February 22, 2022 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:42] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Please contact city. clerk at mountain view.gov to obtain a copy of the applicable resolution. 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.registar.com on YouTube at mountain view.gov forward slash YouTube and on Comcast channel 26. 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 meeting to enter the Zoom meeting or by phone by dialing 6699009128 and entering webinar ID 843-512-67142. Any emails received by 430 PM today were received directly by the city council. Interim city attorney Quinn will make a closed session announcement, and then the city council welcomes public comment on the items listed for closed session.

[00:00:53] Interim City Attorney Jannie L. Quinn: On the closed session for this evening, item 2.one is conference with real property, negotiators pursuant to government code section 54956.8. The property is 850 California Street. The agency, negotiators are Angela La Monica, our real property program administrator and Don Cameron, the public works director. The negotiating party is CVS, and under negotiation is priced in terms of payment. Item 2.2 is conference with legal counsel for existing litigation pursuant to government codes section 54956.91. The name of the case is Anthony Gonzalez versus the city of Mountain View, Mountain View Police Department, Atoll. The case number is 321 CV 06096 AGT. And that concludes my closed session announcement.

[00:02:34] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the closed session items listed on tonight's agenda? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Being no members of the public wishing to provide comment. We will close public comment and uh, recess to closed sessions. Uh, we'll be back either at 630 or immediately following the closed session.

[00:03:05] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Everyone, welcome to the joint meeting of the city council and the Shoreline Regional Park community of February 22nd, 2022. I'm going to read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with California government code section 54953 E, as authorized by resolution of the city council. Please contact city. clerk at mountain view.gov. to obtain a copy of the applicable resolution. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical medium location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting, live, may do so at mountain view dot legisstar.com, on YouTube, at mountain view dot gov slash YouTube, and on Comcast channel 26. 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 meeting to enter the Zoom webinar or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 843-512-67142. Any emails received by 430 PM today were received directly by the city council. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Soon as the. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. The city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[01:00:21] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Chance member, Abby Coco?

[01:00:23] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here,

[01:00:24] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Kamei,

[01:00:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: here,

[01:00:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber.

[01:00:28] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Sure.

[01:00:29] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Metachek.

[01:00:30] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[01:00:31] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Shell Walter.

[01:00:33] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Sure.

[01:00:34] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks.

[01:00:36] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Here.

[01:00:36] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez?

[01:00:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[01:00:39] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Thank you.

[01:00:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Now move to item four, consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. The reading of the full text of resolutions and ordinances will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. 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? Count the member of the Koga.

[01:01:24] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I don't have to pull the item, but I just wanted a clarification on a question I asked on item 4.4 um, but I would like to pull item 4.6.

[01:01:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, okay, so, uh, would you like to ask uh, the question now?

[01:01:44] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, yes. Um, so I had, uh, sent in a written question. This is regarding the MOU with the county on the Florida housing projects. Um, and the question was, um, in the list of the projects we have, um, it has the amount that the county is, um, providing and the amount the city is providing. And, um, I noticed for lot 12, the city's amount is higher than the counties. And so I guess I just, I didn't order the question well, but what I was asking for was not whether we could move that amount to the difference to another project, like physically move it, that could we get credit from the county for, um, like, um, the $2.50000 difference. Sorry, I don't know if you can, um, to the Monecito project. I believe it's monostido projects so that we could get, um, ownership of the Montecito site. I'm hoping staff could maybe ask answer that question. So it's not,

[01:02:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: yep. So, um, we might, uh, let's see, I see, my Kayla has her hand up, let me see if I could promote her to panelist. Um, And if there's anyone else who ought to be promoted to panelist, if you wouldn't mind raising your hand, uh, and I'll identify you and the attendees, and I'll go ahead and promote you. Um, but Michaela, um, are you able to respond to the question?

[01:03:28] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Micaela Hellman-Tincher: Hi good evening. Thank you, Counselor Rabbit Toga. That is not a scenario that we have discussed with the county yet. We're happy to bring it to them and see if it's possible. Um, And, you know, you can ask us to do so if you'd like.

[01:03:44] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, that'd be great. I don't, do I need to put that in the motion or can I just, I don't know, do I need to get? Majority approval to make that request to the county.

[01:04:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: The manager or city attorney, can you provide some guidance for us?

[01:04:09] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor Ramirez. Yes, I would ask for counsel to weigh in on that, if that's something that the majority is interested in.

[01:04:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm thinking, maybe you should just pull the item then.

[01:04:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. That's good idea. Okay, thank you.

[01:04:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So then I've got 4.4 and 4.6. Uh, Council member Medichak.

[01:04:38] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I wanted to make a comment on 4.4, but since we're going to pull the item, I will wait until we talk about it, thanks.

[01:04:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, any other council members wishing to pull items? Steam, none. Um, so here's what I'm going to request. Um, if you would, if, uh, so we'll now go to public comment for the balance of the consent calendar, um, if a member of the public would like to speak, uh, on item 4.4, which is the programmatic memorandum of understanding between County of Santa Clarian City of Mountain View, or item 4.6, which is the PG&E gas regulator, regulator station at San Baron Park. Heritage tree, removal, and mitigation, um, then I will ask you to wait until we speak, uh, on those items. So after the council dispenses with the balance of the consent calendar will move to the items that were pulled. Would any member of the public like to speak on any item um, on the consent calendar that has not been pulled. Being none, uh, will go ahead and close the public comment for the balance of the consent calendar. And a motion is in order, council member Abi Koka.

[01:06:00] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve that balance of the consent calendar. I'm sorry, my dogs are, um, other than 4.4 and 4.6, uh, well, then including 4.2, adopting a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, commanding city council policy, K5, public art, and CIP projects to be read, entitled only for the reading waived.

[01:06:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member commit.

[01:06:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Uh, 2nd.

[01:06:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any questions, comments? If not, the city clerk will begin the roll call vote.

[01:06:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member, Abbe Koga?

[01:06:43] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Right.

[01:06:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Kamei?

[01:06:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes,

[01:06:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: council member Lieber.

[01:06:46] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[01:06:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Madachek?

[01:06:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[01:06:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Shawalter?

[01:06:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[01:06:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[01:06:54] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:06:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez.

[01:06:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[01:06:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Notion cares, unanimously.

[01:07:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. So now we will go to item 4.4.4. This is the programmatic memorandum of understanding between County of Santa Clara and city of Mountain View. First, we'll turn to the public. Would any member of the public like to speak on item 4.4. Uh, the 1st speaker is, so we'll allocate 3 minutes. There's only one speaker, Ray Branson.

[01:07:27] Ray Bramson: Good evening, Mayor. Vice mayor, council members, Ray Rampson, chief operating officer, destination home. On behalf of our organization, I'd like to thank, uh, city council of Mountain View, for your consideration of Adam 4.4. Over a year ago, the city of uh, destination home made nearly a half a $1000000 grant to the city of Mountain View for capacity building efforts. And it's exactly this type of creativity, thoughtfulness from staff, to work with county officials, to come to an opportunity that's before you tonight, to leverage 10s of 1000000s of measure A dollars with invaluable, valuable city of Mountain View funding to create deeply affordable and supportive housing for some of our most valuable and vulnerable residents. I want to thank you so much for your hard work and for the hard work of staff to get to this point. I think this shows Mountain View as a leader in our region in addressing the affordable housing crisis, and destination home is cheering you on. Thank you again, have a good night.

[01:08:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Seeing no other members of the public, we will return to the council for deliberation. Council member Abi Koga.

[01:08:44] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. So um, just in continuation. Um, my interest was to see if we can retain as many of the sites as possible as city property, and in looking at the MOU and those 5 different projects, I noticed with lot 12, the city contribution is higher than the counties. And my, so my request was, if we can ask the county to credit us or to, um, yeah, credit the, the difference to, um, let's say, take Montecito, because Montecito was a $2000000 difference, whereas the lot 12 is a $2.50000 difference and see if we can retain the monoceto site as well. But as I was looking at this, I noticed that there's a land value on lot 12, that's not, there's no monetary value listed. Um, but I also think that we should get credit for that too. And so can we look at negotiating that land value as credit towards, you know, one of the other projects as well so we can retain the properties at the end of the lease terms. And I'm hoping that I could get, um, uh, council support to do that negotiation. Thank you.

[01:10:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, Beth, did you have, uh, a response or can you speak to? uh the feasibility of the ask?

[01:10:23] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Micaela Hellman-Tincher: Hi, and apologies. I didn't introduce myself earlier. I'm Michaela Humintinshire Housing and Neighborhoods Division Manager. Um, so, uh, thank you for the question. As I mentioned before, we have not explored this with the county previously, so we'd have to renegotiate some of the terms with them. Um, being honest. My assumption is that this is an unlikely request that would be granted. Um, I believe there may be a county staff member on the line. Um, Ms. Consuelo Hernandez. I think she just raised her hand. I've just moved her into the panel. So Consuelo, if you'd like to address this at odd.

[01:11:10] Consuelo Hernandez: Good evening, counsel. Apologies. I am on my phone. So Hernandez, here, director with the Office of Supportive Housing. If I understand the question correctly from the council member. Um, we did not include the land value of lot 12, because in other instances, the county also holds land, and that value is not factored in towards our contribution. Um, it would require us to go back and renegotiate the terms of the MOU, which, as some of you know, we've been working on for quite some time now, um, happy to do so if that's what the council wishes. Um, and I I just don't see us getting to that place where we would give that credit.

[01:11:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Metachek.

[01:12:02] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, so I'm not sure if you want to finish this, um, council member Abbe Koga, because you were also asking about the additional contribution from the city, the 25 million. Did you want to? Try to close on that one too.

[01:12:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, before I go. Thank you, thank you. Never made a check. Um, I, you know, I guess I can ask what the likelihood of, of that it, that would be. since it's an overall MOU, I understand that it's project by project on pay on, you know, listed, but I thought the whole point was to have an overall MOU. So if our contribution, right, is, is, equals out to being more on one project and less on another, can we, basically, yeah, get credit and move that around so that overall, we can retain the property as many properties as possible. And then I guess I would ask what, uh, I know, press few, I'm assuming is the county property that, um, Ms. Consuelo mentioned, but are there other properties here on this list that the county actually owns?

[01:13:20] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Micaela Hellman-Tincher: Not a big one. Oh, go ahead, Pinsuela.

[01:13:22] Consuelo Hernandez: Sorry, happy to answer, um, the clarifying question is no, not specifically in Mountain View, uh, but in other cities, um, where we're negotiating similar terms, we don't, um, include the value of existing land in our contribution. And I also did want to frame an apologies for calling in late, to frame the purpose and intent of the MOU originally was so that we can have projects like Lot 12 that don't meet the exact requirements of measure A, to be able to be funded, because you have other developments in your pipeline, that collectively, they do meet the objectives of measure A, they help the city in achieving their goals. So the land ownership is something new that came up last year. But the original intent of this was, how do we take the city's pipeline, with funding that the county has to collectively achieve mutual goals? Happy to continue the conversations with the staff about, you know, shifting, funding from other projects. Lot 12, I think, is a bit of the exception because the city already owns it. But in other sites, if you wanted to move money around, we'd happy to continue that conversation. with staff.

[01:14:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Anything else, council member? Are we cooking?

[01:14:41] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I guess I'm not clear on that comment just now. If we moved money around for the other projects, so would that put a project in jeopardy of not being fully funded? So I don't, I'm not as looking to physically move the money around. I guess I'm asking if we can get credit for the funding that the city is putting in by trying to retain the ownership of the site. And the reason why this is very important to me is that, you know, number one, I think it's, it is the, for the, the best interest for the city to own as much property as we can. It's done as well in the past. And then I remember, I believe, it was like the count, there was a county, I think it was a work furlough site back in the day in the East Wisman area, and the county eventually ended up, um, ending that program. And, um, you know, and, and I guess like, when things like that happen, I think, as mentioned in the staff report, it's best for, I think, the city to have control of those properties so they can determine what use it can go to in the future. And that's why it's so important for me to try to have ownership of these sites. So I guess what I'm asking for is can we get credit if we're putting more, you know, money into one project? Can we get that credit on another project so we can retain ownership of these sites as many as we can?

[01:16:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Anything else?

[01:16:21] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, sorry.

[01:16:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Sorry, go ahead.

[01:16:23] Consuelo Hernandez: apologize. Sorry, happy to share the answer. My immediate answer here now or happy to take it back to further discussions with city staff.

[01:16:36] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, I would appreciate hearing from other council members, if, you know, there's not enough interest to move, try to explore this, then, oh, that's fine. you know, I'll drop it, but I thought it was worth at least exploring.

[01:16:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I can't remember my check.

[01:16:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. I do think it's worth exploring, and it's not the value of the land we're talking about. This for the 2nd part. It's the additional contribution the city made, um, to the lot 12 development, but I have a strong interest in the city having ownership of all of the affordable housing, um, projects, the property that is, um, because sometime down the road, if the county does decide they want to sell it, Um, I appreciate that the city has to write up the 1st refusal on it. But at that point, the property is gonna be a lot more, um, in terms of investment, then a much smaller investment at the beginning of the project. Something like 2 or 3000000 versus many, many, 1000000s um, you know, 55 years from now. So, I have a strong interest in the city having the property up front. Um, I think, council member of a Koga, um, shared, you know, my perspective as well, which is, I think it's always beneficial for the city to own property. We don't really know what's going to happen in the future, but we're in the best position possible if we own the property. Thank you.

[01:18:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member to me.

[01:18:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks so much. Um, well, I'm really excited that we are finally talking about the MOU. As was mentioned, I think, by staff and the county. This has been something that's been in the works for a really long time. And I think, um, some of this, some of us expressed our opinion when this 1st game forward, I think, on the Montecito project. Um, And you're hearing a little bit more of it tonight. So, you know, um, I am grateful for the county, our partnership, particularly want to think destination home, and I know that they gave their public comment on making this possible. You know, um, I was just gonna make comments and we'll see if there's anybody else who's interested, but, um, you know, I was particularly happy about, um, you know, page 5 of the staff report with the ground lease duration. in terms of our MOU being able to, you know, option out to the 99 years and then, um, I, I felt like perhaps this is where, um, it was trying to address some of the concerns we're hearing from my colleagues, which is, you know, the city option to acquire the sites. Um, I do support that. I think we're hearing from Casmerabe Coben, Counselor, Mattachek, perhaps, you know, being able to see if we could do that sooner than, um, you know, the county deciding that they, um, you know, might want to do something different with the land. Um, so I am interested in that. Um, but I know that we had this discussion maybe a year or 2 ago. Um, and and so I'm not sure if, um, things have changed, but, um, I do feel like it addresses it there. It's maybe not as much as I'd like because I would like the city to be able to own it. But at this point, you know, anything to move forward with these much needed projects is what I want to support at the end. So, we will see where the rest of the discussion goes. Thanks.

[01:20:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bye Smur Hicks.

[01:20:11] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, I I basically agree with council member Abbott Koga, I would, I think it would be good to, um, to own the property. Um, and, and I don't, I, I'm wondering whether there's, whether, I mean, it seems like this is an ongoing discussion, that it'll come up over and over again with various properties that we partner with the county on, and I don't see a particularism for the county to want to own them, except to sell them to us. I mean, it just seems in our interests, as we do planning for the benefit of our residents, that we own it. Um, on the other hand, I do sympathize with, uh, what, uh, council member, Kame said, of not, uh, slowing down the project. You know, if it's something that we just can't do, then I would rather not try to do it. But, um, so I guess that's where I'm weighing in, that I would like to do it if possible.

[01:21:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, and community development director and assistant city manager, RT Shravastova. Do you want to provide some remarks?

[01:21:17] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: If I may, um, uh, I I think what what we understand is that there may be those on the council who want to look at specific project funding for projects on which the council hasn't made a decision on as part of this MOU. So this MOU. The terms of the MOU contemplate both, that the city can own the land, and the county can own the land. Um, I think on specific projects, we may have some limitations, since we've already signed the LDDA for lot 12. And the council's made the, no for its funding decision for Eden. But for the future projects, um, you can direct us to go back and negotiate the amounts with the county, um, to see if what it would cost for the city to own land and those include Montecito and the BTA lot and the other identified project. And we can come back to you as we bring funding options for the city, and know for funding for the city, to let you know how much it would cost for the city to own it versus the county. And this is typically done on a project by project basis. So, we could leave the rest of the, um, you know, the funding more open to go back and discuss and bring back to the council. But if the terms are okay, then we can move forward with the terms.

[01:22:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member show Walter?

[01:22:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I, um, thank you for that answer. I, uh, I've been watching this for a long time, and as council member Kame said, it's been going on for a long time, and I think that this is a, um, a good, uh, outcome for us. And it does give us the option moving forward to put in a little more money so that we tip that scale, and we are the owner long term, if that's important to us. At the same time, it does allow us to get more measure A funds, and that's important to us, too, because it lets us get more projects. So, um, I'm comfortable with going forward with the, the MOU as it stands and being able to consider, um, how much we will contribute on future projects.

[01:23:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member of favor, did you want to speak before I share a quick thought?

[01:23:56] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Well, I just, um, I very much agree with council member show alters, um, comments. I'm comfortable with the MOU as it stands as well. Thank you.

[01:24:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: For my part, I also support the staff recommendation. I agree with. I'm some member, show Walter and council member Kame. Um, I'm not, um, Interested in renegotiating the MOU, um, I think we have to be mindful that measure a funding is being depleted pretty quickly. Other cities are, especially the city as soon as they, um, are taking advantage and I, I, am mindful that it took a long time for, for county staff and city staff to bring the, uh, the MOU that we have tonight before us. Um, I, I don't think it hurts to make and ask, uh, if that's something to count, the county could be. Um, interested in, but I don't want to, I don't want to risk losing out on, um, the allocation we would get with approval of the MOU. Um, the only other thing, um, that I think is worth noting is we've never before required the city to own the land for affordable housing funded by the city. Um, so I'll, I'll ask city staff, the question, but for instance, the Alta housing project, that was most recently constructed on El Camino, is owned by Alta, right? Not by the city of Mountain View. So, and that was a project that we invested over dollars then. Um, so I, I, I think it's, it's, it's a new concept, um, and I, I don't mind continuing to have the conversation, but, um, we don't own most of the affordable housing projects that we funded. Remember Rocky Foga?

[01:25:43] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I, I, I guess I was under a different understanding. I, I know, like Franklin Street. I believe it was the lease. So, I, my understanding was most of these are on city land, but at least for 99 years, plus. I don't know if Ulta was a different arrangement, but that's was how we used to do it, at least.

[01:26:10] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: I can check, but our understanding is most of the land is owned, um, you know, the previous projects were owned by the actual, uh, providers, Alta Rome, um, and the difference really is that, um, uh, the city has land use control over these entities, but it doesn't. If the county, um, is the owner. Um, and that's really the difference. Um, so, so when other private entities, be the nonprofits or otherwise own the property, then they have to come to the city for permits.

[01:26:48] Interim City Attorney Jannie Quinn: And the one thing I'll add to that is the city does retain land use authority over the county when it's affordable housing, it's just if it was a different public use.

[01:27:00] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I was going to go ahead and make the motion, but wanted to make the motion according to Mr. Vostava's, um, comment about, so I'm trying to move forward with the MOU, but like, maybe you can help me with the wording, but to bring each project back as it comes with decision point to decide if we need, we want to, um, add funds to to retain site control.

[01:27:30] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, at this time, the council's already made the decisions on Lot 12 in La Bonita. The funds have been appropriated, and the LDDA approved, so those won't come back. But Montecito and the pipeline projects could. Um, I don't think we were planning to, um, own CrestView. Uh, since we were only putting 3.7. So those are the 2 we can go back, talk to the county, see if there's additional funding, because those have not yet been appropriated.

[01:28:02] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And that would be my motion. Thank you.

[01:28:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. Council member Metachek?

[01:28:08] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I'll second that.

[01:28:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So, just to clarify, so the motion would be to approve the staff recommendation, um, with the addition that for projects that have not already been funded, uh, the council would have, um, an opportunity to, um, decide at that point later on. Uh, whether to provide additional funding, uh, to own the land. That.

[01:28:36] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: And specifically, those would be Montecito and the pipeline projects for the table.

[01:28:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and and just for my benefit. Um, We, we, we haven't appropriated funding, so at some point we would have had to have the conversation regardless. Is that right?

[01:28:54] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: That's right, as part of the no for appropriation.

[01:28:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Fantastic. Thank you. Any other questions or comments on item 4.4? If none, then uh, the, let's have the roll call bill.

[01:29:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abbe Koba?

[01:29:11] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[01:29:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Counselor Romata check?

[01:29:14] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[01:29:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member can I?

[01:29:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:29:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member labor?

[01:29:18] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[01:29:19] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Sher Walter?

[01:29:20] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Hi.

[01:29:21] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[01:29:23] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:29:24] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez?

[01:29:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[01:29:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[01:29:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. So now we will, uh, go to item 4.6. Uh, which is the PG&E Gas regular regulator station and 1st I go to the public for comments. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak regarding item 4.6? Let's start with Albert jeans and we'll allocate 3 minutes.

[01:29:54] Albert Jeans: Thank you, Mayor Ramirez and council members. Albert Jeans. A longtime resident, and I actually live about a block from where this PG&E gas regular station is going to be installed in San Veron Park. And in general, I'm really pleased that staff and PG&E were able to work together and move this to the park instead of living on the middle field median, where those 3 huge red retreats would have to be taken down. Next slide, please. However, as you know, there still will be 2 heritage trees removed or planned to be removed here, and one of them is this 20 foot tall coast redwood. That's my best guess is what, this is the tree that's going to be removed, because PG&E's needs to run a pipeline under it to reach the main line from the sidewalk. And so next slide, please. I think this tree is a really good candidate for transplantation. It's still relatively small, you know, compared to redwood trees. It's only a, you know, a foot in diameter, 5 feet off the ground. And it's not that close to the other trees there. And so I think even if you scooped out the root ball, It wouldn't impact the adjacent trees too much. This very easy access because right in the middle of this park, you know, there's no buildings or anything like that. And they're also having to see a very nice tree moving service right in Mountain View, over on Crypton Lane, you know, next to the Stevens Creek Trail. So a good chance to support your own businesses. And, you know, although transplanting is expensive, I imagine white cost a few $1000, um, trees this size aren't worth that much. You know, I think I'm not sure exactly with the amount, but it could be like $10,000. So, I think this is a really good opportunity. Next slide, please. And I've seen this done. Many years ago when I was still working for HP, Varian turned this lot into kind of a park and office complex, and these redwood trees you see here were all transplanted. And at the time they were transplanted, they were, yeah, probably 20 or 30 feet tall, which was, you know, maybe like 25 years ago. And they've done pretty well. And they're a really nice addition to the landscape. Next flight, please. And so I would hope that, you know, the council members would see fit to ask the city to move this tree to another location, in Sandrone Park, so we're not even talking about trucking it somewhere really far. Just move it a few yards somewhere and before the PGE work commences, because this is all, of course, on the city's dime, but once PGE gets in there, they're just going to hack it down, grind the stump, and do whatever they need to do. So I hope you'll seriously consider this. Thank you.

[01:32:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Being no other members of the of the public wishing to speak will return to the council for deliberation. Um, emotion is in order. Council member, Robbie Koka.

[01:32:45] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. So yes, um, I pulled the item for exactly that the question that Mr. James asked and I believe staff may have a response and hoping to hear that. Thank you.

[01:32:59] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Don Cameron, public works director. So, staff did review this request just today, because we just received it today, so we haven't had a lot of time to collect information, and we're not able to give you a definitive response. This is what we can tell you, is there are 4 factors that we need to consider if we were to want to, if you were to direct us to transplant this tree as opposed to just mitigate for the removal with 2 replacement trees. The 1st is this is a viable candidate for transplanting. So our city's arbors was able to visit the site today. He says the tree is healthy, and it could be a candidate for transplanting. But the 2nd factor is, is there a location suitable for replanting it? Um, it is more than just is there a planting space for it? Transplanting a tree of this size requires specialized in large equipment and unobstructive access to the tree planting location. So we could find a perfect place in the park. But there may be other trees or something else in the way, and they can't get the equipment in. This all requires analysis. We can't answer that question tonight. The 3rd factor is um, is PG&E willing to pay for the cost of transplanting the tree? The mitigations for the tree removals is being paid for by PG&E. In fact, they are responsible for handling the planting of the replacement trees. Um, We are not able to ask PG&E yet if they're willing to cover these costs because we don't have quotes yet. And that's going to be, that is the 1st question. We already talked to PGM. That's their 1st question. How much are we talking? We know it's going to be a lot more expensive than them just paying to plant 2 replacement trees, but we just don't know what dollar amount to give them and we don't know if they're going to be willing to cover the cost. The final factor is, does the city have the staff resources to manage this transplant project? And we say this because PG&E did tell us today that while they were willing to handle the replacement tree planting, they are not willing to take responsibility for transplanting the tree. If they are willing to fund it, they would give the money to the city, and they would expect city staff, then, to handle the transplant, we do not have the equipment or the resources do it ourselves, we would have to contract it out. So a critical question for us would be the timing. Because we hear PG&E wants to get started as soon as possible. They've already delayed this project quite a bit, working with us on what was going to happen with Middlefield Road. And this is part of their gas pipeline safety initiative. So we would need time to figure out how quickly we could get quotes, contract this out, assuming PG&E pays for it, and have our own staff resources available to manage this, this contract and make sure the tree gets transplanted before PG&E is ready to start work. So having said that, um, Because we don't know all the answers, we did come up with an alternate recommendation, if you want to leave transplanting the tree on the table. Um, so if that's the directional council, I'm happy to screen share an alternate recommendation. I'm seeing a lot of nods. All right, let me screenshot. So I assume you can see my screen. Okay, great, thank you. So, you know, the current recommendation is to prove the removal and mitigation for 2 heritage trees, attitude of one replacement. The proposed revised recommendation, which would give staff some flexibility to see if we can work this out, would be still to approve the removal mitigation for the pine heritage tree, at a 2 to one replacement ratio, but for the redwood heritage tree, approved transpelling the tree. If a feasible location is identified. It is fully funded by PGE, and city can transplant the tree before PGE needs access to the site. If this is not possible, approve the removal and mitigation for the redwood heritage tree, a 2 to one tree replacement ratio. And that's uh, staff's response to the question.

[01:37:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Councilman Robbie Toget, you still have the floor.

[01:37:34] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Ms. Cameron, for that explanation and alternate motion. I like the alternate motion. I guess my question, though, is, um, or I, I, my, I don't see the, a motivation for PG&E to, to pay for the transplanting and so, unless we have a, um, you know, a bigger requirement on the other end. So if it's, if they, if, you know, it turns out it's not doable or impeaching, he says, no, we go back to just our, the current recommendation, which I think is a lighter lift, frankly, for them. So I just don't see that, you know, what would motivate them to do it. So is there something else we could require if they say no to transplanting the heritage tree?

[01:38:30] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Not nothing that comes immediately to mind. I will say that, you know, PG has been working with us to be a good neighbor. They consider the cost as reasonable and within range, I think we could persuade them. However, you are right. We cannot require it. And what we have to remember is they do have franchise rights to just go remove those 3 very large redwood trees from the median. And as part of previously approved gas pipeline safety initiative tree removals, they have provided, they provide money to the tree fund. At a... I think it's 5 replacement trees for every 3 trees they remove or something like that or 7 for every three. It's slightly more than 2 to one, but not much more. And that is something that's been set in stone for a number of years now in terms of what they do for their gas pipeline safety initiative. So, you're right about the motivation and the best I can say is that we could do our best effort with Peach. You need to convince them that if this is what council would like to see, that this would be a good community relations thing to do.

[01:39:43] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you.

[01:39:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Anything else, council member? Okay. Uh, Council member Shevald.

[01:39:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Oh sorry, go ahead.

[01:39:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, and I can wait to make the alternate motion.

[01:39:54] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I was just gonna ask the mayor if we're ready for emotion. Um, if so, I would move what?

[01:40:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: We are ready.

[01:40:03] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, I would move, um, uh, uh, council member Cameron's, um, Resolution, please. Thank you. I really think that's a good compromise. One thing I'd like to mention is that, you know, pipeline safety is actually a big deal. And, um, we see, we've seen some... I mean, a San Bruno incident was egregious and horrible, and that's very, very rare, but there are other, uh, lesser problems, and, um, just keeping that pipeline safe also means that, um, it's reducing the emissions from it. So there's lots of good reasons for, you know, for us. I mean, it's very much in our interest to have this work done and keep these pipelines in just tip top shape. So, um, that's another reason why I think that, you know, the time has come to move forward with this. And I really like, um, uh, the suggestion that the public works director made. Thank you.

[01:41:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bye, Smar Hick.

[01:41:15] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So, I can second that motion. Um, I know, though, that this community, this neighborhood is very concerned about sort of loss of trees in general, and I'm wondering whether it would make sense to, to also say that if the city could chip in a certain amount of money, if, uh, PG&E, if the money were something that, um, that PG&E did not want to pay, you know, nothing to slow it down, I agree. It's important to move forward, but I also think if we tripped in, you know, a few thousand dollars that, to ease the process, I would be willing to do that. So I don't know if, uh, council members show Walter would, if that would work, and if council members show Walter would agree to that friendly amendment.

[01:42:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No, I don't think so. If they're listening, um, and we say we're gonna give them X $1,000, we're giving them X $1,000.

[01:42:14] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, I'll go with that as is, then.

[01:42:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, Don, did you want to speak?

[01:42:22] Public Works Director Don Cameron: I just wanted to note that there were actually 2 recommendations for this item. One was to authorize the necessary, uh, city manager, to execute the necessary documents to grant PG&E, the utility easement, as well as the recommendation regarding the tree removals. So, uh, just would like to clarify that both of these recommendations are included in the motion.

[01:42:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So, council member, Shelter. It's essentially the staff recommendation with the alternative that the public works director has proposed.

[01:42:54] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's correct.

[01:42:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Okay. Uh, so that's motion uh, made by council member, show Walter seconded by Vice Mayor Hicks. Any other questions or comments? Uh, seen. I'm. We'll commence the roll call, though.

[01:43:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Chance member, shall Walter?

[01:43:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes,

[01:43:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: by Mayor Hicks?

[01:43:12] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:43:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abi Koga? Council member Kmei?

[01:43:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes,

[01:43:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber. Council member Mattachek?

[01:43:22] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[01:43:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez.

[01:43:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. Motion carriage unanimously. You will now move to item 5, oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter, not on the agenda. Speakers were allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on nonagenda 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 for a star 9 on your phone. Timer will be displayed on the screen. Uh, we have several speakers. So, uh, let's uh, allocate 2 minutes, and we'll begin with Luis Katz.

[01:44:14] Luis Katz: Thank you, mayor and council members. I wanted to address the issue of, uh, what is going on at 590 Castro, which is the Sobrano building that's supposed to go up. Upon reading the staff report. I know that they say they gave notice within 72 property owners within 750 feet. My view of the map appears to be, so within 750 feet is City Hall Chamber of Commerce, Performing Arts Center, Sobrado's own headquarters, across the street, Pioneer Park, and the library. The notices that would have gone to residence, it seems to have been absolutely minimal. The 750 feet is, I think, a very outdated model. It's great for neighbors who are putting a second story, perhaps over their garage, but not for a public space, like Castro Street, where everyone has a keen interest in what is going on, including local property owners, which is not the same as property owners. So, um, we have some very serious issues with this building that will be addressed later when it comes before the council, but I think it's important for the council to understand that we should not be treating public spaces like Castro, the same as neighborhood projects for apartments and townhouses. It seriously erodes public trust, and with the upcoming actions for considering how to treat R3 zoning, et cetera, I think it's important for the council to understand that the more information that the public is given, and the more input they're allowed to have in a timely manner, instead of after the fact, the more likely we are to have a well developed city that truly represents the needs of our community. So, again, I would urge you to consider that we have to change the 750 foot notice outdated model. And for this project in particular, it shouldn't go forward until we actually have proper notice to the community. Thank you.

[01:46:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Bruce Nagel.

[01:46:17] Bruce Nagel: Hi, can you hear me?

[01:46:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[01:46:20] Bruce Nagel: Okay, um, I'd like to discuss, um, things in regards to sustainability. I'm Bruce Nagel. I've lived in Mountain View for over 40 years. I'm part of several sustainability groups, including being on the board of Carbon Free Mountain View. I think Mountain View Council for support of a number of powerful sustainability efforts. We were one of the 1st members in the Silicon Valley clean energy to move that forward, the group of people that did that. We authorize the environmental sustainability task course. We had early support of reach codes and we have support of all new vehicles by 2035 being 0 emissions vehicles. The work that's being considered now to go into carbon neutral for 2030, as other cities have been, is an area that Mountain View is taking on. Thank you for that. Um, It's important that we move this forward and be aware that other other people are on the same journey. In fact, the topic of this, of the, um, The thing being that, um, is San Mateo is discussing carbon neutral by 2030. I'd like you to consider an action that could be taken on the way, and that is that Los Altos Hills and Half Moon Bay have taken on, and it's to shut off the gas by 2045. So there's, um, uh, precedents for this. And um, I would like to see that as part of the discussion. I think it's an important foundational issue and will help focus the intention on what's needed in order to make the thing work. Thank you very much for the time, the discussion. And for all the work you've done so far.

[01:48:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. The next speaker is Mary Hotter.

[01:48:22] Mary Hotter: Thank you very much. Uh, I too want to discuss the notification issue around uh, 590 Castro Street in particular. Um, I also agree that the, uh, notifications for, important changes to Castro Street are critical. I believe that we need to be notifying, if not everyone in Mountain View, a very wide circle. Um, We are 1000 feet here in this household that I'm speaking to you from, uh, from the development, and so we did not get any notification, and yet, I think that the impact, for example, at the Sobrado building across the street where the new Wells Fargo is located, has a very high impact on our neighborhood. And so the idea that, uh, 750, 750 feet is reasonable is, um, it doesn't really work for me. When I speak with our neighbors, uh, around Fairmont, Hope View, Bush. Um, they're all very concerned because they don't like what happened at the Sobrado building across the street. And yet nobody knew about the new proposal, uh, and what's going to happen tomorrow at an administrative meeting. And so, It's left to neighbors like me to go around and spread the word because nobody's getting notified. Um, I'm also very concerned as Louise Katz mentioned about the notion that most of the notifications went to either the city or Sobrado. Um, I think that is not at all helpful. Um, so I really want to encourage you to change the rules when uh, there's any development proposed for Castro or side streets that, um, all of Mountain View has a stake in the development, especially large developments that heavily impact the street and everybody needs to be notified before those kinds of developments can be approved. Thank you.

[01:50:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Howard Beal.

[01:50:33] Howard Beal: Hi. Um, I was calling uh, to bring attention to the issue of the tiny homes operated by life moves. There have been several issues, uh, there, and one of the least being, um, people being thrown out of there because, well, their stay is at 90 days or 120 days. And life moves will tell you that people are being difficult or they're not making steps. But the people who live there will tell you a completely different story, and I always tend to decide with those people, because when you talk to them, they're like, well, I'm working, or, well, I've taken a class, or well, I've done this, or well, I've done that. And all their stories are always the same. And then when they talk about the life moves people, they say, you know, I haven't had a case. I haven't met my case manager in meets, or I'm on my 3rd or 4th case manager, and I've only been there 90 days. You know, there's serious problems with that, life moves location. There's problems with how it's run. There are problems with, um, maybe some safety issues, there's problems with, uh, sanitation issues, there's problems with the floor buckling. There are a variety of problems there. And I know many of you, like many other electives. We're so happy to see that opened and thought it was the next greatest thing, and we should all like multiply that all over the area. But it's not true. And this isn't working. And we need to find a way to hold them accountable and make it work before we replicate that anywhere. And so I'm hoping that in the name of the people that are still there, and especially the name of the people who have already been removed from that program, for unjust reasons, that you will look into this life moves program. Because right now, life's just moving on for people that it shouldn't have. Thank you.

[01:52:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. The next speaker is Christine.

[01:52:37] Christine Keller: Good evening, counsel. This is Christine Keller. I'm at 555 West Middlefield. Um, I know you've heard from me a lot. Thank you for your patience with that. Um, so just a day or 2 after the last council meeting. I became aware of a major issue here at Avalon, which I believe others have, um, reached out to the city about as well. Um, trying to summarize it quickly. Essentially, Avalon is doing the hallway renovations, um, but is not letting the people know that it involves asbestos. The only way I found out is someone else who emailed, told me that they did confirm it's for asbestos. Um, and this has caused a lot of stress for the people, um, that have already received notification, and I know our building is coming um, in the near future. So they're not telling people it's asbestos, and they're only leaving a note on the door five days before, and then emailing three days before, it's gonna start saying that it's basically eight days of this work, but not saying it's asbestos. Also, not saying that it's actually three weeks of renovation. We have a lot of families here that have infants, pets. They're even telling people they can leave their pets in there for this. They're not being transparent at all about this, and it's gotten many of us kind of pretty worried. I was, um, advocating for mitigations to the development to protect our health and our trees in previous, um, meeting, and now I'm really feeling weary of being in support of this project at all after seeing how Avalon's been not been handling things well. And I'm, um, wanting to ask the city what's being done to help us here, um, to help get Avalon to be able to communicate, and really just take care about our health and communicate to residents, so they can safely get out, or safely make arrangements to stay elsewhere, and not have to just be out at the last minute. Um, but I do have growing concerns about it approving a seven year infill if they're not communicating well now as it is. Thank you so much.

[01:54:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Hala.

[01:54:46] Hala El Shawani: Yes, thank you, Mayor. Good evening, council members. This is Hala El Shawani. I'm a long time, a resident of Mountain View, and I wanted to add my voice to the folks that had concerns about the 590, uh, Castro Street proposal. Um, I think I've mentioned that many times before, any project, really, that takes place on Castro Street in downtown is really something that all the residents should know about and should be able to give input on. Downtown Castro Street belongs to all the residents and ensuring that new development projects are vetted through, to serve the community well, is really essential for the public good. Um, I also wanted to mention that I actually attended the, uh, development review meeting for this project a few months ago, back in October. Um, I don't have very strong confidence in the retail office mixed use because I hear that it's the same developer that's doing this project. Uh, did the Wells Fargo building across the street, the new one. And as you know, that that project really does not have, except for the bank, it does not have really multiple retail spaces offered to the public. It's essentially a dead zone, and I'm really worried about the same thing happening at the 590 Castro Street development. In addition, um, I am very, very, uh, really uh, concern about all the removal of of the heritage trees and all these development, uh, for the 5590 Castro Street, 9 heritage trees, are, um, asked to be removed, especially uh, 3 very mature redwood trees, uh, that are adjacent to Pioneer Park. And as you know, Pioneer Park is our historic, you know, wonderful downtown park. These three redwoods represent an extension of the green canopy of the park. So I would object strongly to that removal, but again, I think it needs to be opened up to the public for more input. Thank you.

[01:57:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Sayo Namora.

[01:57:23] Sayo Namura: Yes, thank you. My name is Sayo Namura, and I live on Cypress Point Drive, just across the street from 555 West Middlefield apartment. And then I'm supporting here for Christine and other friends living there. My concern is that um, I heard that when Abarone is demolishing the units on uh, the apartment 555 West Millfield. Um, there is no notice uh, to the residents nearby. And then my friends living there had to run to close their windows, because the dust was blowing to the balcony. They had to close windows and stay inside all day. That is really hard. And then I wish they could give notice to the residents in advance, so the residents can plan ahead. And my another concern is about the large number of Additional residents at the end of Cypress Point Drive. And there seems to be a difference between what we hear from Avalon and what we see happening at the apartments. So, um, I wonder if um, There has been any studies around the traffic impact on the dead end street too. Thank you very much.

[01:58:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Next speaker is Wei E.

[01:59:03] Wei E: Hi, uh, my name's Wei, I am a volunteer for the United Effort Organization, where a very small volunteer group, um, providing case management, um, services to people in need, including many people experiencing uh, homelessness. Uh, we are, uh, there was a personal addressing the home key project uh, leghorn in Mountain View. Um, I am very familiar with that program and I have many referred many clients and then we uh, to that program. I think, um, the fundamental issue is the lack of sufficient number of affordable housing. Because this problem, there are, um, so many people are sleeping on the streets sleeping in their cars. The solution, I think, is for the city, for the county, to support more, build more affordable housing. In the meantime, home key, project, home key, provides a short term solution. It's not perfect solution. is not permanent solution, but it does provide some help to people, homeless people so they can get stable housing to go to work, to go to school, to move on with their lives. So I hope that just because some people experience some, some, Some problem there does not mean this project is not good project. does not mean we should stop supporting home key projects like home key. Um, that's what I would say that please do not, just because you experience some issues. Some people experience issues. Does not mean project home key is not good product, which should continue support projects like home key. Thank you.

[02:00:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Kayla Hardy.

[02:01:08] Kayla Hardy: 555 West Middlefield Road. And I have also been concerned about the hallway renovations that are happening. My hallway has not been renovated next, but is scheduled to happen very soon. Um, in a few weeks. I wouldn't have known about it. Unless I had heard from others that they got very little notice from other buildings. I am concerned. I just wish they would be, give us more heads up, not like 5 days notice or less, like give us real heads up. That construction was going to happen, and also, To be clear that there's investos involved. I emailed them about the construction and they did not tell me it was asbestos until I asked specifically and then they said yes. And they're not clear on the timelines either. They said it was going to be one day of asbestos work, but in reality, it's 2 days for the whole the whole hallway. And it's going to be 2 weeks of construction for the hallway. They don't specify these timelines, even though they know them in advance. I just wish they would be more transparent. Especially with asbestos. Another thing is, they're, um, renovating units, not hallways, but units, and they don't give us heads up that they're doing that either when there is asbestos involved. A few weeks ago, there was, um, plastic outside a door across the hall for me and I wasn't sure if I was asbestos or not. They are supposed to put warnings. But I don't know, I just, I don't, I'm, like, I'm just concerned. I just wish they would be more transparent. That's all. Thank you for listening. I appreciate it.

[02:02:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Lisa out.

[02:03:12] Lisa Au: I'm sorry, Mayor. I did not mean to raise my hand and pressing the wrong button.

[02:03:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Sorry about that. I've seen no additional speakers. Um, we will return. Sorry, we will proceed to, um, item 6.one, fiscal year 2021 to 22 mid-year budget status report and adjustments. Uh, this item was continued from the council's February 8th meeting. City manager McCarthy and finance and administrative services director Jess Jesse Takahashi. will present the item.

[02:03:51] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor Ramirez and Council members, I believe that our administrative services director Jesse Takahashi is going to be driving the presentation. So I would just ask for him to pull it up. And while he does, I'll just give a brief overview before I turn it over to him to discuss the details with counsel. And the last time that we appeared before council was on November the 16th. And this was the 1st quarter update where we appeared on track. And at that point, we really didn't have all the impacts from Omicron, the Omicron variant yet. So there was still some uncertainty in where our economy would be at and what our revenues would look like. Well, since November 16th, we all know that we have still had positive tests that have increased, but now they are trending downward. So the pandemic has been continuing a bit longer than we all expected, but, as we all know, the governor has recently announced as of last week, his smarter plan to where we are now going to move into treating this as an endemic and moving forward. We also know that more people are getting vaccinated and boosted. Most of the shelter and place restrictions have lifted. And so essentially what all that means to us in Mountain View is that our revenues, although not recovering completely. Our revenues are on solid ground. And the economy continues to recover. So at this point, Jesse, I think I just described the 1st slide, I will go ahead and turn it over to you for the rest of the presentation.

[02:05:41] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Yes, thank you. Can you see the, uh, the PowerPoint?

[02:05:45] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[02:05:46] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: You can hear me. Okay, great. Uh, just one minute here. So, we're gonna go ahead and cut to the chase here in our first slide. As you can see here in the general operating fund, we have, at the halfway point of year, the general operating fund is currently estimated with an ending balance of about $7.7 million. And this is due primarily to higher than anticipated revenues, and expected improved budget savings. As I mentioned, most of the improvement came from higher projected revenue that can be seen from this chart here. The purple bar on the right represents mid-year estimate. The green middle bar is the adopted budget, and the blue bar represents the fiscal 21 actuals. In all categories, current estimated amounts are projected higher than the adopted budget. I just want to mention a few of our major revenues here, property taxes continue to be one of our strongest revenues, and is estimated to be $2.8 million higher than budget. Sales tax is estimated to be a little over $3 million higher than budget, primarily due to strong sales from autos, general consumer goods, and a quicker than expected rebound from restaurants as the economy continues to recover. And with other local taxes, we're expecting $1.5 million higher than budget, and that includes TOT, which is done better than expected thus far, but is still less than half of what its historical level was. So we're still pretty far down in that respect. On the expenditure side, at the midyear salaries and benefit expenditures, are estimated to be $5.2 million below budget, and this is primarily the result of vacant positions and personnel turnover during the first half of the fiscal year. Service and supplies expenditures are estimated to be just under $800,000 below adopted budget. And that's it for the general operating fund. Now moving on to our other major funds, these include development services, Shoreline, Golf, and Michaels Restaurant, and the Shoreline community. Revenues for the Development Services and golf funds are running slightly below budget. However, expenditures are also trending below, leaving a net positive change for the midyear. The shoreline community revenues, consisting primarily of property taxes, are projected to be higher than budget, while operating expenditures are slightly below. It should be noted that a 2021 sea level rice study update was completed and presented to city council in June of 2021. The current cost estimate for identified sea level rise projects at the time is $122 million. Staff is in the process of developing a feasibility study in order to prioritize the projects, for funding, scheduling, and implementation, and its anticipated additional reserves will be needed to provide for increased mitigation over what was recommended by the initial study. On to our utility funds. The utility funds are made up of water, waste, water and solid waste. In the water fund operating revenues are estimated to be lower than budget, due to water usage, trending approximately 10% lower as a result of the conservation efforts that are ongoing due to the drought. However, operating expenditures are also estimated to be below budget, primarily as a result of the San Francisco PUC waiving the minimum water purchase requirement this year because of the drought conservation mandates. In the wastewater operating or wastewater fund, operating revenues are estimated to be higher than budget, and estimated expenditures are also trending below budget. And lastly, in the solid waste fund, operating revenues are estimated to be essentially on track while expenditures are trending below budget. This next slide is a summary of our strategic roadmap action plan, 6 months significant accomplishments. As you know, the council adopted a strategic plan in June, and we are just providing this update on the 1st 6 months. Two out of the 43 projects are completed, and 31 are underway, which together account for over 75% of the projects. And this slide here notes the significant accomplishments, thus far in each of the council's 7 strategic priority categories. As far as recommendations for the midyear, we have appropriations for increased janitorial costs that are due to increased vendor rates that were just implemented in January. There are several new positions that are being requested, including 4 in public works, one in finance and administrative services, and one in community development. First, the engineer positions and executive assistant and public works were recommended by a study that was recently completed by Matrix Consulting Group, as a way to improve the development review process, and improve public service and capabilities. These would convert existing engineer positions from the limited period to ongoing, and approve a new executive assistant to provide much needed administrative support. The payroll accountant is needed to ensure continuity of payroll as well as handling an increased workload. And the analyst, uh, 12 is needed to implement and administer the newly adopted mobile home rent stabilization ordinance that, um, uh, the council passed recently. And additionally, funds are needed for this ordinance implementation. So here, $107,000 is needed related to one time startup costs that includes software development, legal services, consultants, initial training for the rental housing committee, and their staff, the cost represents about 8 months worth of operating costs incurred during this fiscal year. In addition, a loan from the general non-operating fund of 292,000 is being requested to provide for ongoing staff costs that will eventually be repaid for mobile home park owner fees once they are collected. And then there was, uh, an additional $20,000 related to a new accounting standard that needs to be implemented as well as an amendment to the classification and salary plan. Looking forward to the um, general operating fund forecast for next year, fiscal 2223. The forecast tier projects total general operating fund revenues of 161.100000 and baseline expenditures of $157.7 million, which would leave a ending balance of about $19 million. Notably, the forecast includes additional position requests discussed in the recommended mid-year adjustment section of the report. However, at the time, this time, the forecast does not include any fiscal 23 ongoing budget requests from departments, as those are being currently evaluated as part of the budget development process. And just like to note that the full five-year forecast will be presented as part of the 23 recommended budget that comes before you in June. As far as just some of the assumptions in the forecast, we had some broad assumptions, such as maximum property tax-based increase of 2%, fewer restriction due to the pandemic and continued improvement in most of our revenues. That said, there are still very many variables that are still in play that make it still challenging to determine how the pandemic's going to play out and how the local economy will ultimately be affected as a result. And then, looking ahead, as far as next steps, we have some significant milestones shown here, uh, in April, we have CIP study session, the capital improvement plan, uh, session, and another budget update that will be coming to you in April. public hearings for the recommended budget, as well as utility rates, and the budget and CIP adoption will then be coming forward in June. And uh, that concludes staff's presentations, uh, the last couple of slides are really just the recommendations from the staff report, and we, uh, staff is available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[02:14:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Well, 1st take questions from the council and then move to public comment. Are there any questions from the council? Bye Snare Hicks.

[02:15:11] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So thank you, Mr. Takahashi. Thank you for the clear, um, Positive report. Um, my question is not so much about the numbers, but I was, uh, surprised to say that the work plan we usually, um, check and tweak, the work plan and projects, uh, in February, and I was surprised to say that was embedded in the mid-year budget for, um, rather than a separate item. So I'm just wondering from staff that this would be a good time, uh, to, uh, make any comments about, about, uh, tweaking items in the work plan, not just about the budget, during this agenda item.

[02:15:55] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Uh, thank you, Council member Hicks. So, the mid year update to whether we call it the work plan or the strategic roadmap, has typically come at the 6 month mark. So council just adopted the work plan just with this past budget adoption. So you certainly can discuss any of the projects, um, and make any tweaks or we can answer any questions that you may have. But typically, it has been used as an update to counsel on just the status of the projects that have been adopted. Um, but again, we can certainly discuss any of those projects, um, or make make tweaks. I'm happy to answer any questions about that.

[02:16:35] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, let me make sure I understood you. Are you saying there's gonna be a time later in the year when we, um, when we explicitly look at items on the work plan, or did I misunderstand you now? Are you saying now is the time to do that?

[02:16:50] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, council member Hicks. So actually, you can talk about it now. Today would be the time to discuss that. So we are not planning on bringing another item to counsel about this. However, we will include another update in the June in the June recommended budget. And I also just realized I'm calling new council member, Hicks, and not Vice Mayor Hicks. So apologies for that. But now would be the time to discuss that.

[02:17:17] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So now, and then we get another swing at it in 6 months is what I'm hearing. Okay, thank you.

[02:17:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions from the council? Did have, um, one, and that's, uh, the, Payment of the startup cost for the mobile home, rent stabilization, or does this propose to be a loan, um, But if it, we're not alone. If the city were to, uh, take on a portion of that cost. Does that mean that it would provide some relief to mobile home park owners. Would their fees go down correspondingly?

[02:18:03] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Uh, Mayor Ramirez? Yes, in a nutshell, that that is accurate.

[02:18:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you.

[02:18:11] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, just... Just... Thank you, Mayor. I had a question on item 7.4 on the work plan. Um, about uh, city, city workspace. You know, from, Looking in the right spot, but I was wondering if that would include, um, applying the, We have the sustainability committee urging private businesses to, um, engage in telecommuting, and and with this, uh, include that, this item coming back to us.

[02:18:55] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: I'll go ahead and take that question if it's okay with the city manager on Cameron Public Works director. Uh, the, The basic scope of this item is to look at the fact that we have far more demands for space in city hall for staffing needs than we can possibly accommodate. So we're looking, exploring one of the options we have to accommodate not only existing staff, but our growing staff needs, and definitely looking at the possibility of using more shared office cubicles, because we will have more staff potentially telecommuting up to 2 days a week. So that is something we'll look at and see how we can apply, uh, telecommuting along, um, as one of our solutions to making more, the most efficient use of our space here at city hall as possible.

[02:19:46] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, thank you.

[02:19:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I mean, no, uh, additional questions, we will turn to the public. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item and just as a reminder, it's 6.one fiscal year 2021 to 22 mid-year budget status report adjustments, strategic roadmap action plan update in fiscal year 2022 to 23 preliminary general operating fund forecast. If so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. The timer will be displayed on the screen. Um, let's allocate 3 minutes uh, for this item, and we'll begin with Juliana Pendleton.

[02:20:37] Giulianna Pendleton: Good evening, Mayor Ramirez and council members. My name is Juliana Pendleton, and I am the environmental advocacy assistant for Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. We are encouraged that the city of Mountain View includes sustainability and climate resiliency as part of the city's 7 critical priorities for the strategic roadmap action plan, and that biodiversity is included as a priority for the city. We sent you a letter asking that as the city looks to update the strategic roadmap action plan along with the adoption of the fiscal year 2022, 2023 budget in June 2022. You may add a project to reduce light pollution, promote dark sky preservation and save energy. When I drive at night, I am often surprised by the amount of bright, cold light coming from buildings, parking lots, street lights, and even homes and residences. More and more studies are finding the harmful effects of blue spectrum lighting, including declining insect populations, hormone disruptors, mental health deterioration, and sleep disturbances in humans, negative effects on migrating bird populations, and on pollinators, and the decline of our natural dark sky, which is also leading to an inability to study the stars in galaxy. While LED technology has been instrumental for light efficiency and reducing lighting costs. It has also led to a greater amount of light in places that used to have minimal lighting and or warm lighting. Cities, states, and even countries, however, are taking a stand against light pollution. Just last year. Cupertino passed a bird safety and dark sky ordinance. Salt Lake City, just passed a dark sky friendly street lighting master plan. And Mountain View could be the next city to help protect our dark skies. We hope the city of Mountain View prioritizes regulation of lighting for private and or public property to one, remove minimum lighting requirements for private and public properties and development. To utilize lighting zones to set maximum permissible correlated color temperature. Three, require dimming and or timers and motion sensors as part of the lighting control systems for all fixtures. And four, follow the international dark sky association resolution for additional outdoor lighting guidelines. We hope this priority can be added to the strategic roadmap action plan update, as it would align with city goals to prioritize livability and quality of life and sustainability and climate resilience. Thank you.

[02:23:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[02:23:19] Tim MacKenzie: Greetings, counselors, uh, Tim McKenzie, resident of the Monta Loman neighborhood. Um, seems like we always have staffing needs. staff time is the highest priority. for being able to accomplish many of the projects that we want to do. And I recall last year, an open position from the police department instead of hiring a police officer. The decision was made to hire another city staffer, and given the number of projects that we really want to take on, I would love to see something like that happen again in subsequent years, and that we can allocate our limited city resources in ways that are most effective to do the things that we want and need for our city. Thanks a lot.

[02:24:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[02:24:15] Alex Brown: Yeah, budgeting is the best, right? I'm here as a resident of a mobile home Mountain View and a beneficiary of the MHRSO. I really appreciate the city allocating the funds to get the MHR RSO started on a good foot. I've been lucky enough to see the great work that the RC staff have done both before and during the pandemic. I'm very excited to see what they can accomplish with more hands in appropriate funding. I would like to note that even with the $290,000 loan, assuming it had to be paid off in the 1st year, that only results in a per unit fee of around $21 a month, which is one% of the rent for homeowners who recently moved in Santiago Villa. So not huge. I'm also very much in favor of making our nights dark again. One of the Microsoft Buildings by the Stevens Creek Trailhead, a la Venita is blindingly bright at night, and I'd love to be able to see the stars again. Thanks.

[02:25:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you I will now bring the item back to council. for deliberation and action, and note that a motion to approve or recommendation, recommendations should also include reading the title of the resolution attached to the report. Um, 1st uh, city manager McCarthy. Um, did you want to address um, an earlier item?

[02:25:25] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, thank you, mayor. So I just wanted to make sure that I can clarify the timing of when the roadmap, which we've also call the work plan, when that is coming back to council. So it will come back to you all, in June of this year, as part of the recommended budget, and then you all will review it again at the one year mark after adoption, which would be next February. Sorry, the one year after this month. So next February of 23. So if that makes sense. So you adopted them just this past June. Then this is now your mid-year check in February. You'll get to look at them again in June of this year, and then next February of 23.

[02:26:12] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So, if I may ask a question just to clarify, is the addition of new items to the strategic roadmap within the scope of this item.

[02:26:23] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: It is.

[02:26:25] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you.

[02:26:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member, Robbie Koca.

[02:26:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. My question was similar to that. Um, I guess I thought that next year, we would be doing our next 2 year cycle of council goals. So, um, you know, there are several items, including the ones that were brought up during public comment and just trying to figure out the timing of that, um, you know, my inclination was to just finish out the, this year and this year's list. And then when we have the new council. I guess you can, the new 2 year cycle next year, we can create a new list. Um, is that not the case? Like, should we be adding, looking at adding items tonight?

[02:27:21] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Council member Abbe Koga, that is accurate. So next February, we would do the check-in of how the last work plan went. So you will know what's been accomplished, if there's things that are still in progress, that you all want to continue into the next work plan. So this was a two-year cycle that you adopted. And so, as Mr. Takahashi mentioned, 75% of the items on your plan are underway right. right now. Attachment 3 to the council report gives a status update on all of those items. So if counsel is interested this evening in tweaking something or has questions about anything, this would be the time to bring it up. And if you all, like I said, want to, um, add something, we'll need to look at that in the context of the work plan, and we can talk about that as those arise this evening.

[02:28:21] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, If we wanted to discuss or, let's say add the lighting policy, um, into this work plan, we would have to talk about what to swap out. But if we wait till next, early next year, when we do our next 2 year cycle, we could potentially just add it as a new item in our next work plan. Is that correct?

[02:28:49] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: That is correct. Yes. And then you could also choose to continue any items that we haven't yet finished. I would note that the community development department has a significant workload right now within all of these projects. We also have quite a number of vacancies. And I have discussed with staff, just all of the implications of these new items, in addition to the current items, in addition to still recovering from COVID. And we simply don't have the bandwidth to do that now, but that doesn't mean that you all can't add it. next February and have it be on that next work plan list. But if you wanted to add it now, you would have to drop one or 2 items that are on your current work plan that have not yet started, or you would have to halt items that have started.

[02:29:44] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, in light of that, are we just thinking questions right now, or are we making comments?

[02:29:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You can make comments now.

[02:29:52] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. So, um, in light of that and is, I, I, my inclination has always been to try to just finish up out the, as many projects as we have, um, currently before adding more, um, and especially given our staff, um, workload issues. Um, I, you know, I would like, I mean, I'm interested in the lighting policy. Um, I know we're talking about gun safety later tonight, but there are some other other gun safety items that I'm interested in. But, um, I think I, I'll just plan on bringing that up next year when we start the new 2 year cycle and hopefully by then, some of these current projects will be cleared out and we'll be, we'll have the capacity to add new ones. Thank you.

[02:30:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member Showalter.

[02:30:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: You know, I think when I was reading the packet, I was a little confused about the gnomenclature, um, of the strategic roadmap versus our work plan, um, but, you know, we, we used to just call it our work plan. So, um, so then I was talking to some people today, and it came up that it really was our work plan. But with that in mind, I was looking at it in terms of, um, looking at this list, one of the things that the city's, you know, doing in these categories that I know about, and are they all on this list? And there was one that definitely wasn't. And are there some things on there that I think, you know, maybe we should remove at this time. And there was one thing I wanted to remove. So I'm just gonna bring up both of those. One, I was surprised wasn't on here. Um, was the, uh, um, the project that we're doing with Palo Alto and Valley Water to build a, um, uh, salt removal facility. Um, I, you know, I mean, we, it's not, this is an ongoing, um, project, it's, it's, um, uh, staff is doing it. But it seems to me like it's definitely in the, um, uh, in the sustainability and climate resilience category, and it's something we should be, um, you know, blowing our horn about. It's a big deal. So I was going to sort of suggest that we add that as 4.6. If that doesn't really bring up any more work for staff. That's one thing I wanted to comment on. And I was gonna offer, too, if, I mean, I wonder, too, do other council members, have you thought of things that we're working on that, that really are in these categories, and we're not, you know, we're not blowing our horn about. That's... we should be doing that. Then, then the other thing I, I was, I, um... I thought about was, uh, 7.6, which is the, you know, the T.O., um, the idea of bringing, uh, T.O.T. measure on the, putting that on the ballot in the fall. And I think, given the COVID recovery and the heavy workload of our staff, perhaps this is not good timing. So I would suggest that we consider removing that. So those are the things I wanted to bring up. And I also, as council member, Abby Koga said, I'm interested in the light pollution issue. And, um, you know, when we can, when it's timely, we're able to, to, um, To work on that I certainly would support doing that. Thank you.

[02:33:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member, Mattachek.

[02:33:33] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, so I'm also interested in the Dark Skies ordinance. Um, I was actually hoping there was a way to get it on the work plan center then, uh, this time next year. Um, I was hoping staff could maybe come back and say, you know, here's what would, uh, have to be removed or trade it off for a while to do that, and maybe we get an update in June from staff on the implications of prioritizing that. That actually would be my preference rather than waiting until February of 2023 to prioritize it. Um, it's kind of hard for me to tell, um, really what departments. Um, I feel like there's always more than meets the eye. when it comes to these projects. And so I'd rather rely on staff telling us what are the implications than us guessing. Um, I um, I would be interested in removing the TOT. I express that concern in the past, um, but I would substitute it for refinancing the shoreline bonds, as I've talked about before. Um, interest rates are starting to rise. And so, um, it might not make sense to refinance the bonds at some point because it won't be, um, an advantage to do that. So the sooner we do that, the better. Um, and I was also thinking that I don't think now is the time to increase TOT, um, especially in light of the city's finances being better than we thought they were going to be. Um, and, um, the potentially slower recovery for our hospitality, um, industry here in Mountain View. Um, and let's see. Guess my for show, Walter, you brought up an interesting topic that I've had, um, a discussion about with the city manager, and that is, um, what really goes on this list versus what doesn't go on this list. And You know, I think we've done different things over the years that I've been on council. Um, but, you know, where, where do you say something goes on the list if it's a project that, um, you know, staff is working on that wasn't necessarily something council brought up as a project we want staff to work on? Um, you know, we could really fill up probably 20 pages of projects the staff is working on that are, um, things that, you know, we've prioritized and funded and we think are important, um, but they weren't necessarily part of the discussion we had when we talked about our goals and the projects to support those goals. So, I don't know, I sort of have mixed feelings about what's on this list and what isn't. I think it's kind of hard for it to be a mixed list, um, because, um, you know, things that are prioritized by the council, you know, special projects that we want to have to work on. I feel like it's easier for me to make trade-offs between those than it is, something that staff is working on, that, um, wasn't mentioned as part of our work plan when we put it together. So, I don't know, have definitely mixed feelings about how we approach that. Um, that doesn't mean we can't talk about the great things we're doing, um, that are not on this work plan and we absolutely should. Um, maybe there's just a different form for that. Um, I do have, um, one request when it comes to the budget, as opposed to the work plan, and that is, um, I I feel, um, that it would be, uh, a good idea to take a look at establishing a reserve. For the public safety building. And I know that, um, in the past, the council has provided direction, I think that was before my time, that we would use the revenue stream from the Ainswell uh, project uh, to fund public safety building. But, you know, given that it's gonna be a while before we need that funding. To me, it seems like we should be planning for that and putting the money from Aimswell in a reserve, maybe not all of it, but at least some of it, so that we borrow less when it's time to build the new public safety building. Um, and I don't know how that would fit into our financials. I'd be looking at city staff to analyze that, but I'd like to understand sort of the trade-offs we could make there. And maybe that's part of the June discussion, if other council members are willing to look at that, um, of establishing a reserve for the public safety building. Do we need to do a straw poll on that?

[02:38:31] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Aristra vote. Council member Mattachek, I would ask Mr. Takahashi to explain the reserve that we use now for the Ameswell project and then that might provide some perspective for counsel on any potential straw vote.

[02:38:53] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Yes, thank you, uh, Amanda McCarthy. So, uh, with respect to the public safety building, um, uh, you are correct, uh, the council did, uh, decide, and that was effective, uh, around 2018 with the, uh, aims well development property, to essentially commit the revenues and the future revenues that would be generated from that, um, that project, that property, for funding the public safety uh, admin building. Now, back at that time, the estimate was much smaller. And so the revenues would conceivably cover a good portion of the cost of that building, but in more recent years, as council knows, the cost of that and the options went up significantly, such that the cost of that new building now is gonna require a significant amount more funding. And so, right now, the Amesville property, um, initially was estimated to bring in about a 3.5 million dollars a year in revenue, um, and that money would be, uh, used to provide debt service for, uh, for bonding against when the time came, which was expected to be around this time or maybe another year or so. And that was before the cost went up. So that money, in the meantime, was put into a reserve, um, a budget contingency reserve, which council approved, and which we still have, has about $11.8 million in it currently. And it's funded from rental income, as well as property tax, and other revenue sources generate off that property. So this current year, which is about $2.1 million, that is expected to be deposited in there. And so, um, certainly within council's prerogative to, you know, move and allocate and earmark funds and reserves, uh, as it wishes. So that $11.8 million is in the budget contingency reserve, which can be used for, you know, currently a wide variety of things, as well as limited period funds, for needed expenditures. And so that's where that dollar is now, you know, you're right, interest rates have been rising, or increasing. And so potentially, the longer we put off, you know, issuing that bed and moving forward, the cost of issuing long term debt will now begin to increase. And so that is something that certainly needs to be taken into consideration. At the same time, setting aside this money, specifically for the public safety admin building as a way to start building up reserve money, and that would then potentially reduce the amount of money needed to issue debt later. So it is kind of a trade off. And it really, you know, what council feels is in the best interest overall, um, you know, and it really, I think, can be argued either way. But certainly, if you want to earmark more money now, for that particular purpose, that would just reduce any future debt, that may be needed.

[02:42:18] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I'm interested in doing that. And I think, you know, I leave it up to staff to come back to us with the next budget update to say, what's a reasonable approach to this? How much? Um, if others are interested in doing that. Do we do it by a show of hands?

[02:42:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So, um, just to clarify, so you're, we're, we're asking staff to come back with information about this approach. We're not necessarily providing direction to change the status quo right now. Is that?

[02:42:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Right. Right. So when we look at the budget for, I mean, I'm assuming we would start this in the next fiscal year. Um, and so I would look to staff to come back with, well, here's one approach we could do, um, starting next year when we talk about next year's budget, as opposed to tonight, that we're not really focused on next year's budget.

[02:43:16] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Yeah, and we certainly could come back to staff with that kind of a recommendation when we come back in June with the recommended budget.

[02:43:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: City manager McCarthy, would you like a straw boat or is that information you can return?

[02:43:35] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Sure. I think, yeah, straw pull would be great.

[02:43:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so just, this is merely to request some additional information from staff, and we begin the budget process in a few months, so let's raise hands if you're interested in directing staff, so I, I'm counting 4 both, uh, 5 both, 6. Okay, so a strong majority. Um, so staff will will provide some additional information um, down the road. Um, anything else? Council number, not a check.

[02:44:10] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Just one quick one. I'm sorry, I forgot to ask this earlier. Um, the community workforce agreement. Um, I know that hasn't been started yet. Um, Is that still on track to issue the RFP for Q2?

[02:44:29] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Council member Matachek. I am going to ask our public works director, Don Cameron, to provide an update about the status of that project.

[02:44:41] Public Works Director Don Cameron: We are gonna try to do so by the end of Q2, but we are also experiencing staffing shortages, and until those positions get filled, I may not have the staffing capacity to do it in Q2. They may end up having the issue the RFP and Q3.

[02:44:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. I know we've had that one on the list for a while, so, obviously, we're hoping to get to that center rather than later. Thanks.

[02:45:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bye, snarefix.

[02:45:15] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So I'm basically agreeing with a lot of the comments that council members have made about work plan items. Um, I would, you know, so I agree with people. I'd like a lighting ordinance of sometime, at some time whenever that can best fit in. Um, and also to take off the TOT tax, and add refinancing, shoreline, uh, seems maybe like a doing the TOT tax later would be, uh, uh, better timing. In addition, I'm, I'm also thinking, um, there's maybe some work plan items that come out of our, uh, work on the housing element. I have talked to people about some of the discussion that the EPC had around, uh, housing element, you know, uh, sites that would be put on, and maybe some, uh, some either working around precise plans, or maybe I'll just say more precise planning around some of those sites that might be put on, such as village centers and, um, outdated shopping districts that might be put on as sites. So I'm wondering, I'm thinking, this is, because we haven't had those discussions. This is not the time to put those work plan items on, maybe in the 6 month check in would be the time, but I want to make sure that we're able to to handle those items. And one that comes to mind, for me, that may come out of that is one we've been talking about, which is the Moffatt Precise Plan. Um, you know, I think that that's something that may not be able to continually put off, or else we get into the kinds of discussions we did around 555, where people feel that what's being developed doesn't really, doesn't really fit into the community well. I'm thinking that we can't put some of this kind of precise planning off too long, or we get, we get developments that are time consuming and don't really serve the neighborhood as well as they otherwise could. But maybe the 6 month point after we've had the housing element discussion is the time to do that. At the same time, I think at this point, we can take off Shenandoah, or Lillette, you know, in the extreme future, if we just want to keep it on there. So in that way, we are taking off something in the, you know, under the, uh, community development, uh, heading. So those are, so those are my comments about that. I mean, ideally I would add the Moffatt precise plan as soon as possible. I guess I would at least like to have it on the list, visible on the list, and fit it in as soon as we can. Thank you.

[02:48:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member reliever.

[02:48:22] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I wanted to follow on, on Council member, um, Manachex, um, comments about the the importance of moving along the, uh, item one point for the, um, community workforce agreement. I think it's, um, been really kind of a long time coming, and I hear staff saying that, uh, staffing shortage to put together what we need to do to, um, get the consultant, uh, on board, but if there's anything that we can do to, um, put an emphasis there. I know that, um, a number of members of the, the labor community have come forward. Um, at certain points and hoping to understand, um, where it's at and what's happening to it. And so I just wanted to put my support into, um, moving it forward, if we possibly can, um, in a noticeable way, 'cause it's something that I think would really help the, uh, the community and the folks that are trying to stay here in the Bay Area. Thank you.

[02:49:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member show, Walter.

[02:49:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I wanted to follow up a little bit with what, um, Vice Mayor Hicks was saying about, um, work that may come up as an outgrowth of the housing element, and, um, uh, and I was wondering, do we want to have a placeholder on this list? Or is just talking about it now enough to effectively get that? Um, and that, and that would be a similar comment for, um, I think the, uh, moving forward with the... the, um, the revenue, um, issues related to the Ameswell Hotel and the, and the public, um, public safety building. I mean, is there a mechanism that we need to follow, to do that, or is just discussion sufficient?

[02:50:38] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, council member, show Walter. So, we do have the housing element as one of the work plan or strategic roadmap, same thing, we have it as one of the items. It's number 2.8. So we'll be working on that throughout the course of this calendar year. And we're required pursuant to the state to have that adopted by December of this year. So you all will be taken a stab at your next work plan or strategic roadmap in February of 23. So whatever comes out of this housing element process, which does take precedent over everything, you can certainly consider any, you know, precise plans or any sort of, you know, projects that may come out of the housing element. Once that's adopted this December, and then you're able to start talking about the roadmap in February. Um, I also wanted to note that counsel did place consideration of the, um, Moffat Boulevard, uh, precise plan as number 5.6 in the work plan. So that is slated to begin and quarter one of 23 also after the housing element ends. So you all certainly can consider whatever comes out of the housing element. And I think it does have a nice timing fit with consideration of your next two-year cycle in February, next February. Thank you.

[02:52:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Anything else, council member, show Walter?

[02:52:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, not really. I mean, I guess I just want to say that the housing element, from a planning point of view is, is really a huge deal. I mean we all know that. And, um, so, it would be odd if things didn't come out of it that we need to work on. I mean, we can expect that to happen. So, um, that's why, you know, when I looked at this, continue work on the housing element, I, um, I just didn't, I wasn't sure what was behind that. It was just such a generic statement. So, um, I mean, I... You know, my personal feeling is there will be work. that comes out of the housing element. There always is. And that's just part of the process. So we'll look forward to that, then. Thank you.

[02:53:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, Assistant City Manager Shrivastova. Do you want to speak to this?

[02:53:10] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Thank you, just a short, um, uh, note to supplement what city manager, um, uh, Kimbra McCarthy has said, um, and that is, so the timeline of this particular strategic plan included the development of the housing element. Whatever comes out of the housing element, as implementation items, can then be incorporated into the next strategic plan the council adopts. I would like to note that as usual, there are state mandates around some of these, including rezonings, and they would take precedence over any other projects, that community development is working on. Because there is a state mandated timeline. And we'll let you know, as we work through this, and you will know by the time we adopt the housing element, what those will be. Thank you.

[02:54:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, just, as a reminder, this is not a study session, so emotion will be necessary at some point to, um, to approve the staff recommendations or any modifications, and, uh, I would recommend including within the motion, if there are, um, suggestions for modifications to the strategic roadmap. Um, probably the best way to approach it and I'll, Defer to staff on this, but I'm, I feel like we don't have enough information right now to make, um, specific adjustments to take out one item and put in a new item because they may not actually be, Um, they might they might require different staffing, um, or, you know, resource implications. So, um, if, if staff is amenable, probably the best way to approach it would be to direct staff to come back with, um, some information about what an appropriate trade-off may be. Um, any other questions or comments?

[02:55:06] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: May or may I?

[02:55:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, please.

[02:55:09] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you. So I do need clarity on one item that I heard just because of the timing implications of it. I think your suggestion to have staff come back. We can certainly wrap that up with the next update that'll come to you with the recommended budget in June, but I'm hearing some interest in the TOT. I've heard it from a few council members. So I do need to know that prior to June, where council wants to head just because of the timing of any potential revenue measure. We would need to move on that well before June. So I do need direction from counsel as to what the majority wants to do it. that item.

[02:55:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Council membership, Walter.

[02:55:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So it's time for emotion?

[02:55:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes. Please.

[02:56:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, so, so I move, um, that we amend the work plan, as discussed, to remove, uh, the TOT, to add the lighting ordinance when it's possible, and to, um, direct staff to work on the refinance of the, is it the shoreline?

[02:56:27] Unknown Speaker: Shoreline bonds.

[02:56:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And other than that, the staff resolution, and I think that I have to read, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, authorizing the city manager, a designee, to amend the classification and salary plan for regular employees for fiscal year, 2021, 22, to be read entitled only, for the reading waived. Thank you.

[02:56:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, so, that's a motion to approve the staff recommendation, with the modification to replace the TOT, uh, work plan item with the shoreline refinancing, and then to return for staff to return to council with information about, if we wanted to add in a new item, which is the lighting ordinance. What trade-offs may have to be made. Is that a fair summary? Motion?

[02:57:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Mhm.

[02:57:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member for me.

[02:57:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. I'm happy to 2nd the motion and just wanted to add. Um, the only other thing I want to add is, um, my, my support to, um, hopefully fingers crossed being able to stay on track with our community workforce agreement coming back in Q2. I know that a couple people mentioned that. So I just wanted to add my support to that as well.

[02:57:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Very much. Council member Metachek.

[02:57:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. I was wondering if we also need to include, even though we raised our hands over this. Um, taking a look at doing the public safety building reserve options. Should that be part of the motion?

[02:58:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I, we can include it. I feel like we've already provided that direction.

[02:58:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I feel like we have two, but I want to be entirely clear, so I'm asking, does it need to be part of the motion or is what we did sufficient?

[02:58:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Let's just put it as part of the motion.

[02:58:25] Unknown Speaker: If you include it in the motion, then it'll be even clear.

[02:58:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. So, cancel my Rachelle Walter, would you include in the motion?

[02:58:33] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah. Yeah, in fact, I thought I had. Yes, I do.

[02:58:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Oh, okay. Thanks.

[02:58:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: And Council member Kame, as a second, are you comfortable with that? Thank you. Council member, Abi Koga.

[02:58:46] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, here. So, um, I guess I, just a comment on the TOT tax measure, um, I, I, I probably won't, um, vote no, just because of that item, but I guess I wanted to make one less bitch, um, effort to try to convince my colleagues to move forward with that because as much, I appreciate the the Shoreline Bond, um, refinancing item, but, uh, to, you know, remind folks that goes to the Shoreline Fund and the TOT tax would come to our general fund. And I guess I was even thinking about the police building, I, my, I believe, um, of whatever generate view, gen, whatever revenue generated from a TOT tax could potentially go to funding that, that project or the bigger, the more, the, um, item that initially got this, um, to mind was, um, all of our sustainability, um, projects that we have in Q. And I guess I wanted to ask the city manager, if we do delay going out for TOT for 2 more years, what will that do to our ability to fund sustainability, our our ambitious sustainability action plan.

[03:00:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, council member, Abbe Koga.

[03:00:07] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I may need some help from Mr. Takahashi here, but we have set aside funding to fund positions for at least, I believe, 3 years. And then for the ongoing funding, that is exactly what you're referring to, which is where the TOT would help supplement the ongoing funding. We do have enough funding to get us through. I would also add that there are a few of those positions that are vacant. Either we have been unable to fill them, or we have not yet gone out to recruit for them yet. Uh, we just now have filled the chief sustainability and resilience officer position. Um, so as you know, that that's been something that's in the works for a while. So, I do believe we have enough funding for those sustainability positions that were identified back then. And if counsel chooses to instead do the TOT in 2 years, we would be able to at least get through in that time frame. So we're funded through 2024. Mr. Takahashi, will you clarify?

[03:01:15] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Yeah, so when the council approved the sustainability plan, I think that was, um, seems almost 3 years ago, two, 3 years ago. Um, we did include, is about $7.5 million, and we did, uh, set aside that money, uh, in in capital project for providing that period of time. At that time. The plan was to look for and try to secure funding beyond that for ongoing. Um, so, you know, the good thing is, as you saw in the mid year update, you know, our projected revenues, now that we're coming out of a pandemic look a little bit better, um, and we believe, unfortunately, because it's been difficult, uh, to hire people right away, that it has been taking time, and that we believe we can, over the period of time, kind of ease into funding those positions as at this point, you know, uh, the near term forecast, and we're expecting the further out, five year forecast will show that we will be able to build in and accommodate at least most of those needs.

[03:02:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Right, thank you.

[03:02:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Lieber.

[03:02:29] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Well, I was really struck, um, in the report how how low the amount was that we were getting from the TOT, and I think part of that is just, uh, the pandemic and and the local economics and how little hotel rooms are going for right now, but part of it is also the fact that we have the lowest TOT around. Um, so I'm interested in seeing what what kind of timing matches up. I don't think that this next election is a particularly good time to go out for a TOT. Um, And I, my own, uh, reading of things is that we've kind of missed the, the refi window, uh, on the bonds, and, you know, I'd be interested if there is an information tonight on getting that back, and maybe thinking if we have missed the window, um, how do we create a trigger for the future, where amidst the, the many things that we're understaffed, undoing, that, um, if we get in this situation, again, where, uh, there's the potential of, of a refi, that, um, we can, uh, we can pull the, pull the trigger more, uh, quickly and, and be able to go for that. But, um, I think that staff would be the best judges of that and maybe some information from them, uh, going forward on what kind of timing is best.

[03:03:58] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Yeah, thank you, uh, Councilman earlier, if I can respond to that. So, um, actually, despite the, uh, you know, the beginning of interest rates starting to to increase, um, there's still a pretty significant amount of savings to be had from doing a refunding, and so, um, we anticipate even where we are in today's current environment that we could, uh, still realize, uh, over $6 million in net present value savings over the remaining life, uh, which is, um, about, uh, let's see, that the, the bonds mature around 2041. that's about, you know, 19 years out. So there's still a pretty significant amount of savings, and, you know, the rates aren't gonna just, you know, rock it up right away. It will be increased over, you know, the period of next year. Our bonds did become fully cullible, just passed August. And so, um, you know, that was about the time, I think, when we were looking to, the question came up. Should we be refunding? So that was sort of a coincidentally good time to do that. Um, Steph does monitor sort of the interest rate cycle, rates have been low for a number of years now, as you know. Um, and just, just recently and now starting to go up. And so, um, we do try to keep on top of that as much as we can for the future. But I would say this is still a good time because now we can go ahead and move forward. You know, we think we could probably start it into the 2nd quarter. So that would be probably in the next 2 to 3 months. You know, probably take 3 to 4 months, depending upon number of variables to make to close. But I think we can still catch a very significant amount of real life savings for the shoreline community.

[03:05:44] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Well, Mayor, you know, given that information, I'd like to maybe put the emphasis on, uh, the refi of the bonds. Um, uh, and, you know, given that this isn't the greatest election ever to, uh, have TOT out there on the ballot. Um, and, uh, I think that even though we might be limited in the uses of the money, it just really increases, uh, confidence of the public, that we're making every effort to get them the best deal possible, uh, to keep money in our pockets. And I think that's always a good thing.

[03:06:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And just to make sure everyone's on the same page, the motion on the floor does include that modification to the work plan. Um, any other uh, questions or comments? Not, uh, city clerk, would you, in the roll call, though?

[03:06:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Shelter?

[03:06:52] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[03:06:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Kamei?

[03:06:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:06:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abby Koga?

[03:06:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[03:06:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Labor?

[03:07:01] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I,

[03:07:02] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Metachek.

[03:07:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:07:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[03:07:07] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah.

[03:07:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez?

[03:07:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[03:07:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Just to clarify, council member Abbe Koga.

[03:07:14] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[03:07:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay.

[03:07:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, the amended motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you very much. We will now move to item 7.1. guaranteed basic income pilot program. Spanish translation services are available for this item. We will now hear from our interpreter.

[03:07:35] Spanish Interpreter: Vamos a seguir. Con el articulo siete punto uno, el programa piloto de rentabasica gratisada. Lo servicio de interpretacional español estandis ponibes para este articulo. Gracias.

[03:07:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The city manager, uh, economic vitality manager, John Lang, and management analyst, Harsha, Ram Chundani, will present the item.

[03:08:44] Assistant to the City Manager Kimberly Thomas: Thank you and good evening, Marin City Council members. I'm Kimberly Thomas, assistant to the city manager, along with the GBI staff team of John Lang, our economic vitality manager, and Harsha Ramshandani, the management analyst and the city manager's office, we are pleased to be here with you this evening to provide you with the final recommendations for the city's guaranteed basic income pilot program, which is now named Elevate MV. The purpose of this record is for the city council to adopt the guaranteed basic income pilot program. This report includes updates and incorporates feedback from the time the council considered this in study session on September 28th of 2021. We'll provide a very brief background, the pilot program overall design, research areas, benefits of the research component, as well as the refined recommendations associated with implementation actors, budget, and term, in addition to some other updates. Let's see a pretty detailed timeline on this screen, and next, this is provided purely for your reference, but to note, a number of actions that have occurred, since the concept of GBI was undertaken. In June of 2021, the city council appropriated $1 million for a GBI pilot in the fiscal year current. Before this action, on May 25th of 2021, the city council adopted a resolution, committee support for the principles of a basic income program, and the development of a cash based pilot for the city of Mountain View. At the September Study Session, the city council indicated support for staff's recommendations for the goals, design, and anticipated outcomes for the GBI pilot program, as well as to fund a modest benefits conservation fund, the research, design, and evaluation component, which is an essential factor in waiver ability, and to look at philanthropic and corporate sponsors, to offset some of the research or other program extension costs. Members of the council also indicated, an interest in other areas, so just follow up on the state's pending GBI program and grants, as well as liisoning and engaging with the County Human Services Division and other programs for connections and knowledge sharing. The focus of the teen's work, since September, has been on preparation for this council item with some of the key following areas, finalizing the pilot design, working on the enrollment and benefits, components, obtaining feedback, from internal staff, and external community groups, establishing the program identity and brand, and establishing the final contract parameters, and costs, to make these final recommendations to the council. The high points of the project timeline, again, are summarized on this screen, and next... this screen. The timeline significantly has been updated to include the additional time necessary for preparation for the return to council, for the project partners to recruit and hire staff, as that is an integral need, and a challenging area at this time, for project partners to recruit and hire the staff members, and offer proper training, to support the implementation of the project. In addition, to conducting extensive outreach before the program launches. As there is a brief time frame for an application window, and to onboard and verify the program participants, participants that are randomized. Importantly, for the pilot program, the actions prior to giving cash payments are some of the most staff intents. And you'll see that reflected in the timeline. In particular, a robust, widespread spread, and accessible messaging campaign, well in advance of the application window, is vital and essential. Doing so allows eligible members of our extremely low income community to make plans to apply, and for the staff team, to provide appropriate support, to ensure there is accessibility to the application for the community. The research window has also been extended to reflect the evaluation process that occurs for up to 18 months after the pilot stops cash payments. This gives you a sense of a perspective timeline if the project were to be extended into a second year. These timelines are subject to change. The entire committee, a group and a working group, are committed to the success of this project. And we'll be talking more about the partners that will be involved in the execution of the pilot. Next screen, Harsha. Shown on the next two screens is an overview of the program, as shown, and as discussed at the study session, staff recommends that the council adopt the pilot program named Elevate MMV for an initial 12 month term with an option for a 12 month extension. A second year would be considered as a part of the 2223 budgetary process. The core program criteria are summarized on this screen and the next, but what is important to highlight, or the three core criteria, in the first box shown on the screen, which is for current residents of Mountain View that maintain that residency, earning at or below 30% of AMI are extremely low income, or ELI community. And, very importantly, having a child or custodial caregiving for a child, under the age of 18, at the time of application. Next, slight, harsh. Anticipated outcomes of the project that will include a randomized, controlled trial, a survey conducted by the recommended partner, the center for guaranteed income research at the University of Pennsylvania. will endeavor to understand the effects of providing an unconditional, uh, guaranteed income of what a $500 per month. The course survey includes key measures to see the impact of these regular cash payments. There's a lot of information that's out there on some early studies that are coming out of the childcare tax credit that is showing significant alleviation of poverty for these first six months of the Biden childcare tax credit, that was just a little less than $300 a month for six months. So already data is being shared on that major federal venture. To discuss this and other issues further, I'd like to hand the presentation to John Lang, economic vitality manager, to discuss more about the research design and anticipated outcomes of the pilot. John?

[03:16:27] Economic Vitality Manager John Lang: Thank you, Kimberly. Good evening, Counselor Mayor. The chart shown on screen represents the roles that each one of our partners will play in implementing, elevate MV pilot program, along with a client data flow. The dark blue squares represent University of Pennsylvania, Center for Guaranteed Income Research or CGIR, for short, um, as our identified research partner. They will be responsible for the web-based application core survey. Randomization of pilot participants, survey follow-up, and follow through, both for a treatment and a control group as part of this study. While the program will serve 166 participants, as Kimberly outlined, the randomized control trial will survey 110 participants of the 166 as the treatment group, as well as 132 non-participants as the control. So these are the participants that applied to the program, but were not selected through the randomization process. The treatment and control groups will be surveyed every 6 months, beginning with the core survey at the time of application, concluding 6 months after the pilot has ended. In addition, in-depth interviews of 30 of the participants would be conducted by a research fellow. The yellow square represents the community services agency or CSA. CSA and is going to be our program implementation partner with the support of the YMCA. They will be responsible for verifying eligibility of the 166 program applicants identified by CGIR. The green box represents our fiscal payment processor, known as community financial resources, or CFR for short. CFR's role will be issuing the monthly payments to participants. CFR offers 2 payment solutions to support Mountain View's diverse population. Next slide, Harsha. The sampling of the core survey topics, um, at the time of application will include questions on stress and coping, household food security, job status, mental health, income volatility, and hope and mattering. The Core Survey, as it was designed, by CJR, has been reviewed by an institutional review board to ensure compliance with ethical research standards. In addition to the core survey that's being proposed, the city of Mountain View has the opportunity to add supplemental research screens to better understand our community. The city is proposing 2 supplemental research screens for additional data collection, addressing the topics of the digital divide and housing stability. These topics were chosen because of their alignment with the Mountain View strategic roadmap action plan. as well as allow us to capture additional information that we don't get through normal census tracking. CGIR will be providing a final report of all findings from the elevate MV pilot 12 months after the final collection round, which occurs 6 months after the final disbursement. The city of Mount Meal will also provide and will be provided an online dashboard, allowing demographic and anonymized spending data of program participants. Next line, Horsh. Having a research element as part of the city's pilot program offers several benefits. One, it creates the opportunity to have um, waiver eligibility for certain county and state programs. Supplemental research areas, also align with the city's strategic roadmap, um, and give us a better insight into underserved residence experiences. The survey model is being used across the nation will enable comparisons and outcomes with a contextual lens of basic income amount, populations serve, et cetera. So we provide a unique opportunity from the Mountain View experience. And finally, the research partner is responsible for coordinating all the application data collection, randomization of participants, both in the treatment and control groups, and then surveying the participants every 6 months. I'd like to turn the presentation back over to Kimberly Thomas to complete our presentation.

[03:21:39] Assistant to the City Manager Kimberly Thomas: Thank you, John. As shown on screen here and discussed at this study session with the council in September, The complexity in establishing and operating a GBI program requires considerations that go above and beyond a typical financial assistance program, such as the emergency assistance that we've provided during COVID. Program implementation includes key partners to accomplish the various tasks of launching and running a successful pilot. Each of the partners that are shown on screen with associated costs, including CSA, community financial resources, and the Center for Guaranteed Income Research, or CGIR, brings unique expertise and resources to ensure the success of the pilot. Each of the costs are shown here, and I will call out one key element in that the largest unfunded costs associated with this project are actually programmatic related and staffing related. The bulk of that being provided through the facilitation with CSA. And then the next largest amount is for the research component, which is with CGRR. And update from the staff report for your reference as well. We had noted we would provide information about CSA's board, consideration of this item at their last week's board meeting on Thursday, and they did vote in approval on this project. And so later on in the session, perhaps Tom Myers, with a CSA, might be speaking to that as well. Considerations of a second year pilot will be incorporated into the budget process, and based upon council direction and recommendation. Next slide version. There are five recommendations before the council tonight for the city council to provide authorization for the unfunded budget, the contract authority, and program approval. Shown on screen here, are items one through two, uh, for the adoption of the MB pilot, and shown on the next screen, are items 3 through 5. Next slide hardship? Staff would like to thank the program partners that have assisted in the development of the pilot. This includes CSA, the YMDI Community Financial Resources, Mayors for a Guaranteed Income Initiative, the CGR team, Stanford Basic Income Lab, that is also a thought partner, the James Family Institute, that is also a thought partner, for their ongoing feedback as we've been in development of this pilot. The city staff team as well, which includes finance, the city attorney's office, our communications team, our housing staff, our IT staff, for feedback on some of our research areas. In addition to the purchasing and risk staff for feedback on the costs and contracts associated with this project. In addition, it goes without saying, but we'd like to do a shout out to the community, that also provided us feedback through the CBOs, that our human services division meets with monthly. We previewed some of the ideas associated with this project, as well as with the solidarity fund for the city of Mountain View. Their feedback has really been helpful. This concludes staff's reports, and I'm happy to answer any questions along with John and Harsha. In addition, we also have partners joining us that are available for questions that can be brought over to the panel as needed. This includes the following. Tom Myers, executive director of the Community Services Agency. Brandy, Joe Tamonti. She is the director of client programs for the Community Services Agency, Cameron Burns. He is the deputy director for the mayor's for guaranteed income. Dr. Catherine Segat. She is the research and program officer for mayors for a guaranteed income initiative. And sending her regrets is Erin Coultera. She is the associate director for the Center for Guaranteed Income at UPEN. Do the Eastern Standard Time. She is unavailable to join us this evening. I thank you, and we are available for questions.

[03:26:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Does any member of the council have any questions? There are no questions, will go to the public, and I'm overturned for deliberation. Vice America.

[03:26:22] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I I have several questions. Um, maybe for people, one of them for people from Mayorsford, guaranteed income. I'm curious about where this goes over the long term. Um, you know, how people are thinking about scaling up. And also, I asked a question, we ask council questions, and one of my prior to the council meeting, and one of my questions was, how, uh, there was talk in the past about how this would allow the city to engage in the national discussion on this issue. And, um, I'd like to know a little more about that. Uh, some of the answers I got from staff is, uh, we would be advocating for basic income at the local, state and national level. And so I'm particularly interested in that. whether you think basic income programs are better run at all levels or at a particular level, for example, at the city level, the state level, or the national level. That was a bunch of questions. If you don't remember all of them, I can come back to...

[03:27:39] Deputy Director Cameron Burns: I appreciate that. I was gonna try to take some quick notes. So to offer some quick feedback, MGI's North Star, and most of our colleagues are aligned with the notion that the federal, the federal government has to step in and adopt a federal guaranteed income policy, the cities and the states, notably, I think, New Mexico, and obviously, the state of California, the $35 million program, have stepped into kind of the gap, to kind of lead the way in terms of this policy innovation, in addition, the state stimulus, which is a one time cash program. But we don't think that cities should long term adopt this. So we are using cities, um, as kind of the laborative cities and states as the laboratories for democracy to then prove the case, um, to the federal government, um, for a federal guaranteed income policy, what that looks like. We don't know. Um, that is why we have 30 plus pilots, um, running under our purview with our partners at the center for guaranteed income research, so that when we do put forward a policy, and, and, you know, briefing after briefing, that we're doing so, and in an informed way that does, uh, no harm. Um, I know there were a few other questions, so let me know what I missed.

[03:29:01] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: No, I think you kind of encompassed a lot in that answer. I guess one of the other questions was how we as a city could engage in that discussion because that's one thing that came up the last time we talked.

[03:29:14] Cameron Burns: Perfect, yeah. And, you know, opportunities like the U.S. Conference of Mayors, last year, we worked with them to adopt a resolution as part of their kind of 2020 presidential platform, they called on candidates to support a guaranteed income policy. The National League of Cities, and a few other national organizations results for America, are kind of following in suit to use this as a best practice. Um, so it's, it's kind of, you know, creating that buzz, um, moving, moving forward, the conversation in terms of, uh, the national identity, uh, identity of a guaranteed income, as you well know, a year or 2 ago, it was kind of unheard of, that the U.S. government would hand cash over, um, to its residents, uh, that paradigm has very much shifted. Um, so, yeah, seeking formal opportunities with, um, with partners at the national scale, uh, with, with folks at the, in the state legislature, with Governor Newsom, all of that is, uh, going to move forward uh, in the year 2022 and beyond 2021 and this last quarter has been us launching a bunch of pilots uh, in a bunch of cities, like yours. So, yeah, very much looking forward to the advocacy realm of work. Um, down the line once we have, uh, once we have all the pilots launched.

[03:30:43] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: And so maybe this is my last question. Um, you know, what I look at, what I've read articles about advocates for, um, GBI or UBI, um, they, they fall into several camps, but one of the camps is one I'm not particularly, um, supportive of, and that's, that's the camp that says that, um, people are ashamed to receive, uh, subsidies for things like, uh, healthcare or housing. They prefer to receive cash. And it's kind of, I wouldn't say, a libertarian perspective, but it's more that we should just be, we should not be giving specific benefits. We should only be giving people cash, and we should be doing away with things like health care, and snap, and, and other benefit, and child care benefits, and just be giving out cash. I've read several articles like that. And often, the proponents of this particular perspective don't frankly want to give out very much cash, probably less than you would be getting from other benefits. So, I imagine that you've encountered that perspective, because it's pretty easy to encounter. And I'm wondering how you're interacting with that particular with using UBI as a way to kind of peel away other benefits that now exist.

[03:32:08] Cameron Burns: Right. Yes, and I'm probably the not the best person to speak to the just multi-layered, uh, big tent, um, kind of movement that is moving forward in the, in the cash space. MGI's perspective is very much cash is, in addition to the current social safety net, if you saw, you know, the federal government's response to the pandemic, it was based, it was predicated upon social security. Unemployment insurance, which was like, you know, innovated 85 years ago. Um, so we know that the social safety net does not work, as well as it should, has to be reinforced and strengthened, and we see cash as a component on top of around, and supporting all of that. So when folks, uh, look to cash out the social safety net, that is not at all what we advocate for, um, I think like 50 years ago. in the federal government, actually supported by, you know, Milton Friedman and then President Nixon, there was a movement that libertarian movement, um, to push forward the cashing out of the social safety net for, I think at the time, like a $1,500 per month, um, uh, check for families, uh, specifically families. And, uh, that was, um, it was not passed because, of course, it was not enough, and folks, families actually would lose ground. Um, so yeah, long way of saying, MGI does not support that view, um, but some folks certainly do.

[03:33:43] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: And then I guess my last question is, I'm sorry, I said the last one was my last question, but this is my last question. Um, are people envisioning this? People getting this, uh, this benefit, this guaranteed income as a one year thing, for one, like if I were to get it, for one, would I get it for one year, if we continue it, would I get it for two years, or would that be a new person who would get it? And that, or would it be ongoing, or is that to be determined?

[03:34:13] Kimberly Thomas: Uh, can some, uh, Vice Mayor Hicks, uh, that would be on the existing pool. So it would be the existing, uh, randomized, uh, participants would carry over for a second year. But again, we're communicating that it is a one year pilot at this time.

[03:34:28] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I see. And then after the two years, it's, it would probably end, but that's to be determined, I guess.

[03:34:37] Kimberly Thomas: Correct.

[03:34:39] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you very much.

[03:34:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Counselor of Reliever.

[03:34:46] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I had a question in sort of a similar vein. Um, from what I've been able to glean from the news, we shouldn't expect the same kind of stimulus next year. Um, that we've received this year. And so are we prepared to have this be, um, you know, the one boat that's, that's going out. Is just this 12 months.

[03:35:17] Cameron Burns: Um, You know, pending if there was someone who came in and gave us complete funding for a 2nd year. Um, that would be great, but we're making it clear that this is a one year situation.

[03:35:33] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Uh, is Stafford responding

[03:35:35] Kimberly Thomas: to Kimberly Thomas, and I, assistant to the city manager, um, the The response to that would be, you know, we need to be clear about what our existing funding resources are. So we'll endeavor to do so, but, you know, should there be a threshold or additional philanthropic results from our outreach? Um, that could be something that could be considered. I think it also may call the question again for the council of whether you would want to continue with the same existing component of individuals into year a theoretical year three. But that would be something we would need to look at.

[03:36:07] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And then, um, the 200,000 to study, um, what happens, I think, in the, uh, in questions before council, there was a comment on how many different entities there are that are participating in the university research on that. So, is everybody paying in $200,000 to the the kitty overall for the research?

[03:36:43] Kimberly Thomas: There are, there are 32 at this time, and we responded to a council question with that. And there are a number, Cameron, that are getting some additional granting, and another majority like Los Angeles that are paying even more than the city of Mount View.

[03:37:01] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Wow, so, how much money is, um, the university, um, how much can they really use and and take in, uh, on this? Because it seems like that, to me, and, and I know that when we've had discussion about this item before, there wasn't a lot of support from my viewpoint, that the 200,000, um, is relatively high compared to the amount of money that we're gonna give out to needy people. So to hear that there's 32 other entities that are also gonna help pay for the research, um, that really makes it seem like a, a, a disproportionate amount of money that's going to study, whether or not cash helps people who are in need.

[03:37:54] Kimberly Thomas: Well, I can't speak to each city and what they're currently paying, that would be a pen communication, but I think one thing Cameron might be able to shed some additional light on that we discussed in the study session was some of the costs that were associated with getting a GBI pilot of this nature that the current pilot's underway are built upon, which was seed out of Stockton, and how costly that venture was at that time.

[03:38:21] Cameron Burns: Yeah, so to share, um, the work that was undertaken by our partners at the Center for Guaranteed income research, the co investigators of the Stockton demonstration, the research for that, uh, the budget came in just under $2 million, um, we have since, you know, understood the impact of certain components, whether it was text-based surveys, the, you know, recurring nature of it, if it was each month, what actually worked really well in terms of the overall research design. And have since been able to scale that back. Um, I think if I'm understanding your question here, each and every pilot has its own research cost um, associated with it. So, no, you know, mountain views budget is not associated with LA's, other than that, of course, through economies of scale. Um, you know, hiring research fellows, et cetera. All of those kind of cost savings are realized through their massive reach. Um, so, uh, I hope, I hope that helps understanding that mountain views, research costs are not, um, you know, covering any other city. It is directly only Mountain View's research costs.

[03:39:36] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Right. Yeah, I didn't have that assumption that we would, we would cover anybody else's check, but, um, I'm just wondering, um, If you take out the money that we're going to provide to CSA, um, which I think is really money well spent. Um, and uh, just looking at the cash grants. So we're going to use 212,403 up to that. Um, for the control project to analyze and evaluate what happened. But how does it relate to the total amount of money that's going to go to people of modest means, how much is going to go out the door in cash grants?

[03:40:24] Kimberly Thomas: So the full $1000000 will be utilized for the 166 participants over the course of a year.

[03:40:36] Councilmember Sally Lieber: So, about 25% of that would, would be going, uh, there would be, like, the 11 million, but an amount that equals about 25% of that would go separately to the University of Pennsylvania.

[03:40:52] Kimberly Thomas: It is a separate request before the council. The one million is funded out of the current budget. The item before you today is to consider that unfunded provision for the programmatic elements, as well as for the research components.

[03:41:08] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And it, do we have any information back from the university that they could, uh, do the work for less money so that we could devote more money to people of modest means.

[03:41:22] Kimberly Thomas: We do not.

[03:41:26] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[03:41:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions from the council? Did have one question that came out of the, uh, the briefing provided to council members in advance of the meeting. Um, my understanding is that the research, uh, would not nearly contribute to some discourse around guaranteed basic, basic income, but also would be used to, um, or could result in material changes to city operations and and policy. So, staff would pick what they've learned and make recommendations to the council to change things or come up with new programs. Um, in, in response to whatever, we're learning from the community benefiting for the program. Is that right?

[03:42:18] Kimberly Thomas: Uh, yes, mayor, that is correct in terms of how we're currently serving the extremely low income residents. It's part a lot of partner programs in conjunction with the county, but we are anticipating that there will be light shed on various aspects, including the details that John highlighted about their individual lives. You know, an example could perhaps be in the space of digital divide. We may find out something that we didn't know before, or, you know, even, for example, in communications, additional ways to each individuals. So there can be a number of variables, that we would be looking at, at that point, it's hard to know what they are at this time. But as it relates to the extremely low income population that we are serving here, our goal is to learn as much as we can through the research component of the GBI pilot.

[03:43:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you. Um, then let's turn to the public for uh, input and then come back to council for deliberation. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. And let's go ahead and allocate 3 minutes. 1st speaker is Ray Branson.

[03:43:51] Ray Bramson: Good evening. once again, mayor vice mayor council members. Ray Brampson, J-pop rating opposite destination home. We're excited to see the city of Mountain View, exploring a guaranteed basic income pilot, and we urge you to approve the LV, NV program tonight. As you know, we have some of the highest rates of inequality in the country here in the Silicon Valley. And people can barely afford to pay the rent every month. The one financial emergency away from ending up on the streets, and we know this lack of stability and long term, um, and long term self-sufficiency plays a major role and leaves people teetering on the edge of losing their homes every day. We believe that guaranteed income can play an important role in addressing this challenge. We're particularly pleased to see that the elevate and the proposed program prioritizes extremely low households, face the greatest rent burdens and risks of homelessness. We know that these types of programs, the supplemental income can truly make a difference between homelessness and stable housing and long term self sufficiency. As I've said earlier, we're grateful for Mountain View's continued leadership in pursuing impactful solutions to our housing and homelessness crisis, and we urge you to move forward with this exciting pilot program and praise the excellent work of staff, and the time and energy they've put forth to bring such an exciting initiative to the council. We're good evening.

[03:45:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[03:45:20] Tim McKenzie: Hi, all. Um, minimum wage in Mountain View is uh $17.10. If you work a full-time job at 40 hours a week, and 50 weeks a year, that comes out to $34,200. Um, as a yearly salary. The limits for extremely low income in Santa Clara County are for a single person are $34,800. I'd love to believe that it's just clear enough that if we gave people who are working full-time, just enough, even the barest amount to get above the extremely low income level, then it would make some things easier for them. But some people, I'm not speaking of anyone in the console, I'm talking more about in national dialogue. Uh, some people just close their eyes to issues like that. And, uh, having hard facts and hard data is really important as a researcher myself. I understand that. Intrinsically, I feel like it's pretty clear even without having done the research, but it is really important to have that data, to be able to convince people who, either through bad faith or unwillingness to look at, uh, the reality of the situation, are unwilling to, uh, accept things. So I think that this seems like a great program. Also mention in terms of research costs, I work as an academic. It is not a lucrative career path. You don't make very much money at all. I don't know what this sort of research looks like. I'm more in the lab, um, but I'd imagine that the cost themselves are sorts of things that are, uh, it's hard work from people that are, uh, that are not compensated particularly well, and at Mountain View, we are in a position where we can be a leader across the country, and we can, uh, have something like this take off, hopefully. And maybe extend the, the, uh, just wanna make one plug. The idea of basic income is a universal basic income, not something that's mean tested, but something that goes out to everyone. Uh, I think we, societally, are still a long way off from that, but we need to take little steps, and transformative change generally doesn't happen overnight. And I think that we are in a position where we could perhaps help take some of those steps. So, hope to see this move forward. Thanks a lot.

[03:47:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Sabith Ortiz.

[03:48:06] Sabith Ortiz: Sorry, it took me, so I'm me and myself. So, good evening, uh, mayor and all the comedian. The reason that I be here today is to expose myself, like, like he was saying, I'm a low income family, so, like a 51% of the earning annals that I do, it goes on my rent. So I raised 2 kids and I still live in the Bay Area because of the school because of the safety. And I, I don't like to move out. I think the project that you just, um, talk about tonight, it is way, it's not only for me, because I am almost $25 and I can barely make my payments and over my rent at all, my daily living, and I cannot imagine if you are 17. So, I just, thinking a lot for those people that get under 20, um, wage, so, I just please consider, all those families that, they're willing in need, even, I'm not on that situation, but I still, this is a good fit for all of us, because we are good families, like, I'm a citizen. I could do something else, but I'm risking my kids. I have to be watching them for success for academic and I still like pandemic get affected also at the school site. I have one on college, but I have another one that is still getting their label because all those 2 years it was very terrible for her. I have to pay extra classes because the district also, it, it cannot hold off, or wrap it up for all the, the kids that, the low income because, we cannot afford it to pay tutors, you know, but thank you so much for considering that.

[03:49:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Seeing no additional members of the public wishing to speak. We will return to the council for deliberation and action, and I will note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolution attached to the report. Council member Abikoga.

[03:50:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor, and I just want to start off by thinking staff for their incredible work on this. Um, it, it's, uh, enormous, what, the, the, tremendous, what, what, the work, the work that you put in, um, it's actually, um, beyond, was beyond my expectations. Um, and I just also really, really appreciate staff's, um, enthusiasm in doing the work and doing the research, um, when we've met a few times to talk about this project. And during the briefing, I really sense that, um, enthusiasm and and maybe some excitement for trying something new. Um, so I just really want to want to think, um, all of you on staff from the bottom of my heart for the hard work you've put into this. And for coming up with a very comprehensive program. Um, I, you know, wholehearted. support this. Um, dislike with, um, minimum wage when, um, we led the effort to raise it and became the 1st to do so to get us to $17.10. Um, I, you know, I felt this was another way to, um, assist, um, those most in need. Um, and, you know, I appreciate how we came to, came about this with, um, supporting other programs too. I think, um, I know that some of my colleagues might have a little heartburn with the extra cost in terms of administering and, um, doing the research, but I think that actually the research piece is key and is what makes this different from other projects, um, in programs. Uh, you know, during COVID, um, my feeling at that time was let's just get out as much assistance as we can as quickly as possible. Um, but, you know, oftentimes I've been left wondering, well, you know, what happened to those families that might have received some aid? Um, was it the best way for us to help? Um, and it's, you know, we don't often get that feedback. And I think that's what's really important here is to be able to see some of the results of what, you know, the assistance that we provide. And also for me, this was about trying to do something different, um, hopefully innovative, um, you know, look at our existing systems, um, which are, you know, not very, um, not, you know, not, they're not, um, you know, they're not perfect. There's a lot to be improved upon, I would say. Um, you know, one example, like just looking at the staff report too, this issue of waivers that came up, I thought that was, you know, interesting, but also frustrating that we needed to go to that point. Like to me, and, you know, I think it was Vice Meer talking about, is this additive versus, you know, taking away or supplanting. And for me, this is about, you know, being additive. And yet, um, you know, we have all of these, uh, strings that sometimes come attached and red taped to cut through. And my hope was this, through this program, through this pilot, we can see, you know, where those challenges are and then move forward and advocating for the, the right changes that can make, um, you know, assisting, um, folks easier and more, um, efficient and, um, hopefully more productive. So, um, that was really the point of this. Um, you know, I I feel very fortunate that we do. Oh, we are in a situation where we can do this, um, with the ARPA funds and, um, you know, my hope is that we will have that discussion. And the 2nd half of the book funds come come to us later this year. Um, but with that, um, I'd actually like to just, I don't see too many other hands. I'm gonna go ahead and make the motion. Um, and I, that includes adopting a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, approving the guaranteed basic income pilot program to be read entitled only for the reading waived.

[03:54:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Yeah. Council member can make.

[03:54:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I'm happy to 2nd the item and just want to echo my thanks to our staff, all of our partners, um, who have led us and gotten us to this point. Um, you know, I think something that, you know, recently was released was the joint venture Silocon Valley, state of the valley. And it found that 46% of children are living in households that cannot sustain and meet any of their basic needs. And what I've always appreciated about Mountain View is that we're always willing to try something. And I think the pandemic really highlighted that, that we need to find things that work. Meet people where they are. I've talked about that before. Um, and, you know, I think that this pilot with the research component will help us gather that data to see if something that we're trying works. You know, the pilot is for a fixed amount of time. Most um, GBI programs only last one to 2 years. Um, so I think this, this kind of, um, it's for a fixed amount of time and with that research, we'll be able to, I think, have what we need to, um, help our residents even more. Um, we've heard about the great need. I saw that Tom was on here earlier. We've heard from CSA that everything is a drop in the bucket, even though we've contributed 1000000s of dollars, right? To to helping people. Um, and so I, you know, I think that this is something that we're seeing, at least moving the needle, the child's income tax credit has been something that's been working as well, and that's also, um, you know, a small, um, stipend each month. So I think everything helps at this point, and given those recent numbers from the state of the valley. I think that this is something that will be, um, or Mountain View can again be a regional leader. So I'm happy to support it. Thank you.

[03:56:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you We have a motion for the staff recommendation. Um, by council member Abitoga, 2nd advice. Council member Kamei. Any other questions, comments? Not seeing any, uh, vice mayor heights.

[03:56:42] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So I'll be supporting the motion, but I, I, there was a question about whether people who, um, got the, the stipend or whatever we're calling it, got the, the money would be able to move out of Mountain View. And I'm wondering whether people had whether people... I'm wondering whether the motion maker would, uh, amend the motion to allow that. And my reasoning is that I would hate that, um, you know, somebody were receiving that money and found a, a good job relatively distant and relatively inexpensive housing near that, but felt, you know, felt on the fence about jumping on all that, because they would lose their stipend. So I'm wondering how people feel about making that change, and, you know, in the spirit of no strings attached.

[03:57:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: A council member of Abe Togas, there was a recommendation to modify the motion. You want to respond?

[03:57:51] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, actually, could I ask staff for, um, what staff recommend, I, I, I saw that I didn't get to finish reading all the question, answers to the written questions, but, um, I know it was in there, but maybe staff could respond first.

[03:58:07] Assistant to the City Manager Kimberly Thomas: Yeah, of course. Kimberly Thomas, assistant to the city manager. Responding to that. We formulated that recommendation in large part from some of the dialogue at the study session for it to be for Mountain View residents, through the course of the pilot. There are various ways that this is handled within other pilots. So some will have it where it is a requirement, some won't. So that is at the discretion of direction on behalf of the city council.

[03:58:45] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I'd like to hear from others. And then, to hide on the... amendment.

[03:58:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Sounds good. Council member show, Walter.

[03:58:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I hadn't really intended to respond to that question, but since it's been asked, I think that we are trying to help Mountain View residents. So I think that's a reasonable requirement. But, um, I did read my hand because I just wanted to thank the staff for all the work that had been done, and I will be supporting this. But, no, I do feel that, um, this is Mountain View dollars, and we should be helping mountain new residents with this.

[03:59:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member of Madachek.

[03:59:32] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So the last time we discussed this, um, I did express some concerns, uh, about this program, and I still have concerns. And I think they've increased since now we are tapping into, um, city resources that go beyond the ARPA funding. Um, city resources that could be applied to all kinds of other needs that we have within the city. Um, I agree with the comment that, uh, was made by Mr. Burns that, yeah, it seems like this is a program that should be addressed at, um, a different level of government, um, like the federal government, um, and not, um, at the city level. So, um, you know, Because of that, I, I can't support this. Thanks.

[04:00:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Sorry, go ahead, Captain Mark.

[04:00:38] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I'd like to keep the motion as it is.

[04:00:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. For the confirmation. Any other questions, comments? If not, for my part, I'll be supporting motion as well. Um, I, I feel the, the research is justified, because the results will help inform local policy. And if we learn something about how we currently communicate with this population, or if there's something that we need to do, or focus on, to better address the needs of extremely low income people in our community, then, um, I think it's, it's valuable information to have. So I do feel is it is a justified expenditure. If there are no other questions or comments, then I'll ask the city clerk to commence the roll call vote.

[04:01:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: What's the number, Abi Koga?

[04:01:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi,

[04:01:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: council member tonight.

[04:01:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes,

[04:01:34] City Clerk Heather Glaser: council member labor?

[04:01:36] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[04:01:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Matachek?

[04:01:39] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No.

[04:01:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member show Walter?

[04:01:41] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:01:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[04:01:45] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:01:46] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Marez?

[04:01:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. Missionary 61? You very much. Thank you, Steph, for your work on this. Thank you. We will now move to item 8. introduce an ordinance requiring the safe storage of firearms and residences and vehicles. Um, quick check in with my colleagues. Would you like a 5 minute break or should we just power through? Let's do a show of hands for a 5 minute break. There's a majority. Okay, so let's reconvene at 939.

[03:08:23] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Welcome back, everyone, it is 940, so I'll resume the meeting. Uh, going to turn that to item 8. one. Introduce an ordinance requiring the safe storage of firearms and residences and vehicles. Uh, and assistant city attorney, Megan Merovich will present the item. We'll start with the staff presentation. We'll have counsel questions and then we'll turn to the public for comments. Is someone able to promote Snagan? Oh there she is. Feel free to begin whenever you're ready.

[04:09:44] Assistant City Attorney Megan Marovich: Good evening, I'm Megan Marovich, assistant city attorney. I'll be presenting this ordinance requiring the safe storage of firearms and residence and vehicles. Um, Lieutenant McGee from the police department is also joining me and who will be available for questions at the end of the presentation. In 2019, Council asked staff to evaluate and report on potential gun safety measures following the devastating shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival. Tonight before you is an expansion on the city's current gun safety regulations, following last year's adoption, of an ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms and city property. The intent of this ordinance is to prevent injury and death caused by unsecure firearms and homes and vehicles. Safe storage can reduce incidents of accidental and intentional gun related injuries, especially involving children. Also, the ordinance will reduce the opportunity for theft and the use of stolen guns.

[04:10:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm sorry to interrupt, but we're not able to see the presentation.

[04:10:51] Assistant City Attorney Megan Marovich: Oh, sorry about that.

[04:10:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No worries.

[04:11:20] Assistant City Attorney Megan Marovich: How about now?

[04:11:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Much better. We can see it. Thank you.

[04:11:23] Assistant City Attorney Megan Marovich: Okay. Uh, the ordinance will expand up, um, sorry, uh, Going back to the intent of this ordinance is to prevent injury and death caused by unsecured firearms and homes and vehicles. Safe storage can reduce incidents of accidental and intentional gun related injuries, especially involving children. Also, this ordinance will reduce the opportunity for theft and the use of stolen guns and subsequent crimes. The ordinance will expand and fill a noticeable gap in state regulations. Currently, state law makes it a crime to store a firearm in a residence that can be accessed by children. Also, state law requires that only handguns be stored in a lock trunk or in a container within a vehicle. This ordinance will provide clear and a reasonable directive requiring gun owners to adopt safe storage practices. Specifically with regards to safe storage and residences, the ordinance requires that all firearms be stored in a lock container or disabled by a trigger lock, like the one pictured here. In vehicles, the ordinance requires that, um, firearms be secured when left in an unintended unattended vehicle. Firearms must be stored in a lock container within the trunk of a vehicle. Or in cases when a vehicle is lacking a trunk, it must be stored in a locked container that is a fixed to the vehicle. Violations of the ordinance. Um, will be in, or can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor, just like other city code violations. Also, the police department will not proactively contact people to enforce these requirements. Rather, they'll have discretion to cite for violations, should they observe them in the ordinary course of their duties. Should counsel adopt the ordinance? There will be a 60 delay, an implementation to allow for public education, an outrage. Including in part, mailer to all residents. Lastly, here's staff's recommendation to introduce the ordinance. And uh, Lieutenant McGee and I are available for questions.

[04:14:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Any member of the council have any questions? Please raise your hand if you do. Uh, I'm not seeing any, so we'll return to the public. Uh, would any member of the public up online like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom, or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Uh given the number of public comments. We will allocate one minute and 30 seconds. Uh so let's start with Susie McLean.

[04:14:58] Susie MacLean: Hi, thank you. As a doctor, I care deeply about reducing firearm injury. I was a primary care dock at Kaiser for Santa Clara for 30 years, and many of my patients were Mountain View residents. Since retiring a few years ago, I have devoted all of my volunteer efforts to learning about and advocating for ways to reduce firearm deaths. I joined other doctors from Stanford and have taken a leadership role in the nonprofit scrubs addressing the firearm epidemic. We focus on medical education and research on gun violence prevention. You know, it can be tempting to look at the problem of gun violence and think it is just too big or too complicated a problem to make a difference. And for sure, there are some complicated and controversial areas. But say firearms storage isn't one of them. It's as simple as using a seat belt or car seats. The problem is only about 35% of California firearm owners store all firearms in the safest manner, unloaded and locked. By passing this ordinance and following through with a public education effort to improve safe storage, we will be able to save lives. Thank you for proceeding with this ordinance, and I applaud your work.

[04:16:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for your input. The next speaker is Lewis Pendula.

[04:16:40] Luis Bandoula: Hi, my name is Luis Bandoula, thank you for allowing me to, um, speak. Storing firearms in a securely locked container, and prevent unintentional child deaths and teen gun suicides, by as much as 85%, of the 150 school shootings since Columbine having firearms securely stored would have prevented two thirds of them. Storing firearms in a securely locked container can also prevent gun deaths from being guns from being stolen in a home robbery, and the fee can be small to purchase a safe. A DOG approved safe storage device can be obtained for as little as $40, so the cost is not at all prohibitive, and trigger locks are often given out free by the police stations. As you pointed out, many people are under the depression that the California Penal Code 25, 100 already addresses this issue, but it definitely does not. It does not define how to safely store a firearm. in a home, and it doesn't apply to all homes or vehicles. So parents often hide their guns, rather than locking them up, and studies show 70% of children know the location of those hidden guns in their home, and may have even handled them. I respect.

[04:18:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. I'm sorry, your time is up. Next speaker is Charles Prale.

[04:18:20] Charles Prael: Hi, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity. Hello?

[04:18:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: We can hear you.

[04:18:29] Charles Prael: Okay, sorry. Um, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak really quick. I'm a longtime mountaineer resident and I've been a member of the shooting community in the South Bay for over 40 years now. Um, I have some prepared notes, but I'm going to have to kind of telescope that. Um, one of the things that I noticed is not addressed in this is the factor of defensive gun uses. There are multiple studies out there that document over 2000000 defensive gun uses per year. There was, in fact, one in a well documented one in San Mateo, not 2 weeks ago. And this doesn't even touch on that issue. There's also the upcoming New York State rifle and pistol association court case in front of the Supreme Court that's due to be decided this spring. And I think that would have a substantial impact on this, and potentially would open up the city to substantial litigation, if this ordinance were passed prematurely. What I would like to suggest is that the city and the city attorney's office consult both with some recognized Second Amendment litigators, and I've provided the mayor with at least one option on that front, and also with some of the, the, uh, gun and rights technical organizations out there that consult with municipalities, such as Calguns, To see if there is a way to make the intent of the ordinance work within the letter of the law and within the US Constitution. Uh, thank you for your time.

[04:19:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Rachel.

[04:20:00] Rachel Mickelson: Hello, city council members, thank you so much for taking uh, your time tonight and for bringing safe storage to Mountain View. I'm a resident of Mountain View, as well as an active volunteer with the mom's demand action. Here in Santa Clara county. I am urging council to pass this important ordinance. Um, as already stated, the ordinance is needed as our current California state law, does not sufficiently address safe storage of all firearms, does not define how safety, um, and how to safely store a firearm. There isn't one ordinance, obviously, that's going to bring the end of gun violence here in our communities. However, storing firearms unloaded, locked, will save lives. Please vote, yes, allowing Mountain View to be part of the growing list of cities in our county with this important organs. Thank you for your time.

[04:20:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. The next speaker is Don Vice.

[04:21:08] Don Bye: Hi, I'm done by for the Santa Clara County chapter 30 United. You know, the Brady campaign has a really poignant term to refer to the injuries and deaths caused by guns which were brought into a home, presumably to protect the inhabitants. They call it family fire. They have this one commercial when man talking to his 8 or 9 year old son. The kid says, Dad, can I play with our gun? The dad's taken aback. What are you talking about? You know, dad, get on the top shelf of your closet. Are neither sweatshirts? Your dad gets angry. That's not our gun. That's my gun. It's not a toy. I need to protect you and mom. It can persist. What if you're not here? I can protect model me with it. The growing dismay on the dad's face is really quite moving as he begins to contemplate the terrible tragedy. The terrible pain, which in reality, does happen every day to some unlucky homes with guns. So thank you, city council for considering and hopefully adopting safe storage. Legislating rational behavior is a way to protect people who may just need a little nudge to do the right thing for themselves and their families. Thank you.

[04:22:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Very much. Next speaker is Karen.

[04:22:32] Karen: Good evening, Mayor Ramirez and council members. It's true. Statistics show that safe storage reduces firearms suicide, stolen weapons, accidental shootings, and school shootings. But what is more important to someone like me who has had a child killed by gun violence? Is that safe storage saves lives? Please pass a safe storage ordinance in Mountain View to prevent another family from suffering the loss of their dearly loved one. Thank you.

[04:23:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Very much. Next speaker is Lisa Henry.

[04:23:16] Lisa Henry: Uh, good evening, um, mayor Ramirez, vice mayor hicks and council members. Um, I'm Lisa Henry. I'm a volunteer with mom's demand action for guns in America, and I'm a residence of Mountain View. also the mother of a 10 year old and a 12 year old. I'm here today to urge you to support the ordinance requiring the safe storage of firearms and residences and vehicles in Mountain View. This ordinance has become even more urgent than ever during COVID, given the dramatic rise in gun sales. And during COVID, we've seen a shocking 43% increase in unintentional deaths of small children and a 9% increase in teen suicides. As a volunteer with mom's man action, I've gotten to know a number of parents who have lived through the experience of having a child die in an unintentional shooting, or another child found an unsecured gun, or the experience of having a child die by suicide using a gun found unsecured in their home. I urge you to support this ordinance to help prevent similar deaths. Thank you.

[04:24:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. The next speaker is Kelly Travers.

[04:24:26] Kelly Traver: Hi, my name is Kelly Traver and I am a retired physician. I can tell you that these incidences of children dying unintentionally, uh, teenagers, uh, killing themselves with unsecured firearms, and, uh, 80% of school shootings actually are also, uh, by unsecured firearms. These are not small numbers. I personally have taken care of children brought in dead on arrival. Teens brought in dead on arrival, from unsecured firearms. I so appreciate you guys putting forward this ordinance and very much support it. This is, without a doubt, something that can save lives. And to the previous person who said that you cannot protect your home, you absolutely can. Uh, it takes seconds to get at your gun if it's in a secured uh, locked container. I've tried it myself, and there have been multiple studies on this. Uh, so it does not prevent, uh, defending your home in a home invasion, which which is not super common anyway. Um, firearms are far more used uh, for homicides, uh, suicides. and unintentional deaths than in self-defense. This is constitutional, and it definitely takes care of a loophole in the California penal code, which does not state how to safely store firearms. Thank you.

[04:26:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Um, and just uh, for the benefit of the public. Um, if you've already spoken, I can't allow you to speak again just in the, uh, in the spirit of fairness to everybody. Um, being no additional members of the public wishing to speak, we will return to the council for deliberation and action, and I will note that a motion to approve the recommendation. Should also include reading the title of the ordinance attached to the report. Um, would any member of the council like to provide comments or make a motion, council member Abi Toka?

[04:26:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and um, thank you as always to staff for, um, your work on this. item and for bringing it back to us. Um, and I want to also thank, um, the mom's demand action, um, group and, um, uh, numerous, uh, residents for coming forward and asking us to, um, move forward on this, um, ordinance. Um, I don't think there's a lot to say. I think, you know, we, this is just our attempt to continue to strengthen our, um, efforts around gun safety, um, and so, um, and I'm glad that we are joining, um, the other already, uh, cities that have already adopted this, um, this measure, um, and, um, continuing to to move forward. Um, and I hope that this, this is our 2nd item around gun safety that we've done. And I, I, I know there's many others that are on my list and I hope that, um, in the coming uh, years, we can continue to work, um, on this issue and, and, um, promote gun safety. So, um, I see the other hand, I was happy to make a motion that I see other hands. So, I'm happy to wait. Thanks.

[04:27:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bye, Samare Hicks.

[04:28:02] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, I was intending to 2nd your motion. Now I'm not clear on whether you've made it or not. but, um, but, uh, you know, I'm just gonna add that I, um, lost a friend in middle school to an unsafely stored gun, and I will be thinking of Leo when I vote for this, um, for the which I assume I'm seconding, but, but, um, council member, Abbe Koga, maybe you can clarify, uh, whether I'm seconding or maybe I'm making the motion, I'm not sure at this point. Um, and I want to add that I'm particularly looking forward to the public education around this, because I think that's what would have saved my friend, Leo, as the public education. Thank you.

[04:28:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, just to clarify, there is no motion on the floor, because the title of the resolution has to be read into the record. Um, count the number lever.

[04:29:02] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Well, I'm I'm very thankful. Um, to, uh, become an ordinance in Mountain View. Uh, I think that our next logical step is to really address, um, gun sales in mountain view and our surrounding communities that limit the areas of their cities that, um, that can have, um, gun sales and limit the number of, um, of gun retailers that can be there, um, as well as supporting some of the, the good legislation at the state level. Um, I think this just impacts so many more people in the community. Um, Sorry. So many more people in the community, Tim. Um, we can really say, and I'm so thankful for the people who came forward to speak about this, and, um, especially like a people appearance like Kieran and Lewis. Um, Christina and Eric. really continued to be an inspiration. And I think we just have to continue to push on every single front that we can.

[04:30:27] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And, um, it just, the alternative is unthinkable. So I hope that this council will um, continue to really create a wall of safety, uh, around our communities. Um, for young people and um, for for everyone in our community. Thank you.

[04:30:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, council number, Abby Koga, did you want to make the motion?

[04:30:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, just to clarify, um, I would like to make the motion, and I just want to thank, um, counsel and reliever for her comments. I agree. think there's more work to be done. I have been concerned about locations, especially when they're very close to schools. Um, so I hope that we can work on those um, in the near future. But with that, I would like to make a motion to introduce an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, adding article 5 to chapter 21 of the Mountain View City code relating to the safe storage of firearms and residences and vehicles in the city of Mountain View to be read entitled only for the reading waived and set 2nd reading for March 8th, 2022. Thank you.

[04:31:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Showalter.

[04:31:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, it's okay, I'll just go ahead in second. I think this is an excellent move. Uh, we've just all been devastated for many, many years with report after report of, um, uh, incidental shootings that, that, that were happen with, um, unsecured guns and mass shootings, and it's, you know, it's really, uh, a, uh, a national tragedy. And we've heard from our national leaders about thoughts and prayers, you know, just again and again and again. And that's really, just so incredibly ineffective. But, um, keeping, uh, these guns out of harm's way will, will be effective, at least here. And that's what we have control over. So, um, I, um, I'm really glad to see that, that we're, we're, um, we've brought this forward, and I think we're gonna pass. Thank you.

[04:32:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, I will be supporting the motion, but I did want to ask staff, uh, we did get a question from a member of the public that I think is an important one and that's, uh, regarding the constitutionality of the ordinance in light of what we've seen from, uh, the Supreme Court in recent years. Uh, can you speak briefly, um, about uh, the analysis done regarding the constitutionality of the ordinance?

[04:33:16] Interim City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Certainly, the similar, um, ordinances have been tested. locally in our district courts and in a federal appellate district art or federal appellate court in the ninth circuit, and they have survived constitutional challenge. So we're not concerned, um, that there, that this, the art ordinance would not survive a constitutional challenge.

[04:33:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you. Any remaining questions or comments? If not, I'll ask the city clerk to begin the roll call.

[04:33:51] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abbe Koka?

[04:33:52] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[04:33:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member, show Walter.

[04:33:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes,

[04:33:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: council member tonight?

[04:33:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes,

[04:33:58] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber?

[04:33:59] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes.

[04:34:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Matachek?

[04:34:02] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:34:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: By Mayor Hicks?

[04:34:04] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:34:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Marys?

[04:34:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[04:34:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[04:34:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, and thank you, staff, for bringing this item before us tonight. I'm going to move to continue the meeting past 10 o'clock. We do have one remaining item. We've got a 2nd from council member. Avichoka. Thank you. Um can we do a roll call vote?

[04:34:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Error merits?

[04:34:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:34:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member, MA Coca? Council member, Kame?

[04:34:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:34:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber?

[04:34:38] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes.

[04:34:39] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek?

[04:34:42] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:34:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Transform Michelle Walter.

[04:34:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:34:46] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Thanks, Mayor. Thanks.

[04:34:49] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:34:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[04:34:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, we'll now proceed to item 8.2 commercial development at 756 California Street. Um, would any council members like to make disclosures? So member Abi Hoga.

[04:35:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mary. Yes, I would like to disclose that I have met with the applicant, um, a couple of times on the project. Thank you.

[04:35:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member met a check.

[04:35:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I also met with the applicant, but it was probably two, 3 years ago. Um, and I've been by the side on my own.

[04:35:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bye, Mayor Hicks.

[04:35:32] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I also met with the applicant some time ago, and I've been by the site many times.

[04:35:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member, command.

[04:35:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. I met with the applicant and visited the site. Thank you.

[04:35:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. That's the number show, Walter.

[04:35:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Same as other people met with the applicant quite a long time ago and have visited the site.

[04:35:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, I'm going to disclose that I also met with the applicant, even though I have no memory of doing so, but the fact that all of you have strongly suggests that I probably did at some point. Uh, so now, uh, we'll move to this, the presentation, senior planner, Margaret Netto, will present the item. There we go.

[04:36:22] Senior Planner Margaret Netto: Um, good evening, Mayor, and council members. My name is Margaret Neto, senior planner. The item before you tonight is 756 California Street, a commercial project. The project site is located on the north side of California Street between Castro and Hope Street. The site is currently developed with an approximately 2480 square foot single story commercial building, used as a dental office, that would be demolished for this project. The project is to construct a new 3 story, 690, 997 square foot commercial building with ground floor retail and office above. No onsite parking will be provided. The project utilizes an architectural style that includes flat roof, light earth town colors, a recessed storefront, windows that create shade and shadow, and decorative columns and cornices that are compatible with the existing surrounding buildings. The ground level is treated with clear storefront windows and planter boxes to maintain and inviting an active experience for pedestrians. The project is in the downtown parking district area H, which allows up to 100% required parking to be paid through an in-loof fee. The project, the project lot size is only .07 acres. Do you do its small size and configuration, is unable to accommodate any on-site parking. The project is proposing to pay the parking and loop fee for all required parking. The project also proposes a transportation demand management program to reduce parking demand on site. In November of 2021, council adopted the downtown parking strategy, which provides a 10 year horizon, and implementation plan with a specific vision to manage parking demand and supply as the needs of the downtown area evolve. The study is evaluating parking for the future, including short term operational improvements, like residential permit parking and free up parking and existing facilities and long-term strategies, including a new parking garage. And also a similar 3 story commercial project with no on-start parking at 747. Um, West Dana was approved by council on December 7, 2021. Also, um, prior meetings for this project, 2 neighborhood meetings were held. Um, for this project, the applicant met with the Mountain View coalition for sustainable planning. Where about 25 people attended. The applicant also met with the old mountain view neighborhood association, where approximately 15 to 20 people attended. The project was also reviewed by the development review committee, um, in May of 2019. And the project was recently reviewed by the zoning administrator on January 26, 2022. Whereas it recommended for approval to the city council. One person submitted a letter before the hearing with concerns about the height of the building and lack of lack of parking and lack of public awareness of the project. But express support for a 2 building alternative. As discussed, the applicant, um, has held to neighborhood outreach meetings. The project is in keeping with the general area, since there is a 3 story commercial building at 745 California Street. Which is across the street and to the right of the project. The project is not directly adjacent to single family. Um, residential homes across Blossom Lane is a 2 story apartment building providing a transition to the residential neighborhood on Hope Street. The downtown precise plan allows projects to pay for the parking parking fee for all the required parking. Precise plan, the precise plan recognizes that most of the lots are too small to provide on-site parking. In loop fees, um, help to construct and manage public parking facilities and the parking district. The staff concludes, the project complies with the general plan, zoning, precise plan goals and policy, staff is reviewed, proposal and based on this analysis and the findings and conditions, recommends conditional approval of this project. This concludes my presentation. The applicant is also here to make a few comments and to answer any questions. Thank you.

[04:41:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So we'll proceed. I don't see the applicant. In the panel. Um, somebody promotes, the African. We, uh, when you're ready, feel free to uh, provide any remarks on behalf of your proposal.

[04:41:54] Dr. Huy Do: Hello?

[04:41:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: We can hear you.

[04:41:58] Dr. Huy Do: Yes, hi. Um, 1st of all, thank you for the opportunity to present this project to you. Uh, my name's Hui Joe, and I am the dentist, uh, and the owner uh, of the dental practice and the property located at uh, 756 California Street. So 1st I would like to thank our planner, Margaret Nettle, for doing a great job and also for her guidance and advice to get us to this point. Um, tonight, I'm here on the in the capacity of uh, a small business owner and also as a property owner to uh, provide any answers and questions that uh, uh, you may have. Anything more technical, I believe my architect is available also, to have answered more technical questions. And, uh, I think I will leave it at that. And I think to answer also, to answer your question. Mayor Mears, yes, we did meet.

[04:43:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for the reminder. That must have been quite some time ago. Does any member of the council have any questions for the applicant or staff? Vice Nerdics?

[04:43:15] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I do. I was, I was actually, um, kind of impressed that you put, uh, maybe you can tell me more about it, uh, set a laser cut cortin steel wall art. Can you tell me anything about that? Give me any details. Was that something that you were inspired to do, or the architect, or tell me more about that?

[04:43:38] Dr. Huy Do: The, uh are you talking about the wall art on, uh, adjacent to the neighboring, uh, parcel?

[04:43:46] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:43:47] Dr. Huy Do: Uh, I think that was, uh, in, uh, part of the, uh, recommendations from the DRC, because if we had left the wall, uh, untouched, then that would have been, um, such a, a blank canvas that, uh, there were some uh, suggestions to do something to make it uh, stand out and not leave it uh, as blank as it was because, uh, there was not any, uh, uh, any um, uh, project or any uh, construction that was projected at the neighboring parcel in uh, the foreseeable future. So to leave it as such a blank wall for such a long time would not be very attractive. So that was what was recommended at the, I believe, at the DRC.

[04:44:34] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, interesting. I haven't seen that before that I remember in the downtown. And then my 2nd question is, do you have ideas for the ground floor retail? Is your, your business is gonna be above, and there's gonna be different retail, or are you gonna extend your business through all three floors, or how will you, how will you fill the space, or how do you intend?

[04:44:59] Dr. Huy Do: Currently, currently, the plan is to have my business on the third floor, and for the retail, through recommendations from staff, and through previous meetings with council members, I think the recommendation was to have some sort of retail that actually sells some kind of product. And I think there was, uh, some products that, uh, were, uh, that we should, uh, recommend it to stay away from, uh, I believe, uh, along the lines of, uh, cannabis or anything uh, of that nature.

[04:45:34] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you.

[04:45:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member show, Walter.

[04:45:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, first, I was very pleased to hear that you are going to continue to practice in Mountain View while the construction's going on. That's good. So I'm glad that's working out. Um, I just had a question about the tree. Um, or trees. Uh, it seems to me that I read in the report that there aren't necessarily trees, um, gonna be added to the site, and yet, in the rendering picture, there's this lovely tree in the front. So, um, are you planning to put in some trees, or is there room for trees?

[04:46:15] Dr. Huy Do: There are currently, I believe, two trees in the front, and also one tree in the, in our neighbor's parcel, uh, that is, uh, uh, that's on the property of, uh, uh, the California apartments, or either the area, uh, right adjacent to Blossom Lane. So there were no plans to add any additional trees, but the trees that are already there will remain.

[04:46:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, so the tree that's sort of in the planting and in the picture, in front of the, um, and and the rendering is, not necessarily gonna be there.

[04:47:00] Dr. Huy Do: There currently already is a tree in front of the building.

[04:47:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Oh, so it's gonna remain?

[04:47:06] Dr. Huy Do: Yes, it's going through. That's one that's gonna remain.

[04:47:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you.

[04:47:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Any other questions? The nun, we'll move to the public. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raised hand, the raised hand button and zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. And not seeing, uh, there's one number of the public. Um, let's allocate 3 minutes. Sunny tam.

[04:47:45] Sonny Tam: Good evening. My name is Sonny Tam with Studios, 0 to Architect. Um, I just want to introduce myself, and uh, if you have any design question, a text, a technical question. I'm here to answer for them. Thank you.

[04:48:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Being no other members of the public. I will now bring the item back to council for deliberation and action, and note that a motion to approve the recommendation, should also include reading the title of the resolution attached to the report. Council member lever.

[04:48:20] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Well, since I'm the only person who hasn't met with the applicant, I'll go ahead and move the item. If no one has an objection to that. Uh, I see a couple other hands, though. Oh, one hand disappeared. I don't know if council member Manachek wanted to make a comment beforehand, but I'll go ahead and move that we adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, conditionally approving a planned community permit and development review permit to construct a 3 story, 6997 square foot commercial building with ground floor retail and office above, and finding the project to be categorically exempt, pursuant to section 15303, new construction or conversion of small structures of the sequent guidelines at 756 California Street to be read in title only for the reading waved.

[04:49:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member Medicheck.

[04:49:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. I'll 2nd in the motion.

[04:49:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Council member Abi Koga.

[04:49:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just wanted to, um, comment on, uh, and thank the applicant, um, we did meet many, several times, um, and it was a long time ago, um, and I just wanted to thank him for hanging in there and, um, and his patience. Um, you know, we've had some challenges. workloads, staffing. I think there's some miscommunication that happened too. Um, and, um, you know, I really uh, wanted, um, Mr. Doe to, or Dr. Doe to be able to continue his business here. We want to be a business friendly city. And, um, and so I just want to thank him, um, for hanging in there with us and, um, continuing to, to operate in Mountain View. So, and I'm very pleased with the design. It looks great. Thank you very much.

[04:50:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? If not, I'll ask the city clerk to begin the roll call, though.

[04:50:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Liebert?

[04:50:31] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[04:50:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek?

[04:50:34] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:50:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abby Coco?

[04:50:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I

[04:50:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: council member Kame?

[04:50:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:50:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member show Walter?

[04:50:41] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes?

[04:50:42] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[04:50:44] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:50:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez?

[04:50:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[04:50:48] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[04:50:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Hui, for joining us and for introducing the project to us. Um, We will now move to item 9 council staff committee reports. Are there any? There don't have to be. Council member Lieber.

[04:51:11] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor. Um, I have a couple of things that I wanted to bring up. Um, 2 of them are um, gun related bills that were recently introduced in the state legislature and and presented by the governor at his press conference. The other day, um, The 1st one is AB 2571 by Assembly member, um, Bauer Cahan. And this is a bill to limit firearms advertising to children. Um, firearms like the JR 15 that's made to be a miniature version of an AR 15. Um, for children. Um, and I think that this is very much in line with, um, Mountain View's own limits on tobacco advertising. That's, um, targeted to children in your school sites and sites that children frequently use. So that's AB 2571. Um, the 2nd one is a very important bill, uh, SB 1327 by, uh, Senator Herzberg. And, uh, this is the bill that would, um, create a rite of uh, private action, um, to help fight uh, ghost guns and assault weapons in our state. I know that council is aware that we have a state level, uh, assault weapons ban, um, that has been worked on over time, and, and, um, uh, new assault weapons as they come out have been added to it. Unfortunately, um, a district court judge recently ruled that, uh, the state was not able to enforce our assault weapons ban. So, um, what's being done with this bill with SB 1327 is to give citizens, uh, the right to, um, bring a suit to, um, to enforce that band. And so it's a very good and necessary workaround in the law. Um, so I'm not sure from the city manager, what kind of action we would need to take here to, um, to, uh, be able to get on board with supporting these 2 bills. Um, but I would like to have our city listed and support there.

[04:53:48] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, council member, labor. If everyone is in agreement, it sounds like that's aligned with where council is, um, headed with your support of gun safety. And so we can add this to our list and I'll talk with our staff and figure out where the bill is going and what we need to do. So I'll just make sure that we provide these 2 bills.

[04:54:12] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you. And, um, the other one is, um, in terms of the, um, the, uh, tiny house development and the services that we're providing. Um, I think that in our due diligence as a council, we should have a report back about, um, how it's going with the, the staffing and the case management, um, uh, with the project and, and see if there are ways that we can, um, provide assistance and, uh, really for our own understanding. Um, uh, kind of, uh, get a handle on, um, what's happening, um, how many clients have been able to move on to other housing and, um, what the, the barriers are there. I really agree so much with what was said, even though I didn't agree with the amount of money. Um, that we need to understand what the barriers are for the lowest income people in our communities under the, um, GBI um, initiative. And, and I think that really applies, um, to this housing as well. So if we can understand a little bit more about, um, how the case management is working out, how clients are able to access it, um, what they're finding when they get to the end of their, um, their tenure and, um, uh, what's what's being offered. Um, I think it would be very uh, helpful for us. And I don't know from staff, if that's all that we need to put forward is just that request or, um, would we need to take a straw poll?

[04:56:05] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, council member labor. I think this is absolutely doable, so I will work with staff to coordinate with life moves on an update to council on the program specifics and data and how things are going.

[04:56:21] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. Thank you.

[04:56:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Council member Shelter.

[04:56:29] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I just wanted to share a few meetings that I'd gone to, um, uh, one was in, uh, BCDC last week. We had a, a really interesting discussion about hybrid meetings, particularly for, um, regional boards that we sit on, and, um, as one of the, one of the board members said, the commissioner said, Now that the Zoom genie has been let out of the bottle, Are we ever gonna let it go back, um, and, uh, so, you know, right now, the the requirements are going to be, uh, that will go back to how the, uh, you know, the rules were before the, um, the, uh, the crisis, the COVID crisis. And, um, that's gonna be, I think, I think that there's legislation. I understand there's legislation now that may help this, but it would require, if you were going to have your meeting, you know, you listen to your meeting from home, you would, you know, you would have to publish the, um, you know, the address of that meeting, in the, uh, in the agenda, you'd have to put a phone number that somebody could call to help get help with directions. I mean, you know, just a lot of sort of private disclosure. Um, and, um, because people come from, you know, for many of these meetings, have to drive an hour or two to get to them. There's a lot of efficiencies by coming to Zoom. So I just wanted to bring that up, that that's something that, you know, all of us serving on regional boards are gonna have to deal with, and, um, I know the city manager is aware of it, and, um, will help with advocacy. But if there is a bill related to this specifically, I would, um, uh, I don't know the number, but I would like us to... would like us to advocate for it. So, I want to mention, wanted to mention that. And then, um, uh, Council member Kame mentioned the, the, the joint venture, Silicon Valley, state of the valley that was held on, um, Friday morning. That means that the news, 2022, Silicon Valley index is out, and it's just an amazing compendium of, you know, information about, uh, all sorts of trends, employment trends, uh, demographic trends, um, in our communities, and it's just really fascinating to look at. I urge everybody to take a look. Council member Abby Koga and I spent Friday afternoon with Leadership Mountain View at the new Shashi Hotel, and that was a delightful experience, at least for me, and one of the things that was sort of exciting to see was that this is a building that has been built with the new under the new code that we have for the North Bay Shore, which requires dual plumbing. So they're using recycled water for, you know, flushing toilets and irrigation and potable water for what potable water should be used for. So that was, it was really exciting to see that, you know, that built. That was just very, very, very cool. And then, um, I wanted to mention another just plug for a community organization. Well, actually, is a historical society. I'll mention we had a great meeting, and, um, we learned a lot about Stevens Creek, and let, let maybe the mayor, since I think you were on the board of a historical society mentioned, what's coming up on Saturday.

[05:00:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No, not anymore.

[05:00:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Oh, okay. Well, anyway, next Saturday, they're gonna have a, um, they're starting a walking tours about the history of Mountain View. And there's gonna be another one next Saturday, and I think it sounds like a fun activity. So thanks.

[05:00:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member, I'll be cooking.

[05:00:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mary. I just wanted to report out on a couple of meetings I've attended. The 1st one is Silicon Valley Clean Energy, and at our last board meeting, we authorized our JPA to implement rate changes that will keep SVCE customers at a one% discount to PG&E rates effective March 1st. So PG&E will be increasing their rates, clean energy. I saw this was a question that came up during our budget item, but clean energy is in charge of sourcing. And so that part of the cost, uh, will be one% lower than what P&E uh, charges. Um, and this rate discount has been the same for customers for the past couple of years and aligns with the agency's commitment to maintaining rates competitive to PG&E. The discount is inclusive of PG&E's added fees since launching in 2017, SPCE has saved customers $770000 on their electricity bills. And I believe that the CPUC has approved the PG&E's rate increases. Um, We pay the customers, pay, uh, PG&E, something called the power charge indifference and adjustment. It's a fee that is paid to PG&E. But that will decrease. Um, and so with that, um, the, that's why that's, um, that's part of the charge. The board directed $17000000 to fund for their customer and community energy programs to help us achieve our region's collective carbon reduction goals, and also directed staff to allocate $3000000 for relief to low income customers. Um, And then we also voted to enter a contract for a long duration energy storage project. This is to deliver clean energy for 8 hours a day, helping provide relief to the grid during critical peak times. Um, and this, actually, it was, is ground baking, breaking. It made national news. Um, this is the 1st major procurement milestone for California community. Power, a new JPA comprised of 10 community choice energy agencies throughout the state, and ours, clean energy CEO and staff have been very instrumental in creating this California um, agency. So I just wanted to note that. Also, I attended the cities association, and I saw that, um, council member Kameis, not on no longer on the call, but she was at the legislative action committee, where there was discussion on, um, a brown act bill that, uh, Senator Cortese is looking to introduce, um, relative to continuing, um, virtual meetings and so forth. So, I believe, um, assembly member Alex Lee has introduced legislation as well. Um, so, uh, Senator Cortez's staff came to get input on what would make, uh, what kind of changes to the Brown Act we thought would be, um, helpful. Um, and then assembly member Berman also attended to um, get input on the VTA governance bill that he introduced. Um, he, um, is doing a listening tour, and he's introduced, I believe, a spot bill, but is looking for input on how to make that bill more workable for everyone. Um, and then we also had a presentation on um, our neighborhood voices initiative. This is in response to SB 9. We had a professor, I think, on urban planning from Stanford, give us a very objective presentation on this initiative. So, um, I found that really interesting. I'm sure we will hear more as we move forward. And then finally, um, I, I, I attended the, with the mayor and, um, council member Kame, the opening of the 101 express lanes, um, that connects now Santa Clara County to San Mateo County. I've heard some folks, you know, some consternation about it. Um, I do want to remind folks that, you know, a lane was actually added to create this extra express lane. So it was not a lane that was taken away. Um, and the the data has shown that it actually makes travel time for everyone faster, um, by having express lanes. So just wanted to report out that. Thanks so much.

[05:05:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Any other reports? If none, then we'll move to item 10, close session report. Interim city, Attorney Quinn, do you have a closed session report?

[05:05:16] Interim City Attorney Jannie L. Quinn: Do not have a closed session report this evening.

[05:05:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Very much appreciated. Then we'll move to item 10. Sorry, item 11. Adjournment. Thank you so much for joining us. Our next city council meeting will be held on March 8th, 2022. Until then, stay healthy and the meeting is adjourned at 1037 PM. Thank you very much, everybody. Have a good evening.

• ← Previous
• Next →