October 26, 2021 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:03:01] (archive recording) Mayor Ellen Kamei: Welcome back everyone. Good evening. Welcome to the 1st study session of October 26, 2021. I'm going to read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the city of Mountain View city council resolution number 18603 in accordance with assembly bill 361. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountain view.legistar.com. On YouTube at mountain view.gov slash YouTube and on Comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period by visiting mountainview.gov slash cc underscore speakers to enter the zoom meeting or by phone by dialing 669-9009128 and entering webinar ID 817-78733018. Any emails received by 430 p.m. today were received directly by the city council. So move on to item two, which is roll call. The city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[00:37:33] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Abby Hogas. Council member labor.

[00:37:38] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Cure.

[00:37:38] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Mattachek.

[00:37:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[00:37:41] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member, show Walter. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[00:37:46] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:37:47] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei?

[00:37:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Here.

[00:37:50] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you.

[00:37:51] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. All right, so we'll move on to item three, which is our study session. Item 3.one is the city park in Los Altos school district, community school sites, master planning update. The purpose of this study session is to provide council with an update on the current status and next steps for the future, Los Altos school district, school and city park site master planning, including staff's preliminary recommendation for the city park location based on collaborative master plan work to date. The study session will also provide background on prior council actions, and agreements connected to the master planning, and allow council to evaluate design considerations, guiding current Park City, guiding current city park site, master planning recommendations, and upcoming master planning of the joint use open space on the future, uh, Los Altos school district school site. After the staff presentation, the council will answer 2 questions, question one, does council support the staff recommended city park location, and question 2, does council have any additional considerations for staff to fold into the next steps in the master planning process? Deputy zoning administrator, Rebecca Shapiro, represent the memo. Assistant city manager and community development director, Archie Shavastaval, Los Alto school district assistant superintendent Randy Kenyon, and architect for Los Altos school district. Lisa Gell fan are available for questions. I think we'll start with the staff presentation. So shall I turn it to you, Miss Shapiro?

[00:39:30] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Yes, definitely. Just your my screen. Are you seeing the cover slide? Everyone. Great. So thank you, Mayor. Canay, good evening, Mayor May and council members, uh, as the introduction, uh, indicated I'm Rebecca Shapiro, deputies and administrator for the city of Mountain View in our community development department. I'm here to present an update on the master planning work for the city park in Los Altos school district school site in Santonio Center. The overall LSD property shown in the screen, highlighted in a light purply color, it's approximately 11.7 acres of land in the northeast corner of San Antonio Center. The school district purchased the property from Federal Realty at the end of 2019. And for reference, the property is bounded by California Street, which is on the right side of the graphic in front of you. Uh, showers drive is to the east, which is along the bottom, to the west is the SFPUC Hutchi right of way on the left side of the graphic and at the very top. You'll see the main petty entry drive into San Antonio Center. As Mayor Comain noted, the primary purpose of today's or tonight's study session is to gain initial council and community input on the staff recommended city park location, as well as overarching master plan design considerations that staff will continue to use to guide our collaborative work with LSD, and the next steps of the master planning process. The study session also presented an opportunity for us to provide background information to the community and the current city council on prior council actions that have led us to where we are today. Before jumping into the meat of the master plan update. I'm just going to briefly touch on the key agreements between the city and LSD, which have led us to this unique collaborative master planning process, and the staff movement provides a great deal more additional background information. Um, For these agreements, which were negotiated and executed in 2018 and 2019, but their key role in regards to the master planning process was starting with the LSD CDR program, NRU, which introduced the concept of this collaborative master planning process, specifically for the joint open space, given the city's financial contributions towards its acquisition. The funding and joint use agreement for that joint use open space area further detailed this master planning process and included minimum required facilities and a deadline for constructing a joint use open space. And then later on, when an opportunity arose for the city to purchase 2 acres of land from LSD for a city park site, the property transfer agreement added scoop to the master planning work to identify the city park as compared to the school site. So once LSD completed purchase of the property, our respective staff started touching base, in early 2020, about kicking off the master plan effort. And unfortunately, this happened just before the COVID-19 shutdowns went into effect, and our respective staff priorities and workloads shifted significantly. So, um, we've experienced some delays in this work, but, um, have made a lot of pitch up progress, and with here tonight, uh, as a check in on key topics that will allow this collaborative work to continue. So, um, early and ongoing discussions have passed out a basic process for our master planning work, which involves, um, an iterative process of collaborative staff analysis, followed by city council and LASD board input for each of the master plan elements, respectively. You'll see those on the screen. Um, the recommended city park location as well as some of these key design considerations for this stuff of the master planning process were presented by LSD staff to the LSD board last week. Uh, the LASD board broadly supported the recommended city park location and further collaborative master planning efforts. So after city council input tonight, uh, city staff anticipates that continuing to work with the LSD staff and consultants on master planning of the Joint East Open Space. followed by presentation of our findings and recommendations to the city council and LSD board, respectively, for input, and we anticipate doing so in a lost step similar to what we've done in this 1st step of a master planning process. The overall staff identified design considerations are summarized here and describes, again, in more detail in the staff memo. These criteria supported the work that we've done to identify the city park location. And as I noted earlier, they will continue to be used for our subsequent work on the joint use open space. The most critical objective, in from staff's perspective, for the city park was to identify a site that would be neighborhood oriented, public facing, and centrally located to the area. Yeah. The staff recommendation also takes into account the open space planning from the San Antonio Precise Plan, which sought to create a green spine along the petty way entry road into San Antonio Center, leading to additional centralized and publicly accessible open space within San Antonio Center. And you'll see a graphic on the screen, uh, screen that illustrates, um, the San Anthony precise and principles, um, the basic strategies of open space. Um, although the precise plan does allow some flexibility for, um, refinement of locations, um, but those open space areas. The staff recommended city park site is located at the southeast corner of California Street in the Petty Way Entry Drive, into San Antonio Center that corresponds to definitely the northwest corner of this property. Um, Staff has found that it's the only spot on the LESD property that's located along a public street and predominantly facing an existing residential neighborhood area. Piketi Way also serves as a primary pedestrian connection to residential neighborhoods to the north, and California Street is a primary east-west connector for the San Speno neighborhood area. Within the San Antonio Precise Plan boundaries, the recommended location falls at roughly the midpoint of California Street, and it is also well situated for a future school access road to be sighted behind it. Um, to allow access from the Piketiway entry drive, which is important for, um, managing potential feature conflicts between school operations like pickups and drop offs and, uh, public street frontages where, uh, multiple city plans are seeking to widen sidewalks and install, separated and or, um, protected bike planes. So, um, in the future, the access road could also provide egress to city park parking if that ends up being a desirable quality for the park when we get to the park design stage. Um, and lastly, the location, places open space along that entry drive into San Antonio Center. Um, similar to what was envisioned by the San Antonio precise plan. And we believe it will provide at least a couple different options for joint use, open space configuration when we get to that stage of work. So all told this spot was found to meet basically all of the identified criteria that applied to this question we asked ourselves. As I noted earlier, the current master plan work really teed off the collaboration that the city in LAC had over the CDR program. And while identifying the city park location is an important 1st step of the master planning process. There are still a number of steps and different processes ahead of us before the city park can be constructed or development of the school site can occur. And there will be several opportunities for decision makers and public input as those processes continue both in the remaining steps of the master plan process and subsequent detailed design processes. As far as immediate next steps are concerned, staff anticipates returning the council for input on the joint use of open space master planning before finalizing the master plan work with LSD, and once completed, that will allow the property transfer process to continue as well as site condemnation. And, um, eventually, the more detailed design, sequin permitting process is necessary to arrive at the final design, once they start construction for both the city park and the LSD school sites, perspectively. And that concludes staff's presentation, as Mayor Kumay noted, we do have 2 questions for council inputs tonight, and I do have slides available to prompt council discussion on each question as needed. Thank you.

[00:48:50] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much, Ms. Shapiro. So since this is a study session. Um, we'll turn it over to public comment, um, first. So, um, does any member of the pub, would any member of the public on the line like to provide public comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom, or press Darnan on your phone, we'll display a 2 minute timer on the screen.

[00:49:17] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right, Tim McKenzie.

[00:49:21] Tim Mackenzie: Greetings all. And Tim Mackenzie, he him pronouns, resident of the Monte Loma neighborhood. Love the idea of a park. looks great. Um, but just as a Monte Loman, gotta speak up and make sure that when entering into this, uh, agreement with the school district that the city keeps the park space open so that we don't years down the line, have a sudden experience where offense is going up unexpectedly, um, with. So thank you. Look forward to seeing a park there. Eventually, it looks like a great spot.

[00:49:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Would anybody else like to provide public comment on this item? All right, I am not seeing any other hands. So I'll bring it back to the council. Does any member of council have any, um, I guess we can start with questions first? Do we have any questions about the study session? What was presented? All right, not seeing any. Um, We can now move into deliberation. So if council members could, um, answer both question one and two. I'll do my best to keep track. Council member hits.

[00:50:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So as for the 1st question, yes, I support the staff recommended city park location. And as for the 2nd question about additional considerations, I have, um, several to add, uh, 1st counsel, I think, or maybe I shouldn't speak for counsel. Maybe I should say I've really had an education over the last year about the changing nature of, um, schools, schoolyards, school safety, and how cities and schools can and cannot share facilities. And so, I'm just really hoping, what I've learned, basically, over the past year, is that, for safety reasons, and, um, the, uh, increasing number of after school activities, sharing is much more challenging than it was 60 years ago when we 1st started sharing facilities with schools. So I'm hoping that this project can be a model of kind of the next generation of school city partnerships, that we can kind of use it. We'll be working with, you know, other school districts as well, MVWSD, which is our local grade and middle school district, and also our high school district. And I'm really hoping that we can use this new partnership as a model for, as I said, kind of the next generation of partnerships. Um, I'm hoping we can use it to serve the health and recreational needs of a larger demographic than we often have in the past. I think in the past, we've often focused our perks and schoolyards, particular, some of our perks associated with the schoolyards, in large part with ball fields, which is an important, you know, that's an important part of what we do in parks and schools. But I think it serves a very small demographic, kind of a, um, a younger, often more male, often more people who can afford to be part of leagues. demographic, and that's a demographic that's important to serve, you know, my son was in that demographic, and my son and people like him needed to be served, but I think we need to sort of reenvision what we do with parks and schoolyards, and make sure that they, um, that they serve all of our population. I just came back from Colorado, where I got to look at some of their schools and associated parks. And I was really inspired by sort of the pulp and recreational nature of those spaces. They celebrated nature. They were more than lawn and black top. They, you know, they celebrated the recreational activities of people who do more than, um, team sports, you know, whether it's running and walking paths, garden beds, music stages. So I'm hoping, and some of our new council biodiversity goals. You know, they were truly beautiful places to be. So, um, I'm hoping that we can, that's kind of my additional input. I'm hoping that we can use this great new partnership to do some of those things. I should ask, Ed, I'm really happy to see, um, representatives from the, uh, architectural firm Gelfand in the, as one of the participants. I know they've done a lot of the Los Altos schools and a lot of other wonderful schools. Um, and, well, where I used to work in Oakland. And so, um, you know, I'm hoping we can work with great architects, like, like Gelfend, who I've always admired, and also with, um, other organizations that I know the Los Altos schools have worked with, like, the living classroom, putting outdoor garden beds and outdoor classrooms. I could make comments. I don't want to go on too long, but I could make comments about serving the disabled as well. Um, But I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

[00:55:02] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Council member Abbe Koga.

[00:55:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you and thank you to staff for your hard work and thank you to LASD staff as well for the collaboration. Um, I support uh, staff's recommendation, uh, question one. Um and with question two. Um, I think the, the, my interest, um, having been on the committee, well, a long time ago, when we talked about this, and, um, we, and I think, if I remember correctly, I, and I think it's important to mention that, you know, the 2 acre city park is separate from this 4 acre giant use space, because I've seen emails that think it's all the same. I just want to be very clear that there's the distinction. But if I remember correctly too, the 2 acre park was enabled by this, this parcel. So, originally, it was part of the gray star development across the way. I think they were gonna offer in Lou fees, but then this opportunity came about, and that's what's enabled the 2 acre park. So, um, I just want to, you know, kind of provide that historic background. Um, and the opportunity that is presented, and that's why we're here the way we are. So I think, you know, the city park will be designed through our regular process. And that's, um, that's great because we have a great process. But in terms of the joint use, um, space that we're talking about. Um, I actually, you know, having been, you know, being on that committee when we were talking about the site, um, there really was an interest from the neighborhood to have facilities like a track and field. I don't know about soccer fields and baseball fields, but this area, this part of town does not have those facilities. And so that was really the interest. And, you know, I'm also interested in the gym piece because that came up as well. So, um, you know, I appreciate Counselor Hicks comments, but for this area, It was really about the facility, the needs for facilities. So I just want to make sure that we are able to fit those facilities in the space. I read some, I think in the staff report, it might be a tight squeeze. And that would be my concern. Um, the other concern is, um, our interest is the use of those fields or the facilities, you know, after hours. I think that's been the challenge with some of our other joint use agreement parks. And so I just want to make sure that we do get, you know, ample time or ample use of those facilities after hours. And, um, you know, there are some question written questions about current uses. I'd be interested in getting that information so we can really see exactly how much use we want our community residents will be able to get from this. But otherwise, um, thanks for the update and let's keep moving forward. Thanks.

[00:58:09] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Council member manager.

[00:58:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah. So, um, I am question number one. Yes, I do support the recommended location for the city park. And I'm question 2 Um, I, I do want to make sure that as plans progress, that the 2 acres, approximately 2 acres, uh, for the city park, remains a city park and remains open to residents. Um, all the time. and that there's no limitations on that. Um, I know that's the way we're heading, but I just want to emphasize that that is the way I'd like it to stay heading. Um, and, um, I also, um, I would, Prefer to have the track the soccer field on the 4 acres, approximately 4 acres. of joint use property, unless the neighborhood is okay with maybe some of that being in the city park. Um, but I want to make sure we go through the traditional process to design the city park and get a lot of neighborhood input, um, because they might not want that, um, and they might be expecting for all of that to be provided on the joint use acreage. Um, and I would also want to make sure that the neighborhood has good access to the facilities and the joint use property. And I am concerned that if the facilities are booked by, um, sports teams that then there's not much time for neighborhood use that might be casual, informal, you know, a pickup game. So, um, I, you know, I don't know how we balance that or who actually controls how much the facilities would be scheduled and therefore preclude used by the neighborhood. Um, but I want to make sure the neighborhood has good use of those facilities. That was, you know, partially why we supported, uh, this, um, arrangement is because we wanted to bring some facilities to the neighborhood. So, I want to make sure there's good availability of those facilities. Thanks.

[01:00:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you, council member, show Walter.

[01:00:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um, uh, 1st of all, I'd like to, I'd like to thank staff of, um, the city mountain view and also the Los Altos school district for all the work they've done to get to this point. I know it's been a lot. And I'd also like to thank Margaret Abikoga for sitting on that committee for us years ago. I know it was, um, not the most pleasant task. you ever had. But, um, you did it with, uh, with good humor, and, um, you kept reporting back, and we really appreciated it. So thanks for doing that. Um, kind of adding on to, or really not, just saying ditto to mostly what people have said thus far. We do want our parks to be available for our community all the time. I mean, that's just a basis for a part. And of course, we want to maximize the joint use of the facilities that are built there. And, um, that's just, that's just very basic. And, um, we have a great program for designing parks. And, um, so I think that, you know, the, uh, there's a lot of strength in using that process, and, um, hopefully, the people who were involved in the, um, the discussions, um, with, uh, council member, Abi Coco, will step up again to, um, to come and share their, that, what they learn in that process and to, and to continue with the park design. I would also like to just put in a plug for saving the mural on the Joanne fabric. I don't know if it's possible to do that, but, um, I personally think murals are great, and I love public art, and if there was a way to incorporate that, I think that would be really nice. So, anyway, thanks for a good job, and my answer is yes, on both of those, basically yes, on both of those questions.

[01:02:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you, Councilman Reliever.

[01:02:37] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, I am definitely, uh, a yes, um, question one. I think that staff has done a very good job of finding the location that's available. I am very interested in the bike pedestrian uh, access and comfort and safety. And I know that in the staff reports, and that kind of depends on some future, um, uh, developments happening. Um, so that's something that I would like to really see folded in, and, um, I'm interested in the access, um, issues that council member Hicks raised. And in particular, in, um, the use of natural materials, um, like fines for, um, pathways and unless, um, sort of manufactured, um, uh, use of materials. Um, I would like to see if there's, uh, a way that would kind of, uh, keep this segment of the Hetch Hetchy right away in communication with the other segments within the city because I think that we still do have a possibility in the future of sort of a pathway orientation, um, along Hetch Hetchy. And so as the, the various sites come up that are related to that, I want to make sure that we're, um, uh, keeping that, um, is, is an open question and an open possibility for the future. And then, for me, as some of the other council members have alluded to, um, the expectations are really important. And as council member Manachek noted, um, you know, really, uh, ensuring the open access for the community and and for that neighborhood that, um, does not have, uh, a lot of open space right now. Um, and I think that just making sure that we have those guarantees on the front end so that, um, we're not, you know, surprised by things later. Uh, the more clarity that we can have, um, about things, I think is very, very important. So those are my comments. Thank you.

[01:05:27] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[01:05:30] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. My comments are substantially similar to the contributions already made. Uh, Question one, I support the staff recommendations. For question two, Um, I did want to, uh, echo what, uh, council member Metachek had said about, uh, process that, um, solicits the input of the community or the neighborhood nearby on what we want to see in the city park. I don't know. Um, and I think it's a good idea to, uh, to do a deep dive and, you know, discern whether there are, uh, uh, more active facilities there or if we want passive uses. So I like that idea. Um, and the only other, uh, the feedback I have is, I am a little concerned about, um, the encroachment of the easements into the usable space, and if there are opportunities to, to maximize the, the usable space both for the city park and the joint use, uh, facilities. That would be ideal. Um, and the, I, I, one of the things staff with the, the briefings that were provided, those were very helpful. And, in those We talked a little bit about Pochetti Way, and um, the circulation math. that uh staff provided. Um, I guess I'm, I think it would be worth exploring whether we necessarily need, uh, 2 way right away for cars going around, um, you know, the park or the school area. Um, I lived in this area for a while, I wonder if we can make do with, uh, with a one way circulation that might allow for more space for park facilities. or, uh, you know, bicycle, pedestrian facilities. I'm open-minded on what we might use with that space, but 2 way circulation in this area feels, um, uh, a bit excessive, but I think it, it certainly merits some additional study, uh, and I'd be eager to hear what public works staff conclude. Um, but aside from that, I agree with, uh, pretty much everything that everyone else has, um, already said, and I appreciate uh, staff's work on this. Thank you.

[01:07:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So I think everyone has kind of provided the feedback to the 2 questions. So I'll provide mine, um, which is, um, for question one, yes, I support the staff recommended city park location. And, um, I think for question two, my colleagues have summarized it pretty well. Um, and the Vice Mayor actually touched on something that I was thinking about that had it wasn't mentioned, but he did, which is, you know, how do we maximize, um, the space? Um, and I think that's something that probably the city and LASD are most interested in is maximizing the utilization of the space and know that, as we're talking about the city park location, how we can, how we can do that. Um, I also, um, appreciate that this has been a long journey and a long process. So thank you to staff. Thank you to LASD. Thank you to customer Ravi Koka, um, for bringing us to the place we are now, which is, I think, really exciting, talking about, um, you know, future park and facilities in an area that's much needed and really appreciate, um, what I saw in the staff report in terms of the community outreach and input. I think that's really gonna be critical. So, um, especially related to, I think, the vice mayor is mentioning, you know, circulation. Um, you know, so many of the comments we get, because there was the San Antonio precise plan one, and then the SAP2 is like how to improve all circulation. Um, but Austrian cycling and vehicular to make it an area that thrives and doesn't bottleneck. Um, and so, um, I know that we'll be thinking about that as well. But I really appreciate everything that's gone into it and think that, um, we've been able to find really creative ways to get, um, input from residents. So, encouraged by that. So does staff need any other kind of answers or questions from us? It sounded like question one was unanimous from counsel. So have any S's on question one? For question two, I think you've got kind of an array, but of, um, feedback, but I, but I don't know if you need any further clarification. Miss Shapiro, do you need anything else?

[01:10:11] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Um, I think I got pretty, pretty clear concurrence across uh, all the council members. I'll just quickly, uh, turn to, to artsy, she lasted, just to see if she has any, any clarifications or questions, she thinks.

[01:10:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yeah, and maybe, and maybe, Mr. Vastra, can you just summarize what you heard? for counseling the public.

[01:10:30] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Thank you. Yes. I think all the council members wanted to make sure that the 2 acres of the city had the ability to design that, use our community process for sure, and then have that open to our residents at all times like our parks. On the joint use open space. What we heard is we do want to work with LASD to maximize the use of it by the community, acknowledging that the school will need it for some time and balance it between that and any sports teams and leagues, so the community and the neighborhood does have use of the space. So we will work for the school district on that. Um, and then, um, I think we also heard that, um, some amount of re-envisioning of the open space, um, to add other aspects of it, to the extent feasible. I think will do our best on the 4 acres, but we certainly can do a lot more on the 2 acres, bringing other aspects of health, nature, um, you know, running, walking, natural paths, um, what I also heard was that, um, community outreach is important. Access is important, and that we need to maximize the open space and look at ways to do that. We can certainly study the right of way and see if there are any revisions to be brought forward. Although I do understand that we've got, I think, some precise plan issues also to work through. So we'll do our best within that. Um, I, that's kind of my, my summary. I, I, um, hope that that, um, summarizes it.

[01:12:10] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. I think that that's a great synopsis. Does council is council okay? Um, with what you heard here. All right. Okay. Well, I think that that means, um, That staff has what they need. So we can end our study session and we can resume our regular session at 6.30. Um, which will be really exciting because we will have our um, middle school mayor for a day. So we'll see everyone at 6.30.

[00:39:36] (archive recording) Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Um, our break. Welcome to the city council regular and Shoreline Regional Park community special joint meeting on October 26, 2021. I'm going to read the unusual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with city of Mountain View City council resolution number 18603 in accordance with assembly bill 361. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference, with no physical meeting location.

[00:40:19] (archive recording) Mayor Ellen Kamei: Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountain view.legistar.com on YouTube at mountain view.gov slash YouTube and on Comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period by visiting mountain view.gov slash cc underscore speakers to enter the zoom meeting or by phone by dialing 669-9009128 and entering webinar ID 817-78733018. Any emails received by 430 p.m. today were received directly by the city council. Tonight, we have a very special guest, our mayor for a day, middle school contestant, winner, Drew, the J. Drew, will you please lead us in the pledge of allegiance?

[01:32:24] Dhruv Vijay: Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. 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.

[01:32:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you, Drew. So now we'll move on to item two which is our roll call. The city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[01:32:53] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Abbe Koga. Sorry, I didn't hear that. Maybe she's not here. Council member Hicks? Here?

[01:33:06] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Lieber?

[01:33:07] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Here.

[01:33:08] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Mattachek?

[01:33:10] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here

[01:33:11] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member show Walter?

[01:33:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here?

[01:33:14] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[01:33:16] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[01:33:16] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: And Mayor Knight?

[01:33:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Here.

[01:33:19] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you.

[01:33:21] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. So we'll move on to item three, which is our presentations. And we'll now take public comment for the presentation item. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the presentation item listed on the agenda? If so, please click the raise handbun in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. All right. I see one hand, so we'll set a 2 minute timer. This is for item 3.one, which is our certification of recognition. For Drew VJ for our middle school mayor for a day. Uh, Brea?

[01:34:06] Brea: Sorry, wrong item.

[01:34:08] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, no problem. That's why I wanted to clarify. No problem. Okay. So it looks like we don't have public comment on this item. So we'll move on to 3.one, our really exciting item for today. Um, which is our mayor for a day essay contest winner. So our mayor for a day, essay contest ran through the month of September, elementary and middle school aged Mountain View residents, wrote about what Mountain View would be like if they were mayor for a day. An elementary school and middle school winner were selected by me. And we are joined. We were joined by our elementary school winner at our October 12th meeting. And this meeting, we're very privileged to have, Drew, Vijay, join us as our middle school winner. Drew attends block intermediate and is in the 8th grade. And Drew, do you want to share your essay with all of us on city council and the public who's watching? All right.

[01:35:08] Dhruv Vijay: Uh, I have lived in Mountain View for the entire 13 years of my life. I have benefited from being part of the socioeconomic and cultural diversity of Mountain View. If I were mayor for a day, it would look like any other day, but I would get a chance to highlight the resources that Mountain View has to promote this diversity. I would start my day by using one resource that Mount Leaf has to offer. The Mountain View community bus, which is a great form of sustainable transport. I would go to the downtown cashier street needs. There I would experience people from different backgrounds and income levels supporting the local, small businesses, and feel part of the community. People would be able to enjoy the fresh air and delicious food while staying safe aim in this pandemic. Next, I would highlight the mountain routine center. Here kids of many backgrounds could participate in activities all for free. They can play video games, sports, cable games, and even learn how to cook in the large kitchen there. Not to mention, they're able to meet new people and make friends. Finally, I would highlight the affordable housing in Mount View. I realize that many people that work in the city don't get to enjoy the city they work in. A personal example that I have experienced is with my teachers. Many of my teachers live in different cities than mouth. People can benefit from knowing the affordable housing options in the city. This would result in more socioeconomic diversity in the city, which, in turn, would result in more a more diverse and charming city of Mountain View. In conclusion, if I were married per day. It wouldn't look much different, but I would be able to highlight the menu resources that Mountain View has to offer.

[01:36:54] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yay. Great. Thank you. Um, thanks so much for sharing your passion for our community and especially your inclusion of all our community members, and thank you so much for participating in our essay contest. Um, you will be receiving a certificate of recognition in the mail very soon, and I wanted to make sure that you had the opportunity if there's anything else you wanted to share with the city council. Um, And the public, true. Uh, well,

[01:37:28] Dhruv Vijay: thank you, mayor and city council members for the opportunity today. And after writing my essay, like I became more interested in the different decisions that Mountain View City Council makes, and I might want to be part of the youth advisory committee in the future.

[01:37:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I think maybe people have read about you, as well as our elementary school winner, I know that the Mountain View voice interviewed you, and I think the Los Altos Town Crier interviewed you. So you are our celebrity of the day today too. So thank you so much. So I think if you don't mind, we can take a quick, um, I'll take a quick screenshot photo because unfortunately we can't all be in person, Drew, is that okay? And then we'll make sure that we send it to you. All right. Okay, cool. All right. Ready everyone? One, two, three. All right. Ace Drew. And then, I wanted to open it up to my council colleagues. Would any member of the council like to say a few words? Councilman reliever.

[01:38:40] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Well, Mayor Drew, I really appreciate you joining us. I think you're a great booster for Mountain View, and I hope that you keep up your interest in public service. You're obviously going places.

[01:38:54] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yeah. Great, thank you. Does anyone else like to say a few words?

[01:39:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Right. Well, Drew, I'm really excited that you were able to join us and you know what? You made us on time today, which is like a really good thing for us because sometimes we're late. So thank you so much for everything. It's really wonderful to see you participate, to hear what you had to say. Um, and, um, really can't wait to see what you do next, um, in our great city. So thank you so much.

[01:39:28] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Let's give Drew another round of a bus. Yay. All right, Drew, thank you. Have a great night.

[01:39:35] Dhruv Vijay: Appreciate it. Thanks for having it. Thank you for having me.

[01:39:38] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Of course. All right. Thanks, everyone. 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 the council member requests otherwise. As a reminder, the purpose of the consent calendar is for the council to efficiently, and quickly consider a high volume of routine or administrative business items with one motion. Although council members may remove items, it is generally not intended for the council to have a lengthy substantive discussion on consent calendar items. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? All right, not seeing any hands. Would any member of the public on the line, um, like to provide comment on any item on the consent calendar? If so, please click the raise, hand button, and zoom, or press star 9 on your phone, and we'll display a 2 minute timer on the screen. Okay, I am not seeing any hands. So all I will bring the item back for council action and note that a motion to approve the consent calendar should include reading the title of the resolutions attached to items 4.2 and 4.3. Vice Mary Ramirez.

[01:41:12] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'll go ahead and move the staff recommendation, including item 4.2, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, approving the final map of Tract number 10497, 1255 Pear Avenue, accepting dedications and making findings as required by the city code, and item 4.3, Adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, directing all legislative bodies of the city of Mountain View, subject, the Brown X, to continue to meet remotely, in accordance with Assembly Bill 361 and making findings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361. Great, thank you, Council member Michelle Walter.

[01:41:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I 2nd the emotion.

[01:41:57] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So we have a motion by the vice mayor, 2nded by council member show Walter, so we'll do a roll call vote.

[01:42:05] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Ice creamer Ramirez.

[01:42:07] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[01:42:08] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Shelter?

[01:42:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes?

[01:42:11] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member, have a Koga?

[01:42:15] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Hicks?

[01:42:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:42:17] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Labor?

[01:42:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[01:42:19] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Matachek?

[01:42:21] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[01:42:22] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: And mayor, can I?

[01:42:23] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:42:24] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Motion carries?

[01:42:26] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So we'll move on to item five, which is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom, or press start on on your phone, and we'll display a 3 minute timer on the screen. Great. Tim Mackenzie?

[01:43:19] Tim Mackenzie: Greetings, all. Tim Mackenzie, he him pronouns, resident of the Montaloman neighborhood. Um, the stationary engineers at Kaiser Permanente have been on strike for a little over a month, I believe, they were picketing in Santa Clara, the city, and in Redwood City recently. And I heard last week that Kaiser Permanente had reached out to elected officials and asked them to remain on the sidelines in the issue, on the issue. I know that there's a Kaiser in Mountain View. So, I think that there's a relevance in our elected officials speaking up, and I would personally, as a resident of the city, really like to see, uh, my council members standing up on the side of workers, uh, for the striking workers. Thank you.

[01:44:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Albert Jeans.

[01:44:18] Albert Cheese: Hi there, I have some slides and I have my own timer.

[01:44:28] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Whoops. Oh, Albert, I appreciate your timer, but I'm gonna go buy the staff timer, okay?

[01:44:35] Albert Cheese: Sure, sure. Okay. I'll just use mine as a guide. Okay, good evening, Mayor Command Council members. I'm Albert Cheese. As you know, longtime resident of Steerland Estates. I just wanted to share with you in the public what's been happening in our part of town as a result of measured C, though, narrow streets ordinance. The science have been installed in our area, and they are working. However, as expected, more and more oversized vehicles are appearing on Terabella Avenue, since the street is 45 feet wide, not 40 feet. Here's what the street was like 5 years ago and next slide, please. Here's what it looks like today. And obviously there's a big change. Currently, roughly 50% of the curve space is now part. And I expect this to increase. I'm not complaining. I mean, I'm, I don't like it, but I'm, you know, this is what I expected with measure C because of the, with the teradull. Of course, this impacts the businesses that occupy this light industrial area. But what motive that it may motivated me to show this to you tonight is what I what a neighbor told me. She no longer lets her children use Terabella to walk to school. Because nobody would be able to see them from the street. In fact, a solid wall of large vehicles would prevent the police from being able to effectively patrol in vehicles at any time of the day. This is a safety issue, which I really hadn't thought of before. My neighbors and I are now petitioning the city to install bike wanes here, and that would solve this problem. But I'm sure that there are other parts of Mountain View that will face this problem sooner or later. And I hope we can work to a good solution to that. Thank you very much.

[01:46:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Appreciate it. All right, so that concludes public comment. So we can bring this item back to council. We'll move on to uh, item six, public hearing. We have none so we can move on to item seven, which is a continuation of our study session. Item 7.1. is our wage theft and responsible construction ordinances. The purpose of this study session is to receive city council input on the development of a wage theft ordinance and a responsible construction ordinance. To enhance wage protections for workers in the city of Mountain View. After the presentation, the council will answer the following questions in turn. Question one, does council support staff's recommended strategy for the development of a wage step ordinance, and question 2 does council support staff's recommended strategy for the development of a responsible construction ordinance? Assistant to the city manager, Christina Gilmore, will present the memo. Management fellow, Harsha, Ramshadani, assistant city attorney Nicole Wright, an assistant city manager and chief operating officer, Audrey Seymour Ramberg, are available for questions. So we'll start with the staff presentation.

[01:47:31] Christina Gilmore: Thank you mayor. I'm going to ask the clerk if they're going to allow Harsha to join. She's going to run the presentation for me while I speak. Thanks, Miss Gilmore.

[01:47:45] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: We bring her over.

[01:47:46] Christina Gilmore: Thank you. Okay. Wonderful. Well, good evening, mayor and council. My name is Christina Gilmore, assistant to the city manager. I am also joined here this evening by Harsha Ramchandati, our management fellow here in the city manager's office. The purpose of the study session item is to receive city council input on the development of a wage theft ordinance and a responsible construction ordinance to enhance wage protection for workers in the city of Mountain View. The city council adopted the minimum wage ordinance in 2014. And then 2019, which theft advocates approached the city council and asked them to consider developing a wage theft ordinance and a responsible construction ordinance as part of their 2019, 2021 city council major goal setting process. The city council included the development of a wage theft ordinance and a responsible construction ordinance as part of their goal setting. And in July, beginning in July of 2019, staff began to engage with the advocates in the building trades and the wage sub coalition to research existing regulations and what other cities were currently doing in regards to these 2 ordinances. Staff also met with staff to begin developing recommended strategies for incorporating ordinances into our existing permit processes. The the process of developing the 2 strategies that we're discussing here today was put on hold in early 2020 due to the COVID pandemic, and staff picked up the development of the 2 strategies that we'll discuss tonight, um, in the fall of 2020. Which that occurs when an employee does not receive the widges they are owed. So some examples include, but are not limited to, paying less than minimum wage, bouncing checks are not being allowed to use paid sick leave. Industries that are at high risk for which stuff include retail, caregiving, massage, and spa, construction, and service industries like genitorial services, and hotel cleaning staff amongst others. Responsible construction refers to wage protections and other provisions specific to the construction industry. Staff's approach is to look at the proposed wage theft and responsible construction strategies as supporting the adopted minimum wage ordinance, in addition to prevailing wage requirements and waging hour laws enforced by the state. In 2011, the state enacted the California Wage Theft and Prevention Act. The state requires all employers to comply with various wage and hour laws. These include, for example, minimum wage wages per hour, allowances for required meal and rest breaks, over time, paid sickly, reimbursement for business expenses, and payment for promise vacations or bonuses. As mentioned earlier in this presentation, when an employee does not receive their required wages, this is referred to as wage theft. Prevailing wage is also a current, um, wage and hour law that's in effect. And that refers to the minimum wage required to be paid to workers based on their classification for work, performed by performed on a public works project that is paid in foreign whole or in part by public funds. These existing wage and hour laws, protect workers' rights, and enable workers who have experienced wage theft to file a claim with the state to recover wages or other compensation and penalties. Staff recommends that the business license application and renewal process be used as a way to seek compliance with wage laws. All businesses subject to the business license requirements would be required to submit an affidavit as part of the business license application process that attests that the business does not have any unsatisfied labor law judgments or orders against them. Are the intent is to encourage compliance with wage and hour laws. Failure to cement the affidavit would result in administrative compliance orders and citations imposing administrative penalties. Additionally, the middle of a false attestation may be subject to the administrative civil or criminal penalties dependent upon the circumstances. Due to limited resources, um, for the affidavits, for, for processing the affidavits, staff would, um, Affidavits would not be verified by staff, but rather city, the city staff would investigate complaints, receive alleging and attest attestation contained false information. So this here is just a process workflow that um, visually describes what I just, um, talked about. So again, um, for the wage theft, we are recommending that an applicant submit an affidavit as part of the work, their um, business license process or renewal. Um, once the affidavit is submitted, if there are no claims of false, um, um, affidavit, then they will receive their, are within compliance. If an affidavit is not submitted, then that, um, triggers the administrative penalty enforcement process, and additionally, if it, if it is found that, an, um, a permit has submitted an affidavit that's false, it triggers the administrative penalty enforcement process. Staff has identified the building permit processed as an appropriate vehicle for communicating and seeking compliance for responsible construction wage protections. We recommend that all commercial and multifamily housing construction projects above 15,000 square feet per structure, including new construction and renovation projects, be subject to the requirements that confirm wage and hour laws were complied for with the project. The permit applicant for the project would be required at the beginning of the permit application process to submit a pay transparency acknowledgement form. That certifies that all applicable labor laws will be adhered to, and that a notice outlining workers' rights will be posted at visible locations on the job site. After the construction project has been completed, The permitee would be required to submit to the city a pay attestation form. For the general contractor and qualifying subcontractors, certifying that they comply with applicable laws and notices of workers' rights were posted at visible locations on the job site. Like the proposed wage, the ordinance strategy, failure to submit, the acknowledgment and pay attestation would result in administrative compliance orders, and citations imposing administrative penalties. It's the middle of a false pay attestation would also be subject to penalties which may include administrative civil or criminal remedies dependent upon the circumstances. Due to limited staff resources and the anticipated high volume of pay attestations for any project, subject to the ordinance, the pay attestations submitted would not be verified by staff. The city would investigate complaints received that allege a pay attestation contained false information. Staff is not recommending that the responsible construction ordinance be applied to the public works projects, to public works projects, subject to prevailing wage, due to the additional protections already in place for public works projects. And again, this is an example of the process I just described in visual form. It's the same as the wage that ordinance, the only differences for the responsible construction, staff is recommending that the submittal process is a 2 step process. So again, at the beginning of the project, a pay transparency form is submitted, and then at the end of the project, an attestation form is submitted. Staff seeks council's feedback on the following 2 questions. Does counsel support staff recommend a strategy for the development of a wage theft ordinance? And does council support staff recommend a strategy for the development of a responsible construction ordinance? Following feedback from the city council at the study session, staff proposes the timeline of next steps for the development of wage theft and responsible construction ordinances over the next several quarters in the calendar year of 2022. This includes stakeholder engagement and outreach to seek input on the proposed ordinances, education and building awareness, developing a compliance and enforcement process, and incorporating the ordinances into existing permit processes. Staff proposes to return to council in the fall of 2022 for ordinance introduction and adoption with the proposed effective date in January of 2023. This concludes the presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions. Thank you.

[01:57:16] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much. So since this is a study session, I'll go to public comment 1st and then bring it back to council. So, um, 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 9 on your phone. We'll display a 2 minute timer on the screen, and just as a reminder for folks who may just be joining us, we're doing item 7.one, which is our wage theft and responsible construction ordinances. All right, so we'll start with Albert Jeans.

[01:57:53] Albert Jeans: Sorry, I thought I'd lowered my hand.

[01:57:55] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Oh, no problem, Albert. Okay, not on this item then? No.

[01:57:59] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. How about Tim Mackenzie?

[01:58:10] Tim Mackenzie: Greetings, all? Tim Mackenzie. He, him, pronouns, the resident of the Montaloman neighborhood. Love the idea of a wage theft ordinance. They're, I wholly supported, and also just sort of want to plant the seed as it moves, as the process moves forward of, uh, wage theft being people not given the wages that they are due. I'm aware of a practice that I see a lot. I've seen it at Stanford of hiring, quote, subcontracted workers who are essentially employees of a business, um, doing the same work as other people that are directly employed, but being paid less than, uh, than the other people because they're quote, subcontracted. I know that's a fairly common business practice around, and that sounds to me, like a situation where someone maybe denied the wages that they are due. Um, and I'd hope that, that, uh, framing could perhaps be incorporated into this wage theft ordinance. Thank you, staff, and counsel for all your work on this seems great.

[01:59:15] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Louise Auerhan?

[01:59:21] Louise Auerhahn: Uh, thank you. Marin City Council. Louise Auerhan with working partnerships USA. And 1st I want to thank Mount New City Council for your long-standing leadership and empowering low wage workers, including in raising the minimum wage. And thank you for considering these measures tonight. As you know, and as you heard, wage theft is an alarmingly widespread crime, and construction is one of the main centers where it occurs. The wage steps, coalition, recent report, found that over 12,000 Santa Clara County construction workers have been victims of wage theft, robbed of over $46000000 in wages that they earned. And that's only the cases that are documented. And we know that this crime is especially directed against vulnerable Latino and Asian workers. Wage theft targeting workers of color and immigrants is actually a major source of pay in equity. We've found that Latino construction workers in San Jose bring home 38% less paid than white construction workers. And part of the reason is they're not being paid what they're owed. At the same time, allowing these handful of unscrupulous companies to get away with wage theft, harms the majority of responsible business owners, including many of our small local businesses who are trying to play by the rules, and treat their workers fairly but can't compete with those who cheat. So I urge you to pass a strong wage theft and responsible construction ordinance, and to strongly consider tying it to the building permit rather than just administrative citation. We really want to focus on the outcome that if a company has already been convicted and found and ordered to pay a wage stuff judgment, it should pay that judgment point blank. Um, and I don't know if it already is refusing to pay a judgment ordered by the state, is it really going to pay the city's administrative citation, um, that, that seems like that might be an issue. So I urge you to look at the building permit as well. Thank you.

[02:01:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. SMW 104 Keith Silva.

[02:01:31] Keith Silva: Yes, hello. everybody hear me?

[02:01:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:01:38] Keith Silva: Perfect. So, my name's Key Silva. I'm with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104. I've been part of the local for the past 21 years. Um, This past July. I was elected to be business representative for Northern Santa Clara, which includes the city of Mountain View. I'm here to speak in support of a responsible construction ordinance because it is the right thing to do. Mountain View was a leader on adopting a livable minimum wage ordinance, and I feel this is the next logical step. It's not just a union or a non-union thing, but a way to assure that construction workers are not being exploited. Yes, I said workers and not just my members, but all construction workers. You see, under prevailing wage projects, the information as public knowledge in our compliance department can check certified payrolls and to see if the proper rates are being applied. Our business development, department reaches out to workers, doing this covered work on these sites, and let them know that they can turn to us to stop being victimized due to wage theft. A lot of time bad contractors will actually pay out in prevailing rate, but the demand that workers give money back. So they only look good on paper, but in reality, they are thieves. How do we know this is not happening right now on private projects right here in Mountain View? We have no way of knowing, because construction workers, um, who wages are being stolen have no one to turn to. A responsible construction ordinance will provide open competition and bidding to all the high road contractors, um, and will not be punished, um, out by the bad contractors by making them, um, being able to exploit their workers. It will provide a level playing field for all honest contractors and will benefit all construction workers. I thank you for your time, and I know Mountain Dew will continue to be the leader for workers' protections and rights.

[02:03:33] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Doug, Cheshire?

[02:03:40] Doug Cheshire: Good evening, Mayor Kame and fellow city council members. My name is Doug Cheshire. I'm a field representative for Carpenters Local 405 here in Santa Clara County. And on behalf of 38,000 working men and women here in Northern California. I'm here this evening to voice support for a responsible construction ordinance. An ordinance, which is overdue. Workers cannot afford to wait any longer. UC Berkeley researchers found in a 2021 study that almost half of families of construction workers in California are enrolled in a safety net program at an annual cost of over $3 billion. Theft of over, excuse me, theft of overtime wages, break time wages, contribute to this costly problem. Workers cannot afford to wait for the status quo to change. On October 18th, 2021. It was reported that a drywall contractor based in California had been fined. $170000000 per wage and hour violations affecting 265 workers according to labor commissioners' office. And yesterday, The DRR publicized the issuance of citations against another drywall contractor based in California for $7000000 in wage and penalties. Among the violations, failure to properly inform workers about their wages, another compensation at the time of hire, and failure to issue workers properly itemized wage statements. 4800000 in damages for failures affecting 724 employees. Workers vulnerable to wage theft cannot afford to wait for a process to drag on for one more year. Though a responsible construction ordinance is a great start. It is just a step in the right direction to where we need to be. We need to look toward construction standards that provide a pathway to a career, through a joint labor management apprenticeship programs, with healthcare and benefits for families to thrive here in Mountain View. I urge council and staff to hasten the process and implement an ordinance that will protect workers from the predators that exploit. Thank you.

[02:05:46] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Thank you. Rue Silver Tub?

[02:05:55] Ruth Silver Taube: Good evening. I want to, I'm here on behalf of the Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition and the Alexander Community Law Center. I want to thank the staff, the mayor, and council members for making wage theft a priority. However, we do have concerns about the proposed ordinance. The ordinance is enforcement mechanism is solely administrative citations that are available in the case of false affidavits and failure to complete the affidavit. The city will still issue licenses, building permits and certificates of occupancy, even if an employer has unpaid wage theft judgments. We have no problem with a hefty administrative citation for false disclosure statements, provided that is not just the statutory administrative citation, but a significant amount. However, if an employer or contractor or subcontractor has an unpaid wage theft judgment, they should be required to post a bond in the amount of the judgment, or forfeit the ability to obtain a building permit, until the judgment is paid, or there's a payment plan. Also, the disclosure in the ordinance is overbroad, and therefore unenforceable. It covers all labor laws. It must be specific. It should cover not only unpaid wage theft judgments, but in the case of responsible construction, unpaid payroll taxes, workers' pump insurance, and whether or not the contractor or subcontractor is licensed. If it's specific, then it will be enforcedable. Three, it should cover day workers, since wage theft in that sector is rampant. It should also address its own contracting, the way San Jose, Santa Clara County Milpitas and Sunnyvale have done. We do not expect the city of Mountain View to verify any of the attestation's affidavits or affidavits. However, if necessary, it'll be very easy, since the Labor Commission now has a public database online. You can also call or email Matt Seroli, who's head of the judgment enforcement unit of the Labor Commission, and he will verify. Thank you again for all of your hard work on this.

[02:08:02] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Forrest? Oh, here you go. For it?

[02:08:16] Dr. Forrest Peterson: Thank you. Okay. Yeah. My news, Dr. Forrest Peterson. I am a post-doctoral researcher now at the Center for Integrated Facilities Engineering at Stanford University. I'm here speaking with the Wage Stuff Coalition, who I've had an ongoing collaboration with Stanford University engineering for the past 5 years to better understand wage theft in the construction industry. Um, I'm somewhat unique in that. Uh, before I was a union concrete labor with uh, Layuna for 5 years. I was a day worker, a day laborer, doing tile work, some of that here in Mountain View. I still remember knocking on the door of a contractor and asking them, why didn't they pay the subcontractor that I worked for, and they said because they weren't paid by the contractor they were working for, and agreed that all of us were supposed to have been paid, and it was theft. So from that background of that understanding as a researcher, That's what I bring here today to to share with the honorable city council that wage theft isn't just about the paperwork. It is about the day workers who really fly under the radar and aren't always a part of the system and have the ability to walk up and ask for their wages as a young, um, uh, resident of San Jose, even I had a difficult time navigating that system, so I can't imagine how many other people would be able to navigate that system. When the informal marketplace in the construction industry is absolutely rampant. And that is one that I can say, as Stanford University Engineering, is a component of the construction industry that must be considered, is how to capture the day workers, the laborers, the concrete labors of this industry who are so often taken advantage of. So once again, I want to thank my esteemed colleagues who've spoken, and I particularly appreciated the comments made by Luis. That was that was an incredibly in-depth explanation, and I think Ruth Silvertov has really explained some of the issues that really should be picked up in the legislation.

[02:10:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Thank you. Krista della Torre?

[02:10:36] Krista Della Torre: Hi, good evening. My name is Krista Delatori, and I'm here today on behalf of the South Bay Labor Council. I want to thank the city staff, city council and mayor for the work on the wage theft and responsible development ordinance, and its present form, the ordinance is pretty limited in its ability to prevent employers, contractors, and some contractors with unpaid wage theft judgments from further short-changing their employees. First, the ordinance is limited because it uses administrative citations as a sole enforcement mechanism. And as we know, administrative citations are only available in the case of false affidavits and disclosures. If employers, contractors or subcontractors have unpage wage theft judgments, they should be required to post a bond in the amount of the unpage wage theft judgment. Until a wage theft judgment is paid or there's a payment plan in place, employers should be required to forfeit their ability to obtain a building permit or certificate of occupancy. Second, the ordinance lacks specific language on provisions for workers' comp insurance coverage, unpaid wage stuff judgments and payroll taxes, and license versus unlicensed contractors and subcontractors. Specific language will make the ordinance enforceable and help Mountain View avoid human trafficking cases like slavery towers. Third, the ordinance is limited because it does not contain protections for day laborers with unpaid, unpaid wage theft judgments, because they work an average of 2 days, Mountain View day laborers are often victims of which the, this should be reflected in the ordinance. Fourth, the city of Mountain View should rely on the labor commission's online public database to verify attestations and affidavits. It's easy to use, just enter an employer's name, and you can see whether or not a wage judgment has been paid. I want to thank you again for your work on these ordinances and for prioritizing the eradication of wage theft here, the city mountain view. We hope that the ordinance will adopt changes so it can better deter wage left. Thank you.

[02:12:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you Felwina. Apisio, Mondina.

[02:12:35] Philwina Opiso Mondina: Good evening. My name is Philwina Opiso Mondina. I'm with the Santa Clara Wage Staff Coalition. And I'm also with the Philippine Association of Workers and Immigrants or Pavis. First of all, I would like to thank the Mountain View City Council and staff. We really appreciate, um, this um, ordinance. And most of our community members are caregivers who are victims of wage death. Um, while we support, um, the administrative citation, we feel that this is not enough and just a slot on the wrist. Um, I reiterate some of the comments that there must be a bond requirement or the withholding of the ability to obtain a building permit or certificate of occupancy so that this ordinance will have more teeth and will really deter um, wage stuff. And also, um, the disclosure requirement is to general and overbroad. It must be specific to cover and page payroll taxes, workers compensation insurance coverage, and whether the, or, whether or not the contractor or subcontractor is licensed in addition to, um, unpaid wage theft. And 3rd, um, We also would like to ask that the Mountain View day workers should be covered in this ordinance. Again, thank you so much.

[02:13:59] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Felicia Gershper.

[02:14:07] Felicia Gershberg: Hi, I'm Felicia Gershberg. I'm colleague of the local activist group. Together we will San Jose, a member of the Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition, and a longtime resident of neighboring Sunnyvale. I want to, um, say many thanks to staff for their work on the wage theft and responsible construction ordinances into the mayor and council for prioritizing these issues. It's important to make sure that these important ordinances have sufficient specificity and teeth to protect all workers in Mountain View, including day workers. I support the recommendations stated in the letter you received from the silver tub of the Wage Theft Coalition, which spells out the disclosure and enforcement language that is needed, and I echo and support the comments she and other members of the coalition made this evening. Robust language in these ordinances will ensure that the city of Mountain View is rigorously protecting workers in our community, as I know is your intent. Thank you again for your work and for prioritizing workers' rights.

[02:15:06] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Brea?

[02:15:09] Brea: Mayor, by mayor, and council members. I'm speaking in support of the Santa Clara, can you hear me? The time has... Okay, sorry, the time Thanks. I'm speaking into part of the Santa Clara Wage Theft Coalition. Thank you for your hard work on the weight step and responsible development ordinance and for prioritizing wage theft. I especially want to lift up Dr. Forrest Peterson's emphasis on supporting Mountain View day workers. Often immigrant laborers suffering way stuff during this national labor shortage. Still, we have concerns about the ordinance and its ability to deter employers and contractors and subcontractors who have unpaid wage stuff judgments. The city will issue licenses, bill permits, and certificates, um, of occupancy, even if an employer has unpaid wage death judgments, or a contractor, a subcontractor discloses that they have an unpaid wage stuff judgment, no worker's comp insurance, and has not paid payroll taxes, and is unlicensed. If an employer or contractor or a subcontractor has an unpaid, paid wage theft judgment, they should be required to post a bond, and the amount of the unpaid theft, or forfeit the ability to obtain a building permit or certificate of occupancy until that wage theft judgment is paid or a payment plan is in place. The disclosure in the ordinance must be specific, cover unpaid payroll taxes, workers' comp insurance. Now, rather not the contractor or subcontractor is licensed, in addition to unpaid wage theft judgments. Mountain View day workers, as so many before me have said, are often the victims of wage theft. The ordinance contains no protections for day laborers who have unpaid wage theft judgments. For more information, um, and making these decisions, please consult the Labor Commission's public database online for employer's outstanding wage step judgments. Thank you.

[02:17:16] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Alex Brown.

[02:17:20] Alex Brown: Hey, so just to be clear, I can set, uh, send an affidavit saying, I steal wages, mean or meaner, and submit to the city and then face no consequences. Okay, cool. Thanks.

[02:17:36] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Kevin Ma?

[02:17:40] Kevin Ma: Evening council, my name is Kevin Ma, speaking on myself as a resident in the San Antonio neighborhood, but I do echo all the comments I was specified before, that we need to make sure that those working in construction and other low, somewhat low weight jobs in this area have protections necessary to keep them in this area. Fundamentally, like any other law, there needs to be enough enforcement capacity to actually make that law, something more than a promise on paper. And as such, I do ask that council, look into it as part of our next budget cycle. or future budget cycles to ensure that there's enough staffing to ensure that a thing that we kind of do depend on for housing and other development era is done cleanly and ethically, and other standards that are entirely in line with what our community should be for. Thank you.

[02:18:27] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right, I'm not seeing any more hands. So I will bring this item back to counsel. Do any council members have any questions? Um, before we get into the 2 uh, questions uh, for deliberation? Council member Hicks.

[02:18:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, my question is just, we've heard, um, from a number of advocates, um, some additional things that we could put into, um, these ordinances, and I'm just wondering what staff I can kind of outline what they were, um, what staff thinks about, you know, what the strengths and weaknesses, you know, any, whether it would be, um, easier hard to put those in. One is, um, one, I got was not stated, um, during the meeting here, but we, we got in an email from, um, Maria Marquin of the Day Worker Center, and she said to put in inclusion and oversight of residential projects, less than 15,000 square feet, um, because she said many day, that's what many day workers work on and have trouble with. And then the other were the three that many of the advocates mentioned that it was also in Ruth Silvertop's letter. Those are, um, not just statutory administrative citations, um, but also posting a bond and so forth. And, um, more specificity, which sounds, uh, in the way that she mentioned, which sounds fairly easy. And then the 4th is specifically including day workers who typically work an average of 2 days, rather than more. So I'd like any comments from Steph on how hard or difficult it would be to include those things. Thank you.

[02:20:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you.

[02:20:28] Christina Gilmore: Not sure. So, I can, I can, um, start and then, um, assistant city manager, um, Chief Operating Officer Audrey Grandberg is also available to answer any questions as well as Nicole Wright, our senior, um, city attorney. Um, so yes, we've heard, we've heard from the advocates, um, not only this evening, but also in, um, council, um, public comment that they would like, um, the ordinances to include some stronger protections for workers, specifically for day workers. Um, that is not an area that we had um, researched when we were developing our strategies. So staff would have to, um, go back, um, after counsel input and direction on next steps to conduct further research, to understand, um, the issue with day workers and how day workers could be incorporated into both of the ordinance to ensure stronger protections. In regards to the other, um, um, issues that were brought up around, um, bonds and I don't recall the other ones top of my head, but, um, those 3 issues, items that were mentioned, um, in the public comment, again, staff would need to um, do some additional research when we go back to develop the ordinances. Um, and we would need to determine and assess how those recommended, uh, enforcement strategies would be, um, incorporated into, um, proposed ordinances that we would bring back for council for adoption.

[02:22:13] Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Okay, thank you unless there are additional step comments. Um, I will, uh, build on what, um, Ms. Gilmore stated that, um, you know, making the language more specific, I think, is, you know, certainly we'd be looking to the advocates for input around how to have the language of the ordinance is, um, match and mirror our intentions. So that's very valuable input. in terms of the tying it to the building permits. Then obviously staff's proposal was different to have it be it administrative penalty process. But we are aware that there are a couple of other cities, um, nearby us in this county who have have done that in terms of having the building permit and certificate of occupancy dependent upon, um, uh, an attestation, um, and, and being in jeopardy, if it turns out that that attestation is, uh, found to be false. Um, and I think, um, that certainly can be implemented, and we could look for the right legal mechanisms, um, for doing that. Um, I think the things to explore are what impact that may have on the streamlining of our permit process, and on the staff resources needed for administering, um, the ordinance and, um, in any event, whatever the enforcement mechanism, we were gonna need to come back to identify what additional resources, either on staff or through contract we would need, as these are not things, you know, wage enforcement is not something that the city currently has as part of its processes.

[02:23:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. That is additional clarity. Thanks.

[02:23:59] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you, Council member Lieber.

[02:24:01] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, I am very interested in um, linking this to, um, uh, building the ability to use a building. Um, and I think that we do need more than, um, the, uh, administrative remedies because I think that, in that scenario, we could, um, end up with kind of a whack-a-mole situation where, um, there's a, there's a changing cast of characters and it's not directly related. Um, in the, in the case of construction to a building. Um, I also am very interested in the inclusion of our day labor community. Um, as well as uh, our our home care workers. Um, and restaurant workers and providing them with, um, the information about, uh, the county office of labor standards enforcement. Um, and not just, uh, being a catcher that relies on, on what the employers, um, report to us, but also, um, providing a pathway for workers and advocacy organizations to come forward, to report to us. And, um, providing them with the information that they need to report to other, um, agencies as well. And I, I definitely am on board with, um, the specific information that was, um, enumerated in the letter from the wage theft coalition. I think making it a specific target, um, is really important here. Um,

[02:26:09] Mayor Ellen Kamei: And then, um, so I'm so sorry, Councilman reliever. So are you getting into answering the questions or are you providing questions to staff right now?

[02:26:20] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I'm sorry. Well, I'm, um, I, I think I'm just providing feedback here of what, what I'm here for.

[02:26:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, do you mind answering questions one and two? It sounds like, um, you have some additions for both of those. So I'll just start taking note of that. I think Council member Hicks had a couple questions.

[02:26:42] Councilmember Sally Lieber: So I thought other people were going to, but it sounds like you're already getting into comments. So I want to make sure that staff and I capture it. correctly. Okay. Um, yeah, I didn't see other, uh, at that time other hands up, so I, I figured segue into the comments to save time.

[02:26:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Oh, no problem. I just want to make sure I take the note.

[02:27:01] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yeah, and, um, I, I do like the, um, the structure of a bond requirement. Um, as well, and I think that's pretty much what I have.

[02:27:17] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Great, thanks. And staff, were you able to capture that as well? All right. awesome. Great. Thank you. Council member Michelle, Walter. Questions one and questions too.

[02:27:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I'll just start off by saying I'm basically supportive of questions one and two, um, uh, but, but, but I still have the overriding question of, how is this going to improve the situation? If you're a worker, And you're, you know, you didn't get the wages that you were supposed to get. How is this going to help you get paid versus the state ordinance? That's what I don't really understand. What are we building on top of? What's missing in the state system, that we're going to be adding here?

[02:28:05] Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Um, I'm happy to field that question, um, council member show Walter. So there's, there is, depending on which, um, enforcement penalty, the council, um, directs, there would be additional penalty, which is a deterrent. Um, that penalty could be an administrative process with the fee or it could be withholding of a of a building permit, as is being discussed right now. Um, there's also the additional information and awareness raising that would happen at a local level, which may, um, with the city and coordination with the wage advocates, um, similar to how we coordinate with other local community-based organizations around, you know, meeting the needs of vulnerable populations. It has, um, uh, additional reach to raise awareness about, uh, about it, not just on the employer's part, but on the employee's part. And um, we can play that conduit role to help people get to the right place to report um, violations and to seek investigation and judgment. We aren't stepping in and replacing that function that is currently played at state level and that we're very hopeful, we'll become a more meaningful, um, uh, uh, opportunity at the county level. They've started in that arena and we're a little bit paused by the pandemic in terms of further rolling that out, but that is in their longer term, um, plan or hope or intention to to partner more with cities around that to to assist with the enforcement. Um, and so that's, that's what I would think is, uh, in addition to what is in place currently, um, with the state, um, uh, laws and uh, investigations.

[02:30:03] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, so let me pair that back to you and make sure I understand it. So basically, what you're saying. And this seems true. I mean, reasonable is, we're closer to, um, you know, people, we're less intimidating. We'll be providing a lot of education, and, um, uh, so people would be, um, more, uh, willing to come to us than they might be to a state agency. Is that generally?

[02:30:30] Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Well, yes, or they might come to one of the advocacy groups that have spoken tonight who would know that they have, you know, an ally and partner at the, at the city, to, um, to provide information and, and to have that extra layer of penalty.

[02:30:50] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Well, I just think that's really important. I mean, I really think, you know, the additional, um, uh, result that we bring to the table is what matters. Um, and, and so we, we, we need to kind of, we need to concentrate on that. And, um, as I also mentioned, um, when we discussed this, I think yesterday, um, I'm a, I am too concerned about the generalness of the, um, you know, the affidavits you have to sign. I thought that it could be quite intimidating to, um, a small business owner, and, and it might have the unintended consequence of, um, keeping some people from getting their business license, because they would look at that and say, what on earth are all the labor laws? I don't know if I've broken them or not. I'll just try and skirt under the radar. So, so I think that we, you know, we want to make this, um, uh, the thing that people sign, easy enough to understand so that it doesn't have the unintended consequence of, um, causing people to work outside the system.

[02:31:59] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Thank you, council member Matachek.

[02:32:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, so I appreciate that we are at this point. Um, I know we've been waiting for, on this for a while, and a lot of things got in the way, like COVID. Um, but here we are. So thank you for bringing this forward. Um, I'm gonna kind of answer these, uh, questions sort of at the same time, um, because for both of them, I think we've certainly heard tonight that we need to expand beyond just wage theft and include things like payroll taxes, workers' comp, and some others were listed. And I believe that would apply to both the questions. And then, um, also in terms of who? Would be covered by this, expanding that. So, folks who, um, are day workers or who work on smaller construction projects below 15,000 uh, square feet. And then also, um, I guess I'd say beef up the enforcement. And by that, um, you know, we heard a lot of options here. And I guess from my perspective, since this is a study session, we're providing additional direction. Um, for all of these, I guess I'd like staff to take a look at them and come back with their best recommendation on what would be, uh, the best options for our city, given, um, the current situation and the level of staffing or other, um, elements that might be necessary to do enforcement. But I do want it to have more, um, more of an impact than an administrative fee or fine. Um, unless as some said, you know, it's a pretty hefty fine. Um, I also appreciate what council member show Walter just said about making sure that it's easy to understand. Um, by the businesses and as well as workers in our city. But again, I appreciate that we're, we're getting there. Um, and I look forward to the next discussion. Thanks.

[02:34:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. And yeah, okay, vice mayor Ramirez.

[02:34:28] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you mayor. Um, I have a question first. Um, as I understand it, uh, sole proprietors who have no employees are not exempt, and, um, I, I don't know if, if staff was intending to, you know, once the ordinance, uh, for the ordinances, become more refined, but, uh, perhaps I'm, I'm, I may also not be appreciating the value of including those businesses as well. Is there, uh, any value at all, in including sole proprietors, or would it make sense to exempt them?

[02:35:09] Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Um, it's not something that we really thought about. So in the framework of the strategy that we brought forward. We didn't get to that level of specificity around exemptions, but, you know, as you've raised the question, um, if there aren't employees, the form, uh, you know, uh, attesting to complying with with, um, uh, uh, judgments seems not to be applicable.

[02:35:40] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And, you know, of course, as a business grows, if they were to add employees down the road, when the business license is renewed, that's an opportunity, then uh, to uh, to ensure compliance with with the ordinance. So, uh, that that seems sensible to me. Um, I, uh, I think I'm in substantial agreement with, um, much of what's been said. I appreciate council member, uh, Mattachek, approach and uh, giving staff some latitude to return with recommendations for how best to uh, enforce an expanded ordinance based on a lot of the input we've heard. Um, so I'm, I'm very comfortable with, with seeing what that might look like and understanding some of the, the impacts and, um, and opportunities, uh, to provide greater protections. So, um, I'm very comfortable with that. Uh, I guess the only other thing, um, that I would want to understand. I appreciate a lot of the, the, recommendations from the public, uh, on how, potentially to, to strengthen the enforcement mechanism, uh, and looking at building permits and that kind of thing. I'm totally comfortable with exploring that. Um, I think just in thinking about the housing element, it would be good, I think, for staff to, um, do a little bit of research and return to council with information about whether we would have to include that as a constraint. Um, in the housing element process. Um, but I think exploring it is, is, is a good idea. And then also ways to protect day laborers as well. Um, but I'm very comfortable with the direction we're going in. Thank you.

[02:37:26] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you, council member Hicks.

[02:37:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, so I'm also comfortable with the direction that this is going in, you know, things other council members have, have outlined. Um, I guess the 3 top things I'm hearing or explore, having staff explore, uh, greater enforcement, um, uh, ways to include day workers, which I won't elaborate because other people have spoken to them and greater specificity in, uh, exactly what we're enforcing. Um, and I assume that uh, staff would interact with advocates to, you know, explore greater detail and see how to apply it to Mountain View. The 2 additional things that I heard is that maybe the county that I hadn't known before is that maybe the county could insist with enforcement. That sounds great to me if that, if we could work with them. I know with the minimum wage we're working with the city of San Jose. So I don't know if that's something that could happen sooner or later, but I'd like to hear, you know, when you come back more about whether that's possible now or later. Um, because maybe that would uh, answer some of the questions about whether we have to have to put more resources into this or maybe it would be more efficient to do in another way. And then the other, the last thing is that, and, and is that I, that I really want is a robust outreach and education. I don't want, um, you know, businesses, whether they're small businesses or any businesses, for that matter. I know that in past, uh, council meeting, we were talking about supporting micro enterprises, uh, you know, uh, for women, people of color, low income people, et cetera. Whether it's a microbusiness or a larger business, I don't want to blindside people with this, I don't want to kind of catch them unaware of some of the details of, you know, whether they've paid for break time and so forth. So I would really like robust outreach and education so that businesses feel like they, you know, around labor laws so that the details of it so that they feel like they can comply easily. And those are all my comments.

[02:39:45] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So, um, I will work to try to summarize what I hear and then confer with staff and uh, integrate my comments in as well. So I think we're hearing, um, unanimous, um, support for questions one and 2 in terms of the, you know, general direction, the staff is going and related to the, um, wage theft and responsible construction ordinances. I am hearing um, an overwhelming um, majority asking about how do we expand it? Um, and so, um, I think that what was covered was having staff explore, the various suggestions that we heard, both, yay, um, in public comment via email, and I'm sure council members also shared today in their remarks. Um, when this item comes back for final adoption, and I just want to echo those. Um, we also heard about, um, maybe broadening and being more inclusive and the categories of folks that would fall under both ordinances, in particular, our our day workers. And then, um, I also heard opportunities for, I would say, for city outreach, and then outreach and education. I know that we're working with the Santa Clara County Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement on education and outreach. And so perhaps it can also be an entry point for even more, um, a robust kind of efforts. Um, and then I heard, I did hear folks who were interested in a little bit more related to, um, permit. So perhaps holding off on the permits or getting a little bit more than just an administrative fee or a fine. And so perhaps that can come back, um, with more information on that. Um, let's see. And then, Ms. Rambberg, am I missing anything?

[02:41:57] Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Um, no, you've done an excellent job of summarizing, incorporating both the comments of the council as well as the public and, um, and I think that, um, with regard to the building permit process, that's, that's really the, the one example of a more, um, uh, um, forceful, um, enforcement mechanism, um, that could be remedied through bond or through payment of unpaid judgments, um, we didn't really put many other, um, options out there, nor nor are the advocates putting them out there. And so I think what we would more likely be doing is coming back with what that type of an ordinance would look like in mountain view and what kind of implications it has for our process and resource implications. Um, and I think that's what's intended by what I've heard from from colleagues is that it's, it's still that we want to explore these things and better understand them. Um, but, but I don't know that we would in exploring come up with a lot of different or creative other, um, uh, forceful ways of enforcing. Um, and so that would be our focus in our, in our follow-up research.

[02:43:23] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yeah, I agree. I think that, um, council's looking for just more information and if there are other available options, what those options are, um, is what I did, um, here. Um, and I think, um, the only other thing I would add is just like the partnership opportunities, so I know that staff capacity is something we talk about every meeting. Um, and I know, um, and and council member Hicks reminded me of this, you know, this with the city of San Jose, they do our wage, um, um, uh, kind of enforcement. And I know that the county is looking at perhaps further kind of bolstering their office of labor standards and enforcement. I know right now it's pretty limited scope, but I know that they're thinking about creating their own kind of infrastructure. And I wonder as more cities within the county are adopting both wage theft and responsible construction ordinances, if there's a way for us to also work in tandem with the county, on how they can kind of partner up with us, and maybe the county can take on that role. And I'd love for those conversations to start now. And hopefully we can put it back in their ear to see if that's something that could be possible down the road for like the capacity issues. But that's the only other thing I would add. Um, colleagues, anything else that we want here to add here, I think. All right. All right. Well, I think we've captured any everything then. Okay. Thanks, everyone. Okay. And then, um, we can move on to Item number eight, which is our unfinished business. Item 8. One is the Shoreline Boulevard Interim Bus Lane and Utility Improvements Design Project, 16 through 58 and phase one construction, project 18 dash 43 various actions. Assistant Public Works Director and city engineer Ed Arango will present the report. Public works director Don Cameron is also available for a question. All right. Well turn it over to you, Mr. Orango.

[02:45:41] Ed Arango: Great, thank you, mayor and council members. Um, let me share my screen here for the presentation. Make sure you guys can see this. In 12nd. All right. Okay. You should be seeing the presentation there. Can I get a thumbs up? Okay, great. Thank you very much.

[02:46:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: And, hey, Mr. Rankle, we're seeing the preview slide version.

[02:46:34] Ed Arango: Thank you. Let me try that again. All right, let's try that. Great. Okay. Okay. Um, thank you again. Again, Edorango, Assistant Public Works director and city engineer. And I will be presenting the Shoreline Boulevard bustling project update. Next slide? Okay. So staff has been working on this large scale and complicated project for the past 6 years, and it has been a significant design effort, including working with Caltrans, subpoena permit, and coordinating the right of way acquisition work. Listed here are some of the past council action items, including approval for removal and mitigation of the 16 heritage trees. The Shortline bus lane combines many elements into one project. Now seen in this figure, the project will install signal modifications, a reversible bus lane, upgrades to the water and sewer lines, protected by planes, and a protected intersection at West Middlefield Road, including the additional 2nd left turn lanes at that location. This is an overview of the recommendations provided in the council report, and I'll be going over these 5 recommendations throughout the presentation. As previously mentioned, in 2019, council approved heritage removals to accommodate the project approval. They include 12 heritage trees on North Shoreline Boulevard related to protected bikeways and sidewalk improvements. And 4 heritage trees in the West Middlefield Road Median related to the additional left turn lanes seen by the green circles in this figure. During field reviews and preparation for the work by the contractor, 11 additional heritage trees were initially identified to the impact. 10 of the trees are in the West Middlefield Road median, and due to the proximity of the excavation work to the trees root structure, preserving those trees would not be feasible through the root impacts and potential for instability and tree effort. A similar scenario was found for one additional tree on North Shoreland Boulevard, located behind the sidewalk area. On September 8, staff presented the 11 trees to the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the PRC voted to not recommend removal of these trees. In response to the PRC concerns and the community feedback we received, staff did a detailed review of the transportation impact analysis from the 2017 North Bay Shore precise plan, environmental impact report, for those specific movements at this intersection. During this review, staff noted inconsistencies in the data, and updated the data to account for the discrepancies. Although I won't be going into the details of the traffic analysis in this presentation, that information is outlined in the council report, and I can answer questions regarding the analysis at the conclusion of the presentation. With the updated data, and reevaluating the design based on those changes. Staff determined that the additional left turn lanes could be reduced, where 7 of the 10 additional trees previously identified in the West Middlefield median would not be impacted and do not need removal. The 3 remaining trees, the smaller redwoods with the 5 to 6 inch diameter trunks, could be transplanted as recommended by the city arborist. This revised layout continues to include the removal of the 4 previously approved air industries in the middle field median from 2019, 3 on the west side of the intersection, and one on the east side. Recommendation number one, which is to approve the transplanting 3 heritage trees in the West Middlefield Median, those smaller coastal redwood trees from the location you see here on the east side of the median to the west side of the media. This includes removal, removing the 4 previously approved heritageries. These 2 figures provide a visual comparison of the landscape configurations. The top figure shows the existing trees in the west middle field median. And the lower figure is a configuration with the modifications done to the left turn length and transplanting the 3 smaller redwood trees, again, to the west side of the median. Therefore, nearly all the tree coverage will generally remain or be restored. Additional renderings of the plan improvements with the proposed modifications are seen here showing the intersections in 2 different perspectives. The top figure is looking north towards Highway 101, showing the shell gas station west in the top right hand corner, and to the left, is the west side of the median, showing the transplant of tree growth 5 years after project completion. The bottom right figure is standing at the corner of the shell gas station looking south, towards the east side of the median, with the existing trees remaining immediately after project completion, and the transplanted trees moved to the other side of the intersection. Here, the protected intersection improvements can be seen as those islands shown each of the corners, including the bicycle and pedestrian crossings. As noted in the council report, the 2nd left turn lanes are expected to provide significant traffic relief and improve intersection operations with the planned growth in housing in the North Bay shore, along with the planned growth citywide that will increase trips at this intersection. The tree replacements identified for the project include replacing the 16 previously approved tree rules at a 2 to one ratio, and the recommended tree on shoreline at a 4 to one ratio for total replacement count of 36 trees. Council could consider on a turner replacement ratio of 4 to one for all the trees to provide a total replacement count of 68 trees to increase canopy coverage. The planting locations where the trees would include the median on West Middlefield, where there are landscaping gaps, and also include coordination with shoreline property owners to potentially install trees behind the sidewalks. These 3 figures show the possible planning sites with the West Middlefield Median area shown in the highlighted areas. Top left figure is east of Shoreline and near Sand Grove Park. The top right figure is just west of Shoreline, and the bottom figure is further west of Shoreline, near San Pierre, and Terabella intersections. Staff listed in alternatively in the council report or recommendation number one related to removing the left turn lanes from the scope of work. For this alternative, the environmental documentation for the project would need to be revised with a council resolution, adopting the revised sequid document prior to formally removing the left term lane scope from the project. This will necessitate engaging a secret consultant and may affect the project schedule. Additionally, revisions to the plans would be needed to reflect the adjustments to the intersection, including demolition, civil layout, striping, and traffic signal plans. There may be potential contractor claims for additional changes to the scope, delays in material cost increases. Should in the future, council would like to perform this as a standalone project, staff would expect a general cost rise in the kinds of scale, incorporating this work with the current work would be lost. Lastly, additional staff time will be needed, will be needed to be devoted to the design changes, and construction contract amendment or rebidding. which may affect other products due to staff workload. If this alternative is selected, stand identified 2 scenarios showing potential path forward for scope removed. In the 1st scenario, if staff is successful in negotiating favorable terms with the contractor, with a sequel work review taking place in parallel, staff would return into council in June of 2022 to restart the project. In scenario two, if we are not successful in negotiating terms, staff will return to council in early 2022 to recommend terminating the construction contract. The sequel review would still be in process and staff would return in June of 2022 to request approval of the sequel document and authorize rebeating the project. In this case, construction would start approximately November of 2022. Staff would expect potentially higher costs, construction costs due to cost rise. So moving over to North Shoreland Boulevard. Staff's 2nd recommendation identifies the removal and mitigation of one additional heritagery located behind the sidewalk, on the east side of Shortline, between Middlefield and Terabella. As shown in the top figure as tree number 11. This removal is necessary to incorporate the new protected bikeway and sidewalk improvements and sitting in the bottom right here. The root system will be significantly impacted by the excavation work for these improvements and preservation of this tree would not be possible due to instability and potential uproot. Staff has recommended the mitigation at 4 to one ratio with 24 inch box trees for this tree. The last recommendations of 345 are related to unforeseen conditions during construction. As part of the contractors, additional investigative potholing work associated with the water and sewer line work to confirm existing utilities, unforeseen conditions were encountered with the existing underground utilities that were not previously identified. Staff and the designer of the project coordinated, the plan revisions needed to address these conflicts, and this work did take additional design effort by Mark Thomas. Counsel's authorization were for recommendations 3 through 5 would transfer an appropriate funding to the project and authorize an amendment to the professional services agreement with Mark Thomas. Although no council action is needed regarding the groundwater treatment. Staff is raising this additional unforeseen condition for informational purposes. The trenching activity for the sewer and waterline work will require dewatering of the groundwater and was expected to be able to be directly discharged to the sewer system. But due to higher than allowed concentration of metals found during water sampling. A treatment system will be required involving a series of tanks and filtering. Staff is still coordinating the sever and the utility conflict changes. I'm sorry, any utility conflict changes with the contractor to determine impacts to the project costs. Consistent with the council report, identify here are the 5 recommended actions for council's consideration, and that concludes my presentation.

[02:57:38] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you very much. So we'll start 1st with counsel questions. Does any member of the council have any questions for staff? Okay, I'm not seeing any out commercial, Walter. Sorry.

[02:57:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um One of the things that I didn't hear you talk about in your presentation that I remember reading about in the staff report was the PG&E. Um, um, equipment that needed to be put in and that there was a conflict with the trees associated with that too. Could you explain that to us?

[02:58:18] Senior Civil Engineer Andy Chang: Absolutely. Um, so there's an existing PG&E regulator station on the west side of the media. It's in the median. It's located there. Um, it coincided um, artwork to, um, to do the left turnling work at the, at that intersection, coincided with PG&E's, um, need to upgrade that regulator station. So, we were already looking at alternative locations for that regulator station, because there it was insufficient space to keep the upgraded regularization in the median, and we were looking at Sanvero Parks. We've been coordinating with the community services department, um, and PGE to find a location, and San Maro Park seem to be a good location where there's sort of low, low use in an IV area, um, and not next to an active play area. Um, So that's kind of the PGE related work. So this.

[02:59:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So did that conflict with any of the tree removal? was my understanding that it did.

[02:59:20] Senior Civil Engineer Andy Chang: So, um, PG&E, again, so the 2 projects coincided, where we're already looking for a new home for the PG&E Gas regular station, if we hadn't, PG&E could go in at the existing location and require that the removal of those 3 previously approved heritage trees on the west side of the median be removed with their PG&E Gas safety project. So those trees have to be, you're suggesting that those trees have to be removed from multiple reasons.

[02:59:51] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Correct. Yeah, council members, show Walter, Don Cameron, public works director. Um, that is correct. What we were pointing out in the staff report is that if the left turn lanes do not go in, Um, either those trees will still need to come down in order to upgrade the gas regulator or the gas regulator would still need to be moved to San Vernon Park and that will also affect trees. So we wanted to make the council aware, one way or another, something does need to happen with that PG&E gas regulator.

[03:00:27] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I understood that, you know, there was sort of, sadly, a double whammy for those particular trees and, um, uh, okay, thank you so much for clarifying.

[03:00:42] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you, Council member Mattachek.

[03:00:45] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So, on attachment to, um, on pages 2 and four. I noticed that a lot of, um, movements besides, The left turn lanes going eastbound and westbound, have cue lengths that exceed the capacity. And um, I know we're only talking about the eastbound or westbound tonight, but, um, I've forgotten. Do we have mitigation measures to address the other movements or, um, this is just is what it is.

[03:01:27] Senior Civil Engineer Andy Chang: Can you be more specific on which movements you're referring to, council member medicine?

[03:01:31] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sure. So, like, um, probably the PM is, um, a better example on page four. Okay. Um, the Q length, um, at the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile, for example, um, the, let's see, what's a good one? Southbound through. The last one in there. Where the Q length at the 50th is 851 And 992. For at the 95th percentile.

[03:02:06] Senior Civil Engineer Andy Chang: So the through movement, if I'm if I'm understanding your question correctly, the through movement doesn't show a turn bay length because there's no turn bay for the through movement.

[03:02:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well, yeah, so I'm wondering for these other movements, it looks like there's significant delays and long queues. Not necessarily, um, terms. And so I was wondering, Do we have mitigation measures to address those cues? Or they really can't be mitigated, or we're hoping that, um, with the transit lane, The, the queues are reduced.

[03:02:46] Senior Civil Engineer Andy Chang: So we don't have medication members for those movements. It was just focused on the left turn lane movements. But as you note, the ones that you're talking about here along Shoreline Boulevard and between the transit lanes, the protected bikeways, the goal would be to see if, you know, we can move more people out of their cars.

[03:03:11] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thanks. Great. Thank you so much. So I have a, I actually have a quick question. So one of the, um, things that's come up and I think that this might have come up in a council question, but I, I, I glanced at it briefly, was, um, the traffic patterns in a post-COVID world. Um, could staff maybe speak to? It sounds like, you know, there was, I think, 6 things listed in the staff report on why this project is proposed and moving forward, but it could stuff maybe talk about, um, you know, um, that element and and, um, why it may still be necessary to move forward, even if, um, we're not seeing the same traffic we've seen prior.

[03:04:03] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Mr. Ringo, do you want me to take that one?

[03:04:05] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango: I was just gonna ask that you would.

[03:04:08] Public Works Director Don Cameron: All righty. Thank you. As we know in the staff report, obviously, there's still a lot of unknowns in terms of what, uh, you know, as conditions return post COVID. But what we are already seeing and has been well documented is that traffic has been bouncing back. And on now major corridors, we're seeing it on El Camino real, we're definitely seeing it on the freeways. I'm hearing about 85 now being stop and go again doing some of the commute periods. other, you know, we're, and typically this is not unusual when we've had recessions and other times that has caused traffic to pull back quite a bit. As the 1st place we see major growth in traffic is on the main corridors, such as the freeways. And so on. And then it starts to kind of trickle in and start to affect, uh, more more of your street system. So it's already well documented that we're back to 70, 75% traffic levels on a lot of these major corridors, and this is even before most of the employers have returned their staff to the offices. After that, all we can do is kind of monitor and watch what might be changing trends. For instance, you know, we were aware that on many office-based employment sites, they're talking about different ways to incorporate remote work into their regular routine. But every things that we've read, things that we've talked to major employers about, is that they still plan to have their employees at the offices 2 or 3 times a week. Some of them may pick core days in which case, um, they would try to have everybody in. others. I know one major employer we have that is going to the hot office desk type arrangement. Uh, where, you know, you come in and you reserve the day before and you'll have a cubicle waiting for you. But this opens up opportunities for them to, for employers tend to add more people to the same office building. So when I look at it from a transportation perspective, what I see is the same number of daily trips to that office building, it's just spread out over more people, on the assumption that people, um, you know, employers, property owners will not want to leave their spaces vacant and underutilized. I want to put them in the maximum use possible. The other piece that's driving this is that even with all of our work, working, for instance, in North Bay Shore, to achieve a 45% SOB rate, or even if it can get it down to 35%, even with what we're doing with the East Wind Wisdom and Precise plan, is we're still aware that every, every development, every new housing project, as well as office, does generate new trips. So as we look at this, we're we're saying, you know, we're already seeing the traffic come back, people are going to return to the offices, just maybe in a different way. And we are planning on substantial housing growth in North Bay Shore, and not all of them are going to work in North Bay Shore, right? And we do have substantial amount of other growth throughout the city. And then middle field and shoreline are arterials. And they were designed to carry the traffic and keep them off our neighborhood in other streets. So they tend to pull in the traffic. Um, so that's a key reason why we as staff are saying that we do expect that the traffic, not only will we turn, but the growth that's projected, will lead to the traffic impacts that led to the original mitigation measure to add these 2nd left turn lights.

[03:08:07] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Right. Does anybody else from council have any questions? All right, so seeing none, would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise handbun in Zoom, or press star 9 on your phone. We'll display a 2 minute timer on the screen. All right, Bruce England.

[03:08:32] Bruce England: Thank you mayor. Um, So I'm not even sure where to start with this. I really do object to this plan about the turn lanes and taking out trees at all. Um, It's interesting that there was some X number of trees to be removed and now that number is dropping. Um, to accommodate what PRC said and what the public has been saying on this. But fundamentally, I just think that we're at a pivot and we need to take seriously that climate change is happening and we can't just do business as usual on these things. And city council has a goal of improving biodiversity and addressing climate change. And this part of the project, I realize it's a complex project, but just this part about putting in the turn lanes and taking out trees. Um, I just don't think it's a good idea. I feel that we need to stop accommodating vehicle travel as though making that easier is a good idea. I don't think it is And the point has been raised about whether adding the left trainings will actually make traffic better on shoreline when the bottleneck is really on shoreline. And I also question whether employers are really going to be able to compel their employees to come back to work as they did before. What I've been reading is that employees are reevaluating their options, and they may be traffic may be increasing now, but some number of those people might actually make decisions shortly. about the way that they'll work for nature, the work, and they might actually start working from home. So even if you don't cancel this project. I think at least waiting would be prudent. Thank you.

[03:10:16] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Albert Jeans.

[03:10:21] Albert Jeans: Thank you. slides again? Okay. Great. Oh, yeah, Albertine's again. I've sent in a much more detailed response to staff's report on why I don't think the redwood trees near the shore on Middlestone intersection should be cut down, so now I just want to emphasize a couple key points. Next slide, please. And this is in good compliment to Counselor Matachek's comments. Uh, just a second? Okay. The 1st thing is that adding the extra turn lights will not make much difference in the situation for which they were proposed. Staff use data for existing conditions plus project to justify the extra turn ways. I believe this is unreal unrealistic because North Bay Shore is unlikely to be built up anytime soon. The 2030 cumulative plus project conditions analyzing the traffic impact analysis for the North Asia precise plan is our best guess as to what will happen, you know, not counting in COVID and all that. According to this analysis, short in the middle, so it's just one of many intersections, shown this map, that will be significantly unavoidably impacted by a North Bay Shore precise plan, regardless of the mitigations. Anything with red means, dryers will have to wait multiple cycles, clearing intersection, but how will it bad will it get? Next slide, please. Um, this chart shows, uh, the Q-lengths, again, which set, password, meta check, refer to at the, uh, this intersection, I specifically want you to look at the parts, Hollywood and red. Those are the key lengths for all the movements at the 50 percentile. And you see all the ones except for one, um, have theoretically infinite Q lengths, which means that there's just too many cars and the queues are just going to grow continuously. So, you can see there's practically no difference between mitigated and unmigated as left turn lengths are not going to solve this problem. I think we just better go to the next slide. Finally, yeah, I want to implore the council members to save tree number 11. Next slide, please. According to, uh, yeah, staff, diagram, the sidewalk is the main reason it overlaps most of the routes. I think if you just raise the sidewalk a little bit, have it right over the ground in the roots, you can save the tree, and you'll give all the pedestrians and bicyclists a lot needed shade as temperatures go up. Thank you very much.

[03:12:39] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Great. Just gonna wait for my timer to come back and then we'll move on to our next public speaker. Great, Ronnie Bryant.

[03:13:07] Ronnie Bryant: Yes, thank you. Um, I currently serve in the PRC, but I'm speaking to you today as a long term, uh, longtime resident of Mountain View. You're looking at a modified proposal for adding left turn lanes at the intersection of Middlefield and Shoreline. I thank staff for listening to concerned and very well-informed residents and to the opinion of the PRC. By reducing the length of the turn length. The city has saved numerous heritage trees and prevented further degradation of our environment. But even implementing the shortened left turn lanes will cost us the lives of forthriving heritage redwoods, together with the canopy and the wildlife they shelter. These trees do not have to come out, even for PG&E. There is a possible solution that's under wrong. Yes, you approve the project in 2019. And of course, staff wants to complete projects. But I say this to you, the world has changed since 2019. We live in a new world. We must not go back to business as usual. A decision you made 2 years ago to take out trees from the left turn lanes may not be the right one today. Taking out heritage trees to improve access to North Bay Shore for hypothetical single occupier or occupier our cars makes no sense in our current world. Do we actually want to improve car access to North Bay show rather than bike and bus access? Please stop or defer the left turn lanes. If the need arises, deal with it then, do not cut down majestic trees that will not regrow to current size in our lifetimes. Thank you.

[03:14:39] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Robert Cox.

[03:14:52] Robert Cox: Can you hear me?

[03:14:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:14:54] Robert Cox: Ah, okay. Honorable Mayor May, Vice Mayor Ramirez, and city council members. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on item 8.one. I'm here to support Albert Jean's position not to move or remove the large, beautiful redwood trees along Middlefield Road and construct turn lanes from the shoreline Boulevard interim bus lane. These large heritage trees are part of the exceptional historic legacy of our city and should be preserved, as Albert has pointed out, removing the trees. We construct better turn lanes, will not solve the traffic issues involved in the IR of the North Bay Shore precise plan. And with the pandemic still active, There is a lot of uncertainty when and whether the precise plan as originally envisioned will be built out, and whether the employees who were working at North Bay Shore want to go back to working the way they were or substantially like the way they were before the pandemic. Just reference all these articles about the great resignation to understand. The importance that is being placed on employee decision about what will happen, not just employer decision. But one thing is certain, take the trees out, they're gone forever. Let's put this decision on hold and only bring it up again if future events show there's a strong and compelling reason to do so. Thank you.

[03:16:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Alex Brown.

[03:16:26] Alex Brown: General case of traffic is interesting up here. Not really. But my main issue along Shoreline as a resident of North Bay Shore is the concert traffic. My wife and I have spent over 2 hours getting from middle field to pair during a concert, and the preview we got from lockdown is sadly over. Now that the amphitheaters open back up. Can we do something for the people who are just trying to get home to North Bay Shore? Thanks.

[03:16:49] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. SEMA.

[03:16:54] Sema: Hi, can you hear me?

[03:16:56] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes. Yes.

[03:16:58] Sema: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this topic. So I am against removing the heritage trees on middle field and shoreline and I support Albert James and some of the other residents that spoke about this topic. It's really disappointing that some of the current plans, like the, it's taking like the easiest way out. We are not thinking about the environmental effects. This is going to have, especially in California, where we are seeing like, you know, more and more concrete coming up and, you know, the side effects, we see it every day. Also regarding the traffic, we really don't know how it's going to pan out once people start returning back to work like most likely in a hybrid mode or many of them are going to be working remotely on a more long-term basis. So ideally feel we should wait and watch until, you know, it changes back and see if we really need to implement this or not. Also, these trees, like they provide such good cover, which a shade shaded area, even on like a really hot day, like people can bike and walk around and it's really pleasant in the streets. So I really feel that we should be more responsible and think of alternative solutions and not just take the easy easy way out and just job down these trees that have been there for decades and it's not possible to replace them. Thank you so much.

[03:18:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Daniel Jose.

[03:18:36] Daniel Jose: Hello, um, so I have ¢2 to uh, provide as a cyclist on, uh, the turn lanes, and that's merely that every time there's a turn lane, it usually goes over the bike lane, and, uh, is a encroachment on my right of way, uh, as a cyclist. And so, uh, I think the, uh, cyclist safety aspect should be considered, uh, in the uh, uh, placement of the turn lanes, if that's your plan.

[03:19:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right, I'm not seeing any other hands, so I will bring this back to council for deliberation, um, and action. And note, um, yeah. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[03:19:33] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. I want to, uh, think also the members of the public who brought this to our attention. Um, I think, uh, It's unfortunate that the original design included as many tree removals of it did, and I think it really was, uh, thanks to the due diligence of our residents for identifying some of the deficiencies in the original plan. Um and the members of the PRC as well. Um for calling attention to it. Uh, and as a consequence, uh, you know, I think we've seen staff's good work in responding to those concerns and mitigating them. I think, um, as as best as they're able to. Uh, so, so my gratitude to the members of the public and to staff for, for, their response. Um, I had an opportunity to sit down with, uh, with Mr. Jeans and, uh, he gave a very compelling presentation. I agreed with him. He persuaded me, um, and, uh, I felt, uh, that was a few months ago, you know, it, it was very difficult to, to justify this component of a much bigger, more complex and important project. This particular component was hard to justify based on, I thought that a lot of the compelling information that he provided. Um, now I've, I have the benefit of the staff, uh, redesign and the analysis and the report, um, and I think an appreciation for, uh, some of the very difficult trade-offs that were presented with tonight. Um, and based on the information that we've received, uh, I've come to support the staff recommendation. Um, so that's my preamble. I think there were, uh, a number of things on the staff report that, um, are important for us to, to acknowledge, including, you know, the, uh, it may be that there is a location for the PG&E gas regulator that will result in no tree removals, but that wasn't an option that was provided to us. And I don't want to be too speculative. Um, That's, it's unfortunate that really, there aren't good options there, that regardless of those cases, at least based on the information we've been given. Some trees will be removed. Um, I'm also very sympathetic with, uh, Bruce England's, uh, perspective about, uh, sort of continuing with the the legacy of, uh, mitigating LOS impacts I'd identified through sequel. Uh, you know, if we were operating with the current regulatory framework and I mitigating BMT impacts, we may not have had to include this particular mitigation. Um, and I think that that's a non-trivial thing for us to acknowledge. Uh, but, This is the mitigation that was identified from that EIR. Revising the EIR is difficult work. And I'm also concerned about the possibility that it could delay or disrupt the broader, again, overriding project, the bus lane project, which includes not just the bus lane, but also the bicycle pedestrian improvements and all of the utility improvements that are really essential, I think, for, uh, implementing the north facial precise plan. And so I'm very concerned about the possibility of having, for instance, in a worst case scenario that that staff had laid out, that we'd have to rebid that project. And as we saw with the public safety building, construction costs only go up. Um, and that money that, you know, could have gone to something else may, may now have to go to, uh, implementing, you know, the same project that we had approved, approved a few years ago. Um, if there are other ways of making this better, I'm open to them, but just to sort of help move things along. I'll go ahead and move the staff recommendation.

[03:23:57] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, vice mayor. So we have a motion for the staff recommendation from the vice mayor. Council member Hicks. And I just, sorry, customer Hicks, before I go to you, I just want to say I see 2 hands in the attendee box. I just want to unfortunately say that public comment is over for this item. We're already into council deliberation. Um, so just wanted to say that for those who have their, um, hands raised. Go ahead, counselor hicks.

[03:24:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I did not raise my hand to 2nd the motion. I raised it before I knew emotion was going to be made. So, um, I, and I would not be supporting the motion, as is, so technically, do you want my comments or, um, it's not, it's not a modification. So do you want my comments or wait for a second?

[03:24:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Do you have a substitute motion?

[03:24:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No. Well, I could make a substitute mansion. Sure. Should I do that?

[03:24:55] Mayor Ellen Kamei: We would need a 2nd on this one.

[03:24:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, that's what I thought.

[03:24:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: We would need a 2nd first. I'll 2nd the vice mayor's motion.

[03:25:15] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member Hicks, do you want to? Just make a comment?

[03:25:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Sure.

[03:25:20] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Well, no, so I 2nded the vice mayor's motion just for the purposes of it just in case you want to make a substitute. I don't see any other hand.

[03:25:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, now I make a substitute.

[03:25:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Yeah, if you want.

[03:25:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, because Sure.

[03:25:31] Mayor Ellen Kamei: I don't think on the other hand, a queue. So I just wanted to keep the conversation. Thank you.

[03:25:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Now I understand. Okay, so I would actually be, uh, making a substitute motion to defer the issue, and the reason is, I really want to first thank staff and the public for, um, all the work they put into this in response to the, the, um, comments from the public. But the, the, the, the reason I would make a motion to defer is that what I'm seeing, the, the, all of this, uh, the project as is, uh, was designed before COVID, and due to remote work, we've really, we really have additional tools to, uh, arrange how people get in and out of the, of the area, and I think that, um, I would like to defer so that I don't want to wait to hear how the businesses there decide to get people in and out. And I don't want to design for sort of a worse case scenario in terms of SOVs. I want to, um, interact with them and get them to use the tools, the tool of remote work and arrange that in a way that would, um, lower carbon emissions, frankly, and lower the, um, the amount of cars going in and out on any given day. day I think, you know, from what I've seen over the past year, the ramifications of climate change are horrendous and ever more apparent. And I think we have to take active steps and not just, um, not just go along business as usual. Um, and I feel like I see, uh, members of the public, uh, supporting various aspects of that. So I would defer and want to make a more active role in kind of changing the way commute happens with these new remote work tools. Thank you.

[03:27:42] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So we have a substitute substitute motion to defer by council member Hicks. Um, Council member reliever, we actually have council member Abby Koga, who pinged me, um, who would, who would like to, um, speak. She pinged me prior to your erasing of the hand. She's having some technical difficulties. Is that okay? Okay.

[03:28:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Councilman Robert yoga, if you can hear us. Uh, please unmute.

[03:28:06] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hello, can you read?

[03:28:07] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, we can hear you.

[03:28:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, great. Thank you. Thank you, mayor, and thank you, everyone. I'm having some challenges, technical challenges today, but, um, I wanted to 2nd um, council number Hicks motion, uh, to defer. Um, I, you know, very much, really appreciate, uh, number one, uh, the, um, PRC and the public for coming forward and bringing up raising the issue of the trees. And then I also want to thank staff for going back and taking a look at the project and coming up with a way to save more trees. Um, so, yeah, I really very much appreciate that. But, um, you know, some of the members of the public have said, um, you know, life has changed a lot since uh, 2015, I believe, when we approved the, um, precise plan and the, uh, EIR with overriding considerations. And, and frankly, even at that time, I had a bit of consternation in approving the EIR with overriding, um, considerations because I remembered, We did. We were still going to see, I believe it was 85 intersections between East Cal Alto and Santa Clara. Um, at LOS, um, E or F levels. And so, um, you know, this was a challenge to start with. Um, I, uh, Um, I'm landing on is how things have changed. And, um, I'm about to go into a 2 day workshop tomorrow at MTC where we're going to be discussing how to bring transit back, but a part of that is, um, there will be a presentation by the business community. I got a preview. Um, how, and how they ha, are saying that, you know, it's not going to go back to the way it was in 2019. Most of their employees don't want to come back to work full time every day. They maybe will come back to the 3 days. Um, and then for some of my uh, other, uh, regional boards I, I sit on. We're actually in, I know our city too, where it's, um, experiencing challenges with hiring people. And with this region, one particular regional board where we're trying to hire folks right now. Um, I've been told that, um, you know, we're offering work from home and maybe coming in 5 days a month, and some, uh, candidates, applicants, uh, don't want to come in at all. And so I think, um, my, you know, I, we just don't know, and, um, you know, and, and I guess that's okay, because there's nothing we can do about that. Um, but it has compelled me to, um, say, you know, let's let's just wait a while and see how things come back. And I think this would be different if it was to encourage more transit or bike ped improvements to encourage alternative modes of transportation. But, um, it's really hard for me to say, let's do this, you know, take out some trees, um, to put in a 2nd left turn lane, when we really don't know what traffic patterns are going to look like in 5 to 10, 5 years or 10 years. And all in all, you know, realistically, even though the precise plan was for 2030. We're at 2020 end of 2021. And, you know, the likelihood of everything being built out in the precise plan by 2030. I think is a really far stretch, especially when Google is asking for a 20 year development agreement. So, um, I asked staff during my briefing, you know, how much would it cost to do, to delay it, if we had to do it as a standalone project in a few years, um, you know, of course, it's hard to put a price tag now, but, um, you know, they gave me a ballpark figure and, um, it's minimal in terms of transportation projects. So I think we can afford to, um, and we can go, we can afford to defer for uh, at least for a while. So that's why I will be supporting this motion. Thank you.

[03:32:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Yes, Miss Cameron.

[03:32:48] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Thank you. Appreciate it. Staff is gonna need clarity on what the actual motion is to say defer. As you will recall, there are actually 5 recommendations before council, and one thing you may want to consider is taking the recommendations separately. If the intent is to defer the whole project, I have to remind council that we have an active construction project out there, and we, you know, there's a lot of cost of the city, delayed claims, other issues to just defer, and we would need clearer direction to say that you want to terminate the whole project, and then we have to follow through on what that means in terms of all the other work that was done, the right away, and so on. That's different. However, if what, what the substitute motion is about the 1st recommendation, which is about the left turn lanes, as staff noted, really the, the, the alternative would be to direct staff, to to start the process, to change the sequid document. And as part of that, and in parallel with that, we would start negotiating with the construction contractor to see if there's favorable terms for removing that element, and if it's not favorable to the city at that point, consider what's in the best interest of city in terms of potentially terminating the construction contract and refitting it. As Mr. Rangel presented those, there's 2 pass forward there. Um, once, you know, we hear of counsel's direction related to uh, recommendation number one, which deals with the trees and the left turn lanes. Then we ask you to give staff the ability then to, um, pursue those discussions with the contractor, as well as move forward on the sequel work, which then protects counsel when it's time to make a formal decision about the left turn lanes. So we do need clarity on the intent of the motion. So, I've been talking about the trees in the left turn land, but I don't know what council member. Since I was unclear, maybe council member Abikoga was seconding something different than that. So I would like to, and it sounds like she explored it with staff, so I would like to hear from her as well.

[03:35:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, um, yes, mayor, if I could chime in. Yes, I was also referring to the left turn lane project.

[03:35:28] Mayor Ellen Kamei: So, um, thanks. Thanks, Councilman Rocco. Bobby Cooka. So Council member Hicks, you need to clarify your motion. So given what Miss Cameron said, is yours only in relation to item one, which is part of the, um, defer item one, and then what about items, I believe 2 through five?

[03:35:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I'm gonna have to... I believe it's, I don't have them all up in front of me. I'm going to have to put them up in front of me now, but, um, I believe it's item one, uh, let me look at it to confirm I'm working with one screen here, sorry.

[03:36:03] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. And then, Mr. Orango, maybe you can bring up the, like, I think you had a couple alternates. So perhaps you can bring up that slide for council member Hicks. Please. Thank you.

[03:36:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Sorry. Here, just give me a minute.

[03:36:20] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Wonderful, thank you. Council member Hicks, Mr. Orango's gonna bring up the alternate slide, which I believe includes the language which Miss Cameron was mentioning.

[03:36:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay great. Great. Sorry. Sorry, one screen, one screen's out, lots of tough technical difficulties here.

[03:36:46] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member, show Walter, once I get clarity on the motion, I'll come to you.

[03:36:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Wow, Mr. Rangos brings that up. I'll read what it says in the council report. about the alternative motion or the alternative to, um, recommendation number one. Direct staff to proceed with secret review for removal of the additional left turn lane scope of work on West Middlefield Road, which will include preparing a revision to the North Bay Shore Precise Plan EIR, adoption of which would precede amending or rebidding the construction contract. Which I don't think we actually put that in a slide.

[03:37:30] Public Works Director Don Cameron: That's correct. We didn't put that actually in the slide, but this was the slide that spoke to it. Don't know if that's helpful or not. And I'll just note for counsel's consideration that, um, going through the process of removing this as a mitigation measure from the North Bay Shore precise plan does not preclude council in the future deciding to put in the left turn light, that can always, you know. So, um, So suggesting just to defer. We do need clearer direction and what, in our consultation with an environmental consultant and city attorney's office, before we have, we bring back to council an amended construction contract to take out the left turn lanes, or a new contract to rebit it. Uh, we would need to amend the sequel document and and ensure that the sequel clearance has been appropriately covered.

[03:38:39] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Trying to get clarity on the motion right now, Miss Cameron.

[03:38:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah. Sorry, I'm having trouble moving from screen to screen, but if you can still hear me,

[03:38:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: yes, I hear you. Okay, good. So it's the alternative one, which is direct staff to proceed with secret review for, no, um... So it's deferring the left turn line, and, uh, preparing a revision to the E.I.R. is... is the alternative that... That's what you're asking for along with the deferral, I think. Do I have it, do I understand you correctly?

[03:39:29] Public Works Director Don Cameron: That's what we're suggesting would be the alternative recommendation to recommendation number one.

[03:39:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Right. So now that I'm able to get it on screen and read it. Um, yes. Sure. So just to clarify, I think rather than just saying deferral, what Ms. Cameron is saying is to move forward with alternative to recommendation one, which is listed on page 23 of the staff report, and then we're also seeking clarity on your position for items, 2 through five.

[03:40:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I was, sorry, I have to scroll back and forth between them. So right now your motion only includes something related to the, to one recommendation, half has five. Right. So, um, one heritage tree on North Shoreland. So I think the rest can stay the same.

[03:40:41] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Mayor, I'm May.

[03:40:42] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, ma'am.

[03:40:44] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So, for the recommendations that are before council, uh, the ones that are related to the tree removal, and please, Miss Cameron, um, chime in, if there's more to this, but recommendation one in the staff report is about the trees. Two is also about the trees. is where we would be asking counsel to then take a separate motion. That is about the utilities project and the move, the movement of the funding from the wastewater fund to those other funds. Or, and 5 are also related to the trees.

[03:41:24] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Uh, no, um, I'm sorry, city manager. Number one is related to the left turn lights. And one possibility is you may want to consider taking action just related to recommendation number one, and it can be a separate motion to deal with the other recommendations if that's easier. Number 2 is a tree also on North Shoreline Boulevard, but it's related to protected bike way. And if that tree, if you, if council does not approve removing that tree, it will necessitate us going back in, seeing if the protective bike way is feasible at that point, um, because we, we can't uh, we can't just, in a small portion, eliminate the protective bike way to get around that tree, and, of course, we can't eliminate the sidewalk. So, and then 3 through 5 are related to the utility projects, um, the funding that we need for the redesign that's already happened, and, um, and just finishing that up and that's related to the utility project.

[03:42:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So my motion is to, yeah, we can split them up. My motion is to, um, defer number one, approving, uh, the, the transplanting 3 heritage trees, uh, so the left turn lane, in, as stated, in, um, on page, 23, Direct staff to proceed with sequo review for removal of the additional left turn landscope of work, which will include preparing a revision to the EIR adoption of which would proceed amending or rebidding the construction contract.

[03:43:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: And we, uh, before we move forward, I'm sorry, Mr. Orango, can we take off the shared screen? I'm having difficulty seeing everyone, as we're making our way through this process. Okay. Mr. Chopra, I will go to you.

[03:43:53] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Just offering this as a suggestion. If the intent of the motion maker, council member Hicks is just to, uh, defer on item number one and adopt the alternate, uh, as presented in that side and described by public works staff, the motion could be, uh, to do just that and then approve, uh, I don't, the staff recommendation for items 2 through 5 if, if that's, um, the motion maker's, uh, pleasure and then, And we should, if it is, then get consensus from the 2nd or council member, Abbe Koga, and then that could be, uh, that could be a motion that's, that's voted on.

[03:44:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: I think so. Yeah, I think, so thank you, Mr. Choper. clarity that I was seeking as well. So I did get a message from council member Abe Koga that she's comfortable moving forward with that. Um, which would be to defer an adult the alternate to number one and that she would be supportive of the staff recommendations 2 through five. Um, council member Hicks, would you like to include that as your motion?

[03:45:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes. Yes, I would.

[03:45:02] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So for clarity purposes, the substitute motion. So the substitute motion by vice by council member Hicks, 2nded by council member Abe Koga, is to defer staff recommendation number one, and instead adopt the alternate to staff recommendation number one. Uh, which would be, I'm just gonna read it for folks, uh, which would be direct staff to proceed with secret review for removal of additional left turn lanes, scope of work on West Middlefield Road, which would include preparing a revision to the North Bayshire precise man EIR, adoption of which would precede amending or rebidding the construction contract. And then, um, but moving forward with staff recommendations 2 through 5. All right. Thank you. We have clarity on the substitute motion. Council member Show Walter. Thank you for your patience. Okay,

[03:45:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I might make it a little muddier. First of all, I have a question. What does this do with the construction of the rest of the, um, uh, reversible bus lane project. And the protected, you know, the, the, Can you tell us that, um, public works director, Cameron? Um,

[03:46:24] Public Works Director Don Cameron: I'll start, Mr. Rango may want to add something more, and particularly with respect to the schedule. Yeah. Well, one of the things that we'll have, we'll have to do is get the intersection redesign to, um, have just the single left turn lanes that are there and so we designed a protected intersection. So I'll have to work with the design consultant to get that started, which can, again, be done in parallel as us bringing on an environmental consultant to proceed through the sequa. However, one of the things that we will need to 1st do is start negotiations with the construction contractor about what it would mean to remove this element from the project, as well as address some of the utility rescoping, you know, redesign that we've done. And so we, it, we will need to delay from doing anything more on this project while we have those negotiations and discussions with the, with the contractor, so that we can determine if we need to terminate the contract and rebid it. Or if, um, we can come to favorable terms for the city that we would bring back for your consideration in an amended construction contract. So, there was some work that we were about ready for them to get started on, but we would ask them to just pause for now. It will add a delay. So it would add a year? Um, it depends. Uh, the, uh, Mr. Rangel put up the 2 scenarios if we have a favorable negotiation. Uh, we're talking upwards of 8 months or so because we'd come back to you in June with the amended construction contract. which kind of gives a thumbs up. Go ahead and move forward now. Uh, the, but if it turns out, we recommend terminating the construction contract. We're looking at, it could be next November before we could start work again. Now, staff would make every, you know, if it's looking favorable with the construction contractor and there is some pre-work, we could let them do under the existing contract. We wouldn't know that maybe to February or March. We would try to find a way to keep the project moving, but we just want council to be aware that it may be in the city's best interest to, well, we definitely need to pause for the next 2 or 3 months, so we can try to work this out with the construction contractor and get the intersection redesigned.

[03:49:07] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Well, um, I would request a, uh, I would really like to think about the idea of a, uh, change to your motion, um, council member Hicks, of deferring the, um, uh, development of the left turn lane for 5 years, which would allow us to, um, analyze whether or not the traffic problems arise. Um, and to go forward with the rest, and not, and to still keep this as a mitigation in our EIR. Um, so that we would not have to redo the EIR work. Are you interested in, um, considering that?

[03:49:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I would consider that, yes.

[03:50:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, I like to put that forward as a friendly amendment. So to clarify, it would be to... Direct staff to defer the left turn construction 4 or 5 years. Rather than, Maybe than the alternatives that we put, rather than the sequel review and then North Bay Shore precise pan EIR amendment and, okay.

[03:50:32] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, so the motion is now defer 5 years. And staff recommendations 2 through five. All right. Right council member Hicks?

[03:50:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes. You're fine with that? Okay. All right. And, um, council member Abbe Koga, is that okay with you?

[03:50:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, that's fine.

[03:50:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you. Great. Thanks, everyone. Yes, I just want to give Director Cameron the opportunity to comment on that if from a public works perspective. Uh, if she's understands that and has any comments on that.

[03:51:08] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Thank you, I appreciate that city attorney. Uh, so, what we would need to do is staff is go ahead and consult with an environmental attorney, to confirm that we could proceed without adjusting the amending or revising the sequin document, because the project itself was cleared via sequa, as an amendment to the North Bay shore precise plan. And so we would have to confirm by removing this scope from the project, do we still need some kind of sequel action related to the project? We will need to consult with, as I said, more of a sequa legal expert on that just to confirm. Our understanding then, though, is if that's possible. What you're also directing staff to do is do move forward with negotiating with the construction contractor to remove this element of work from the project and inspector then staff using our judgment of whether we can successfully amend the construction contract or we need to recommend rebidding. But we won't know that until after we engage in discussions.

[03:52:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And I have one additional question, and that's that. With the PG&E issue, these trees that we are trying to save will be saved. I mean, what would that do to the PG&E um, issue, part of this?

[03:52:42] Public Works Director Don Cameron: What staff recommended in the council report was that if council chose not to proceed with the left turn lanes, We understand from PG&E that they are neutral about whether the regulator stays in the median, in which case they will have to, as mentioned, replace it and take down those 3 trees, or if they would move the regulator to San Vernon Park. Okay. And so, if that's the case, we had suggested that since this is truly a policy question. We could start with the PRC and let them weigh the 2 different tree impacts for a potential recommendation to city council.

[03:53:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you. Any other clarification that you wanted to make, Miss, Miss Cameron, or is that?

[03:53:41] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Not at, not at this time. Thank you.

[03:53:46] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. So is there clarity then in the in the friendly amendment to the motion? I just am trying to keep track. So the motion as it stands is the same. It's the defer for 5 years. Okay. With the staff recommendation 2 through five. All right. Okay, council member match check.

[03:54:08] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, I certainly appreciate um, residents bringing this to our attention and the PRC for weighing in on this. Um, I must say that to me, it seemed like prior to the most recent, uh, addition to the motion, a deferral seemed the same as removing this project from a staff action perspective. Is that is that true?

[03:54:38] Public Works Director Don Cameron: From a staff action perspective, that is correct. It is this, it's gonna be the same steps that we have to take related to the potential path forward for the current construction project. What's being recommended, uh, in terms of the deferral and the concept of saying 5 years, is, um, we would then look to add this project to the CIP in order to show intent to do the mitigation project, because that's important also, is to show intent. And as it's being said, that a future decision could be made about that intent. Uh, but again, staff is saying that, um, we would proceed on the lines of this motion, if it's passed by counsel. But we may return to you if we're advised by the, you know, sequel attorney, that we still need to go through a sequel revision process.

[03:55:42] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, great. So I definitely appreciate the addition of the time frame 5 years. Thanks. Okay,

[03:55:54] Mayor Ellen Kamei: so we have a subset. We have a substitute motion with a 2nd um, Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[03:56:04] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayric, a couple of quick things. First, um, so I won't be supporting the motion, um, but I would recommend that, um, the maker of the motion exclude recommendation 3, which requires 5 votes in the event that there's a split vote. Um, so that way we can, because I, I, I'm guessing that there's, uh, probably unanimous support for recommendation 3 related to the, uh, appropriation from the wastewater fund. Um, and I don't, I don't want complicate things by having majority support for the other recommendations, but not quite the 5 votes just a theory for the appropriation. So, uh, that would be my, um, suggestion just from a procedural element, but, um, the extent it's compelling to anybody. Um, if we're wrong, then there are significant impacts that we ought to be aware, uh, that we have to really appreciate, potential cost overruns, if we're wrong about the traffic projections, then we're pushing out the construction impacts to when shoreline would be more heavily utilized. uh, which could create, you know, impacts and delays there, uh, and, you know, the, the quality of life impact of having to deal with construction during heavier utilization. Um, and then, you know, we may end up having to build these anyway, just at greater cost. And that's a standalone project. Um, I feel the prudent thing is to support the staff recommendation. I understand, um, where, um, other members of the council are coming from on this, but I just wanted to share why I remain more comfortable with the staff recommendations. Thank you.

[03:57:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Sure, I'm I'm willing to remove...

[03:57:55] Mayor Ellen Kamei: I'm sorry, Council member, a city attorney Choper had his hand up. Oh, sorry.

[03:58:02] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: I was just gonna say that that is, uh, actually a good idea of what Council, remember Ramirez had, and I was gonna mention something similar to that. So the motion could be, uh, modified to, uh, just, just refer to items two, four and five, and then immediately after taking the vote on, on the present motion with the revision to exclude item three, then immediately after that vote is taken, uh, another motion, and a second by any council member, just on item three would be in order. So yes, I think that's a good idea, and I would do that.

[03:58:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So it's, uh, direct staff to defer the left turn for 5 years and, uh, go with the staff, recommendations for 24 and 5 excluding number three.

[03:59:03] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And I would 2nd that.

[03:59:07] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So, to clarify the motion, city attorney Chopra, can you just say that the multiple votes will be taking? So we'll be voting on...

[03:59:21] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Sure, the motion has been changed now to defer item one for 5 years, and, uh, incorporating the other comments that, uh, Council, uh, excuse me, director Cameron said there's a potential for a return regarding sequa analysis. That doesn't need to be part of the motion, but just understood by council members. And then the motion would also include approval of the staff recommendation for items two, four, and five. And the seconder, uh, council member Ave Koga has approved that. I recommend taking a roll call vote on that motion, and then immediately after that, any council member can make a motion, and any other council member can 2nd a motion for item 3, and then a vote taken on that, that item.

[04:00:17] Mayor Ellen Kamei: So the, it sounds like we're to be gonna be taking 2 motions, the 1st motion would be the deferral for 5 years. Public works director, Cameron would come back with sequel information, is that right? And then it would also be for the staff recommendation for 24 and five. That would be the 1st motion. Correct. And then we would need a motion maker and a seconder to put forward item number three. Correct.

[04:00:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Not complicated at all. Thank you. Good. Thanks. All right. So, um, I don't, I think I'm just gonna call the question. Um, but before we take the vote, um, I just wanted to clarify my my position as well as the vice mayor did. Um, so, this item, as it's come increasingly kind of, the time has comfort to come back to council, has been one that's been really difficult, um, for me, as somebody who lived lived in that area for over 6 years, um, because I feel like it's a multi-layered project. It's not just about, um, you know, making improvements for the north, be sure precise plan. It's not just about making way for our PG&E utilities. It's not just about bike and pet infrastructure. Um, it, you know, it includes heritage trees, and it's been really, I think, difficult in terms of somebody who's a, who is a user of that for so long to think about what, what's the best. Um, and I really think that staff has tried very hard to find a path forward. Um, you know, Part of me wonders if more time would lead to a design in which we could save even more trees as they've, they've come back and, um, been able to do that, um, tonight. But, um, I feel concerned that if we do not move forward with the project, we will be faced with the difficulties that we saw 2 weeks ago in terms of the cost of construction only increasing. Um, and that, you know, as was mentioned, we have very, um, very aggressive single occupancy vehicle targets, we have offices that are not at full capacity, but already reaching that 70 to 75%. Um, and we have very aggressive regional housing need assessment numbers, um, that I feel are going to need quite a bit of infrastructure. So, um, for all of those reasons, I was supportive of the staff recommendation, so I won't be voting for the motion tonight. All right, so let's call the question, City Quick Blazer.

[04:03:26] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council number Hicks?

[04:03:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:03:29] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member, Abbe Coca?

[04:03:33] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[04:03:34] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Lieber.

[04:03:37] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Oh.

[04:03:38] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilman Romanachek?

[04:03:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:03:42] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member show Walter?

[04:03:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: For all the arguments that I've heard. This is really a hard one for me, but I'm going to vote. Yes.

[04:03:58] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[04:04:00] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No.

[04:04:01] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor to May?

[04:04:02] Mayor Ellen Kamei: No.

[04:04:03] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Motion carries? Four three.

[04:04:06] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Bye, Samir Ramirez.

[04:04:11] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. go ahead and move the remaining item regarding the wastewater fund appropriation.

[04:04:17] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Do we have a second?

[04:04:23] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member Liever.

[04:04:24] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you. I got you.

[04:04:26] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right. So, and we have a motion for our remaining item 3 by Vice Mayor Ramirez 2nd date by casting the reliever, and we'll just do a roll call vote on that one.

[04:04:35] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Nice Mayor Ramirez.

[04:04:37] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[04:04:38] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member labor?

[04:04:40] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[04:04:41] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Abby Kocas.

[04:04:44] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[04:04:44] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council number Hicks?

[04:04:46] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:04:47] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Mattachek?

[04:04:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:04:49] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member, Shelter?

[04:04:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:04:52] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: And Mayor to May?

[04:04:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:04:54] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mission carries unanimously.

[04:04:56] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. All right, thank you and thank you to staff. All right. We will move on to item number three, which is our new business. We'll move on to item 9.one, which is compensation for council appointees. Vice Mayor Ramirez, we'll present the item. Vice Mayor Ramirez. Take it away.

[04:05:15] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. I don't have any slides, but I do have a brief report. Each year, the city council reviews the performance and compensation of the council appointees. The council appointees include the city manager, city attorney, and city clerk. By policy, the vice mayor oversees the process. The council has completed the evaluation, and the purpose of this item is to consider adjustments to compensation. Brown Act requires the counsel counsel to orally report a summary of counsel action on the salaries, salary schedule, or fringe benefits of counsel appointees in an open meeting during which the final action is to be taken. To satisfy this requirement. I am providing this report. The city council recommends a 5% merit increase for the city manager. Additional compensation was not considered at this time for the city clerk due to her start date with the city in the last quarter of the fiscal year under review. In addition, prior to the annual performance evaluation meetings, city attorney Christian Chopra announced he will be retiring in December 2021, due to his upcoming retirement, the city attorney did not participate in this evaluation process. The only other thing I'll add is that, uh, though, the, the vice mayor oversees the process. Uh, I received uh, a lot of support from Sue Rush and her team and just want to extend my appreciation for uh, her support during the, during the process. Uh, that ends my report. Uh, I'm available for questions.

[04:06:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Does any member of council have any questions? Right? Not seeing any, 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 9 on your phone. And we'll display a 2 minute timer. All right, I am not seeing any hands. So I will bring the item back for council deliberation and action and note that a motion to approve the item, should include reading the title of the resolution, attached to the report. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[04:07:34] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Meryl. ahead and do it. Adopt, so I'm, uh, move to approve the recommendation, including adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, uh, approving annual compensation increase for the city manager and adopting a revised salary plan. I also neglected to say in the introduction that I also received support from assistant city manager Audrey Ramberg, and I want to extend my thanks also to all of you for participating in the performance evaluation process. Thank you. Council member Michelle Walter.

[04:08:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Enthusiastic second.

[04:08:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. So we have a motion by the vice mayor, seconded by Councilman Rochelle Walter, and we'll just do a roll call vote.

[04:08:18] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Nice Mayor Ramirez.

[04:08:20] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[04:08:21] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member show Walter?

[04:08:24] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:08:25] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Abbe Koga?

[04:08:27] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Oh, like she dropped off.

[04:08:28] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Hicks?

[04:08:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:08:31] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Labor?

[04:08:33] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[04:08:34] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilman Mattachek?

[04:08:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:08:36] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: And Mayor, can I?

[04:08:38] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:08:39] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Motion carries?

[04:08:40] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right, so this moves us on to item 10, which is our council, staff, and committee reports. Does any member of the council have a staff or committee report that they'd like to share? Council member show Walter?

[04:08:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, um, there are several things I want to share with you. Um, I, uh, I attended a recycling committee meeting, um, yesterday and there were some really great slides. So I'm going to prepare a, um, one of those council initiated, um, agenda items, hopefully for next time so I can spend a little more time and share the information that I got. I also, um, attended the drought summit that the valley water held on, um, on Saturday. Ellen is shaking her head. She was probably there too. And it, um, you know, even though we had quite a bit of rain, um, on, uh, Sunday, I know I measured 2.9 inches in my, uh, in my rain gauge, and that's really something. I mean, last year, all we got in the whole season was 6 inches. And, um, we've been, uh, so, you know, so almost 3 inches in a single storm is, is, is very good. Normally, we get about 12 to 15 inches a year. So that's a healthy, healthy part of it. Hopefully it'll keep on. Anyway, um, I wanted to share the message that, um, I, I heard, um, from one of the other council members who was taking part that I really thought was, was, um, interesting, and that's, that everyone is a water manager, and everyone is a water messenger. And the idea about that is that it's all of our jobs to figure out how we manage our own water supply at home, you know, um, particularly with respect to reducing our outdoor water use, 'cause that you know, that's the most. And, um, and the other thing is, we were all, we are all water messengers. You know, we should be encouraging our friends and neighbors and families to save water. So I wanted to share that, 'cause I've heard lots of messages over the years. You can imagine working as a water engineer, but that was the first one I'd heard that one, and I liked it. Then I want to thank the staff, and the neighborhood's council committee for another successful neighborhood. This was the Phyllis, um, Grant Road, uh, Questa neighborhood. And, um... As Michaela Tincher, stepped up for the first time to run this meeting, since she's joined our staff, and she did a great job. And there were, um as there always are, there were, um, staff there from all of the departments answering, uh, our community members' questions, and that was really good. And most of the questions, this time, were related to traffic. So, um, Lorenzo Lopez answered the most questions. So thank you. I just wanted to thank you about that.

[04:11:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Any other council members have any updates? All right, I'll share mine. Um, I uh, attended the cities association, um, meeting, board of directors meeting, um, on October 14th, uh, where they were, they presented their diversity, equity and inclusion, um, action plan to, um, the entire board. And then on the 19th. We had our council used services committee where we received the work plan for our youth advisory committee. And we also heard an update about the upcoming, um, let's see, the upcoming teen wellness retreat. It's gonna be on Saturday, November 13th from 10 AM to 4 PM at the Mountain View Senior Center. This event's open to ninth through 12th grade students, and it's going to feature a variety of wellness workshops, self-care activities and guest speakers on the topic of mental health and leadership. And the goals for this event is to provide teens with new and fun tools to navigate. Um, the crossroads of spirit mind, body, and empowering them to thrive in their everyday life. I think one of the most exciting things was hearing from our yak chair and vice chair about how the events that they've been having virtually and how much of a difference it's made for them this year, particularly navigating the pandemic and then coming back to school. Um, and how they, they were really grateful that council prioritized this as a council goal, and they're looking at maybe doing some of these events as like annual events. And continuing them as part of their work plan. So it's really, really exciting, to hear how seen they feel, um, and how much they want to kind of continue this. So just want to thank my colleagues for being supportive of that council goal and that item and to know that it's really making a difference for our youth. So, um, that is my update for, um, item 10. So we'll move on to item 11, which our closed session report. City attorney Chopra, do you have a closed session report?

[04:13:54] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There's no closed session report tonight, Mayor.

[04:13:57] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So we'll move on to item 12, which is our adjournment. Thanks so much for joining us, everyone, and our next city council, regular city council meeting will be on November 9th, 2021. Until then, stay healthy and our meeting is adjourned at 913 p.m. Thanks, everyone.

• ← Previous
• Next →