appreciation Week. So thank you very much for everything that you're doing and I know many of us have had the honor of planting our mayoral trees with you or will have that honor in the future. And so thank you very much for making our place a greener um place. So thank you very much. And your patience, sorry we ran late.

[02:47:51] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): Oh no worries. I know R3 is a very important issue. Have a good rest of the meeting. Thank you very much again.

[02:47:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Have a good night.

[02:48:00] Cammy Lo (Public Speaker): Bye.

[02:48:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So at this time 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 star nine on your phone. Alright, I see one hand. Alexander Brown. So Miss Vonderlinden if we could do the two minutes again. Oh, I see more hands. Okay. Two hands. Alright, Alexander Brown, go ahead.

[02:48:25] Alexander Brown (Public Speaker): Yeah I got to plant a tree thanks to Cammy. So thank you Cammy. That was fun.

[02:48:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks for that. Alright, I think that concludes our public comment. So we can move on to item 3.3 which is our COVID-19 update by our City Manager Kimbra McCarthy. Miss McCarthy feel free to take it away.

[02:48:47] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Great, thank you Mayor. Good evening Council members.

3.2 Certificate of Recognition to Kammy Lo in Recognition of Cal Cities Women's Caucus Women of Persistence 2021 Award

[02:48:50] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: ...members and members of the public, I'm going to share my screen now, um, start my COVID update. So one of the, um, most interesting things that has happened over the last couple weeks, a couple things I'll start off by talking about.

[02:49:07] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: First, you can see that from the numbers here, I'll draw your attention to the bottom row really, which is focused on Mountain View. Um, so you can see that since the last update, which was about three weeks ago, there've been about 78 new cases in Mountain View.

[02:49:22] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So this is about an average of three cases per day. Um, and if you'll recall over these last many months, this number is going down significantly. Uh, they're also seeing that at the county where the number of positive cases are going down.

[02:49:35] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Uh right now there's around 116,000 positive cases so far since COVID started. So what what does this really mean? Um, in terms of the one of the most significant things that, um, happened statewide, uh, we are seeing not only the case numbers go down, not just in Mountain View and the county as I just mentioned, but also statewide.

[02:49:57] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So the governor announced recently that we are set to reopen the whole economy on June 15th with a couple caveats. The first is that our vaccine supply, um, must be sufficient.

[02:50:11] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: And if you remember over these past few weeks I've been talking a lot about how the county has had, um, significant struggles with getting the number and availability of vaccine doses than we actually should be getting. Um, so in a a couple slides I'll talk about that further because this, uh, problem actually has recently been resolved in our county, at least for now.

[02:50:35] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, so that's the that's the first piece of reopening is just making sure that supply is there across the state. The second piece is also making sure that our hospitalization rates are stable and staying low. Um, so if we meet those two standards then essentially, uh, per the state, all of the economic sectors that have been in the current what's called the blueprint for the safer economy, all of those sectors will return to usual operations.

[02:51:04] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So, uh, really what that means is that, um, the common sense health policies will still be in place to continue wearing masks, making sure that folks are vas- vaccinated, but it it really means that we will return to what looks like, uh, normal before we got into this pandemic.

[02:51:24] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So, um, we don't know quite yet whether that will officially happen June 15th, um, as long as we keep those two things in mind about supply and hospitalization rates, it does look like we're headed that way. Um, so with that, uh, I do have some updates on city facilities that, um, have reopened partially.

[02:51:45] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So on Monday, our police department's front lobby did reopen with some modifications. So it has been closed this entire time. The lobby's now open from 8 to 5, Monday through Friday, and the community is encouraged to make appointments online for certain services.

[02:52:02] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: However, uh, they will accommodate walk-in traffic with some certain restrictions and obviously you still have to follow the same protocols and wear a mask. Also we will be having, uh, difference in how we're servicing everyone with the library.

[02:52:17] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So starting April 15th, we will be, uh, partially reopening some services in the library. So we will have in-library browsing and holds pickup inside the library Thursday to Saturday from 2 to 6.

[02:52:32] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: We'll also start allowing computer appointments up to 45 minutes. That's also Thursday to Saturday from 2 to 5:45 p.m. We'll still have the grab and go holds pickups outside the library that will continue, but that will be on Tuesday and Wednesday from 2 to 6 p.m.

[02:52:51] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So as I mentioned, a lot has changed and what also has changed is the tier that we're in in the blueprint for the safer economy. So Santa Clara County did return to the orange tier just this past, actually two weeks ago, Wednesday, March 24th.

[02:53:08] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So we have to stay in that tier for three weeks before we can move into the highest tier, which is the yellow tier. So our case rate is still a little too high to move into the yellow tier, but, um, it is likely that we will move into that tier probably before that June 15th opening date.

[02:53:28] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So as I mentioned before, um, vaccines have been, um, the supply of vaccines has been an issue. Uh, the county did hold a press conference today that, uh, right now, as of today, anyone over the age of 16 can get an appointment. And this is because they have received a larger supply of vaccines.

[02:53:50] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: This is a this is a big change, um, from what we've been talking about lately. So, um, they announced today that tens of thousands of new vaccine vaccine vaccination appointments, excuse me, uh, will be open the remainder of this week and many more appointments will be open starting next week.

[02:54:11] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: And this is because the county is receiving direct vaccination dosages from the federal government now. Uh, this is through a program operated by the Federal Health Resources and Services Administration.

[02:54:24] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Prior to the getting the direct dosages from the federal government, uh, the counties, uh, do receive their dosages from the state, state allocation. So this is a big change, um, and is also why they're allowing anyone over 16 to, uh, make an appointment and get their vaccine.

[02:54:43] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So we encourage everyone to go to www.sccfreevax.org and get your vaccination appointments set up. Then, um, I've also showed this dashboard several times. Um, this dashboard shows the number of, uh, or percentage of folks in the county that are vaccinated.

[02:55:03] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So the blue, uh, the blue line there shows the first dose, the green line, um, stacked on top of it, that shows folks who've received the second dose, the pink that you see is the Johnson and Johnson, um, vaccination.

3.3 COVID-19 Update by City Manager Kimbra McCarthy

[02:55:14] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So the last time I presented this update, we were at around 16% of countywide residents who were vaccinated over the age of 16. Now we're at 27%. So what this is indicating is that we are at least getting towards the county goal of vaccinating at least 85% of residents who are 16 or older by August 1st. So again, this is a good development. It shows that we are vaccinating more and more people. And now that there's more dosages available, I expect that the next time I give this update in a couple weeks that we'll see that number increase hopefully by quite a lot.

[02:55:54] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Then in terms of our community center, what's happening there? We are extending our hours this week, so it will be extended by 90 minutes. It's going to be from 8:30 to 6:30. And this is all due to that increase in supply. So we want to make sure that we can get in as many people as possible. The last appointment will be at 6:00 p.m. So far we've vaccinated over 37,000 people at that site. And just last week alone, it was around 3,500 vaccinations.

[02:56:25] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So another thing that we're doing that I'm really pleased that our fire department has really stepped up and shown great leadership on is they are delivering vaccines to folks who are homebound. What this means is people who are unable to drive, folks that may be in wheelchairs or on crutches, um, there is a program that people can sign up for, um, to get included as part of this homebound program. They can go to covidvaxhome@phd.sccgov.org or they can call 408-970-2818 to begin this process.

[02:57:05] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: And I would note that just residents in general can't contact the fire department or contact either one of these, um, the Public Health Department email or that phone number I just mentioned. This really is for people that, um, are in those categories where they're unable to get to an appointment, um, or they're homebound.

[02:57:27] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: In terms of testing, um, we want to encourage folks to still get tested. Um, the county has indicated that they are seeing a decrease in, um, testing rates, and that's likely because there are more people who are vaccinated. I'm not sure why these graphics are doing that, that's never happened before. So sorry about that. I thought that it was me and they were just getting, oh, larger, but I notice that they're the graphics. So in any event, um, so far at our city facilities we have provided over 15,500 tests. Um, so far this year, we're at almost 3,500 tests. So we want to still continue people to get tested. Uh, we do have new opportunities coming up at our Center for the Performing Arts on Tuesday, April 20th and Thursday, April 29th.

[02:58:16] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Then just an update on the rent relief program. This is something that I do every week, or excuse me, every council meeting. Right now we have expended a little bit over $4.3 million in rent relief. Uh, there are a little over 2,000 checks that have been cut to households, um, in need of rent relief. And in terms of how much total funding is available, um, 5.3 million is available. So there's still a little over a million dollars left in this fund. And the average assistance does continue to be a little bit, um, over $2,100, um, for the average check cut.

[02:58:56] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Then a couple last updates that I want to make sure that the community knows about. A community survey is underway right now for, uh, the public to weigh in on changes that we have, um, in an upcoming smoking ordinance that we'll be bringing to council in May. So this would prohibit smoking in multi-unit residences, so that would include apartments or condos, uh, townhouses, triplexes. So the amendment would prohibit smoking inside the dwelling or on outdoor patios and decks. Um, so in order to get feedback, please go to mountainview.gov/smokingordinance. Um, this is going to be available in both English and Spanish through May 10th.

[02:59:39] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, also a reminder that we're celebrating Earth Day virtually the evening of April 22nd from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. And the event is going to feature speakers including micro-talks from community members about how they're restoring the earth. We're also holding two contests where community members can really show off their sustainability experience. So there's going to be a video competition and a student poster competition. So for more information about how you can register for this, please go to mountainview.gov/earthday.

[03:00:13] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Then one last update, uh, reminder that we are doing our Mountain View Film Festival later this month. So the theme is race, equity, and inclusion, and this is our first ever film festival. You can get tickets to this virtual festival by visiting mountainview.gov/mvfilmfest. And day one and day two passes are $20 each, while a festival pass for both days is $35.

[03:00:39] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: And then I'll just end by thanking staff as I do, um, with each update, highlighting some of the great work of our team. So we heard a little bit, um, about the team in the earlier, um, item, where we have a Multicultural Engagement Program team who plays a really crucial role in providing important updates and outreach to community members in Spanish and Mandarin Chinese, and also Russian. And the team has been really involved in providing multilingual outreach to residents in various ways over the course of this last year, including COVID-19 resources, helping residents navigate the website, being available to answer phone calls, translating meetings and certain events, um, and also supporting outreach to various projects that have gone on over these last many months. So I want to give that team a great big thank you and shout out for all the great work that they do, uh, for all the residents in our community.

[03:01:39] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So with that, uh, Mayor and Councilmembers, I'll, um, thank you and end my presentation and just remind everyone to, uh, continue wearing their masks and stay healthy. Thank you. I'm open for questions.

[03:01:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much, uh, City Manager McCarthy. Does anybody have, um, questions? All right, seeing no hands, I'll turn it over to, um, public comment. Um, would any member on the line like to provide public comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. All right, I see no public comments. So thank you very much, uh, City Manager McCarthy, for your very thorough update.

[03:02:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So we'll 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 councilmember requests otherwise. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? All right, I see Councilmember Matichak.

[03:02:55] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, I think the Vice Mayor had his hand up before me.

[03:02:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, sorry, you came up in my queue.

[03:03:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I can, I mean, I'm happy to defer to him first.

[03:03:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sure. Okay. Sorry about that. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[03:03:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, okay. Uh, thank you, Councilmember. And thank you, Mayor. Uh, so I would like to pull, uh, I know this is unusual for me, I generally don't like to pull items, but 4.3, Street Reconstruction Project. And I don't want to pull 4.5 or 4.10, but I did want to, uh, express strong support and thanks to staff for their work on the sidewalk cafe, um, you know, downtown business support program. I think that's been terrific and I'm very excited to support that. And then also for 4.10, the San Antonio Mini Park, ordinarily there's an item, public hearing, but I wanted to express my support to staff for making that a consent item, uh, and also look forward to supporting that item. Thank you.

[03:03:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So I hear item 4.3 pulled. Councilmember Matichak, looks like you're next.

[03:04:09] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So I did want to pull item 4.10 because I'd like to propose a slight modification to that. Um, I'd also like to, well, I preferred to pull 4.1, but I can also just register a no vote on that. Um, I sent in a lot of corrections to the minutes from, uh, 2019, and I still feel like they need another pass by staff. But if others are comfortable with them, I'll just register a no vote on that.

[03:04:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Uh, Councilmember Hicks.

[03:04:45] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'd like to pull item 4.2 for a slight modification.

[03:04:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. And Councilmember Lieber.

[03:04:56] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'd just like to abstain on 4.1. I know that it's kind of a wobbler under Robert's Rules of Order, but generally you don't vote on, um, minutes for which you weren't a part of the body. So I'll, I'll just abstain on the item.

[03:05:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Thank you very much. Okay, so I think for the items that were, I heard pulled, we'll start in numerical order. So we'll start with item 4.2, if that's okay, which is, um, the adoption of an ordinance, um, for the parkland, uh, dedication. I believe that was you, Councilmember Hicks.

[03:05:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, I just wanted to, um, see if there was support on council for making one small change that we talked about earlier, but I maybe didn't propose it clearly enough. It's on page nine of the ordinance, um, two A triple I, which is eligibility criteria. It's the minimum dimension of the size was 100 feet and I'd like to bring it down to 75 feet minimum, which just, with the same minimum size and everything else the same, it just changes the shape of the required rectangle, so it can be, it just gives a little more flexibility for developers, but I think gives, uh, the same quality of park. So I would like to know if there is support for that.

[03:06:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And before we get going, I'm so sorry, I in my effort to kind of streamline, I forgot to take public comments on the consent calendar. I believe that's why the City Attorney has his hand up, unless I'm wrong.

[03:06:45] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Actually, I had another, uh...

[03:06:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, okay.

[03:06:47] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: ...too, but, but that too. Um, you could, you could take public comment and then I have another point.

[03:06:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, perfect. All right. So let's open it up to, um, would any member of the public like to, um, provide public comment on our consent calendar? If so, please, uh, click the raise hand button in Zoom or star nine on your phone. All right. Um, we'll do, uh, two minutes. Alexander Brown.

[03:07:17] Alexander Brown (Public Speaker): Uh, I just wanted to congratulate several of our Mobile Home Alliance members, Joan and Guadalupe, for their appointments to some bodies. I am so proud to see members of the community stepping up to volunteer and serve, and, uh, also just thanks to everyone who volunteered. I think that boards like this are great and a good opportunity to, uh, make an impact in the community. Also, good job Live Nation on providing parking for people so that they can also stay safe in the community.

[03:07:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Peter Katz.

[03:07:57] Peter Katz (Public Speaker): Can you hear me?

[03:07:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, we hear you.

[03:08:00] Peter Katz (Public Speaker): Great. Thank you, Mayor Kamei and esteemed Councilmembers. I'm Peter Katz, CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, and on behalf of our beloved but severely struggling downtown restaurants, I want to voice our support of item 4.5. If you ask our businesses what has been most helpful or would help them in the future to recover from the devastating health emergency, they'll invariably cite the ability to continue serving outside, which allows them to extend the number of tables they can serve and thus increase their desperately needed revenue, and second, fewer fees and permits related to continuing and extending their operations. In the past, obtaining sidewalk cafe permits has been a challenge for many. The city's streamlined process in implementing...

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

[03:08:44] Alexander Brown (Public Speaker): Castro streets has been both welcomed and needed. These merchants have been doing everything they can to ensure compliance with rapidly changing conditions and regulations, pivoting for over a year through closes, reopens, reclosures, reopens again. As noted in the resolution, reinstatement of the sidewalk cafe program will cause many struggling businesses to incur even more expenses, including equipment, retrofits, insurance, and the like. This is neither easy nor cheap. Please allow them the lead time needed to comply.

[03:09:16] Alexander Brown (Public Speaker): We also fully support the city's commitment to studying the situation further to determine the best plan for downtown, in particular completing the Castro Street pedestrian mall feasibility study. The chamber continues its commitment to work together with the city, for our businesses and the public, to ascertain what will be the most beneficial to fostering a vibrant and inviting downtown and a thriving local economy. Thank you very much.

[03:09:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Tim McKenzie.

[03:09:43] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): I just want to echo what Alex Brown said about thanking Mountain View for the safe parking. I think that's important that for our city to continue, especially as we deal with the pandemic. And I'd also like to echo what was just said about 4.5, about outdoor dining downtown. I saw the Mountain View Voice had an article about maybe keeping outdoor dining after the pandemic. I really love Castro as a pedestrian mall, and that would be great to have.

[03:10:19] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): And I look forward to engaging with the Public Safety Advisory Board as they begin their work plan. As events around the nation show that there are still a lot of work that we could do and we can do a lot of work in our local city to demonstrate ways of keeping the public safe, the community safe, and building a strong community together. And I look forward to continuing to engage in that work with both the Public Safety Advisory Board and with Council. Thank you.

[03:10:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Miriam C.

[03:10:55] Miriam C (Public Speaker): Hi, I'm Miriam, uh, from the Rex Manor neighborhood. I wanted to comment on item 4.4, the appointments to the Public Safety Advisory Board and Rental Housing Committee. I'm speaking today on behalf of the Mountain View Coalition for Police Reform and Accountability, or MVCPRA. I'd like to welcome the members of PSAB to their new roles, and remind everyone that PSAB was established by the Ad Hoc Council Subcommittee on Race, Equity, and Inclusion in the wake of George Floyd's murder last summer in order to take a critical look at policing and public safety in Mountain View.

[03:11:29] Miriam C (Public Speaker): It is meant to serve as an instrument for increasing equity in our city. This is a difficult task and a serious responsibility. MVCPRA has been watching the progress of the REI and the PSAB with a lot of interest. So I'd like to introduce MVCPRA's principles and goals so you know where we're coming from as we work together going forward.

[03:11:50] Miriam C (Public Speaker): MVCPRA members believe in four core principles. One, we should reduce the scope of policing in Mountain View. Two, public safety solutions must amplify the voices of communities most affected by racism and, ugh, goodness, racism and criminalization of poverty. Three, institutionalized racism is real and it is our duty to dismantle it. And four, taxpayer money should go to non-punitive rather than punitive solutions.

[03:12:17] Miriam C (Public Speaker): In line with these principles, we are echoing the calls by students and educators at the last city council meeting to remove student resource officers from Mountain View campuses. The HRC reported last fall that youth who attended their listening sessions overwhelmingly had negative experience with SROs, so we ask both the PSAB and the council to look into removing police presence from Mountain View campuses. Thanks for listening, congratulations on your appointments, and I'm looking forward to working with both the PSAB and the City Council to reimagine public safety in Mountain View.

[03:12:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, that concludes our public comments. So I'd like to bring it back to our consent calendar. So I have three items pulled, 4.2, 4.3, 4.10, but I think before we get into those I know the city attorney has his hand up. And so I'll turn it to him, but I'd also like to entertain a motion for the balance of the consent calendar. City Attorney Chopra.

[03:13:11] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, with regard to Councilmember Hicks' comments on item 4.2, it's not possible to make material revisions to an ordinance after it's been introduced in a certain form. The ordinance would have to be reintroduced. So those edits are material and they could not be acted on tonight.

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[03:13:35] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, I withdraw them. I um, I didn't know that.

[03:13:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Alright. So then are you comfortable then if item 4.2 goes back to the balance of the consent calendar then, Councilmember Hicks?

[03:13:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, sure.

[03:13:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, so our pulled items are 4.3 and 4.10. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[03:13:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'll go ahead and move to approve the balance of the consent calendar. And um, let's see if I do this right. So, including 4.2, adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View amending chapter 41, Parkland Dedication or Fees in Lieu Thereof, Ordinance of the Mountain View City Code relating to Parkland Dedication, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[03:14:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, and I think 4.4 requires a reading. Adopt a resolution of the City of Mountain View, of the City Council of the City of Mountain View, appointing members and an alternate to the Rental Housing Committee, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[03:14:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, 4.5, City Attorney, that requires me to read the resolutions as well? Uh, so adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View temporarily suspending certain requirements for sidewalk cafe license renewals pursuant to Mountain View City Code Section 36.42 and waiving sidewalk cafe license renewal fee payments payable May 1, 2020, through April 30, 2022, to facilitate a consistent outdoor dining program in the downtown area, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[03:15:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And two, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View amending Resolution No. 18470 as amended by Resolution Nos. 18489 and 18496, temporarily suspending and designating parking restrictions and prohibitions pursuant to Mountain View City Code Chapter 19 and temporarily closing the 100, 200, 300, and 400 blocks of Castro Street pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 21101 to facilitate outdoor dining and outdoor business operations, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[03:15:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, and is that, oh, and uh, so 4.12, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View deeming the replacement of a section of a water main on San Antonio Road of urgent necessity and authorizing award of contract to the lowest responsible bidder with reduced advertisement and bidding requirements pursuant to Mountain View City Charter Section

6.1 Minor General Plan, Precise Plan, and Zoning Amendments

[03:16:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: 11:07 to be read in title only, further reading waived. Um, and then 4:13 doesn't require anything. And then I'll just, uh, note that Councilmember Matichak recorded a no vote on 4.1, and Councilmember Lieber recorded an abstention on 4.1.

[03:16:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, Councilmember Showalter.

[03:16:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Second.

[03:16:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right, and I think everything that needed to be read was read. I'll, I'll turn to the City Clerk and City Attorney. Okay, perfect. I see their heads nodding. All right, so, um, we have a motion by Vice Mayor Ramirez and a second by Councilmember Showalter. Let's, um, Ms. Vonderlinden, if you don't mind doing a roll call vote.

[03:17:06] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[03:17:10] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye.

[03:17:11] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Hicks?

[03:17:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:17:14] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Lieber?

[03:17:15] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Aye.

[03:17:16] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Matichak?

[03:17:18] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:17:19] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Showalter?

[03:17:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[03:17:22] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[03:17:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:17:25] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei?

[03:17:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:17:28] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you.

[03:17:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So we'll move to item 4.3 that was pulled by the Vice Mayor.

[03:17:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'll try and be brief. So I, um, was originally going to support this until I saw in the response to council questions that, um, I think it was 27% of the households participated in the survey that was sent out to determine whether there would be vertical curbs or rolled curbs. And in my mind, this is a traffic safety issue. You know, we, uh, for the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, there's a very high threshold that has to be met in order to, uh, to be eligible for, uh, traffic calming. Um, you know, which again is a public safety issue. And I know we're, a traffic safety issue, and I know we're, we're going to modify those to, to relax some of those requirements. In this case, I was struck by the fact that the, there wasn't as high a, a thresh, there wasn't a threshold to, to sort of side with the, the, the construction type, I guess, that the, the curb type that would provide greater traffic safety. In my mind, a vertical curb stops a vehicle, a rolled curb does not. The fact that so few, uh, households participated suggests to me that we should go with the safer option without the assurance that a majority of the households actually want the less safe option. My preference would be to approve this with the vertical curb as opposed to the rolled curb. Uh, and I'm prepared to make a motion to that effect if there's support. Thank you.

[03:19:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Hicks?

[03:19:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I would support that or second it if it were a motion. If it's a motion you're making.

[03:19:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. Okay, so Vice Mayor, was that a motion? Just to clarify for your colleagues, was that a motion and you're looking for a second?

[03:19:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, yes, I'll, I'll go ahead and move approval of 4.3. It doesn't look like the resolution needs to be read. With the modification that we, we include vertical curbs rather than rolled curbs.

[03:19:48] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: And since this is a material modification to this item, I would recommend that the Mayor ask for public comment on this issue also.

[03:20:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you, City Attorney Chopra. So we have a motion by the Vice Mayor and we have a second by Councilmember Hicks. Any other council comments on this item? Okay, oh, Councilmember Lieber.

[03:20:15] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Well, uh, I'm just wanted to say that I'm thankful that the Vice Mayor brought this up. I, I did look at this in the packet and, um, had some heartburn about it, um, stemming from a period of months, uh, about a year ago when I had to use a wheelchair. And the number of cars that will park partway up on the sidewalk because it's a rolled curb, um, really does make getting down the street in a wheelchair very difficult, because what you end up with is, um, half of a sidewalk that's not wide enough to get by. And so, as a person using a wheelchair, you're in the street navigating. So thank you for that.

[03:21:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Councilmember Showalter.

[03:21:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I just wanted to ask, um, staff if this change, um, would slow down the process materially or change the cost. Um, I'm, I am in favor of the safety ramifications of it, but I just wonder about this, uh, implication.

[03:21:24] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Uh, thank you. This is Dawn Cameron, Public Works Director. Can you hear me? Um, I, you muted.

[03:21:30] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, we can hear you.

[03:21:31] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Okay, thank you. Yes, this would be a redesign of the project. And so we will have to, uh, take it back and redesign it. It will, uh, we'll have to add to the project cost for the redesign, and may also, uh, change the construction cost. So we, you know, if we find that we can redesign it and construct it within the current budget that we're requesting right now, we'll try to keep moving forward. If not, we'll end up coming back to Council in the fall. Uh, I will note that, as you noted, the street is in very poor condition. It's one of the worst condition streets we have in the city. We potentially will miss this construction season, because the best time to do construction is during the summer and before you start hitting poor weather conditions. Um, after that, though, you know, I will say that I did ask the same question when I saw this, because a lot of this was done before I became Public Works Director. I was heartened to find out that staff did make an attempt to reach out to the community. As it noted, um, every member of the community was contacted and given a chance to, uh, respond to the survey. And 25% voluntary response to a survey like this is actually considered quite good. It does indicate that many members of the community were less concerned about it. As you will note in the council questions that we sent out, we did send them information with pictures about it. And the final piece is our traffic engineer would not have, um, even offered it as an option to the community if it was not felt that rolled curbs are okay. They do work, they may not be totally preferred, and we can definitely for future streets with rolled curbs be a little more, um, assertive in really discussing it with the community, or we can just not provide them the option. And that's fine too, we do not need to provide them the option. We can just go vertical curbs. But it is a major decision you're making tonight. If you want us to go back and redesign it as vertical curbs, and we'll go back out and talk to the community about it, because we may very well miss this construction season.

[03:23:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Showalter, was that all your questions? Okay, okay, perfect. All right, Councilmember Abe-Koga then Matichak.

[03:24:02] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, I assume if the motion stays as is, um, I will not be supporting it. Um, for basically the reasons that staff mentioned. And, um, I, I remember this, this was actually a really big, deep debate when we did the streets in Rex Manor, in the Rex Manor neighborhood. And we had a lot of input, um, for folks who preferred the rolled curbs, because it is easier to roll your stroller, um, for, you know, folks who might have walkers. Um, we had a number of reasons from people, and, um, so for that reason, we actually stuck with the rolled rolled curbs there. And if it were a real, you know, safety issue, I don't think we could recommend it, but given the, um, percentage that want, that supported the rolled curbs, I'm inclined to go with the residents' um, preference, and, as um, Ms. Cameron mentioned, the response seems like it was high enough, so I, I would support the original, uh, motion on consent, but not if it's going to be changed, plus I, I don't want to delay the, the project anymore. Um, but if we're going to change it, then I think we need to go back to the community. Thanks.

[03:25:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Councilmember Matichak.

[03:25:22] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, I was wondering, and I don't know if staff knows this, um, off the top of their head, um, if changing from the rolled to the vertical would have any impact on, um, parking. Um, that area, there's a lot of street parking. Um, and I don't know if the road is wide enough to accommodate, um, cars on both sides parking on the street. Um, and especially in the area where there's that, there's the tree in the middle of the street. Um, you know, how, how would it impact that? Um, I'm inclined to go with, um, the original plan, but I, I guess I'd like to know if staff has any information on that.

[03:26:10] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you. Um, in general, um, converting to vertical curb will not affect the amount of space that's available for parking, 'cause we would align the curb so that it, it provides the same amount of parking space that you see today with the rolled curb.

[03:26:28] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I guess I'd want to make sure there's also enough room for people and bicyclists too. Um, so if, if the sidewalks, um, were not being reduced in order to accommodate parking on the street, but, in any event, I think I'm inclined to go with the, um, original proposal. There was quite a bit of, um, input from the residents there, and if that's what they prefer, and, you know, from what I'm hearing is it isn't an unsafe design that's there now. Um, I don't really want to delay this. Thanks.

[03:26:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, any other comments? All right, yes, Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[03:27:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Just a quick note, so I, um, the motion does require five votes since an appropriation is necessary. If it doesn't pass, I'll be supporting, um, the staff recommendation.

[03:27:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh. All right. And then, um, City Attorney Chopra, before we take a roll call vote on this, then I'll go to public comment.

[03:27:28] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, please.

[03:27:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Ms. Vonderlinden, do you mind, um, putting up a two-minute timer? Great, thank you. All right. Alexander Brown.

[03:27:54] Alexander Brown (Public Speaker): Okay. Hey. Uh, yeah, I, I think I agree with Councilmember Matichak that we need to make sure pedestrians and bicyclists are accounted for. Uh, I don't think that we should be prioritizing, uh, sleepy time spaces for big metal objects instead of the people who live there. I want to, uh, instead offer a third option to either a vertical or rolled curb, which is no curb and just close it off to cars and focus on the people and let people use the street as they will. Uh, it's the safest option. It provides the most, like, flexibility and freedom. Uh, you could, you could add plants. It could be a pleasant place to be. You don't have to worry about getting hit by multi-ton objects moving at speed. Uh, but otherwise, no, I think that safety is paramount and we should prioritize lives over convenience. Uh, and I, there have been many times that I've been on a sidewalk and had to deal with someone who just rolled up onto the sidewalk to park with their SUV and it's not fun. It's just, it's just irritating. Thanks.

[03:29:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Right, thank you. Tim McKenzie.

[03:29:12] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): Uh, I would not, I want to thank, uh, Vice Mayor Ramirez for looking through and seeing this safety issue. Um, I, good job reading through and looking at it. Um, I have a, I think a somewhat technical question. If the curbs are rolled, how long is the street? How do we measure the width of the street? Um, if we're thinking of how, how the city all integrates together. Um, I, I think I, I, uh, don't have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other, but I think the walkability does sound like a, uh, an important thing, and, uh, Councilmember Lieber's, uh, personal story really resonated with me. Like, if you're, if you're in a wheelchair and someone rolls up, um, I'm in Monta Loma, we have rolled curbs, and sometimes people do park halfway up on the curb. Um, so it, it is a thing that happens that impacts the ability to move through the neighborhood. Um, but thank you.

[03:30:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. All right, so that concludes public comment. So we can bring it back to Council for a, a roll call vote. I think for, for myself, um, I'll, I'll, I'll be voting no, just because the, the community was surveyed, and the community shared what they would prefer. Um, so even though I think in principle, Vice Mayor, I would, I would agree with you, um, and Councilmember Lieber about the, the experience of, of using a rolled, um, sidewalk since the community, almost 30% of the community voted in, in this favor, um, you know, I feel like we need to, to listen to them. So, um, just wanted to say that before we get started. Um, Ms. Vonderlinden, do you mind taking the roll call vote, please? Thank you.

[03:30:57] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[03:30:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So just to clarify, this is, uh, the Vice Mayor's motion?

[03:31:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: It had a, it had a motion by the Vice Mayor and it was seconded by, uh, Councilmember Hicks.

[03:31:12] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Uh, no. Thank you.

[03:31:15] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Hicks?

[03:31:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:31:18] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Lieber?

[03:31:21] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Aye.

[03:31:23] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Matichak?

[03:31:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No.

[03:31:28] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Showalter?

[03:31:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes. Sorry.

[03:31:41] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[03:31:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:31:46] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei?

[03:31:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: No.

[03:31:51] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Motion fails. There is, um, 4 to 3... oops, sorry. That is 4 yes and 3 no, so it requires 5. Motion passes but not enough to pass the item. Thank you.

[03:31:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[03:32:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'll go ahead and move the staff recommendation then, with, with, uh, not an addition, but commentary that if we're going to allow 59% of 27% of households to, you know, dictate a traffic safety matter like this, I hope we would make the same accommodation for something like traffic calming when we talk about the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Thank you.

[03:32:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Showalter.

[03:32:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Second.

[03:32:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Thank you. All right, we have a motion by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Councilmember Showalter. Ms. Vonderlinden, do you mind doing the roll?

[03:32:38] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[03:32:40] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye.

[03:32:41] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Hicks?

[03:32:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:32:44] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Lieber?

[03:32:45] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Aye.

[03:32:47] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Matichak?

[03:32:48] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:32:49] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Showalter?

[03:32:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[03:32:52] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[03:32:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:32:55] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei?

[03:32:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:32:57] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

[03:32:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So we'll move to item 4.10, which was pulled by Councilmember Matichak.

[03:33:06] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, I just wanted to, uh, note that we have the Council policy that says we will spend 1% of the construction budget on, uh, public art, or we'll allocate that amount to public art if the total spend is over a million. And, um, roughly it seems like at least a couple years now, we have been asking staff, um, to also bring back a 2% option, um, that the Council could consider when we do the final approval of the park. And so I'd like to, um, ask staff to also bring back a 2% option on this park for public art. So that would be my motion, that we tweak this to say, um, not only bring back a 1% option but a 2% option for Council consideration.

[03:34:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Before I get to you, Vice Mayor, let me just turn to City Attorney Chopra to see if this is a material change. Is that how you call it?

[03:34:10] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, it would be best to get public comment on that proposed, uh, that proposal. And also, I would, uh, ask if, if, um, the Public Works Director or the Community Services Director might have any comments on that, on that proposal.

[03:34:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, so I see Ms. Cameron here, so do you mind if I turn to staff before getting to you, Vice Mayor, so they can answer the question? Okay, great. Ms. Cameron, would you like to discuss that, or I can move over to Ms. Shrivastava.

[03:34:44] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Uh, thank you. Um, staff is, uh, fine with, uh, providing a 2% public art proposal if directed to do so by Council. So, yes, that is fine with us.

[03:34:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, and I see Ms. Shrivastava was able to join us too.

[03:35:02] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I agree with, uh, with, uh, Dawn Cameron.

[03:35:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[03:35:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Happy to second the motion and I appreciate Councilmember Matichak for suggesting this.

[03:35:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. So we have a motion by Councilmember Matichak and a second by Vice Mayor Ramirez to include a 2% option as well. All right, so before we, um, take a vote on it, I'm going to ask if anyone in the public has public comment on this. You can raise your hand in Zoom or press *9 on your phone. All right, I see, uh, no hands. So I'd like to turn it back to Ms. Vonderlinden for a roll call vote.

[03:35:48] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[03:35:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye.

[03:35:51] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Hicks?

[03:35:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:35:55] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Lieber?

[03:35:57] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Aye.

[03:35:58] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Matichak?

[03:35:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:36:01] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Showalter?

[03:36:02] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[03:36:03] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[03:36:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:36:06] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei?

[03:36:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:36:09] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

[03:36:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So, uh, I think that concludes our consent calendar. Um, and I'd like to 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 three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the Council from acting on non-agenda items. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment, public comment on non-agenda items? If so, please raise your hand in Zoom or press *9 on your phone. And I will ask Ms. Vonderlinden to update our timer to three minutes. Ready? Okay, and we'll pull up the timer, and Tim McKenzie.

[03:37:02] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): Hi, I just want to, uh, echo what, um, Miriam said from MVCPJ, uh, on comment on the consent calendar with the appointment to the Public Safety Advisory Board. I think that reducing the scope of policing is a great idea. Um, and I, I'll remind Council that sort of when the Public Safety Advisory Board came up, and the, uh, Race, Equity, and Inclusion Committee, it was from the upswell that happened in the community last summer. We stayed together till like 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning asking to, uh, defund the police or reallocate resources in a way that nourishes our community. Um, I think that that's something that I would, that we just had a budget session, uh, last week, but PSAB still hasn't even had its first meeting. There's no way that they will be able to have impact on, uh, the scope of policing or next year's city budget in the way that the community really was asking for. Um, and one thing that did come up, uh, was removing school resource officers. This is the school-to-prison pipeline. Best case scenario is that SROs don't exist, like if we're worried about kids really getting into, uh, into trouble with the criminal justice system, then, uh, the idea of the SROs is to get the kids off that path. So in a best-case scenario, the kids will never interact with police officers in their regular lives again. So by definition, the program itself sort of shouldn't even really exist. It contributes to the school-to-prison pipeline. Um, that is something that is within Mountain View Police Department's budget, which is controlled by City Council, um, and that is something that you would have time to act on. Um, we've heard from kids who have frankly sounded traumatized. It was, it was really heart-wrenching to hear the stories that came up, and this, like the fact that they've had to do this repeatedly is really troubling. Um, and I hope that Council could take action. We've seen just this week, a, uh, police officer pulled out a what they thought was a taser and shot someone. Um, like this is, this is going on, and it's not, it's not just something that's happening elsewhere. We know about MVPD calling Palo Alto Police with and bringing in the K-9 unit. We know about MVPD hiring a Sunnyvale officer who was involved in an officer-involved shooting. Um, this is not just tying national things to and, uh, projecting them on here. This does exist here, um, and this is a time where you have power to take action, and really I hope that you will rise to the occasion. Uh, thank you very much for letting me ramble for a bit, and I yield my time.

[03:39:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Bruce England.

[03:39:59] Bruce England (Public Speaker): Hi. Thank you. Hear me okay? Yes. Okay. Uh, good evening, everybody. Uh, just really quickly, Albert Jeans is going to be talking about a left-hand turn lane at Middlefield and Shoreline where a number of trees are slated to be cut down. And he and I have been talking about this. It seems like it's not the best idea under the circumstances, one of such as because we don't know what the traffic patterns are going to be like post-COVID. And there are also going to be changes at 85 and 101. Um, I'm hoping and, and he'll talk about this some more, that this project could just be delayed until we see what happens after COVID, and maybe those trees could actually be saved. A lot of the changes around there that serve bicyclists and pedestrians are great. Um, but this change is for serving automobile traffic, vehicle traffic, and um, perhaps that's not really needed as much as the plans would indicate. Thank you.

[03:41:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right. Albert, Albert Jeans, and I believe you have a presentation, so if you don't mind a few minutes while, um, staff gets it ready for you.

[03:41:16] Albert Jeans (Public Speaker): Okay. Thank you very much for three minutes. Yeah. I have that too.

[03:41:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: As soon as she starts it. Yes. Perfect. Appreciate your patience.

[03:41:42] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: It should be up. Do you see it?

[03:41:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: We don't, we don't see anything on our screen. Okay, perfect. Thank you. There we go.

[03:42:02] Albert Jeans (Public Speaker): Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramirez, and Councilmembers. I'm Albert Jeans of course, 37-year resident of Mountain View in the Stierlin Estates neighborhood. Next slide, please. Mountain View is about to lose four mature trees near my neighborhood, three of which are large redwoods, in order to put in a second left-turn lane on the west side of the intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road. Construction of the reversible transit lane has begun, and many trees on Shoreline Boulevard have been marked with removal with yellow ribbons. Next slide, please. I was dismayed to see yellow...

6.2 Introduce an Ordinance Prohibiting Possession of Firearms on City Property

[03:42:36] Albert Jeans (Public Speaker): ribbons around some of the trees on the West Middlefield median strip. Then I remembered a parks and recreation commission meeting I attended in December 2018 where it was said those trees might have to be removed if they were too close to a proposed second left turn lane. That got me thinking, why do we need a second left turn lane? Next slide, please.

[03:42:57] Albert Jeans (Public Speaker): The existing left turn lane is about 250 feet long, allowing 20 feet per vehicle gives a capacity of 12 cars. Next slide, please.

[03:43:06] Albert Jeans (Public Speaker): Traffic count data pre-COVID, of course, show that the peak volume for this lane, outlined in green here, occurred between 8:30 and 8:45 in the morning when 41 vehicles were counted. Here's the evening data. Next slide, please.

[03:43:20] Albert Jeans (Public Speaker): And you can see that it's actually lower. So we don't have to worry about that. So next slide, please.

[03:43:26] Albert Jeans (Public Speaker): Since the signal has a cycle time of two and a half minutes, that's six cycles for the 15-minute interval or seven vehicles on average per cycle lining up the turn. Next slide, please.

[03:43:37] Albert Jeans (Public Speaker): Clearly the existing left turn pocket can handle that amount of traffic and more. You can actually make out three cars in this Google image. Next slide, please.

[03:43:46] Albert Jeans (Public Speaker): The extra left turn lane was originally proposed by traffic consultants as a mitigation for traffic for the North Bayshore Precise Plan. Clearly this one left turn lane plays a very small role in the overall traffic mitigation plan, which includes much larger projects like the reversible transit lane and the northbound 85-101 off-ramp realignment. Even before the pandemic, I noticed I had never observed left turns here to be a problem. In fact, the congestion on the through lane sometimes prevented cars from reaching the left turn lane, so that a second left turn lane would not help.

[03:44:18] Albert Jeans (Public Speaker): Clearly traffic patterns and lifestyles have drastically changed during the pandemic, and there is no reason to believe we will ever fully return to pre-COVID commute habits. This is a chance to make a permanent improvement for current residents rather than degrading it for hypothetical future developments. Do not trade four magnificent trees for one lane of asphalt. Thank you very much.

[03:44:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. And in under three minutes, perfect. All right. Uh, that concludes uh oral communications from the public. So we'll move on to item six, which is our public hearings. So the first item is 6.1, Minor General Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Amendments. Principal Planner Eric Anderson and Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava will provide a presentation.

[03:45:24] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Good evening. Can you hear me?

[03:45:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, we hear and see you.

[03:45:29] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: And you're ready for me, good. Uh, thank you so much. Uh, let me share my screen.

[03:45:41] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Great. Thank you so much, Mayor Kamei, thank you so much City Council. My name is Eric Anderson. Uh, I'm joined by, of course, Community Development Director, Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava. Uh, this is some minor general plan, zoning, and precise plan amendments.

[03:46:01] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Uh, the primary purpose for this is to clarify some general plan language. When the city adopted the general plan, uh, it wasn't clear how density and intensity would be implemented in the change areas. So, uh, some language was crafted uh to allow flexible allocation of growth in change areas and precise plan areas. Uh, now that we've adopted the major change area precise plans, we need to refine the language for a few reasons.

[03:46:30] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Uh, first off, we've only implemented this flexibility through precise plans. Uh, so we don't need to allow it generally in change areas anymore. Uh, we would like to update the language so it's consistent with language adopted in the precise plans, and we don't need to reference the general plan environmental impact report anymore because these areas have adopted their own environmental analysis which has superseded the general plan EIR.

[03:46:57] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Uh, since we are making these changes, we took a quick look at other sections of the general plan, uh, and with Public Works' help, we identified some potential changes to update the street typologies, uh, add update uh, multi-use paths to where they, they now exist, uh, reference precise plans and some of the street typologies where the precise plans provide more detail about how to design those streets, and then of course, um, modifying our level of service language because that language is now uh loaded under uh, SB 743 interpretations.

[03:47:32] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: In addition, we're also making some minor cleanup map amendments to the general plan map, the zoning map, and the precise plans. Uh, this was partly spurred by SB 1333, which now requires charter cities like Mountain View, uh, to maintain consistency between the general plan and zoning. Uh, it's also just good housekeeping. In general, they provide policy clarity and a set of consistent development standards for the affected sites.

[03:47:59] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Uh, these are minor cleanup sites that don't result in significant growth, they can be done within the framework of existing zoning, and didn't require any additional analysis or fact-finding. Uh, one issue that we kept in mind as we were doing this is SB 330, uh, which forces us to maintain the highest density between either the general plan or zoning as adopted. Uh, we are also doing a minor cleanup for Wyandotte Park, uh, which uh, rezones the site to the zoning designation that we use for parks.

[03:48:36] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: That concludes staff's presentation. Uh, here is all the language of the uh, staff's recommendation, and I will just finally add that the EPC recommended these uh, in two separate actions in December and March. Uh, and that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions you might have.

[03:48:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much. So, um, since this is a public hearing, I'll turn to public comment first. So, would any member of the public like to provide um, comment on this item? Please feel free to raise your hand or press star nine in Zoom.

[03:49:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Seeing no hands, I will bring it back to council um, for uh, questions. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[03:49:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, and I could go ahead and make a motion too, but first I want to make sure I understand SB 1333. So SB 1333 requires cities, including charter cities, to eliminate inconsistencies between the zoning and the general plan, right?

[03:49:41] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Uh, it requires consistency, yes. Um, I don't know the precise language for how that, how that requirement works, whether it, it requires us to uh, take a particular action or if it requires us to um, you know, uh, kind of interpret them consistently. I don't, I don't know how the language is specifically structured.

[03:50:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so I'm having a, I appreciate staff's response to the questions about the specific parcels where there will remain inconsistencies. If we don't resolve those inconsistencies, are we in violation of SB 1333?

[03:50:27] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Um, I'm gonna, I'm gonna say that um, I don't know the answer to that question, um, but um, certainly if there are um, we would expect that if, if there is any um, if anybody is interested in kind of taking action against those properties, you know, it would be the city in some of those cases, or somebody who's not interested in redeveloping those properties, for example.

[03:51:11] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: So um, those uh, our um, our approach here is not to necessarily borrow trouble, uh, and to um, have a um, a uh bring, bring forward recommendations that we know are kind of easy pickings, uh, and not to um, bring forward uh, issues where we don't know all the policy questions or the policy issues or, or um, all the facts or how the community would want us to go or anything like that.

[03:51:53] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Sorry, if I may just add, um, I, I did want to piggyback onto what Eric was saying in that we, we do this as a matter of housekeeping as we find sites. Um, you could, obviously we don't always get the complete um, list of sites as, as they come up we address them. If there are some specific sites you're interested in having us follow up on, that we may, we may have missed, we're happy to do so.

[03:52:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I appreciate that. So I'm going to go ahead and move the staff recommendation uh, which is adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View approving General Plan Text Amendments related to densities and intensities and street typologies and General Plan Land Use Map Amendments at 1141 West El Camino Real, 173 to 175 Santa Clara Avenue, and 2254 Wyandotte Street to be consistent with the zoning map, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[03:52:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Two, introduce an ordinance of the City of Mountain View amending the zoning map for the properties located at 250 East Dana Street, 300 to 320 Moorpark Way, 709 to 711 Vaquero Drive, and 2254 Wyandotte Street to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map, to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for May 11th, 2021.

[03:53:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View amending the P-38 El Camino Real Precise Plan to modify the character area at 615 South Rengstorff Avenue from residential only to medium intensity corridor to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[03:53:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, and I'll just, uh, a couple of concluding thoughts. I have a particular interest in this uh, because we're doing this, um, where in my day job hat, you know, my my employer city is uh, going to be rezoning proactively over 30,000 parcels that have an inconsistency between the General Plan and um, and the zoning. And their original philosophy was what you were describing, waiting for the property owner if they wanted to do something to submit a conforming rezoning, um, and uh, concluded after some heartburn, which we can talk about another time, uh, that they can't do that. Which is why they're doing this proactive rezoning for every parcel.

[03:54:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so if I were to make a request, it would be let's make sure we really understand SB 1333, and if we have to rezone some of the parcels that um, that were in the questions to staff in advance of the meeting, and I know there are a couple of others that weren't included, like the um, the Bruce Bauer site, uh, if we have to do those, you know, we have to do 'em.

[03:54:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I don't think there's an urgent requirement to do it, I don't know what the punishment for violating SB 1333 is, but I don't think we have the luxury of picking and choosing. If it says we have to be consistent, including charter cities, then I think we have to be consistent. Um, but uh, I appreciate the work on that, the housekeeping that you've done so far and um, happy to support it. Thank you.

[03:55:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Uh, Councilmember Matichak.

[03:55:14] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I'll second the motion.

[03:55:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, so uh, motion by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Councilmember Matichak. Councilmember Showalter?

[03:55:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I was just going to second it. Thank you.

[03:55:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, got it. Great, thank you. So we have a motion and a second, um, and we can do a roll call vote. I don't see any other hands. All right.

[03:55:34] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[03:55:36] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye.

[03:55:37] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Hicks?

[03:55:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:55:41] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Lieber?

[03:55:42] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Aye.

[03:55:43] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Matichak?

[03:55:44] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:55:46] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Showalter?

[03:55:47] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[03:55:49] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[03:55:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:55:51] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei?

[03:55:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:55:54] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

[03:55:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Thank you very much to staff, appreciate it. Um, so we'll move on to item 6.2, an introduction of an ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms on city property. We'll have a staff presentation by our Senior Deputy City Attorney Megan Marevich and Police Chief Chris Hsiung.

[03:56:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Was I close on the last name, Megan?

[03:56:26] Senior Deputy City Attorney Megan Marevich: Marevich.

[03:56:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So close. Okay.

[03:56:30] Senior Deputy City Attorney Megan Marevich: Good evening, I'm Megan Marevich, Senior Deputy City Attorney. Um, let me begin screen sharing now my presentation.

[03:57:17] Senior Deputy City Attorney Megan Marevich: I'm sorry, some technical issues.

[03:57:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: No problem. This is the world we're living in now, no problem.

[03:58:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Maybe if we have it on the city clerk's side we can, okay perfect. Thank you Ms. Vonderlinden, you're reading my mind.

[03:58:23] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Yes, thank you. Thank you. Hold up.

[03:58:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, no problem. Thank you so much. And I can try too if need be.

[03:58:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: If we could just, I think, make it full screen, Ms. Vonderlinden, I think we're, sure. Sure.

[03:59:04] Senior Deputy City Attorney Megan Marevich: There we go. Um, sorry about that.

[03:59:18] Senior Deputy City Attorney Megan Marevich: Okay. So, um, this evening I'm presenting the proposed ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms on city property. Next slide, please.

[03:59:27] Senior Deputy City Attorney Megan Marevich: In September 2019, the city council requested staff return with a report detailing potential gun safety legislation. At a later study session, City Attorney's office presented four options, including a prohibition on firearms sales as a home occupation, locational restrictions for firearm dealers, safe storage requirements for firearms, and a prohibition on possession of firearms on city property. Council directed staff to return with a proposed ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms on city property. Next slide, please.

[04:00:05] Senior Deputy City Attorney Megan Marevich: That brings us here this evening. The purpose of this ordinance is to allow city employees to use facilities without fear of gun violence and to help reduce the risk of firearm-related injuries and fatalities. Next slide, please.

[04:00:24] Senior Deputy City Attorney Megan Marevich: This ordinance will expand current state and city regulations on firearms on public property. The city code currently already prohibits the possession of firearms in city parks. And the penal code prohibits the possession of loaded firearms and exposed unloaded handguns in certain public spaces. Next slide, please.

[04:00:52] Senior Deputy City Attorney Megan Marevich: With this ordinance, uh, firearm regulation will include all categories of firearms, regardless of whether they're loaded or unloaded. And it will include all city properties. The violation of the proposed ordinance may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. In enforcing the ordinance, Mountain View police officers will not proactively contact members of the public. If an officer observes a violation, they may have discretion to cite or arrest based on their observations. There also may be overlapping state crimes, um, such as those in the penal code sections provided in the earlier slides.

[04:01:40] Senior Deputy City Attorney Megan Marevich: Next slide. And this slide um includes the language of staff's recommendation. And that concludes my presentation. And available to answer any questions you may have.

[04:01:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much. So since it's a public hearing, we'll go to our attendees first. So, would any member of the public like to provide public comment on this item? Please raise your hand in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Um, Ms. Vonderlinden, can we do a timer for two minutes, please?

[04:02:13] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Yes, we can.

[04:02:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right. Are we ready? Okay. Don Vieth.

[04:02:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Hello, Don, you just need to um, hit unmute, I believe.

[04:02:55] Don Vieth (Public Speaker): Oh, so sorry. Thank you, returning. Good evening. My name is Don Vieth. I'm here to ask you to adopt the ordinance and to thank you for putting it forward.

[04:03:05] Don Vieth (Public Speaker): Ordinances are sometimes rather dry documents, but I found myself actually being moved in a few places of this one. In the first 'whereas', for example, which talks about death and injury from guns reaching quote, alarming and thus unacceptable proportions, end quote. Unacceptable is the exact right word. But we just need to start not accepting it.

[04:03:29] Don Vieth (Public Speaker): Another place was this, quote, 'While governments at all levels have a substantial interest in protecting the public from firearm-related injury and death, local governments have a predominant obligation to do so.' I think, end quote. I think I would argue that local governments have a predominant obligation only because the federal government has been prevented by national politics from taking up its obligation.

[04:03:54] Don Vieth (Public Speaker): But I thank Mountain View for acknowledging that it is an obligation and that we are all obligated to work to reduce gun violence now and at long last.

[04:04:04] Don Vieth (Public Speaker): And finally there's this, quote, 'Whereas whenever guns and ammunition are present, even when they are being handled by knowledgeable and conscientious individuals, a danger of accidental shootings arises.' End quote. This indisputable fact points to another thing that local governments can do and that it looks like you considered doing it in 2019.

[04:04:26] Don Vieth (Public Speaker): And I hope that Mountain View will want to take this up in the future. And that's the safe storage uh, requirement that guns in one's home are locked up to prevent accidental shootings, as well as impulsive suicides, and burglarized guns which so often end up involved in community youth slash community slash youth violence. Thank you.

[04:04:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Tim McKenzie.

[04:05:01] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): Hi, Council. I want to speak in support of this ordinance. Um, I'm not quite young enough to have had to have active shooter drills in high school, but apparently that's the thing that's going on. I, I think I just missed it a little bit and this is a lived reality for so many people. Um, so this is a way of taking action.

[04:05:23] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): Uh, the thing that was just mentioned about accidental shootings really just resonated with me and you guys may have seen this story about this three-year-old child in Texas who shot his, uh, shot an eight-month-old, and the, the infant died. Um, that, this is going, that's it's just it's great to see this happening, like uh, council taking action.

[04:05:50] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): I also want to mention though, uh, as we're talking about guns on city property, uh, Daunte Wright who was shot during a traffic stop when an officer pulled out what they thought was their taser. Um, why was there someone with a weapon doing traffic stops? This is something that we could also think about. This is a way that we could de-escalate and demilitarize and reduce the scope of policing.

[04:06:20] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): Um, I, this is a, I just, this seemed relevant also. Um, and I thank you for taking action on this. This is, uh, it's really good and inspiring to see some action being taken, uh, which is usually not done relating to guns. Thank you.

[04:06:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Rachel Michaelsen.

[04:06:48] Rachel Michaelsen (Public Speaker): Hi, there.

[04:06:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Hi.

[04:06:50] Rachel Michaelsen (Public Speaker): Can you hear me?

[04:06:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, great.

[04:06:52] Rachel Michaelsen (Public Speaker): Okay. Um, thank you city council members for your time and for your courage in bringing the issue of gun safety to the agenda. I believe this, what you are proposing tonight is a terrific first step for gun safety here in our community.

[04:07:08] Rachel Michaelsen (Public Speaker): However, the next step would be a safe storage ordinance. While our state has safe storage laws, it does not provide the definition of what constitutes safe storage. 600 children, uh, under 17 every year die by suicide with a gun in the US. 4.6 million American children live in homes with guns that are both loaded and unlocked. And that figure is not including, uh, the recent, uh, numbers that we know of increased, uh, gun purchases due to COVID. So it's likely higher.

[04:07:46] Rachel Michaelsen (Public Speaker): Just this week, as it was just mentioned, a toddler and baby were killed in Louisiana and Texas after children had access to unsecured guns. Let's join the other cities in our county, Sunnyvale, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and there is others, um, in having a safe storage ordinance and taking this next very brave step. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

[04:08:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Kelly Traver.

7. COUNCIL, STAFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS

[04:08:29] Kelly Trever (Public Speaker): Miss Kelly Trever and uh first I just want to say I applaud you for this proposed ordinance um it's absolutely fantastic and much needed. Um I I also want to support safe storage of firearms. I think maybe there's a misunderstanding that the California penal code um covers it but it really doesn't. And I've actually sent all of you the the actual California penal code with highlights in it.

[04:08:57] Kelly Trever (Public Speaker): It really just says put a firearm safely away if there's a child in the home or could be expected to come in the home and people then put it in the garage in between mattresses on the fridge. I you know one in three homes in this country have firearms. 60% are unsecured and one child dies every day because of it in the United States.

[04:09:18] Kelly Trever (Public Speaker): Two teens commit gun suicide by finding an unsecured firearm. And school shootings of which we just had one in Tennessee yesterday, school shootings 80% of the time are students or former students who obtain their firearm because it's unsecured uh from their home or relative's home.

[04:09:38] Kelly Trever (Public Speaker): So I just really want to ask you to please support it. Under COVID 43% there was a 43% increase in small child deaths because of unsecured firearms and 9% increase of teen gun suicides in the country from unsecured firearms. And now I'm worried since we're opening schools up uh we're going to see more school shootings and I do not want Mountain View to uh to uh have that happen. Thank you very much.

[04:10:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Miriam C.

[04:10:13] Miriam C (Public Speaker): Hi, I'm Miriam again. Um yeah, I I think this is a great ordinance. Uh I as we open back up and we're starting to go back into public buildings, already the library is getting more open. I think guns not being allowed is wonderful. I'll feel much safer.

[04:10:30] Miriam C (Public Speaker): And um also so glad I came to the city council meeting because I get to hear some of these other public commenters talking about other gun safety issues that I didn't know about. But uh sound like really great ideas. So I also support what I'm hearing. Thanks.

[04:10:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Alright, that concludes our public comments, so we can bring it back to council. Uh, Councilmember Lieber.

[04:10:57] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um well we obviously heard a lot um about safe storage and the question of um safe storage has been something that I I know that the community has been coming forward for at least eight years um to talk with council about.

[04:11:17] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And I was wondering from the um Senior uh Deputy City Attorney and and City Attorney, um if we were to include a uh protective safe storage ordinance that uh closely tracks uh that in Sunnyvale, uh how how long would it take us to get that to council?

[04:11:39] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: I can answer that question, Councilmember Lieber. Um the city attorney's office currently has a number of large work plan items underway and litigation. Uh I would say that um if there's majority support for a safe storage ordinance, uh we would still need to uh study it and and analyze uh the the best uh approach for Mountain View.

[04:12:07] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Although, you know, there are models uh nearby we could borrow from. Uh my best estimate uh my most realistic estimate would be Q4 of of this year.

[04:12:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[04:12:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[04:12:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um I wanna thank staff for bringing this back. Um I know this was one of our work items that um I I advocated for and I appreciate staff's hard work on this.

[04:12:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um I don't see any other hands, so I'm ready to make a motion, but um I did wanna before I do that um follow up um my interest um and this was a discussion we had uh I believe when we were doing the work plan a couple of years ago, um there were three other um policies or recommendations at that time and I remember that discussion and be because of staff workload, we chose to just do this first one first.

[04:13:06] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um but I remember one of my colleagues I think it was Councilmember Hicks saying well maybe we could do, you know, one a year or or something more than that once um once things um settle down a bit.

[04:13:18] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So um if we if I wanted to include safe store uh the safe storage policy um ordi or ordinance, um should that be in this motion or should I make a second motion or um I guess I'm just looking for direction on how to um move that as a new work item for the...

[04:13:39] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: I think the the best way would be to just treat this ordinance which is before council as its own item and then after that, if there is council support to uh bring bring the topic of an expanded ordinance at the April 27th uh meeting where goals and priorities are going to be

8. CLOSED SESSION REPORT

[04:14:02] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: discussed that would probably be appropriate but I I would like to check with the city manager to see if that is a approach she's comfortable with.

[04:14:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, thank you Ci-

9. ADJOURNMENT

[04:14:14] Senior Deputy City Attorney Megan Marevich: City Attorney, yes, that would be my recommendation.

[04:14:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So I should just go ahead and make this motion first and then I can talk about safe storage?

[04:14:23] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes.

[04:14:24] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I think I saw a couple of hands.

Additional Content 1

[04:14:51] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: go up while I was speaking so um if it it's further discussion I'm happy to um hold off on making the motion. Thanks.

[04:15:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Hicks?

[04:15:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well maybe I'm doing it out of order now. I was just gonna say that I would support safe storage after we pass this one.

[04:15:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Councilmember Showalter.

[04:15:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'm a little confused. Was the motion made?

[04:15:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: It was, Margaret was gonna make it, but then she saw your hand and Councilmember Hicks' hand go up.

[04:15:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I was going to second it Margaret, so why don't you jump back in and make it, okay?

[04:15:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Appreciate that.

[04:15:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So I'd like to make a motion to approve or introduce, I'm sorry, introduce an ordinance of the City of Mountain View adding Article 5 to Chapter 38 of the Mountain View City Code relating to firearms on city property, to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for April 27th, 2021.

[04:16:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Second.

[04:16:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Perfect. Perfect timing. Okay, so we have a motion and a second, and I think kind of given the conversation, if it's all right with you Councilmember Abe-Koga, we'll go through the roll call vote on this and then we can come back for additional. Does that work, procedurally, City Attorney, does that work?

[04:16:17] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes.

[04:16:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. All right. So, Ms. Vonderlinden, may we do a roll call vote on the motion?

[04:16:24] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[04:16:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye.

[04:16:26] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Hicks.

[04:16:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:16:28] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Lieber.

[04:16:29] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Aye.

[04:16:30] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Matichak.

[04:16:32] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:16:33] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Showalter.

[04:16:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:16:36] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[04:16:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:16:39] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei.

[04:16:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:16:41] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

[04:16:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you very much. All right, so I'd like to um turn it back to Councilmember Abe-Koga. Um, I think you had more you wanted to add.

[04:16:53] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I believe if I have to make a motion for this, um, I'd like to make the motion that we add the safe storage ordinance um to our work plan item for further... I don't know if we need to further discuss it on April 27th, but I would like to add it to the work plan.

[04:17:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[04:17:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I want to clarify, so I understood the recommendation from the City Attorney and City Manager to add it to the list of new items that were under consideration with some evaluation from staff about impacts to capacity, things that we might have to push out to make it work. Is that, is that what the motion is?

[04:17:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[04:17:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'm happy to second that.

[04:17:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Yes, I saw a nodding head and a thumbs up. Just in case our colleagues didn't see that too. Okay, great. All right, so um there's a motion um from Councilmember Abe-Koga seconded by the Vice Mayor on adding safe storage for staff evaluation and the work plan. Did I summarize that right? Okay. All right. Ms. Vonderlinden, do you mind taking a roll call vote? Do we need a roll call vote or can this be a straw motion? Sorry.

[04:18:23] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Just a show of hands is fine.

[04:18:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, perfect. Just wanted to double check. All right, looks unanimous. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Is there anything additional on item 6.2?

[04:18:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. So I'd just like to thank staff and we can move on to item 6.3, which is 1255 Pear Avenue. And I want to ask council members if they wish to make any disclosures such as contacts with the applicant or site visits, and I think kind of given the hour, if you just want to do a raising of the hands for if you've had contact with the applicant or a site visit.

[04:19:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Looks unanimous. Great. Thank you. Um so we'll move on to the um staff presentation. Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire and Zoning Administrator Stephanie Williams will join us for this presentation.

[04:19:24] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Thank you Mayor and Council. Martin Alkire, Community Development, joined by Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director. This project is located in the North Bayshore area as shown on the map.

[04:19:48] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: The project was originally approved in 2018 and was initiated by the Sobrato organization. Here is the approved site plan from 2018 and this project included several key elements.

[04:20:06] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: As you can see, there was a south phase of the project and a north phase of the project. There is there was a approved a new 230,000 square foot office building to go along with the existing office building at the site and notably Inigo Way was proposed to be extended all the way to Space Park Way.

[04:20:31] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Additionally, the upper right hand corner of the screen a 1.4 acre parcel was dedicated or will be dedicated to the city for use as BMR housing and that was also part of the project.

[04:20:50] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: One of the key conditions from this original approval was condition 190 from our Public Works department. Basically the original condition said that the office building could not be occupied until the city completed the new 101 off-ramp project and the Plymouth Street realignment.

[04:21:11] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: The applicant requested relief from this condition due to the delays that it would potentially cause and again this was brought back to Council in fall of 2019 I believe and the condition was amended per the language on the screen and that's also in the staff report.

[04:21:36] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Basically saying if occupancy of the office occurs before the off-ramp realignment and the trip cap for North Bayshore is exceeded after two consecutive monitoring events, then phase one of the residential part of the project must be complete and phase two of the residential part must also have been initiated construction.

[04:21:57] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: And then the applicant shall fund a congestion pricing study of up to a million dollars or make an equivalent contribution to the city for transportation improvements.

[04:22:07] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So after that was brought forward the project was delayed due to negotiations between the property owners for the project, notably the Sobrato organization and two parcels owned by Google shown on the screen. These two parcels are in the north phase of the project.

[04:22:29] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So the current proposal is to move forward with phase one of the project, which includes mostly the development on the south parcel, which would include the new office building as I mentioned earlier and 220 new units that surround a new parking structure on the south.

[04:22:52] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Notably the project is not or this proposal does not include the two Google parcels shown in red there. There is no change to what was approved previously in 2018 in terms of the phase two, the number of units and the design of the project.

[04:23:11] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: It's just that additional time is needed for further I would say negotiations between Sobrato and Google as they plan the future needs of both in the North Bayshore. It still retains some key project elements, notably the first residential construction in North Bayshore in quite some time, and that's what is before you today.

[04:23:40] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: I would also add that staff in the staff report and as a condition of approval because of the uncertainty over phase two, staff has proposed and the developer has agreed to a deed restriction on the Sobrato parcels owned in phase two.

[04:24:01] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Again that would restrict the future use of those parcels to multi-family residential which was consistent with the original approval. Again this does not include the two Google parcels because they are not under Sobrato's control at this at this time.

[04:24:18] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: And then also the condition 190 is proposed to be modified again. As you can see the language on the screen the phase two condition of that sentence has been removed and the last part of that condition, strikeout and additional language was provided by staff just to provide a more concrete amount of funding, specifically one million dollars towards either congestion pricing or another priority transportation project in North Bayshore.

[04:25:00] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: And as I mentioned the key elements are still retained, the new residential, the Inigo Way extension, the BMR parcel dedication notably those are still retained in this current proposal per the original 2018 approval.

[04:25:16] Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So that concludes staff's presentation with the recommendation on the screen and of course staff is available for any questions. Thank you.

[04:25:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So at this time I just wanted to ask if there's a presentation by the applicant. I believe here we go, their hand is raised. Bring Mr. Steele over.

[04:25:47] Tim Steele (Public Speaker): Good evening Mayor Kamei and City Council members. Can you hear me?

[04:25:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, we hear you.

[04:25:53] Tim Steele (Public Speaker): I want you to know I got dressed up for you tonight for my zoom call. I do have shorts on just so you know.

[04:26:02] Tim Steele (Public Speaker): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this item. My name is Tim Steele, I'm the Senior Vice President of Real Estate for the Sobrato organization.

[04:26:11] Tim Steele (Public Speaker): And first I wanted to acknowledge that COVID as we know it has affected everybody in some way and I would like to give kudos to city staff. Early on, actually a year ago in April, I presented them with my COVID challenge, which certainly they were challenged personally and professionally as I was.

[04:26:40] Tim Steele (Public Speaker): And with all of these challenges in front of all of us, they addressed and assisted me in a professional, respectful way, which I greatly appreciate and kudos to Public Works staff and the planning staff that participated in this discussion.

[04:26:58] Tim Steele (Public Speaker): Second, for various reasons and history of the project, I know some of you don't want to see me ever again, but I'm back, I'm sorry. But in somewhat a complicated, Martin Alkire somehow simplified and boiled things down in a very succinct staff report and I want to give him kudos for helping and putting that together for us tonight.

[04:27:24] Tim Steele (Public Speaker): The primary reason why we have to had to talk about this is because of Google's change of their corporate policy related to COVID and not doing any third-party transactions until they go back to work and see how things are going back to normal.

[04:27:46] Tim Steele (Public Speaker): And one of the primary conditions in our map was we needed to have one final map merging all of the parcels both on the north and south phase. So staff worked with us and I in concurring with their recommendations, I'm not making any other presentation, I am prepared to answer any questions and I really do appreciate your support. Thank you.

[04:28:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you very much. So since it's a public hearing we're actually going to go to public comment first and then we'll bring it back to for council questions. So do any members of the public have would like to provide any public comment? Please feel free to raise your hand in the zoom or press star nine on your phone. And we'll get the timer up for two minutes Ms. Vonderlinden. Great, thank you. And Tim McKenzie.

[04:28:46] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): Hi all. I know sometimes I can be a broken record but here's one of the classics that I come out with: anytime Google has a development in front of the city, I would love to see the Alphabet Workers Union involved in the discussions.

[04:29:00] Tim McKenzie (Public Speaker): It sounds like this has been ongoing for a long time but I'd love to see AWU in future discussions as things come forward. Thank you.

[04:29:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Alexander Brown.

[04:29:15] Alexander Brown (Public Speaker): Wow, yeah this project's been going on for a while huh. Yeah, Tim and the Sobrato organization have been great with the Santiago Villa Neighborhood Association. We are neighbors to the project and I am looking forward to having neighbors.

[04:29:31] Alexander Brown (Public Speaker): I think that getting this started is exciting and has taken long enough. I'm ready to have something there to get rid of the parking lot, put in some people, put in some greenways. I like the nice wide space that I can walk and bike down right outside the park. I'm looking forward to a gate that lets me get out onto Pear to go out to to all the businesses that are there across the street because Cyrus hasn't done anything there yet.

[04:30:02] Alexander Brown (Public Speaker): I just want to speak in support of this project. I am looking forward to it and I think that phase one is a great start. Thanks.

[04:30:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right we can bring it back to council. That concludes public comment. Do council members have questions for staff or the applicant? Councilmember Matichak.

[04:30:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I want to circle back on a question that I sent in that I'd also discussed with the applicant. And that is the question surrounding is there anything that requires the residential in phase one to be built.

[04:30:55] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I read a certain paragraph in the staff report many, many times, and it's the paragraph at the bottom of page four, and it says if occupancy of the office building occurs prior to completion of the off-ramp realignment and the trip cap is exceeded after two consecutive monitoring events, then phase one of the residential component must be completed.

[04:31:23] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I was wondering well what happens if the trip cap isn't exceeded? Does that mean you don't have to do the residential? So as I understand it, the residential and the parking structure are closely tied together in terms of how it's designed and built, and you need the parking structure for the office building. But I guess I would just like to revisit this one more time to make sure that the way the condition is written the residential will get built.

[04:32:07] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Councilmember, thank you for bringing that up. Actually the three of us talked about this along with Sandy from the City Attorney's office and you're right. There's nothing that specifically ties the construction or the occupancy of the office building with the residential, but it's inherent in the design and there are certain requirements built into condition 190 but only if those two conditions get tripped.

[04:32:39] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: So we wanted to get a sense of what your interest might be in terms of connecting the office to the residential and I staff reached out to Tim Steele and he did suggest a condition which I'm happy to share with you.

[04:33:04] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: If I may share my screen. Can you see the screen?

[04:33:21] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Basically says a certificate of occupancy for the new office building shall not be granted until after the building permit for the phase one residential building has been issued and construction commenced. And this is an option that the applicant was open to discussing.

[04:33:46] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: You know the city can go further and require a certain percentage of the units to be completed, but I have to say this is something the council may want to hear from the applicant and we don't understand all the implications of requiring a certain percentage because there's certain systems that need to be finished in order for units to start getting occupancy.

[04:34:11] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: So there is another option that we wanted to share with you and that is a certificate of occupancy shall not be granted until after issuance of certificates of occupancy for at least and we picked a 25% number of the units in phase one.

[04:34:33] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: In either case if the council wants to move forward with this, we would recommend removing the requirement for phase one in the public works condition because we would already have a condition and if they're in conflict we always find in the real world when we're trying to implement things there's invariably a conflict.

[04:34:57] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: And so our recommendation would be if the council wants to pick either one or two and maybe the applicant wants to speak to that, we would want to remove the connection of condition 190 to phase one of the residential project. So I will stop sharing my screen so that council can discuss and let us know how they want to proceed.

[04:35:22] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I guess a question I have is if construction has commenced, is there a possibility that construction stops?

[04:35:35] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Construction can always stop, but I would say in my career I've seen few examples of this especially in the Bay Area. I've seen this in in on the East Coast where you know you had a long period of economic downturn and it took a long time to build something, and once in my stint in Cupertino, but the applicant did end up building the project, it just took them longer.

[04:36:05] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: So I just have to say our experience in the Bay Area has been applicants do want to move forward on it primarily because of you know the economic advantage. And as you noted, they can't get office occupancy until the garage is built.

[04:36:23] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: And the garage shares a foundation with the residential building, they're integrated, the residential wraps around the garage, so it would be pretty hard to get occupancy of it without finishing the rest of it. That's our feeling, I did talk this through even with our chief building official.

[04:36:47] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, so I'm inclined to suggest we go with option one, but I'd also be interested in hearing from my colleagues if they see any issues with that. Kind of like I saw an issue with the first one, it's like anybody see any issues if I propose option one? And I guess if the applicant could comment on that too, I think you said that they agreed with that.

[04:37:23] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, the applicant agreed with option one. But maybe he can speak after the council has a chance to speak.

[04:37:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, Councilmember Abe-Koga, did you want to ask your questions or did you want to hear from the applicant about option one first?

[04:37:44] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I was gonna comment on Councilmember Matichak's.

[04:37:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, no go ahead, I just wanted to ask, go ahead.

[04:37:51] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So I you know I'm inclined to want more certainty so I was looking at option two, but I also was thinking 25% of the 220 is like 50 or so units and if that ended up being the only thing that was built it would just be an incomplete project.

[04:38:14] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So I think I'm okay with option one. And if it's integrated with the garage that much then you know my hope is that it would all be built, but I actually had some concerns if only 50 of the 220 units ended up being built, so I think that would actually make it an even more challenging situation. So I'm fine with option one.

[04:38:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Do other council members have any questions or comments at this point? Councilmember Showalter.

[04:38:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I would like to hear from Tim Steele about this.

[04:39:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Tim are you there?

[04:39:04] Tim Steele (Public Speaker): Yes, thank you for inviting me back. I did talk with Martin today at length. I can appreciate the question.

[04:39:16] Tim Steele (Public Speaker): So the language in the first option is something, it's a very complicated synchronizing of the garage, the parking, temporary parking and the residential. But I see that being doable and we'd be comfortable with it.

[04:39:32] Tim Steele (Public Speaker): I did want to point out that once we pull the first building permit, not counting building permit fees but special impact fees, community fees including school fees, park fees, North Bayshore transportation fees, just alone for pulling that is almost $23 million plus the 1.4 acres of land, Inigo extension. We need those apartments occupied and paying rent to help pay for all of the costs of this project.

[04:40:07] Tim Steele (Public Speaker): So it would be disastrous for us to start, only build 50 and not complete all 220. Also the project, the residential component of the project is not typical in that it wraps a garage and it hides the garage and you can't really stop that and and continue to hide the garage so you're kind of committed that you got to do it all at once framing the garage and the residential because it really works and operates as one, even though you have two separate building permits.

[04:40:41] Tim Steele (Public Speaker): Um so I'm comfortable with the first one. I think it does a good job of assuring above and beyond the economics of uh pulling those permits, it assures that we will synchronize this in a way that the residential is completed and the office building then can be occupied. So thank you for your consideration.

[04:41:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, Councilmember Showalter go ahead.

[04:41:07] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, well if the applicant is acceptable of option one then then I I certainly can support it. I've been watching this project for I think it's five years something like that.

[04:41:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And um it really has started, it started off I thought as a as a sound project and and um through a couple of iterations I think it's gotten better. And I I've really been impressed by the persistence of both um uh the applicant and our planning staff to work through the just the myriad of issues that have arisen um over time to produce a a really um you know a really high quality uh office residential um project.

[04:41:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And I'm really um I'm so excited at the aspect of seeing this first residential um project in the North Bayshore. So I um I'm strongly in favor of it. Is it time for a motion?

[04:42:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Anytime is good for a motion, go ahead.

[04:42:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, well I move the staff recommendation with the incorporation of option one.

[04:42:22] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: For this uh Councilmember Showalter, we would need you to read the two uh the two resolutions and then at the end with the addition of the additional condition of approval option one as described by the Community Development Director and the corresponding Public Works condition modification. You don't have to say that, you can just incorporate the revised conditions as described.

[04:42:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um I move that we adopt the staff recommendation number one, adopt the resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View conditionally approving modifications to a previously approved planned community permit, development review permit, and heritage tree removal permit for a mixed-use development consisting of a 231,210 square foot office building and 635 new multi-family residential units, retaining an existing 156,317 square foot office building and demolishing an existing 103,513 square foot industrial building and the removal of 84 heritage trees on a 16.2-acre site bounded by La Avenida, Inigo Way, Space Park Way, and Santiago Villa Mobile Home Park, 1255 Pear Avenue, to be read in title only, further reading waived, attachment one to the council report.

[04:43:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Two, adopt the resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View conditionally approving modifications to a previously approved tentative map at 1255 Pear Avenue, to be read in title only, further reading waived, attachment two to the council report. And three, the uh addition of option one as described earlier by the City Attorney.

[04:44:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Looks like you got everything. Is there a second to the motion?

[04:44:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Sure.

[04:44:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, you're muted but I hear you saying sure. So we have a motion by Councilmember Showalter and a second by Councilmember Hicks. Is there any other discussion on this item? All right, seeing no hands. Miss Vonderlinden, can we do a roll call vote please?

[04:44:44] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[04:44:45] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye.

[04:44:48] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Hicks.

[04:44:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:44:50] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Lieber.

[04:44:51] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Aye.

[04:44:52] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Matichak.

[04:44:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:44:56] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilmember Showalter.

[04:44:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Aye.

[04:45:00] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[04:45:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:45:03] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei.

[04:45:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:45:06] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

[04:45:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much and thank you to staff and our applicant. All right, so this concludes our public hearing and we can move on to item 7, which are Council, Staff, and Committee Reports. Does anybody have anything to share?

[04:45:32] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you Mayor. Um Council members, uh I'd like to ask that we consider a resolution in support of uh Senate Bill 90 and Assembly Bill 1416 which together comprise the Ballot Disclose Act. Uh this is legislation that's sponsored by the California Clean Money Campaign and um what it would do would be to add a brief mention uh to the ballot language itself of the principal proponents and opponents of ballot measures.

[04:46:11] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um this is very congruent with our legislative program that's going to be coming back on the 27th and I I know that it can be achieved with less than uh one hour of staff time. So I'd like to ask that we consider a a position of support on these two pieces of legislation.

[04:46:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, um just turning to the City Manager, is this the time to take recommendations or do we do that at item 8? I got confused.

[04:46:50] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So I think just with the way that yes this this is the time, so item 8 is now item 7 just in the agenda this evening. Um so yes, if Council is interested in asking staff to look further at those two measures which are related to ballot disclosures which would educate voters about who funds the statewide propositions, um without looking at it further um could likely be aligned with um the work plan item related to campaign finance reform um along with your commitment to just general good governance and transparency. Um so this is something that staff can look into um and I know that we already have a number of um legislative bills as part of our plan. Um so that is something that we can um we can track and and add if Council is interested this evening.

[04:47:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Thank you. So I am seeing thumbs up. So I'm assuming we're doing a straw motion so if we could just actually do like hands and then I can visually see those who are interested. All right. It looks unanimous. So it'll come back. Thank you Councilmember Lieber. Councilmember Matichak.

[04:48:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um I also have an item that I was going to ask council uh for support on and that is to refer to the CPPC that we take a look at revising policy K-5 which is the one we talked about a little bit earlier today or tonight um regarding the 1% public art uh construction um 1% uh for public art of construction projects. And since we have been for several years now been saying hey staff can you also bring back a 2% option, maybe we could just make it a policy so we didn't have to always bring that up. So um I would propose we refer this to the CPPC to look at modifying the policy.

[04:49:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right, all those in favor. All right and it looks unanimous. And then um a couple things, I just want to report on my participation in the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission meeting. Um and we are um looking at doing some changes, like we do every year, to the comprehensive uh land use plans for the different airports and one of the things we're particularly looking at is um do we do something different regarding noise given uh the concern in our community about airplane noise.

[04:49:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um also um I attended the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority meeting, um it was mostly just about the budget. And I uh watched the most recent Monta Loma working group uh meeting regarding fencing around um the school and like last time it was interesting. Um and I I would like to follow up on the comment from Mr. Jeans about the trees on Middlefield.

[04:50:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um to find out a little bit more about um can this be a later phase the the trees. If we we look at do we really need to remove the trees um as opposed to assuming that we are going to remove the trees. And is that something staff could um send us some information on or I don't know if um they're still here to provide more comment, but I also would like to save the trees if we could.

[04:51:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'll turn to the City Manager on that one.

[04:51:10] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you Mayor, our Public Works Director Dawn Cameron is here so she'll be able to speak to that item.

[04:51:17] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you. I think I heard most of the question, I was transitioning up to the panel during some of it. Um staff did previously uh when Henry provided a response to Mr. Jeans' original correspondence in cc'd City Council about the um the reasons why that second left-turn lane is being added. It is actually an EIR mitigation measure for North Bayshore Precise Plan so there are some legal requirements around it, but also the traffic volumes for that approach and the impact of having the left lane overfill and back up and start blocking through traffic was quite severe pre-COVID and traffic conditions are already starting to come back to uh pre-COVID levels and we're already starting to see it. If we were to try to stop the project now that's currently under construction and say don't add that second left-turn lane, um one, we would definitely may find ourselves having to come back to do it later which is going to be far more expensive. We are going to make every attempt to save the trees. We don't know if the trees need to come down. Unfortunately we won't know until we start excavating around the roots. And that's when the city arborist goes in and looks at it and say, okay yes you can make this work and and the tree should be okay or this particular tree unfortunately you know you're gonna have to cut into the root so much that you may have to take the tree down. So we're gonna make every attempt to save the trees. Uh we have every reason to believe that the left second left-turn lane is still required because we're under extreme traffic congestion uh problems in that area.

[04:53:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thanks very much.

[04:53:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. Very briefly, I participated in the VTA PAC meeting last week as an alternate and I think probably the item of greatest significance uh related to uh the uh implementation of measure B uh which I think the board of directors will be looking at and uh Councilmember Abe-Koga can probably explain better than I can, but just wanted to share my participation. Thank you.

[04:53:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Councilmember Lieber.

[04:53:44] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you Mayor. I kind of wanted to separate my dips on this item so this is my second one. I I just wanted to announce that um I've been appointed uh by the ABAG Executive Committee to serve on the governing board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. And so I'm very much looking forward to the work there. And I know that I'll be working closely with Councilmember Showalter on the the bay issues. And um I wanted to note that there was an an article uh in the San Francisco Chronicle today about the multi-billion dollar risk that uh sea level rise um poses to uh to the Bay Area. And so I'm looking forward very much to digging into that work and I I've actually served on the advisory body for the past eight years, so it feels really good to move on to the governing board and uh help with the work there as well. So thank you.

[04:54:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[04:54:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Vice Mayor reminded me about VTA. Um yes we did have a board meeting where we adopted um principles that will guide um the the allocation of measure B funds and um this Friday we will actually be having a workshop at ten starting at 10:30 uh to begin the um discussion on the biennial budget for 2022 and 23 and the um measure B funds will be a part of that conversation. So anyone interested please tune in. Thanks.

[04:55:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Anyone else have anything to add? All right, I'm not seeing any other hands so we can move on to item 8 which is our closed session report. City Attorney Chopra is there a report?

[04:57:05] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There is no closed session report tonight.

[04:57:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Which means we can move on to item 9 which is our adjournment. Thank you so much everyone for joining us, I know we had an early start today. Our next regular City Council meeting will be on April 27th, 2021. So until then, stay healthy, our meeting is adjourned at 9:58 pm. Thank you. Good night.

3.1 R3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zoning District Update

[01:21:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, the area on the other side of 85 was referenced, I think that's another appropriate location. Um, and I also, this is more question two, I do think exploration of some kind of transit overlay would be beneficial. I think areas that are supported by high-quality transit are going to be able to support higher densities and maybe things like reduced parking requirements. So I do want to support that as well.

[01:22:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, and then for question two, I agree with staff on the special design overlay. I don't think there's any need for that. I disagree with staff on the height overlay. I was looking at the maps and in some areas, you know, there's R3 zoning without a height overlay adjacent to a single-family area. I couldn't justify retaining it for some areas and not having it for others.

[01:22:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And the other area I wanted to point out was the neighborhood near, um, Terra Bella. Uh, there's, uh, on the, the R3 side, there's a height overlay restricting height, but the, the, uh, the Limited Industrial zoning district already allows for substantial increases in height.

[01:22:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I don't remember if the Google building at 1001 North Shoreline is four stories or five, but it was very difficult for me to justify saying on the industrial side, we can have four or five story buildings, but on the R3 side, we would have to limit ourselves to one story. It's, it's kind of a, I think, not, not the correct prioritization in my mind. So I, I don't see a lot of value, especially without knowing the history in retaining the, the height overlay.

[01:23:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, so those are the general comments I have. I guess just, um, some additional remarks. I appreciated Councilmember Showalter's suggestion to facilitate parcel aggregation where it makes sense and allowing higher intensity development when that's done. I would like to explore that.

[01:23:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, I also support the Planning Commission's suggestion that in certain areas R3A and R3B could allow for greater density. That might be something we could address with the transit overlay.

[01:23:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, and I also think that over time we should use this as an opportunity to retire some of the older Precise Plans or, uh, the Planned Community zoning where we might have archaic, uh, development standards, um, that otherwise reference R3. So I know that's not within the scope of work right now, but I do think that's an important consideration later on.

[01:24:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, just as a final concluding remark, one of the other reasons why I think we have to be really careful about how we approach this is if we constrain development too much, we could start incentivizing bad behavior. One of the things, um, I was talking to a friend in, in real estate a little while ago about this, uh, the Ellis Act, uh, applies, I think, for 10 years. Those are the regulations that we have here for rent-controlled units. If a property is taken off the market for more than 10 years, then it ceases to be impacted or regulated by the Ellis Act.

[01:25:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: If we say that you can't redevelop your land, um, because of whatever development standards that we're providing here, you know, if we restrict things like row homes and leave, you know, make it basically impossible for property owners to derive the value of their property, they might start doing extreme things like withdrawing their properties from the market in order to evade things like rent control, uh, and, and create displacement in that, in that way.

[01:25:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, property owners are allowed to withdraw from the rental housing market if they want to. State law prohibits us from regulating that. So, I think allowing the density and the height is important. I think it makes the anti-displacement work feasible.

[01:25:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, I, I think we can't allow the status quo to continue any longer. It's not working. Um, and I think staff has done a great job providing some preliminary recommendations, uh, and I look forward to working with you to create designs and guidelines that enable the kind of development that our community wants to see. Thank you.

[01:26:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, I, I, um, agree with, with, uh, much of the way that Councilmember Ramirez started out his, uh, I think that was a helpful review of the, of the past, um, the, uh, list of demo'd flats replaced with high-end apartments with no parks and, and, uh, so forth.

[01:26:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, at the same time, I want to be really, really careful not to set ourselves up to kind of jump out of the frying pan and into the fire and find ourselves in a, a situation that's just as bad or worse.

[01:27:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, so, uh, so generally, I would say I agree with for the two questions, I agree with the R3 subzone approach, um, and overlays, um, but I, I would like to set up a lot of caveats or additional things to, to look into.

[01:27:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, the first one is the one that, that, uh, several people have brought up, it's, um, uh, my, I have concerns about displacement, I have concerns that, um, I want to make sure that we have, and I know we've addressed this in the questions, but I want to make sure that we really do, uh, have adequate mechanisms to make sure we have something like a, a one-to-one replacement, um, of affordable units, uh, whether that's a local version of SB 330 or, um, sort of, some sort of Ellis Act-related, uh, legislation or something else, you know, I don't want to move forward until we have something like that.

[01:28:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, the second concern I have is that, uh, as some other council members, I believe, I think it was Councilmember Abe-Koga said, uh, there, there are large areas with the, uh, R3D that, um, almost look like they, they beg for more than just, uh, simple upzoning, um, because, uh, I guess somebody once, because density alone doesn't make walkability or it doesn't get people out of their cars, doesn't make, um, you know, vibrant communities.

[01:28:51] Councilmember Alison Hicks: You need additional amenities, and we really need guidelines to make sure that we get those and, and people have mentioned parks and streetscaping, which are two that we absolutely need, but you, you also can't get people out of their cars if you don't have any place to go.

[01:29:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So our General Plan envisions, uh, or, or specifies, uh, basically neighborhood-serving retail, um, and I'm not, when I look at a lot of the, the, um, the configurations, the housing types, they look like, they look like places that, you know, should have something for the public on the ground floor.

[01:29:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Not everywhere, I mean, you can't, it doesn't look like we would have the density to have that everywhere, but, um, but I've seen places where when you have, uh, the density that is envisioned in the R3D, you, you have ground floor uses that are open to the public.

[01:29:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, for example, um, my son lives in Madison, Wisconsin, which is a beautiful town, the size of Mountain View and Sunnyvale put together, surrounded by farmland. When they do housing of this density, they put gyms that are open to the public, something like SoulCycle on the ground floor. They don't put private gyms in.

[01:30:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: They put, uh, you know, they put coffee houses on the ground floor. Uh, you can't do that everywhere, but I don't want large swaths of land with, you know, no landscaping, no parks, aggregated blocks with, as members of the public said, um, fencing that you can't get into.

[01:30:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, that's not the direction I want to go in. Um, I want, I want to make sure that we have a variety of, uh, unit types, by that I mean different sizes, not just one-person units, and, uh, different housing types too. I don't want the same kind of housing stamped over and over again.

[01:30:51] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, I think, and, and then also when I look through these areas, there are, um, you know, these, Mountain View, uh, you know, we may not get in Architectural Digest a lot, but we do have some architectural types that are, um, that, that Silicon Valley is actually...

• ← Previous
• Next →