March 8, 2022 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:00:05] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Good evening everyone. Thank you for joining us for our closed session. I am 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 at 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 meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountain view.legistar.com. YouTube dot com forward slash Mountain View Gov, and on Comcast Channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public, public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period, by visiting mountain view.gov forward slash meeting, to enter the Zoom meeting, or by phone, by dialing 669-9009128 and entering webinar ID 843-512-67142. Any emails received by 430 p.m. today were directed or 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.

[00:01:26] (archive recording) Interim City Attorney Jannie L. Quinn: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The closed session announcement is that we're having a conference with legal counsel, item 2.one for existing litigation pursuant to government code section 54956.9 D1. The name of the cases are James R. Zugal versus the city of Mountain View, Atoll, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. There are 2 cases with the same name, case number 517 CV 03249 BLF and case number 521 CV 07538 BLF. And your honor, that concludes the position announcement.

[00:02:04] (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 tonight listed on tonight's agenda? I'm sorry. If so, please click the race, hand button, and zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Not seeing any members of the public raise their hands, so we will now recess to close session and return to this webinar at 6.30 p.m. for the regular session. See you then.

[00:29:42] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Good evening, everyone, welcome to the meeting of the city council of March 8th, 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 meeting locations. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountain view.legisstar.com. youtube.com forward slash mountain you go, and on Comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period by visiting Mountain View.gov forward 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 and the pledge of allegiance. 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. City clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[00:31:17] (archive recording) City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abbe Coca? Council member can I?

[00:31:21] (archive recording) Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here,

[00:31:22] (archive recording) City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilman reliever.

[00:31:24] (archive recording) Councilmember Sally Lieber: Sure.

[00:31:24] (archive recording) City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek.

[00:31:26] (archive recording) Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here,

[00:31:27] (archive recording) City Clerk Heather Glaser: council member, Shelter.

[00:31:29] (archive recording) Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here,

[00:31:29] (archive recording) City Clerk Heather Glaser: by Mayor Hicks.

[00:31:31] (archive recording) Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Here,

[00:31:31] (archive recording) City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez.

[00:31:33] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:31:34] (archive recording) City Clerk Heather Glaser: Thank you.

[00:31:36] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I want to take a moment to recognize that today is International Women's Day and thank my council colleagues and the council appointees for their leadership. We have a truly historic council 6 to one uh and all 3 of our council appointees are women. Um, I always like to remind people or the voters that you have an opportunity to rectify that this November and elect an all women council. Uh, I am honored to serve with all of you. Uh, we look forward to presentation celebrating women and leadership at our March 22nd council meeting. We will now take public comment for the presentation item. As a reminder, item 3.2 Mona Loma Park redesign update by Carducci Associates, is a presentation about the project. The city council will hear the presentation, but will not take any action on this item. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the presentation items listed on the agenda? If so, please click the raise hand button and zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. So just to clarify, we are taking public comment for both presentations. The COVID-19 update by city manager, Kimber McCarthy, and the Mona Loma Park redesign update by Carducci Associates. Um, so we're, we have some speakers, um, let's allocate 2 minutes. 1st speaker is Judy. Judy, uh, we can't hear you. Are you able to unmute yourself? Um, oh, I'm, we're not hearing from Judy, so we'll go ahead and move on to Jim Zayorski. Jim? Are you able to unmute yourself?

[00:34:20] Jim Zaorski: I'm clicking the app to unmute button.

[00:34:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, I got it. Thank you.

[00:34:25] Jim Zaorski: No problem. Um, okay, um, I'm missing my notes, but I'd like to speak real quickly on the moneloma park issue and the issue you're going to see today. What concerns me is the district is presenting a community plan for a school to redesign the school so that they can include the park area within this school and the school itself. This is a 4 year project that should take uh, 10s of 1000000s of dollars. It's not clear to me and many members of the community that the community actually, or the school district will need this school for a period of 5 to 10 years while it's clear that the population of the city will grow. The demographics of our city is such that people are now going to private schools, that people are not producing as many children, and the people are basically not going to a school in the same numbers. So therefore, when we look at a school that's going to be built that's going to take 4 years, we question why and why now. Right now the neighborhood hasn't had a park for about a year and a half since this fencing issue occurred. At the same time, we've been struggling to get the city's attention and we've been so far unsuccessful in that there's been no JUA. There's been no, uh, plans put forward by the city to do anything with the park, no lands has been bought with the city, with, with, um, funds that are available, and we, we're still waiting for a park. So from this area, the idea of a community school while good is, we'd say, why now? And why don't we concentrate on getting the children, the seniors and the community of parks so that we can move on to more important things. Thank you very much.

[00:36:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Jim. We'll go back to Judy. Judy, you should be able to. See. All right. Well, uh, we'll try Judy later, and we'll move to head. Uh, sh- sh-. And are you able to speak?

[00:37:03] Public Speaker: No, I'm not able to speak now. Thank you.

[00:37:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Uh, then we'll move on to Jessica Chohan. Jessica, your name.

[00:37:27] Jessica Chohan: Hi. Thank you. I want to thank the council for, um, for, um, agendizing this for tonight, and I just hope to hear more moving forward, um, you know, more discussion, um, around solution options from the city and from council. Thank you.

[00:37:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Uh, we'll give Judy one more opportunity. Duty, are you able to speak? I'm sorry, Judy, we're not able to hear you, uh, if you are speaking, um, um, sorry, the technology may not be working. Um, being no other members of the public with their hand up, we will proceed to item 3.one COVID-19 update by the city, uh, city manager McCarthy.

[00:38:38] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, mayor. Hi everyone. Good evening, council members and members of the public. I'm going to share my screen. Really quickly here. I have a short presentation. related to COVID update. Can everyone see my screen? Thumbs up? Okay. So the last time I updated you all was December, and at that time we have had a lot of changes in the Omicron surge, uh, really, uh, the numbers looking quite a bit better. We've had a lot of changes with county and state rules, and so I just want to provide a quick overview and update with everyone so that you know where the city stands right now, where the county is at and where the state is at. So you all may have heard that the governor announced a few weeks ago on February 17th that we have now entered, a new phase of the pandemic, which he is putting forth this smarter plan that he's calling it, where we have moved from a pandemic to an endemic. And smarter stands for shots, masks, awareness, testing, education and RX. And according to the governor's office, this plan is supposed to guide how the state is moving ahead and preparing for this next phase. So it really is about looking forward and looking at the things that we need to do to keep the numbers, the way they are now, and not move backward. So if you're interested in learning more about his plan, you can go to COVID-19.ca.gov. So what does that all mean to us here in the county? So just recently, uh, we did learn that the state and our county lifted the indoor masking requirement for everyone, regardless of vaccination status. So for our county, the reason that was done, it's it's due to these 3 masking metrics that the public health officer said that we had to meet to meet in order for those masking requirements to be lifted. So our daily case number is at 550 cases countywide or below. Um, 80% of our population over age 5 is vaccinated. And the COVID-19 hospitalization rates in our county are stable and they're low. So as of March 11th, so this Friday, there's also a requirement for masking in schools and childcare facilities. That will be lifted. Now, that doesn't mean that local decisions, um, may be the same as that. They can be stricter, um, but at least this Friday, March 11th, it is no longer required. Now, one of the, one of the things that is remaining the same is masking is still required in higher risk settings. So those settings are things such as public transit, uh, healthcare facilities, shelters, long-term care facilities, and jails, uh, what we don't know yet is what the federal government is going to do with places, switches, airports, or other major public transit modes. So we are expecting that March 18th. We might know more information about the masking mandate at the federal level. Uh, so masking is still strongly recommended when indoors, but again, it is just not required anymore. In terms of what that means here at our city facilities. We are not requiring masking. We are following those state and county rules, but we do encourage people to wear masks and to, of course, stay home, um, if they're not feeling well. Um, I'm really happy to announce that we do have an update to our library. So due to all of the changes at the state and county level, we are now operating our operating our library in person indoors 7 days a week. Uh, it is going to be open now late on Tuesdays and Wednesdays till 9 PM and it opens at 10 AM. And then Monday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, we are open 10 to 6. And then on Sunday, the hours are one to 5 PM. I'm also really happy to let everyone know that we are going to be having our multicultural festival this year. So on Saturday, March 26th, downtown, uh, the festival will be from 11 AM to 2 PM, and we are just getting uh, the booths and the performers and all of the festivities in order right now. So I invite the community to come out and celebrate all the diversity, uh, that we have in Mountain View and hopefully just really be, uh, happy to be in person. The last event that we had community wide was our tree lighting ceremony. So we're really looking forward to the multicultural festival. And then lastly, just wanted to remind everyone that you can keep up with all the latest information on programs and all the happenings that are going on by texting 2 to 828 to city hall news. So again, you can text City Hall News, 22828, and then you'll get the uh, City Hall connection. So with that, mayor council members, I'm done with my presentation, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[00:43:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Would any member of the council like to see it? uh a few words or ask any questions. I have one quick question if that's okay. Um, I believe in April, the final package of state protections, uh, related to the, uh, eviction moratorium. I think the supplies only to members of the community who are applying for rent relief um expire. Uh, so I'm wondering if um, we, if the city is taking any action, you know, educating, property, rental property owners and and renters, um, about, about the expiration of those protections.

[00:44:41] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, thank you, mayor. We have had a very active eviction moratorium health center that has been underway the past several months. We have had both in person appointments that are available weekly at our library, and then we transition during Omicron to having Zoom appointments, but I believe we're going back to in person. So, uh, we will definitely be making sure that we're letting people know about that. And then I will also work with staff to find out what further information that we can make sure that we're putting out so that people are aware of. Um, that end result. And we already may have have something planned, but, um, I'm happy to talk to staff about making sure that we get, um, one last final information piece out there for everyone, so they, they're aware.

[00:45:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any final questions? If not, then we'll proceed to item 3.2 Mona Loma Park redesign, update by Carducci Associates. Community community services director John Marchant will introduce the presentation and then Vince Latanzio and Carly. Banky, my apologies, uh, from from Carducci Associates, will make a presentation, but Dr. A and D Rudolph, Mountain View, Wisdom and School District Superintendent, will say a few words, and then Director Marchant will close the item.

[00:46:04] Community Services Director John Marchant: Great, thank you, Mayor Ramirez. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is John Marchant. I am the community services director. Before I turn it over to the Mountain View Wisman school district and their consultant team to begin their presentation, I wanted to take a moment to highlight the city's recent actions to meet community needs for parks in open space. Since 2010, the city has developed 6 new parks totaling approximately 4.6 acres. We look forward to opening 2 new parks this spring that will total an additional 3.2 acres. We also have a total of approximately 8 acres of future open space that are in various planning stages at this time. During the city's strategic roadmap process, the city council prioritized the development of a new parks and recreation strategic plan. One of the outcomes of this strategic plan will be to identify gaps and provide options for developing and funding new open space. This project is anticipated to begin later this fall, and will provide a significant number of opportunities for public input throughout the development of this new plan, and I'll tell you, the city staff is excited to start working on that process. As you are aware, one way the city provides additional public access to open space is through shared use facilities at school sites. The city has collaborated with local school districts for over 60 years to provide public access to joint use open space at school locations, including the Mountain Viewism and school district facilities. Another council priority identified through the strategic roadmap process was to update the joint use master agreement between the city and school district. Recently, both the city and Mountain View is my school district staff have agreed to begin meeting in an effort to finalize a new joint use master agreement to update and clarify the terms for shared use of facilities located on district property. Tonight's presentation focuses on the Mona Loma outdoor and site improvement project. City staff continue to participate in each step of the school district process in an effort to communicate the needs of the community. Originally, city staff requested to participate as members of the district's Mona Loma working group. As the district continued, this working group process, city and district staff worked together to create the current pilot program to delineate space during school hours to ensure the community had access to portions of the open space. As the district changed the focus to redesign the entire open space with the assistance of a new consultant team, city staff participated in the interview process of the design firms. The district hired Carduci Associates, the professional landscape architecture and planning firm last September. Her DG associates then worked with the district to create a public input process for this redesign process. Which started in January. City staff meets with district staff in Carducci every 2 weeks to understand the next steps and provide feedback. As part of the outreach process, city staff had the opportunity to participate in focus groups. As you will see, staff utilizes time to communicate the importance of community access to open space for active and passive activities during and after school hours. In recognizing the importance of passive and unstructured activities, city staff have modified the schedule of organized you sports at Mona Loma to allow community additional access to open space. As stated, Carducci staff has held a variety of input meetings, and they are here to share what they have learned from a variety of stakeholders, as well as some next steps of the project process. City staff has been engaged in this process by attending each of the public meetings, to listen to the community's input and ideas related to this project. And with that, it looks like Vince and Carly are ready to begin their presentation and I thank them for being here tonight. Thank you.

[00:49:54] Vincent Lattanzio: Thank you, John, and thank you, council members and mayor, for allowing us to present to you the Monteloma outdoor site improvement projects outreach process. If Carly can have control.

[00:50:07] Karly Behncke: Yeah, I'm going to share my screen in just a moment. You're going to put a screen up, just verify and you can see it.

[00:50:15] Vincent Lattanzio: So thank you again. And what we'd like to do is just take you quickly through, um, what we've provided you, um, as a presentation for an update. So 1st of all, we want to just quickly go over the goals. You know, we wanted to provide an equitable public outreach strategy. We wanted to have multiple times and dates for input. We wanted to provide engaging opportunities for productive meetings, develop design solutions, create consensus of understanding, develop a plan that'll benefit everyone and encourage participation with as many users as possible. We did communicate with the district and city on a weekly basis, bimonthly, including the city, and regular updates to the board of trustees, as well as the council here, and we also provided student energy package and surveys distributed by school staff. We mailed postcards to residents for communities involvement. We regularly update the web page. We email updates. We have online surveys, we have social media announcements. We also put community board postings at the site at the restroom building as well as the fences on the school site itself. We communicated with with residents, uh, for input, and we've discovered some under represented groups that we've then reached out to, particularly by posting on site, as well as additional ways to reach larger groups. So, again, we've provided some of these already, and we'll continue to provide updates. The Zoom weapon are a method and the mirror board, which is a active online whiteboard, helps us to keep everything consistently live, like it's we're meeting together, and it actually documents everyone's input directly by them putting notes in there and drawing together with us. The community process is started and we had a board of trustees meeting, then we went on to the focus groups and the community meetings. We started with the focus groups. And this is what a typical focus group board looks like on the mirror board, which has notes and input and voting opportunities for images, and we went through the site and some of the needs, and we took input. We use the imagery boards as an inspirational tool to allow to, uh, people to get input and ideas about what was important, social space, structure play, nature play. All these are images that we just gathered as opportunities. Um, hardcore outdoor learning seating. As well as fencing, sight lighting, and waste features as well as water features. So, in order to recap the input we had, we went to the city focus group, and we develop word clouds, word clouds are basically, uh, the amount of times we hear the word, they are bolder and larger. So, for the city focus group, we had maintenance access, we had community access is important and field use by youth sports is important. For the school staff, we, we had a mutual understanding, respective open space and site, for site users, delineation of space, which was needed, and playgrounds that address all students' needs, and you can see that fencing was important. For city rec leagues, it was primarily flexible usage, uh, maintenance of fields, drainage, and and making sure it's clean and usable at all times and central location for the Monteloma, uh, organiz- youth organizations. For the seniors, we we maintain openness. Uh, green space was important, looking for ways to secure the site, uh, and for the students and that addresses the security, and yet, it doesn't use fencing. Walking is a major use of the site and circulation patterns are critical to maintain. The family's focus group was providing more green open space, play spaces adjacent to green space, and not using fencing along the entire extent of the property for security, and prioritizing open green space. Neighborhood focus was preservation of the open space, in finding innovative ways to secure the site without fencing, park amenities can be improved, and community access areas that Laura and Anna and the alleyways are dark and unsafe, so that was talked about as well. The student surveys, uh, we asked several questions to all grade groups and these are basically what we heard back in terms of play elements. They wanted to see as swings of ball walls, and the other areas are more green field, more areas to run around safely. Um, and that was important for the students. The community meeting A, um, we heard to maximize, again, maximize open space, delineate access, and no intrusive lighting was required, was needed, no fencing, shared use, dog access, playgrounds, safe valleys, and enhanced existing side amenities. And that we had another repeat meeting. We repeat meetings every Wednesday evening and then every Saturday morning. So people that can't make it in the evening can hopefully make it at Saturday morning. And we heard more information about gathering spaces for community openness, improvements to blacktop, bathroom improvements, shade seating, hedges over fences, upgrading furnishings, and exercise stations. The general summary of input was maximize open green space unstructured areas, importance of nature, upgraded furnishings, of picnics, benches, and fitness, upgraded play areas, of structures, ball walls, and 2 scores to be added, upgraded pathways, surfacing, and potentially widening, providing safety and security, and maintaining current available amenities. General summary of input was a general agreement for the need to delineate the space, for uses, increased demand for social gathering, general amenities, safe lighting at the alleys, dog walking locations, exercise circuits, picnic areas, event gathering areas, requests for outreach to unrepresented groups, as well, and surprises were a misunderstanding of the school's need for the green space because the public didn't see the school out there using it. They didn't think they needed it, but the school is unlikely to use it until we can get some area that can be surveyed and controlled by the school's use, uh, of the children. The need for better signage of use was, was important to people, green fences, so hedges instead of fences. was, was, was, was, was, was, So a lack of understanding of exactly when they have access, when it's where to go, when they can go. Importance of circuit loop around little league field was really important. So I'm reluctance to share the field overstations with soccer in Little League. The community, local community didn't want to see the need for their use overridden by other community users. Lack of support for dog park. No one seemed to want to give up any green space for a dog park. Uh, dogs did not vote though. Then support for upgrades to amenities and requests for increased supervision by school. The public outreach schedule overview includes the board of trustees meeting that we had on the 10th where we discussed the opportunity for expanded scope. And we just discussed that, uh, about looking at the entire site. We thought they were, it might open up opportunities for increased open space and increased efficiency for future to meet future needs of both the school and the community. On February 16th, we held another meeting, series B, where we discussed expanded scope, the opportunity to expand the viewport to include the school area as well, and that was repeated on February 19th. From that point, we have another meeting coming up on March 9th, tomorrow and then Saturday as well. And that'll we'll just be giving them an update on feedback we've heard today. Not collecting any updated updated information yet. The next meeting with the board of trustees for the board of trustees that's on the 24th. The board will review the assessment and needs for future growth in the area. Meaning D and um, meeting D repeat may or may not occur depending on what direction we get from the board after the 24th. And then the next board of trustees update will be May 5th where we will combine all the information we've heard today, give it some graphic representation and and present that to the board of trustees. And that is basically the presentation. These are helpful links. So if anyone wants to have any information, detailed information on all the input we've gathered to date, all the mirror boards are posted on the website. All the surveys are posted on the website. We update the information we receive regularly on the website so that it's all up to date. Thank you.

[00:59:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I will now invite superintendent Rudolph Rudolph to speak.

[00:59:51] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: Can you hear me?

[00:59:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[00:59:54] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: Okay, sorry, my, my earphones don't work, uh, from time to time. So good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and honorable council members as well as city staff. I want to thank everyone for your continuing engagement with the redesign of Montaloma school site. As we are all aware, MVWSD and the city of Mountain View have enjoyed a 6 year partnership at all of our sites. Our community, the city, and of course, our students have benefited greatly from this unique partnership, and we look forward to continuing this partnership in the foreseeable future. As you've heard today, Vince and Carly have worked hard to understand the needs of the school, community as well as the residences. And as a result of the process, we have begun to take a more holistic approach towards Monteloma and future growth in general. As we all know, the city has not has not only been a leader in addressing the housing and development issues alike, um, this growth, which is universally embraced, is concentrated in a northern part of our city. Specifically, 3 neighborhood schools will bear the brunt of the growth. Vargas, Monteloma, and Therakov. In an effort to realistically address the growth, MVSD is heating the advice of Vincent Carly and focusing on the development of a community neighborhood school. So what exactly does this mean? Currently 20% of Monteloma's students come from outside of the surrounding community? They come from Moffat Field and our military students. And as we look at the future growth needs? Uh, we are actually anticipating that without any changes to boundaries or to any of our school sites, that more than 1500 students will be zoned for uh, Monteloma. This includes the future students from Moffit Field, which is currently under development through the federal government, as well as students who are currently zoned for North Bay Shore. Well, we are working with the city to address the logistics of North Bay Shore. We're going to need to take a pause and address the issues that are are listed for Monteloma. I don't think anyone would be comfortable with more than 1500 students actually attending Monteloma school and coming from outside of the community. Which means that instead of focusing on our attention, on redeveloping the green space, for our current needs, we need to take a more holistic approach, and looking at Monteloma as a strategic peace, to a larger conversation about the north facial quarter. Meaning, that it is possible that within the foreseeable future, we will have to address the boundaries, that all 3 of the sites that were mentioned before, there are calls, Monteloma, and Vargas, in order to address all of the growth that we will have to attain. This is a very important decision for us because I think all of us agree. That the one. $100000000 price tag that we have. Will have a deleterious impact on the future growth. It doesn't make sense for us to address the needs of Montaloma by spending $10000000 to re- redevelop green space. Well, what we really need to do is focus on how do we make sure that Monteloma is a viable community school that supports the surrounding neighborhood and allows for safe passes for all students who will reside within a one to one. 5 mile radius. We look forward to continuing to partnering with the city staff, and focusing with the commu- and working with the community. On addressing the needs. Uh, of the, of the students as well as the community, and making sure that all of our sites, but especially Monteloma, are safe places for all of our students. We appreciate the communities passion, but we also compute appreciate their understanding for addressing and recognizing that as we bring more students back on campus, that there is a clear need to make sure that every kid remains safe. We are planning on continuing to work with the Parks and Recs team, as well as with Karducian Associates, to work on a larger plan of action that will address both Montaloma's immediate needs, as well as the future growth means. I will be discussing this in more detail at our March 24th meeting, and I look forward to sharing all of the information that I will be sharing with the board, uh, with city staff as well as city council. Thank you.

[01:04:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Director Marchant, would you like to close out the item?

[01:04:32] Community Services Director John Marchant: Yes, thank you, Mayor Ramirez. I'd like to again, thank Vincent, Curly and Dr. Rudolph for the presentation, and as Vince stated, there are upcoming public meetings later this week about this project, if members are interested in attending those meetings. Both Vince and Dr. Rudolph mentioned the board of trustees meeting later this month, which may impact the future direction of his project. So please stay tuned for next steps there. And we do want to take a moment to recognize the concerns communicated by the city, sorry, communicated to the city, by members of the public, regarding the length of the process, and at times the process has been difficult to follow and some changes in direction and scope. The city will stay engaged in the process to amplify the input heard from the community as the district further shares its steps for Mona Loma school. City staff will continue to provide city council with project updates in the future. The staff will also continue this, I will also schedule this item to return to the city council in the future for direction, and action as appropriate, when key decision points are reached, such as, but not limited to, costier agreements, review, design options, and associated access. So with that, that concludes our presentation and I will turn it over back to Mayor Ramirez. Thank you again.

[01:05:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for your work on this issue and for the presentation. Would any member of the council like to ask a question or provide um any commentary? Uh, if, uh, Visner Hicks.

[01:06:20] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I don't have a question, but I just wanted to thank, uh, Miss, the, uh, thank everybody for the, um, for speaking to us, for presenting to us, both Dr. Roof, Golf, and Carducci's, and, and I, I personally found the word clouds, um, informative. Um, that was, to me, sort of showed how different groups want to use the park. Uh, I've been talking to a lot of members of the public, but the word clouds were, um, particular, were particularly portrayed some of those uses. So that was, that was helpful and thank you. Um, and I, I also am, um, at this point, hearing that, uh, people are, are kind of liking the pause to, um, not completely replan the site and be able to have it open to use, I open for the public to use, more or less as is. Um, so I I hope that what I'm hearing from the public is accurate, um, and that seems to sort of reflect what I've heard tonight as well. So again, thank you.

[01:07:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member show Walter.

[01:07:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I was wondering if we could see the slide with surprises on it. You know, the things that you learned that were surprising. And um, I, I just like to, um, Uh, really hear a little bit more about, why you thought those things were surprising, and kind of who you heard them from. Uh, I mean, misunderstanding of the school's need for green space. Um, I, I can understand that and, um, confusion about the hours. I think we've all. That's not surprising to me. We've all been confused about that. Um, uh, but uh, particularly the last one, requests for increased supervision by the school. Uh, what was meant by that and, um, and, uh, Also green fences. I'd like to hear a little more about that

[01:08:35] Vince Lattanzio: So, uh, thank you, council member, show, Walter. The green fences came out of, um, an idea of not wanting to have to look at fences, and so some of the members of the community on the Saturday meeting of meeting, uh, A, came up with the idea of of using hedges instead of fences to make green fences out of hedges. So we thought that was an interesting idea and we were surprised it wasn't our idea. It was the community's idea about making it more palatable to have a delineation that was living and natural and fit into, um, the field setting much better than, let's say, events in their mind. The request for increased supervision by school also came from the community, and um, a misunderstanding that the, the school could afford to have much more many more people out on the field to control the, the children and watch the field use. But that's not something the school has the budget for, and um, shouldn't have to have that increased supervision, which that everyone might benefit from. Without having some funding for that specific purpose. And it's more about how do you use the space that you have that you need for open space and PE, um, without increased supervision? You have to delineate areas, define areas of use and times of use.

[01:10:05] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, thank you. John, do you have any comments about the uh surprises? Would you could?

[01:10:12] Community Services Director John Marchant: Uh, thank you, council member show, Walter, the, um, I'd like to talk about the, the green fences, and yes, I, I heard those comments uh, during that Saturday meeting, and, you know, the, the idea of the, sorry, hedges, not fences. I think is in context of, as we look forward to the, the redesign of, of this space and being able to possibly integrate some of those elements as part of that process is, was my understanding. So, um, Again, that was that was from my perspective. Thank you.

[01:10:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Um, I know this is a very difficult work, but uh, it's, it's, it's so important for our community. Thank you. And as is your job. Thank you.

[01:11:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Councilman.

[01:11:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, 1st I do want to thank um, everyone for engaging in this process, especially our residents that are taking so much of their time, uh, to participate. Thank you so much. Um, I, well, I found the word clouds interesting. I was kind of wondering, um, how would those be used? Um, You know, I was thinking that, um, if there are 5 people who participate in a session versus 20 people who participate in a session. Are you waiting the words or how are you incorporating the volume of input on a given word?

[01:11:52] Vince Lattanzio: I think I'll let Carly respond to that since she's accumulated all the data and all the data that this clouds are based on is are available on the website as a backup of every single survey, every note, every vote is is documented there.

[01:12:10] Karly Behncke: Yes, thank you, Vince. So what we've shown tonight is an all-inclusive of all the information that we've dissiminated since the public input process so far. So there are word clouds in the public mirror board where we've added all the content that we've received so far from our public input, and there are generated word clouds where we've combined the weight of all the focus groups into single cloud so that we can better understand both an individual groups and also as a full, as one community, what are those, um, different themes, topics that we're all talking about. And then there's various other ways that we've incorporate input too with regards to like imagery and kind of summing up the entire community in one group. Um, so we didn't want to overwhelm the public today with all of that content, but I highly encourage folks, if you have time to look at that public mirror board and really, you can see that we use those word clouds, um, when we're looking at options later, we'll kind of refer back to all the conversations we've had to understand what were those trends, what are the surprises, how can we kind of come up with various options that will then, you know, hybridize into one preferred plan later on in the process and we'll use those It's kind of as a quick reference for what we've heard so far. So we've added weight to all those, those words and we have that data stored, um, so we can understand kind of the process so far. Our real art is taking the words and the needs and what we've heard and translate that into physical form and design. And so we were hoping to do that as we get clearer direction of goals for this overall site.

[01:13:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, and I don't know if, um, there is an answer to this tonight, but I'm curious. Um, 100% of the time is the space being used by, um, organized sports, soccer and little league. Um, for the time that the space is available to the public.

[01:14:22] Karly Behncke: Automatic check. Sorry, I don't have that information in front of me at the moment. Um, I will be happy to share it with counsel once I work with staff to provide that to you.

[01:14:32] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: It'd be great. Sorry, I didn't know we, I was going to ask that tonight or else I would have sent you an ahead of time. Thanks.

[01:14:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Do any other members of the council have questions, council member, come in.

[01:14:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So, um, I know that we took uh, public comment for both presentations before this item, but may I see people, 2 people with hands? Is there a good way that we can let them know how we can capture their input for counsel, um, in case they missed it? I just, you know, talking about, um, how we can get everyone sharing the communication. Um, I just wonder how we can do that. But I'm grateful that we're having the presentation and glad to have the superintendent here as well to speak to us, but just want to make sure we're continuing to let people know the best way to get in touch with us.

[01:15:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: City manager or city attorney, um, I think a solution maybe to allow members of the public to speak during non-agenda public comment, sort of about the issue generally, is that acceptable since some members of the public may not have anticipated providing public in advance of the presentations. Would that be acceptable?

[01:15:57] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Mayor, I would defer to the city attorney. What's possible for public comment that makes sense to me, but I would defer to her judgment.

[01:16:07] Interim City Attorney Jannie Quinn: And public comment is for, um, non-agendized items, and this was an agendized item, and you, you have, um, already provided the opportunity for them to speak. Um, there's, also the possibility that they could, send an email, and um, the city clerk retains all of those items. And they would be included. With the other documentation related to this item. That's the strict interpretation.

[01:16:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fair enough. Um, Have them ever command any other questions or comments? Vince, I see your hand up. Maybe not. Did you want to speak, Vince?

[01:16:59] Vince Lattanzio: Nope, I just wanted to follow up if you get an email, please. I'd like to get that information back to us so that we can incorporate any input. That we get from any source for.

[01:17:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I have one question, um, this, uh, item was agendaized as a presentation, which means the council can't take action. Um, staff, do you have a, sort of an estimated time frame for when the council will be able to take action on this item?

[01:17:38] Community Services Director John Marchant: Thank you, mayor, once again, as stated previously, the, Seems like we need to get through a couple more meetings, possibly with the, um, with the board of trustees, before we have a clear direction of where we're going. Um, so therefore, I cannot give you a good, clear direction of timing at this at this moment. So once again, the city staff will continue to be engaged in the process, look for opportunities, to bring this forward as an agendized item, um, for action when appropriate.

[01:18:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for the confirmation. If there are no other questions or comments, then we will conclude this item. Thank you to everyone. Thank you.

[01:18:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: We appreciate it. Um, and then we will proceed to be.

[01:18:28] Unknown Speaker: Thank you.

[01:18:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um we will proceed to the 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 member 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? Council member Shel Walter.

[01:19:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I, um, I would like to pull the item on, um, uh, item 4.6 on the grand jury, not to, um, vote against it but just to comment. Should we do the comment now or later?

[01:19:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, please comment now and then that way, we can more easily wrap everything up in one most.

[01:19:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Sure. Um, uh, item 4.6 is uh, the Santa Clara, um, civil grand jury, uh, report response. There, they did a report um, that came out in December about affordable housing. And in this report, um, they compared mountain views, um, experience and and our neighboring cities, Palo Altos experience, and things that, um, both communities do well, and both communities need to work on. And we were really given a great deal of praise for our program. And I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank all the staff that have worked on housing at Mountain View for really for decades for, um, you know, for just setting up a, and and carrying out a very robust housing program. Um, I think it's, it says in this grand jury group. It talks in this grand jury report about how much effort has been involved. And I don't think we blow our own horn enough about that. So that's, that's why I wanted to, you know, to, to, to, to comment. I mean, I'm really proud that the civil grand jury um, was willing to, uh, praise our efforts. And they certainly did mention some things we could do better, which we all know is true. But still in all, it was very nice to get this praise. And I, I, I particularly just wanted to, um, to thank the staff for the many, many contributions they've made to this program over the years. Thank you.

[01:21:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Any member of the council like to pull any, other item, if not, we will turn to, uh, the public for, um, would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on any item on the consent calendar? If so, please click the raised hand, raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Um, Vivic Chopra. Did you want to speak on the consent calendar, this does not include the monoloma item. Um, I'll go ahead and allow you to speak.

[01:21:53] Vivek Chopra: Now, I have a comment, uh, not about the consent calendar, but about the Montalo myself. I was under the impression that we'd be able to, you know, give comments after the presentation without seeing the presentation, without seeing the comments from, from the school district. It is, uh, it wasn't, in my opinion, uh, you know, appropriate to take comments, but if you are willing to take comments about the Montaloma, um, you know, I would um, I would welcome the opportunity to do so.

[01:22:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Not on this item, since I'm calendar, but if you, if any member of the public has high level commentary,

[01:22:27] Vivek Chopra: I do have high level. Yes, yes, I do have I do have high level community.

[01:22:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Perfect.

[01:22:31] Vivek Chopra: So I'm going to talk about,

[01:22:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: yeah, yes, yes,

[01:22:34] Vivek Chopra: I'm not going to talk about...

[01:22:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm sorry, so that will be the next item. This is the consent calendar, we'll do non-agenda public comment in the next item. So we'll we'll we'll come back to you then. Um, And you'll, we'll see, I, I, I have a suspicion you're not going to speak on the consent calendar, this is for the consent calendar items only. Um, okay. I don't see any other members of the public. Um, so we will return to, uh, the council for deliberation. Uh, I will not bring the ad in back, uh, for council action and note that a motion to approve the consent calendar should also include reading the title of the ordinances attached to items 4.2 and 4.3 and the resolutions attached to items 4.4 and 4.5. Council member Abi Koga.

[01:23:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. I like to go ahead and make a motion to approve the consent calendar, which includes item 4.2, adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending the zoning map from the R 3 dash 2.5 multifamily residential zoning district to the P 38 El Camino Real precise plan for the property located at 1873 Latham Street, to be read in title only for the rating wave. 4.3, adopt 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. 4.4, adopt resolution of the city of Mount, city council, the city of Mount View, authorizing and continuing virtual meetings of city council, committees, boards, and commissions, pursuant to AB 361, and making required findings to be read entitled only for the reading waived, in item 4.5, adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, approving programs, supplement number 0000 X-04 to administrating agency state agreement for state funded projects. number 04 dash 5124 S1 to be read entitled only for the reading wave. Thank you.

[01:24:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Bye Snare Hicks.

[01:24:45] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I'd like to 2nd that motion.

[01:24:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor to approve the consent calendar. Any questions or comments? If not, I'll ask the city clerk to commence the roll call vote.

[01:25:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abbe Koca.

[01:25:03] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi.

[01:25:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Hi, Mayor Hicks.

[01:25:05] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:25:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Kamei?

[01:25:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:25:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber?

[01:25:10] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi,

[01:25:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Metachek.

[01:25:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[01:25:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member show Walter?

[01:25:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[01:25:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Amirez?

[01:25:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[01:25:19] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion care unanimously?

[01:25:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. So now we will 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 are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items. What any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item. If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Uh, the 1st speaker is Vivic Chopra.

[01:25:59] Vivek Chopra: Thank you for giving me the time to address, and I am, you know, unfortunately going to speak about the Montaloma issue, but more broadly, I'm going to talk about, um, you know, the, the, like the city guidelines, uh, on uh, on Park Space 2. So Carducci associates did a great job in like running the process, but they also did a great job in obuscating the feedback that they got from the community and I attended multiple sessions that they conducted. Uh, you know, they did a great job in like leading the discussion towards predetermined outcomes, which the school district, uh, you know, wanted. And I don't blame them. I mean, they are being paid half a $1000000 for for liquor in the process. I'm also not going to address the district. This is not the place for it. This is the 3rd iteration of the district of, you know, using some some reason or the other to restrict, you know, members of the community from using the park space. I'm not going to address that. What I am going to address is the is the city. As per the city guidelines and as per the Quimby act, um, you know, uh, every 1000 residents are entitled to 3 acres of park space. If you take away Monta Loma, effectively, the residents of Monta Loma are left with 0 acres of park space. Most of the growth. In fact, almost all of the growth that is scheduled to happen in the city of Mountain View is all scheduled to happen in this part of the town. They, uh, I have not seen anything that, uh, that, that the city has, uh, has done or thought about, what is it that it's going to do to improve equity for park space. We have a severe lack of park space in this part of the city of mountain view. And, you know, we support housing. We're all for housing. But it is not fair. It is not equitable that you put housing in the areas of mountain view, which are already, you know, lacking in park space, and then you, uh, and then, you know, you, uh, you basically restrict the access we have to the existing park space. I would like to remind both the, both the district, as well as the city, that you serve just one constituency, and it is the same constituency, which is the residence of mountain view. Our kids go to these schools, you know, and we use these park spaces. I would request you to stop having these individual, you know, fiefdoms and all these, all these backroom conversations, but talk to each other so that you can serve the same constituency. Thank you so much.

[01:28:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mr. Chopra. The next speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[01:28:45] Tim McKenzie: Greetings council, everyone. Uh, yeah, I am also going to speak on uh, Monteloma Park. Um, I, I just, I, I, one thing that came up sort of with the, the work class of, uh, how, how is this chosen? One thing in the community meeting on Saturday. Fences actually came up in the Word Cloud because people, it was a very important issue, but there was no way to indicate whether it was positive or negative, but I think that there was a general consensus people were against fences. I think the, the, presentation did a good job of not including fences in the word cloud, but, That's just the, the idea of hedges, or the little green fences also was kind of trying to deal with what was, the previous person just mentioned of, feeling being led towards a predetermined outcome at the major sentiment was, do we need fences? I think the idea of a pause with the whole process is we reassess how to deal with things while we're we're looking towards growth is a good one. And I don't think anyone's against safety for kids, but I don't know that fences equal safety. And that's just, uh, maintaining community access to the park is a huge and major issue. Thanks.

[01:30:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Robin Lynn.

[01:30:16] Robin Lynn: Hey there. Thanks for your time. Um, yeah, I guess, you know, I remember, I think it was last year. Um, we were going through, I think Mountain View was trying to come up with like, I don't know what it was called, taglines or something, like the city, what makes the city special? And I thought it was a really interesting exercise and it made me think really deeply about why Mountain View is cool, um, versus, you know, some of our neighbors. And I think really Mountain View is trying to kind of thread the needle of being a great place to live, having great jobs here. Um, you know, you, hopefully you can buy a house or, you know, start a family here. Um, and also maybe take the family somewhere, um, interesting like a park. And I guess now that I am seeing how things have turned out. I'm actually not quite sure Mountain View is this place, right? Um, on, on the 7 of your watch, we have lost 60% over 60% of our neighborhood park space, like, that is gone. You know, once the school put up the fences on all the other parks, except Monteloma. Those were lost. Those communities, they have lost that park space. I mean, Montelomo, I don't know why we're special. We shouldn't be. Um, but somehow, there's no fence up, right? And so I guess what I want to remind all of you is that while we talk about Monteloma a lot, maybe too much. A lot of, you know, whole neighborhoods have completely lost access to their parks. Um, unless you count, you know, before 7, whatever, 30 AM, and after 330 PM access as a park. Um, I don't. And I don't think that that is fair to the residents of Mountain View that that has happened. And honestly, I know maybe there's been a lot of work behind the scenes, but it almost seems like we lost that space without so much as a whimper. And to me, that's really disappointing. Um, I know there's a lot going on that may, I may or may not understand, may or may not be privy to, but I only, I look at the results, and the result is, where is our park space? Um, And that's that to me makes me really sad and makes me think, hey, Mountain View isn't really the place that we say it is. Um, I think in the spirit of trying to be constructive and give, you know, constructive, uh, suggestions on what council can do at some point. We've been promised that the parks and open space plan would be revisited. Um, it's been, I think, almost 8 years since it last was done. Um, I would encourage all of you to keep asking staff to start it. Let's see. Thank you.

[01:33:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Christine Keller.

[01:33:29] Christine Keller: Good evening, counsel. Uh, this is Christine, um, resident at 555 West Middlefield Road. Um, well, 1st of all, I want to thank you all so much for, um, listening to the issues we've been having with Avalon at 555 um, and I want to say thank you to the city for hearing the issues that we've been facing here and, um, Stepping in to shut the asbestos hallway renovations down here at 555 West Middlefield. Um, that was a really great help. Um, and thank you for working with Avalon to start following the legal guidelines. Um, more specifically, I want to thank you, the city, for putting a stop to Avalon doing a special hallway work without telling affected residents asbestos was involved. Also grateful that the city stopped Avalon from continuing to lock residents in units with no safe fire exit during the asbestos work. And thank you too, for investigating and finding that they were doing work without permits for electrical and other work. Um, specifically and building in where the asbestos hallway work was stopped in February for these investigations to go on. Um, I also want to thank you for helping them, um, to try to work on their communications with residents. Which has resulted in a letter to some of us that, um, um, but the downside with that is unfortunately, they're still giving residents misinformation. So, um, well, so much has been done that I want to thank you all for. I'm here to just also share that we do need some additional help from the city to help hold Avalon accountable and to improve. Um, so a few things to point out specifically in the letter that we recently received from Avalon on our doors. Um, Namely, they continue to state that pets can stay during the asbestos work, which should really not be the case. Um, we've, I know of multiple pets here that have developed cancer during this, of the different asbestos work and I really think that residents should be informed differently. Um, Also, the letter states that the low VOC paints they'll be using in the halls don't emit hazardous fumes, it specifically says they don't, um, which, from my understanding, isn't true. Um, as what I read online is it can continue to cause um, health issues, which is why residents should be, um, supported in being out of the apartment doing the, during the 4 weeks of renovations if they feel it best for their health. Um, I've heard from another resident how the paint fumes was coming in, burning their eyes during the renovation. I just feel like people should have the ability to choose whether they want to go through that or not. Um, The letter indicates Avalon is playing to only give a month notice for each building now, which is much better than the 5 days they were giving before. Um, but they, um, they know the renovation dates much further out, and I really feel like people should have the choice to the time to move if they need to for a whole month's worth of renovation. Um, there's more to it, but I'll send it in an email. I just thank you all so much for what's been done so far. Take care.

[01:36:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much for your comments. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[01:36:42] Alex Brown: Hey friends. So about Montaloma. Now, um, this is more of a meta commentary. as a regular watcher, I've seen this happen many times where there are presentations or bulk items like the consent calendar where individuals are given the opportunity to speak before they have all the information to speak about, either because the presentations are not presented online or there's more information in the staff presentation than there is on the documents in Legisar. I just request that council look into how they order public comment to give people the most power to comment on what they're actually hearing instead of the idea of how the commentary before they actually have something to concrete to comment on. Uh, additionally, uh, if there's any way that council could direct staff to figure out how to put the topic on screen. So that people know what the item that they could be speaking on is so they know when they raise their hand, oh, that's what I'm for. Thanks.

[01:37:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Being no members of the public wishing to speak, we will. Cede to item 6. Housing element update, draft size inventory, and draft goals, and policies, Spanish and Chinese translation services are available for this item. We will now hear from our interpreters.

[01:38:11] Spanish Interpreter: Buenas noches, vamos a sequid, con el articulo, se spunto, uno, lactualización del housing element, porador, inventario, desicios, siborador de metasi, politicas. Sio, cupa interpretation el Español, por favor selecion el globulo, al inferior de supantaya, que disinterpretación, yes coja, suidioma, abracino, y español, disponible, gracias.

[01:39:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The purpose of the study session is for staff to brief the city council on the draft, housing sites, inventory, draft goals, and policies, councils, strategic roadmap action plan, uh, project of identifying and developing a response to R one and R 2 parcels that exceed, allow densities, and for the council to provide feedback and policy direction on these topics. After the staff presentation, the council will discuss and provide, uh, and provide input on initial housing element program and policy direction by responding to the following questions. Um, I think we will probably get an overview of these from the staff presentation, so I won't read them literally now. Uh, and we'll 1st uh, hear a presentation, proceed to public uh, proceed to public comment, and then return to council for questions and deliberation. Uh, senior planner. Ellen Yao will present the item. Thank you.

[01:40:02] Senior Planner Ellen Yao: Thank you. Let me share my screen. How does that look?

[01:40:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Very good.

[01:40:17] Senior Planner Ellen Yao: Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mayor Ramirez and council members. My name is Ellen Yao, the project planner for the housing element update, and I'm joined by Eric Anderson, Advanced Planning Manager, and our consultants, Matt Cota, from BAE, and Bev Choi from ESA. This is our 2nd housing element update study session in a series of three. So at our last study session, we provided background information on the housing element project and asked for council direction, on the site's inventory approach, and on potential policy topics. Tonight we will provide a progress update. On those 2 components of the housing element. And then we'll also provide information about the state's pro housing designation program, and then also the review of overdensity sites, um, specifically regarding R one and R 2 densities. So the 2 key components of the housing element will be covering tonight. Are the site's inventory and the goals and policy section. So 1st, we'll talk about the site's inventory, which you know is an inventory that identifies sites that can reasonably accommodate the regional housing needs allocation, also known as Rena. Which is the number of units that the city must plan for over the 8 years of the housing element cycle. And for anyone interested, I assume everyone here is. The draft sites inventory is available to view on our map on the project website at MVHousingElement.org. The draft sites inventory, um, is categorized into those 3 main categories highlighted on this slide. Pipeline projects, opportunity sites, and rezoning projects. The pipeline projects and the rezoning projects include approved or under review projects that are allowed under, um, our current residential, um, our current uh, zoning. Or have been directed by the city council through the gatekeeper process or um, strategic roadmap process, such as the affordable projects on Montecito and on East Evelyn. So these 2 categories are imminent or pending projects that will reduce the number of sites that need to be identified to meet Rena. The rest of the sites will fall into the opportunity sites category, other developable sites. As a background, I want to highlight that HCD provides kind of general guidelines on what type of projects can be included in the site's inventory, and they require additional information depending on the type of site that's selected, um, with specific threshold for sites identified to accommodate low income arena. Uh, such as proximity transit and available infrastructure, access to amenities and services like schools and parks. And, uh, sites that aren't too large or too small, which is generally between um, .5 to 10 acres and site size. Um, cities with limited vacant land, like mountain view, will likely rely on the non-vacant land, and then we must substantiate the inclusion of those non-vacant sites in the site's inventory. And to support that inclusion. Um, some factors that we consider our existing uses, development trends, market conditions and availability of regulatory or other incentives um, for development. The city of Mountain View, unlike other cities, we have taken a proactive approach of collaborating and engaging with the community to create new opportunities for residential development through the adoption of precise plans. A few notable ones um, within just the last 2 years. Throughout our precise plans process, you know, we've had the benefit of addressing the needs of the community, such as community benefits, needed infrastructure, and housing. And that's given us the ability to include those sites into our housing element without rezoning. And this is what makes our housing element process a little bit different. Um, other cities do have to actively find sites during this period to include into the housing element, sites inventory. So, our current site's inventory that we're presenting, you know, is a direct reflection of those precise plan rezonings, and the subsequent housing capacity, which includes North Bay Shore, East Wisman, El Camino, San Antonio. And that also aligns with council's direction from last year, um, last year's study session to identify sites and areas where we've had, uh, robust community engagement rather than on pending rezoning projects. Um, also aligned with council direction on anti-displacement priorities. Um, the site, excluded sites that have displacement potential, for example, sites with more than 3 units, um, or CSFAR, CSFRA sites, um, as well as, you know, we excluded other non-developed sites like historic sites, parks, schools, hospitals. With all of that. Um, you know, again, with the sport of EPC and council, the project team moved forward with the methodology presented at the last study sessions. Um, and they reflect that proactive planning that we've done in the 5th cycle. And the draft site's inventory reflects the existing zoning that will accommodate Arena. And overall, the draft site inventory yields capacity that will meet our rena units, as well as provide at least 25% buffer for the harder to reach low and moderate income level rena numbers. Which is shown in the chart. Um, as is the case for many Bay Area cities and Mountain View, the above moderate units, um, are more easily accommodated for. So dressed in the pipeline alone. Uh, we are exceeding the 4880 above moderate units required. Um, not reflected in this chart and not reflected in the draft sites inventory. Um, there are several other sites with developer interests that could yield about another 1300 units into the pipeline projects, um, if they submit an application. Um, so the inventory will continue to change until the option hearings planned at the end of the year. Um, and, you know, just overall, with identification of real projects and the potential sites that I highlighted, um, in previous slides. The city is able to meet the arena and arena buffer recommendations. So our 1st question to counsel is does the city council support the proposed draft sites inventory methodology? Um, and then the next portion of, um, the site's inventory is, um, you know, we want to talk about the back pocket rezonings. Just simply because the drop site's inventory will continue to be updated during the housing element update process. It will also need to be monitored throughout the 8 year timeline as the housing element is active from 2023 to 2031. So therefore, staff wanted to come to city council in advance, um, on the specific back pocket rezonings. So these sites are not identified in our sites inventory and that previous chart that I showed you. Um, but however, if the site's, uh, inventory isn't sufficient based off of, um, HCD review, or if it's due to no net loss, uh, which means that if a site is developed with a non-residential use, or build out a lower assumed unit account, um, that we have these sites identified, um, in advance. Uh, these sites here are, uh, sites that have had previous council support, and uh, and or, um, allowed in the general plan. So the major categories that we have listed here are the transit center master plan, the village center overlay, um, within the El Camino real precise plan, Moffat Boulevard, and the general plan village, village centers. So our 2nd question is, does the city council support The inclusion of any of the proposed back pocket rezoning areas. In case the site's inventory is reduced. And then I'm going to now shift to the 2nd component of the housing element. Uh, this is a highlight of draft goals. Um, and what I specify that the following goals listed here, and then the policies that are listed in the staff report are based off of the current housing element. Uh, other city priorities, and it overall just incorporates input from community outreach, and then the EPC and uh, city council direction from the initial list of the 16 policy topics we presented last year at the last study session. Um, to get this, to this specific short list of goals, uh, you know, staff consolidate all that information, and we revised it to reduce redundancy, and then to overall to improve uh, usability for our annual reporting. The 4 major goals that's, uh, shown on this slide are identified to serve, um, to serve the community and to address the housing supply issues, uh, to provide housing services, to promote equal housing opportunities for everyone, and to address any com- governmental constraints. Uh, in the staff report. Like I said, we have specific policies highlighted under each of these goals to support these goals. So our 3rd question to council is, does the city council support the initial draft, list of housing element goals and policies and to indicate if there are other policy topics that should be included? So that ends a portion of the housing element components and we'll shift topics to discuss uh, the 2 other housing related issues, but not part of the housing element. So the 1st one is uh, the pro housing designation program. So in response to the housing crisis, the legislator required HCD to create incentives, for jurisdictions that are compliant with housing element requirements, and have enacted local pro housing policies to accelerate housing production, and to further the state's housing goals. Uh, the program highlighted here, the pro housing designation program is open to all jurisdictions, and applications are accepted on a rolling basis. Cities who achieve this designation are awarded with points and preferences. So, uh, that would help with future state funding applications. Um, based on the existing policies, Mountain View is likely to qualify for the designation. And then the 2nd item is addressing housing densities of parcels that currently have more residential units than allowed by the zoning ordinance or general plan. On the top of the slide, that's the language that we have from the council strategic roadmap. So this item is a reflection of that. And, um, below, we recommend focusing on R one and our 2 properties, and we believe that the R 3 parcels are probably better addressed as part of the ongoing R 3 zoning update. Um, so for this item, um, generally sites are considered non-conforming, um, in reflection to the current zoning regulations. Our code has regulations around nonconforming structures, which generally allow for maintenance, but limit significant improvements that would extend the life of the nonconforming structure. So if counsel is interested in maintaining the existing number of units. Um, staff's recommendation is that we do targeted updates, the nonconforming section of the code. And these updates could include expanding the rights of property owners to improve or add onto those non-conforming buildings, rather than to have them phased out, um, as non-conforming structures. So the 4th question to city council is, does the city council support staff's recommendation to study targeted updates to the non-conforming section of the zoning code, to expand the ability to maintain and preserve the number of residential units on lots that do not conform. To the allowed densities. And here, to summarize, the staff has these 4 questions for counsel. Um, and then just next steps, uh, after we get counsel input on tonight's study session, uh, the following will be the next steps. Uh, we have EPC and council study session, tenderly scheduled for May and June later this year. This is to review the draft housing element, which would include the final sites inventory, the final policies and programs and all other aspects of the, um, document. Um, After council review of this, it will be sent to HCD for their review for a 90 day review. Um, we also want to, Let the council know that the secret process is ongoing and uh, the public draft of the EIR is expected to be out for review um, in in the summer. And then uh, you know, after the 90 day review from HCD, we will get comments from them. We'll make revisions and we plan to bring it back to council for final adoption at the end of the year. And then after adoption, we'll submit it to HTD again. They will do a 60 day review. In that time, we'll get revisions from HCD. And, um, you know, we have time until May 2023 to, um, incorporate some of those revisions, uh, for the official final housing element. Um, and I just want to specify and highlight that, um, the final adoption is in December and the deadline to submit that adoption is January 31st of 2023. Um, so this ends a staff presentation, uh, the staff, uh, consultants, um, are available for any council questions. Thank you.

[01:54:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. But we will now turn to the public. Uh what any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item. If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Um, given the significant number of uh, speakers, we will allocate one minute and 30 seconds. 1st speaker is David Watson.

[01:54:40] David Watson: Hi, uh, I uh, I'm David Watson. I uh, I live here in Mountain View. I've, I've talked to most of you recently, and um, I, uh, I just wanted to remind you of the previous conversation we've already, uh, had where, uh, we sort of, um, wanted to point out that it looks like, uh, the, there's a good possibility that the HCD is uh, going to be ready to uh, not approve uh, non-compliant housing elements. Um, and I wanted to remind you that, uh, not having our housing element, uh, Be compliant means that we will no longer have control over density in new development, much like a couple of other cities. I think Davis and uh, uh, I believe uh, Beverly Hills. It'll be possible to build a skyscraper. anywhere, anywhere in town. Um, with, uh, with only, uh, I think ministerial approval. So, uh, yeah, um, it's important if we want to maintain local control to uh, take seriously uh, the question of whether, um, the parcels we're pointing to will actually be developed. Thank you. Have a good evening.

[01:55:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is James Kuzmal.

[01:56:01] James Kuzmal: Good evening. James Guzmo and I just wanted to briefly comment on the inference favorite topic, which is parking, as I'm sure, is the case. Um, and just say that I would, as one of HD's pro housing criteria for getting the pro housing designation that we are trying to achieve is to reduce parking minimums, um, this would help with improving housing affordability, um, a single parking spot can correspond to in the vicinity of $300 a month in rent. Um, 2 parking spots, which is the requirement for most units in the city, uh, is $600 a month in rent, which is basically the difference between 2 affordability levels, um, for the very low income and low income thresholds. And reducing parking or acquiring unbundled parking, um, or requiring parking maximums are very well established as reducing car ownership, saving money for renters, and in the process achieving many of our very city goals for reducing traffic, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing the lives lost on our streets due to traffic violence, um, and I hope that we can, Improve the character of our neighborhoods by having less parking and all the new housing we're going to build over the next decade. Thank you.

[01:57:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Ilya Gorin.

[01:57:32] Ilya Gorin: Good evening, uh, council. My name is Ilya Goring. I'm a 12 year Mountain View resident and a member of Mountain View Yembi. The housing element is a legal obligation, but it's also a matter of fairness. Mountain View has 2.5 jobs per home, one of the worst imbalances in Santa Clara County. Consequently, we've been asked, we've been tasked to plan for 11,135 units. Many of our residents have hinged their hopes on the ongoing development plans for North Bay Shore and East Whisman. However, These plans will take decades to carry out, so we can't rely on them completely. Staff have identified many additional opportunity sites. But we have concerns about these sites. First of all, They're overwhelmingly shopping centers in El Camino and San Antonio areas. And if they were all to be redeveloped at once during the 6th arena cycle, we would lose a large amount of a retail and commercial space, during construction. Furthermore, it is not clear that many of these sites can actually be redeveloped, uh, due to possibly unwilling owners or complicated leasing and ownership structures, et cetera, et cetera. I urge the city to create additional opportunity for development in existing residential areas, particularly by adopting an expansive ADU ordinance. And and proceeding with the R3 rezoning that is already in progress.

[01:59:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Robert Tox.

[01:59:14] Robert Tox: Can you hear me?

[01:59:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[01:59:18] Robert Tox: Okay. Honorable Mayor Ramirez, Vice Mayor Hicks and council members. I'm speaking on behalf of the steering committee of livable Mountain View. We've already sent you a letter, so I'll just remind you of the main points. We support the staff recommendation on the arena sites. We do not recommend additional rezoning at this time. Rezoning should be done in the context of establishing new precise plans because rezoning through precise plans allows for the best and most comprehensive public outreach. Including village centers in the arena sites is appropriate, but this should not lead to a loss of much needed functional retail in restaurants. They support our sense of community and reduce vehicle milestraddle, supporting our city's sustainability goals. If the city decides to pursue a pro housing designation, we recommend it be based on current housing policies rather than adopting the highly aggressive policies listed in the application. We do not support further reducing parking requirement or developer fees. And fourth, we support programs to extend the life of our naturally affordable housing, which is the home of many of our most vulnerable residents, who have often lived under the threat of displacement. Thank you for your hard work on the staff report, your consideration of it and listening to what we have to say.

[02:00:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. The next speaker is Felicia Webster.

[02:00:48] Kalisha Webster: Good evening, council members. My name is Kalisha Webster, and I am the housing advocate for people with development and other disabilities at housing choices. As part of the housing element update process, Mountain View is required to assess some plan for the housing needs of certain special needs populations, including people with developmental disabilities. We appreciate all the work from staff that went into developing trap policies and programs that are before you tonight. We also recognize that the city has shown a willingness to help house extremely vulnerable members of the Mountain View community, such as at Luna Vista and San Antonio Place, where a number of units are set aside for people with developmental disabilities, who require coordinated, supportive services from the regional center in order to maintain their housing. We ask that the city commit to continuing to find ways to meet the housing needs of this high risk population in the housing element. Right now, in Mountain View, less than a 3rd of adults with developmental disabilities have been able to transition into independent living, not by choice, but because of the lack of deeply affordable and accessible housing available to them. Between the beginning of the current arena cycle, which began in 2015, and the last annual progress report in 2020, Mountain View had met only 30% of their very low income arena. Meeting in the arena for this income category creates housing opportunity is not only for people with development and other disabilities, but other special needs groups with fixed or limited incomes, such as seniors and the unhoused. Some of the general policies you can implement are awarding competitive advantage for city land and financing the project proposals, which include people developmental disabilities, reduce parking for transit oriented projects, which include people developmental disabilities, as they are often transit dependent, and local concessions or incentives beyond what allowed under the state density bonus law if they include extremely low income units. Thank you.

[02:02:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[02:02:31] Tim McKenzie: Greetings all, Tim McKenzie, he him pronouns, Montaloma neighborhood. Yay, housing. It's great. Love, love the idea. I'll just point out one piece of data that was that kind of stood out to me. For the pipeline projects. There is disproportionately towards above moderate income and for the planned projects. Uh, there is disproportionately towards uh, the low and very low income categories. And as we heard in the presentation, It's harder to get funding for that. Um, so just being thoughtful of, uh, what housing we do have and how we have done housing in in, uh, in the past. And thinking about, I advocate for expanding, doing as much as we can with housing, because all of these sites that have been identified. There's not a guarantee that they will be able to go, and even if we can build them, there's not a guarantee that we'll be able to see the low and very low income housing app. So just eat that, uh, like to keep that perspective in mind. Thank you.

[02:03:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Marley Smith.

[02:03:44] Marilyn Smith: Hi do you hear me?

[02:03:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[02:03:48] Marilyn Smith: Okay. Hello, mayor Ramirez and cast members. My name is Marilyn Smith, and on behalf of Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents over 350 at Tech and Innovation Economy employers in the Bay Area. I want to fake city staff for the report on the housing element update and share some comments. With the current draft inventory, there's an undercounting of the potential sites for housing and mixed use conversions, as well as an overconcentration of development, focused on areas that have long exists, have existing long term use, despite opportunities for densification across the city, which appears to be maintained as the lowest levels of density to plan. And this proposed plan is a lot of room for improvement. In order to create walkable, sustainable, and transit friendly communities that build for the future, there needs to be ambitious planning that allows for development throughout the city. Mountain View is an extremely desirable location for employers. We need to ensure that employees can live as close as possible. And eliminate long commutes and reduce greenhouse gas missions. Thank you for the consideration of our comets.

[02:04:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Miriam Conner.

[02:04:55] Miriam Connor: Hi everyone. Thanks for taking public comment today. My name's Miriam Connor. I live in the Rex Manor neighborhood. I am excited about the statewide initiatives to combat the housing crisis in California, but there are a few places where I think Mountain View's plan falls a little bit short. So, 1st of all, today I was checking out the interactive map on MBHousingElement.org, and you can see that of the plan sites, there's only one little green box in any of the neighborhood south of El Camino. So then if I, you know, go over to Zillow and look at the housing prices, I can also see that those are the neighborhoods that are the home to the richest residents. And this doesn't really seem like an equitable or fair distribution to me, and I know that's something that the state looks for when they're approving these plans. Um, secondly, I think we should use this opportunity to expand our safe parking programs. And finally, I, this doesn't feel like a real change from the status quo. We're not adding a whole lot of housing that we hadn't already necessarily planned to build. And I think that the status quo isn't working. We really do need a lot more housing. So we should use this as an opportunity to rethink the approach and add a lot more sights to the inventory. Thank you.

[02:06:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is James Nichols. James, are you? able to mute yourself.

[02:06:31] James Nichols: I'm sorry, I'm not a techie by automatic measure. I'm curious, if the thought has occurred within our housing groups, for the consideration of what has occurred in the pandemic, inasmuch as, uh, the various companies that are within the city limits, have had a lot of their staff working from home. and very successfully. For that reason, they continue to do that. And it's very difficult to drive south of El Camino, or pardon me, south of 101, or north of 101, I guess, towards Shoreline, and other localities within the city, without seeing that, uh, a lot of buildings are empty and parking lots are empty. And it's a curiosity to me is whether or not the city could work with those companies. who are not apparently using those buildings or may not in the future, or may be planning to not use those buildings, to cooperate with them in some way, between the city and the company, to convert some of those buildings to housing. The infrastructure is always already there. The sewage, the electricity, the streets, the parking and everything, and it's curiosity that that would be a beneficial thing for the city to work together with those companies and cooperate with some tax benefits, perhaps, that would make that happen for the benefit of the community. Thank you very much. Appreciate.

[02:08:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is caller, uh, area code 650 ending uh, in 794. Color ending in 794. You will press.

[02:08:34] Tony: Hi there, sorry, having some technical difficulties. Hi, this is uh Tony. I'm a resident of Questa Park, and uh, I want to thank the staff for their work on the Reno site inventory, and voice my support for the selected sites, and because Mountain View already has the highest Rena allocation per capita of any city in Santa Clara. I do not support rezoning or identifying sites in addition to what is in the staff report. And applying for the pro housing designation is a great idea so I would support that as well because it recognizes Mountain View's enormous efforts in this area. And the application should be based on existing policies though, and not be the driver for new policies. For example, one of the policy proposals and the staff member was to uh reduce the minimum parking requirements and the developer impact fees. And seeing that the minimum parking requirements were already reduced by state mandate last year. And construction appears as popular as ever with construction happening on seemingly every block at this point. The timing of these proposals seems somewhat puzzling to me. Um, and finally, I just want to comment on the online feedback form for the housing element. The provided answer options in the survey are heavily leaning toward unrestrained development. And if you have differing views, those will be scattered among the other category, and the pre-selected answer options are just swamping everything else, essentially. So a survey designed like this is very unlikely to result in an accurate representation of the concerns that residents really have. And it should not be used to make policy decisions. Thank you.

[02:10:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Philip Cosby.

[02:10:20] Philip Cosby: All right, thank you. Philip Cosby, Cafecito, St. Athanasius. We usually think of the housing element as being a means of achieving rena goals. However, there's also a requirement for it to affirmatively further fair housing. Achieving this requires that the city plan and implement policies, that give low income families the opportunity to live in our influence city, and to adopt policies, that prevent displacement of vulnerable populations. HCD is set forth guidelines and give an example policies to further. Those affirmative further. Fair housing goals. There are several policies that the city of Mountain Butte can adopt. Or build upon to further the community's housing justice goals. In order to achieve more access to legal assistance and information on our rights as runners. We recommend adopting the policy of multilingual tenant legal counseling, and to expand upon the present eviction prevention program, to make it permanent, and to expand it to more days per week. Also to include more resources from a multicultural engagement program. Another is to build more housing without displacement. So fair right of return to existing residents, and targeting replacement requirements and targeted growth areas. There are a number of other policies that are included in a letter to the council members. Thank you.

[02:11:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Kelsey Baines.

[02:12:03] Kelsey Baines: Hi, good evening, counsel. My name is Kelsey Baines. I am a resident of Rex Manor. Um, and part of the campaign for Fair Housing Elements, um, which is uh, working to enforce this whole slate of new housing element laws that went into effect, um, and they strengthen housing element requirements, including, um, adding a new requirement to affirmatively furthering fair housing, which means actively undoing patterns of segregation, um, in our community and in our region. Um, so I am frankly sort of alarmed at where this housing element is um, right now, um, because it appears to be mostly planning for business as usual. There's some, um, maybe will, we'll get to, um, looking at some of the things that we've already said we're probably gonna do, but have been on the back burner, um, and keeping those in the back pocket. Um, but we really need more significant change given the, the new requirements and how this is not going to be like the housing elements that we've had in the past. Um, so something that the city really needs to look at is whether something is going to be realistic and likely to develop. Um, and given that many of these sites aren't, we need to identify more sites, and commit to zoning changes and expand where those sites are. Thank you.

[02:13:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Salim DiMerji.

[02:13:45] Salim DiMerji: Hi, uh, I'm Sleim. I grew up in the area. Um, and now live and work in Mountain View. I come to these meetings because most of my friends have had to leave the area. They've been priced out because of the housing crisis. Um, A lot of the people who came to these housing element meetings also described in vivid detail, the toll the housing crisis has taken on them. You've received over 3000 comments on this process. This has been as robust of a community engagement as it gets. And what people said was pretty clear. This housing crisis is not something we can live with, and continuing the status quo is not working. What were those comments for? 3000 comments. What were they for if the city is just going to say, oh, I guess what people are telling us is we should just keep doing what we're doing, that we're on the right track. It's hard to reply to the site inventory methodology because there is just no case for it. There's no analysis that shows this is sufficient to meet our housing needs. We never contacted any of the business owners. We didn't analyze the existing uses. We didn't look at development trends. Our targets have increased by almost 4 X, and we've excluded R1, R2, and R3, and we claim we can get to our housing targets because miraculously, the development rate on El Camino will go up by 360 percent, even if you include a 40% buffer. So, why, why, why are a 100 plus businesses gonna shudder by 2031? There's no analysis for that either. I know it's not easy to put together a great housing element. It's not even less easy to say goodbye to friends. Please put together a great housing element that actually meets our needs. Thank you.

[02:15:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Kevin Ma.

[02:15:29] Kevin Ma: Evening, counsel, my name is Kevin Ma. I've been in Mountain view for 7 months now in the San Antonio neighborhood. Um, inherently we want a plan that works. We spent city fun, city, and power on the plan, so we should probably get where we should get. And generally if we do not plan correctly. Those people that do come in the city in the next 8 years. are gonna come here in a way that we did not plan for, so we cannot make, you know, circulation elements, we cannot plan transit around that. We cannot plan improvements in the city around that. If we, basically, uh, ignoring what's happening in the field. Um, there will be more office development. There will be more amenities in the city and that brings people in to think about moving into Mountain View as a place to live. If to work because, you know, there are people who are willing to drive here from the Central Valley for the pay. And fundamentally, we do need a place for them to stay. We need a place so that everyone in the city has a chance to share in all of the benefits. Now we talk about development pressure. Development pressure is usually placed on places that cannot defend themselves because everyone else has HOAs that really advocate for them. And fundamentally, we need to make a process that gets the entire buying in the city rather than every neighborhood for themselves. Um, I do hear people talk about the reno number being high. That's because we as a city did not do so well in the past decades, and we need to catch up. Thank you.

[02:16:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is hella.

[02:17:06] Hala Altshawani: Uh, yes, good evening. Uh, this is Hala Altshawani. Good evening, mayor, council members and city staff. Thank you, staff. for working hard to identify the housing allocations. Uh, to meet uh, the rena requirements in Mountain View. Um, I think uh, finding uh, that we have 14,000 uh, future units uh, that will meet and exceed rena, requirements uh, is fantastic. And um, I think it's not really, uh, business, uh, as usual. I strongly, um, object to that, and I think it's, it's a fantastic uh, work that the city has done, and identifying uh, new places that we can have affordable housing. And um, and meet our requirements. I would like to push for getting affordable housing to happen in that cycle. Perhaps the council can consider the mandate or consider the requirement of the developers, to designate 15% affordable. Perhaps that can be a mandate. Um, or find other ways to subsidize that so we can be sure that we will be meeting our affordable housing requirements. Thank you, staff, and great work.

[02:18:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thanks. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Daniel Halsey.

[02:18:42] Daniel Holst: Hello, can you hear me?

[02:18:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[02:18:46] Daniel Holst: All right. Uh, so I'm Daniel Holst. I am a resident in the San Antonio area. Uh, I actually did have a uh, thing on the consent calendar uh, for Fayette Park, but I'll skip that. And go into my comment. So, uh, my take here is the general approach that staff took of minimizing rezoning is against the intent of the housing element process. And we need to have all options on the table. Uh, specifically because they are complementary to each other. The Rita cycle is actually very short, and it takes a very long time for big projects to actually get developed. Uh, the advantage of uh, rezoning projects is that they're all very small scale developments, or they can be small scale developments, and they don't have all this process, uh, that's going to be such a choke point on actually getting them done. Uh, and so this is a supplementary path to producing house in the city. Uh, the state has given it to us in terms of uh, passing down things like SB 10. Uh, very little work from the city, has to be done, uh, in order to increase the capacity in this way. Um, so I think this should be an approach that uh, council should direct staff to look at as as a, uh, rezoning. Uh, you know, our city is not a NIMBI city. It's a majority renter city. So why are we doing this minimizing rezoning? So that's my comment. Thank you.

[02:20:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Daniel, and I apologize for not giving you an opportunity to speak during the consent calendar. Um the next speaker is Christine Keller.

[02:20:30] Kristine Keller: Good evening again, counsel, this is Christine at 555 West Middlefield. Um, I want to thank you for your work on this and uh, I do want to echo, um, uh, the, uh, thought of, um, continuing to focus on increasing affordable housing. Um, I also would like to, um, just, uh, state again my support for reducing parking requirements, um, especially to help preserve our mature heritage trees. I know that's something that we're pushing for at 555 West Middlefield. And I hope that can become something that happens across all housing development. Um, I also um, have a concern that's grown in this situation that looking at the corporations, such as Avalon, that, um, are proposing these developments. Um, and looking at what they've already done in terms of the conditions that they've put residents in and the whole laundry list of things that have just gone on at our property that the city is helping straighten out. Because I think being put in the position of being a renter. Um, that, you know, facing a landlord that doesn't provide information about help risks or even tell you they're doing asbestos work, things like that is really concerning. And, um, I just would like the city to look at these, um, corporations closer and, um, you know, yes, do the housing, but make sure we're getting corporations in charge of that, that are reliable. Thank you so much for your work on this.

[02:22:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is rise this thing.

[02:22:08] Raiza Singh: Good evening, Mayor Ramirez and council members. My name is Risa Singh, and I'm a 7 year employee of NASA Aims. Over the past 7 years. I've seen some of the smartest inventors I've ever worked with leave the area. A lot of them were working mothers, which to me was surprising because I think you cannot ask for a better work-life balance than with a job at NASA. But still they left. Please be bold and brave with this housing element. Thank you.

[02:22:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[02:22:48] Alex Brown: All right, so the puriforma's muscle goes from the sacrum up around to the top of the thigh and helps you to rotate your thighs outward, right? But see, it's also right on top of the static nerve. And when you are on a bulky wallet and you're sitting there and it's pressing down, it can you can get something called puriforma syndrome, which is like sciatica. It's an inflammation of the static nerve caused by continuous pressure. What I'm saying is don't keep things in your back pocket. Just take them out, empty it. Use them. I think that we have a dearth of housing, and, you know, as much development as there is going on, we are still lacking in housing. And we should be embracing that, doing everything we can, not holding off, and so, like, slow rolling it and just doing, you know, what we think is acceptable, and then accounting for maybe, maybe it's not enough. Maybe someone will notice it's not enough, and call us on it. We know what we can do, and I think we should do as much as we can. I would also like to thank staff for focusing on preserving affordable housing. I know a lot of people who have been kept in their homes, thanks to the CSFRA, and a lot of city programs, rent relief, and things like that are important, and that's something to account for when dealing with housing development is not just building new homes, but also making sure that people who are already here are able to stay here. Thanks.

[02:24:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Now, we will return to the council. Thank you to the members of the public who spoke. Uh, so here's what I'm proposing for a process. Well, 1st uh go through, any questions members of the council have, and then we will take each question in turn. Um, well, uh, I will collect all of the comments I hear or the suggestions and ideas. And then, um, at the conclusion of that input, we'll do a straw poll on each recommendation, and those that have majority support, um, will will be, uh, provided as direction to staff. Um but 1st um we'll start with any questions members of the council have. Vice Merricks.

[02:25:01] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So thank you, despite my great staff briefing and the questions I already asked in written form. I do have a couple extra questions. Um, My 1st question is that we have, um, some 100% affordable housing sites, um, coming up in both North Bayshore and East Wisman. Is there any way to, um, to speed up their development to do them ahead of, you know, since they're going to be dedicated to the city, to do them, um, you know, ahead of some of the other development, any way to facilitate that.

[02:25:41] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, vice versa, I'll take that question. Um, We are working with Google. on each of their master plans to look at expediting the delivery of the BMR sites. Um, especially those in the Middlefield Park area. Uh, with the other master plan, it will depend on how they, um, uh, they've got a, a very long term 8 phase plan. And so we will be working on trying to get um, sites there in the 1st phase. So yes, the answer is yes. Um, you know, it's more imminent with a Melfield Park because that's a simpler phasing plan. Um, and we'll continue to work with Google to try to get the, uh, as many sites as possible within the 1st base, um, in North Bay Shore as well.

[02:26:29] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Um, And then my 2nd question is, I feel like I should know this, but what kinds of units count? Uh, for Rina. I'm wondering about some, as Rena, units, I'm wondering about some that might be slightly alternative types, um, such as uh, safe parking units, uh, camping, uh, dormitories, uh, efficiency units with abbreviated kitchens. Um, do those do some of those count? All of those count? Um, that's my question.

[02:27:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, uh, vice mayor, I'll see if um, Eric um, can't answer any of these, um, but it's my understanding that you, you've listed a whole bunch. We may not have all the answers tonight. We could certainly send them on to you. It's my understanding that certain facilities do count, but others don't. So, I don't know. Um, if we have, um, someone who can answer the question, Ellen, or would we want to have our consultants respond to that?

[02:27:40] Ellen Yau: Yeah, I think, um, uh, I think our consultants should be able to respond to that. I think they're, oh, they're getting promoted right now.

[02:27:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Perfect. Um Matt, go ahead.

[02:27:51] Matt Kowta: Yes, um good morning.

[02:27:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Go ahead. Sorry.

[02:27:54] Matt Kowta: Good evening, everybody. Matt Cota, with BA Urban Economics consultant for the housing element update. And the answer to the question is most of those housing types of council member mentioned would not count as units towards the arena. Typically, housing to count, a housing unit has to have its own kitchen and bathroom facilities. And they're also looking for permanent structures. So, um, you know, with the exceptions, say, of an efficiency apartment unit, I think that was mentioned, most of those types would not count towards the arena. Thank you.

[02:28:37] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Those are all my questions.

[02:28:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member Abi Koga.

[02:28:44] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thanks, Mayor. Um, one question about the pro housing designation. Um, I just wanted to clarify, so is it staff's understanding that based on our current, um, policies that we, it looks like we, may have a high likelihood of qualifying, or do you foresee any changes that we might have to make to, um, to qualify. And in particular, I guess I am interested in some of the comments that were made in the public comment section. Um, about fees or, um, yeah, fees, uh, I guess mainly fees and financial subsidies because I think that's where, um, you know, we face the most challenges too. Um,

[02:29:36] Ellen Yau: So, uh, I know our uh, housing manager, Michaela Helmut, uh, Tinkler is in the audience as well, may be able to add on. Um, Uh, we did do a, uh, quick overview of the different of the checklist to see what we already qualify for, and we did a, you know, a quick back of the envelope, uh, some of those things, and we did find that we uh, qualified based on that quick overview. Um, but of course, it is ultimately subject to um, state approval.

[02:30:14] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So would that come back to us if we, They required us to make a change in any any of our existing policies. Or could we also just decide not to pursue that designation if it's not to our advantage and, you know, I'm particularly thinking of like inclusionary zoning, we're at 15. I remember seeing state legislation saying 10%. So, you know, I thought, wow, we're actually over that. So I wouldn't want us to go backwards on any of this or impact fees, like transportation and pack fees. You know, we need those. So, I guess it would get such a question of what the benefit, a cost benefit to this designation. So have that option down the road to, you know, make those decisions.

[02:31:01] Aarti Shrivastava: Council member, if there any policy changes, we will certainly come back to the council to make those decisions. Um, if you find that there need to be some, but we feel fairly confident having looked at the council goals, the strategic plan, and our current policies that we should be able to meet it.

[02:31:19] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. And then, um, SP9, I think we're gonna be talking about that later, but, um, at city association, we had a presentation that showed how many parcels in Mountain View could potentially qualify. And I think it was like another 1100 units that could be built. Um, at some point. When do we, well, have we heard from HCD as how will they be incorporating SB 9 into this process or or not?

[02:31:53] Ellen Yau: Uh, we've actually looked at this and I don't know, Eric, if you can, can give a quick summary um, of our, our conclusion based on discussions with horrible people.

[02:32:05] Eric Anderson: Uh, yeah, I'll start, but then I'll, I think also Matt and Bev may be able to, um, jump in. Um, you know, I, the challenge with SB 9 is that there's no, um, record. Uh, no, no history of development to point to, to show that the trends can be moving forward. So our site's inventory is based on characteristics of past developments that we've documented, where, you know, multi-ten and shopping centers have converted into residential development, uh, of a certain, you know, at a certain age. you know, we have all that data. We don't have any data for SB 9. Um, in addition, we do, we have found um, that HCD has commented on requests to use SB 9. basically saying that you need to identify specific sites. You can't use the same methodology for SB 9 that um, cities are using for ADUs, where it's just a kind of general. We've seen about 20 over the last couple of years so we can project 20 more forward, whatever. Um, for SB9, you need to find sites that are, um, uh, uniquely, uh, um, opportunity sites either because they're vacant or because they have other characteristics that would make them more likely to develop with, you know, 2 to 4 units.

[02:33:35] Matt Kowta: Yeah, I think that's a good summary of the state of what we understand about how that's going to be treated for the 6 cycle housing element. So I don't have much to add to that.

[02:33:46] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: All righty. Thank you.

[02:33:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. We'll do council member Showalter, followed by Council member Lieber.

[02:33:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I I wanted to ask about um, moderate income housing. It seems like when I look at most of the charts for Rena. I see 3 separate, um, columns, you know, one for uh, low income, one for moderate and one for above moderate. And we're combining low and moderate. And um, I, I just, um, is that a change? And the way Rena is being evaluated this time, or is that just a methodology we've decided to adopt them? What's the background for that?

[02:34:32] Eric Anderson: Uh, it's really just an interim step. Um, all of the sites in our housing element inventory are eligible for either low or moderate income. We can, we can be, um, uh, strategic about where we allocate low, lower income and modern income. And there are a number of different ways that we can do that. We can slice individual sites up between lower and moderate or we can identify sites for moderate or identify other sites for lower. Um, and we're still kind of assessing the best, um, strategy for that. Um, but at this point we want uh, council direction on the overall sites inventory, that is the selection of sites themselves, and we'll come back later with a, um, separation into the required income levels.

[02:35:29] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, because I understand that in many of our affordable housing, or when we talk about affordable housing, and we put together a percentage of, of, um, you know, what AMI would be covered, sometimes we, we put, um, 100, you know, I think we've gone up to as high as 120 and that, that would be considered moderate. But that's a very, you know, that's a very small number of units. so far. And I just wanted to, to confirm that essentially, that's what we're talking about with this combination here.

[02:36:03] Eric Anderson: So the site's inventory is, um, based on sites that can accommodate, uh, lower income or moderate income units. It's not necessarily a prediction that there will be, um, low income or modern income units based on our particular BMR requirements or BMR standards. Does that answer your question?

[02:36:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Yeah.

[02:36:38] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Well, that leads to a question for me if we're seeing low and moderate, kind of conflated, um, when do we get to see extremely low income? Um, one of the speakers, Kalisha Webster, talk to us about um, the individuals with developmental disabilities, individuals that are living on SSI income. And et cetera. So how would we see those kinds of projections?

[02:37:13] Aarti Shrivastava: I'm going to ask Matt to cover this one. How are, how are, how are we going to be presenting the extremely low income analysis?

[02:37:20] Matt Cota: Thanks. In housing elements, uh, extremely low income units as far as um, the sites, inventory is concerned, are typically um, treated as a component of that lower income housing inventory. So, um, there's this basic threshold that most housing elements are dealing with, which is having sites that are zoned at at least at those default minimum densities that are laid out in state law for lower income housing, and sites that are eligible for for that designation are also considered to be potentially suitable for extremely low or very low income housing as well. So they're typically all combined together. And in fact, the arena itself, the numbers for low income, incorporate the very low income needs. So it's all blended together there.

[02:38:24] Aarti Shrivastava: Council member, if I may add, the city can always develop further policies for incentivizing and funding, developmentally disabled housing. It's not necessarily a requirement of arena, but the city can certainly have other policies. Um, you know, for example, a council strategic plan. Uh, you know, Rena addresses one part of the state's need, but cities can customize and tailor those needs with additional policies that are not necessarily dealt with in the site's inventory.

[02:38:59] Councilmember Sally Lieber: So are we able to list that as a local goal at some point in the housing element, if not in the inventory?

[02:39:09] Aarti Shrivastava: We can list it as a local goal in the housing element or in our housing policies, because our housing division is working on a number of strategies to provide housing for a variety of incomes. So there are many other ways to incentivize because as as Eric mentioned, um, the housing inventory is setting the table, so to speak. Um, actually inviting people to come to the table, providing them funding to be able to build according to the plan, all that could be additional goals and policies that could live outside the housing element or within the housing element.

[02:39:49] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, and then, um, in terms of the, the technical help for renters that was mentioned, um, that was enhanced or came about during the pandemic, um, is, is there, uh, a plan to sunset that or do we have a plan for continuation?

[02:40:15] Aarti Shrivastava: We don't currently have a plan for continuation. Um, this has been, um, I think, primarily been done through the city attorney's office and maybe the city manager can address the eviction moratorium, if that's what you're speaking of.

[02:40:30] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Well, actually thinking more of the technical help for renters in multiple languages that was mentioned.

[02:40:37] Aarti Shrivastava: Okay, that we are, we are providing, and um, I can find out, but we're continuing to do a number of seminars and workshops on that. Um, primarily through Zoom, uh, which have been very successful.

[02:40:50] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And then, um, there was discussion of the the non-conforming uses. And I know that in some of the older parts of the city in old Mountain View and et cetera, there are a number of locations where there are uses that probably could not be built in the same way today. Um, And so with the strategies around preserving those be, that would be something that we would bring back separately as a policy.

[02:41:30] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, at this point, the council goal includes looking at residential areas, which is R one, R 2, and R 3, looking at um, sites where the current densities are greater than what is supported by this current zoning. So what we're proposing to do is to separate out the R3 and make that part of the R3 zoning update. But for the R one and the R 2. We're proposing to update the nonconforming section of our non-conforming ordinance. To allow people to build back the units that exist on the site today. Um, so it gives them a lot more flexibility than the current non-conforming ordinance does because it only allows limited work and doesn't allow, um, you know, sort of extending the life of the, the structural life of a building. Um, so we're proposing to make it much more expansive and allowable to build back the current density.

[02:42:31] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay.

[02:42:32] Aarti Shrivastava: But in terms of uses, we have not addressed homes in in areas that have different land uses, for example, if it's an industrial use, um, that, that was not on the council. Goals. And so we're focusing on the sites that the council identified.

[02:42:49] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay And then, um, do we have any way of getting a handle, um, how many units throughout the city are, uh, corporate housing? That are rented, say, by Google for their, uh, their own staff. Do we have any way of measuring that?

[02:43:13] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, that's a good question. Um, I know that historically, we've been asked in many cities and it's always hard because, you know, this is information that's not typically shared. It changes very often. Um, and it's very hard to keep consistent. So I don't believe we have that information. But I can certainly ask and see if, um, there ever has been that kind of, uh, information available.

[02:43:39] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[02:43:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member Mediche.

[02:43:46] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, so just a few questions. Um, so a lot has changed in terms of the requirements between the 5th and the 6th cycle. And I'm wondering if, um, The requirements in the 6 cycle, the rules, the regulations, the interpretations, Is it completely settled down, and so we know exactly what is going to be required of us or, do we think there might still be some things that might change or interpretations that, um, might be made.

[02:44:28] Aarti Shrivastava: I'll try to answer this and maybe Eric can take over. Um, if the question is, um, we have ACD guidance on preparing housing elements in the 6th cycle. Um, so that we have and we're using that. Um, we're also using um, our experience based on recent state law. To guide how we're going to approach the future housing element and potential revision store code. Uh, but there's no, we really don't have a good horizon on what's going to happen with future state laws, which is where the interpretation issues come in. Um, we're pretty clear on, on ACD guidance at this and we have a, a 2 part strategy. We want to send them our draft housing element and one to send the final one, so we have a, A 2 part check to make sure that, you know, we're interpreting our housing element correctly. Um Eric, anything more to add?

[02:45:21] Eric Anderson: Yeah, well, I'll just add, we also have the benefit of um, several other, uh, regions with a lot of cities that are going through the process before we are. Um, they're able to make mistakes before we do, uh, which is very beneficial. Um, and, um, but I will also add, um, you know, that we are, um, you know, Mountain View is unique, uh, and our, conditions are unique and our sites are unique and our, um, uh, and so trying to, uh, predict exactly what how HCD is going to respond to what is really a fairly qualitative and discretionary process. Um, is, you know, it, it's not possible to know exactly what they're going to say.

[02:46:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks. And um, I was wondering, um, and somebody ask about this briefly in the Council Q and A. Um, if you use a site in the inventory in the 6th cycle, And it doesn't get developed, Can you use it in the 7th cycle or or beyond, like, what are the rules around, like, reuse of sites if they don't develop?

[02:46:44] Eric Anderson: So um, there's 2 possibilities for reusing. Uh, one is um, just simply up zoning. Uh, so if you do up zone a site that you can reuse it. Um, there's another process that, uh, the state has, um, identified, which is to allow a new housing development by right, so like a ministerial process, similar to SB 35, uh, with a minimum of 20% BMR. Um, we could implement that as a standard pertaining to those sites. Um, and um, Those are the 2 paths for reusing sites that I'm aware of. Matt, are there any other paths such as, you know, getting more? Obviously, if it if it becomes a pipeline site. in the later part of the, um, of the rena cycle, then you can reuse it as a pipeline site in the next cycle. Matt, are there any other options?

[02:47:50] Matt Cota: Yeah, I think that's that's basically it. And it's that that principle that the longer a site sits undeveloped, the more um, streamlined, the more incentives, the state wants to see for keeping that site within the inventory. And so hence that requirement that at some point after either one or 2 cycles, depending on whether it's a vacant site or a non-vacant site, then you've got to add in those my right approval provisions for some of the sites.

[02:48:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, and what happens if a property owner, um, during the next phase, when you start the outreach to the property owners, what if they indicate that they don't want their property included in the inventory? What happens?

[02:48:43] Eric Anderson: Um, yeah, I'll start this and then I'm sure um, Matt and Bev can jump in. Um, So, we will, you know, meet with anybody who uh, expresses concern about being included in the inventory. Um, you know, we do want to stress that um, our site inventory does not put any additional requirements on development. Uh, it's still ultimately the city's responsibility to uh, address no net loss if uh, a develop, if a site is developed with something other than what the site inventory um, identifies. So we want to make that really, really clear to all property owners and all community members out there. That being said, if a, uh, if we meet with a property owner and they have some, um, piece of information that, um, makes it, uh, that's new information that makes it, um, a, uh, a constraint on development as, as HCD would interpret it, then yes, we would remove them from the site's inventory. Um, Matt, did you have any other thoughts or, Bev, on this process?

[02:50:01] Aarti Shrivastava: I'll just add one piece. Sorry, Matt, go ahead.

[02:50:04] Matt Cota: Oh, no, go ahead, Artie.

[02:50:06] Aarti Shrivastava: I'll just add one more piece of information. Council member. Our intent after tonight, when we finalize the list of sites to be considered and reviewed, is to is to send a notice after property owners. So that they are all aware, and then we can meet with them, anyone who expresses a concern. Um, and and we'll go through the process that Eric mentioned.

[02:50:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, great. Thanks. And, um, One final question, um, and that is, If a property owner has not been included. And down the road, they would like to do housing on their site. Um, They would have to go through a gatekeeper process to rezone if it's more than 2 acres. They would still have to do that, right?

[02:50:59] Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, so the housing element inventory, at this point, doesn't include many rezonings, because the city has proactively already rezoned. So if somebody says they want to rezone their site, they would go through a typical gatekeeper process. If that site is identified in the housing element, then the city has to rezone it within 3 years. So.

[02:51:21] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, and it can also be rezoned as part of a precise plan if we did more precise plans in an area where we don't have one, right?

[02:51:29] Aarti Shrivastava: If we, if, if any sites, whether it's a precise plan or a single site rezoning, we have a timeline to complete it after adoption of the housing element. But yes, we could do it as part of a precise plan process also.

[02:51:44] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. That's it for me.

[02:51:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Any other questions from the council? I do have a few. Uh, so the 1st is, um, I think this was answered in the, uh, responses sent to the council, um, to the questions submitted in advance of the meeting, um, for, uh, the village center overlay zones. Precise plan says, a rezoning is necessary to access the additional FAR allowed under the general plan, but state law says we can no longer require a rezoning. So if a developer were to come in with FAR at the general plan level, or the village center overlay sites, then they would be able to proceed with, with that development, is that right?

[02:52:39] Aarti Shrivastava: That's right, a rezoning would not be required because they're now consistent with the general plan. Um, but they would still have to comply with the other requirements in the precise plan.

[02:52:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and that's also true for the village center, locations and the general plan. So the the shopping centers like floss and valley, which have a, I guess a, neighborhoods mixed use designation and the general plan. Um, even though the zoning doesn't allow residential, because the general plan does, a developer right now could submit an application and have the protections under the permit streamlining action housing accountability act. Is that right too?

[02:53:21] Aarti Shrivastava: That is right. Um, and I believe the city has to identify a zoning district that would comply with those general general plan densities and that, that the developer could adhere to those. So, um, that's why that's one of our back pocket. Um, areas because it's, it's an issue that we believe would need to be addressed.

[02:53:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, and that's also, I think, a general plan action item, right, to amend the zoning ordinance to create these conforming zoning districts.

[02:53:53] Eric Anderson: Yes.

[02:53:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Great. Um, question about the ER, so the, Sites we include, uh, as part of our back pocket, um, will be studied under the ER, which allows us down the road. We don't have to rezone those sites but down the road, we could then tear off the EIR and streamline a rezoning later on. That is that a fair assessment?

[02:54:24] Eric Anderson: Yeah, that was the intent of including them? so that we didn't have to do additional sequel analysis.

[02:54:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. That's very helpful. Um. I think that's. Oh, actually, um, a question about SB 35 so one of the um, as I understand it, one of the reasons why it's important for us to get something of an accurate site inventory is if we include a number of sites that don't end up, redeveloping with housing or at lower densities, then, we estimate, um, if, if that occurs, and at some point. Uh, a developer can submit SV 35 compliant applications and if we don't meet our moderate income, uh, our above moderate income allocation, then the affordable housing requirement would only be 10% is that, is that right?

[02:55:22] Eric Anderson: Uh, that is right. Um, you know, based on our pipeline, we believe will beat the above moderate, but those would have to be reflected in the, in the APRs that we submit, so. Um, but yes, um, today the city is an SP 35 jurisdiction, for 50% because we've met our above moderate. I believe and maybe Mac can give more information on this. ACD does a review every so many years to see where jurisdictions are and then identifies whether you're a 50% jurisdiction or a 10%. Mount view is 50%. Because we met our above modern requirements. But, with upcoming cycles, with great arena requirements. Um, we would have to perform accordingly, if we don't want to be identified as a 10% jurisdiction.

[02:56:15] Matt Cota: Yes, I believe they're, they're pulling that information off your annual performance reports that you submit, submit each year, so they're monitoring on an annual basis of the progress.

[02:56:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: And do you have a, at least a preliminary sense of, at what point if we're not meeting our targets, we would become a 10% SV 35 city?

[02:56:44] Eric Anderson: I, I, I believe we're right now we're under the old arena cycle. So the new one would begin. Matt was, is that January 2023. So,

[02:56:56] Matt Cota: Yeah, the the planning period begins in June of of 2020, or end of June 2022. So, um, I would have to look at the specifics to see how they start.

[02:57:14] Bev Choi: I'm sorry for interrupting. SB 35 actually includes, um, several touch points over the course of the 8 year cycle where they recalculate. Um, and I don't recall exactly when the 1st touch point is. It's either year 2 or year four. Um, but there are several points where they recalculate. We can get back to you on.

[02:57:37] Eric Anderson: Yeah, we can get back to you on the specific timelines. They do it at various points in the cycle.

[02:57:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that would be helpful information to have at the next study session because I think it, it, it, it's an, a strong incentive for a city to submit an accurate site inventory. If it's not accurate, then, affordability requirement goes down considerably. Um, so that's, that's, I think helpful information. Um, we we haven't really talked much about it, but we also have to submit an assessment of fair housing. Um, can staff provide information about when does the council see that? What does that evaluate? Um, and then how does that intersect with that housing element?

[02:58:24] Eric Anderson: Um. So there, there are a lot of, uh, different elements of the assessment of fair housing, um, you know, from the sites inventory to our goals and policies, uh, and programs. Um, and uh, we can point to kind of any number of different parts of the housing element for that, uh, that assessment. Um, so, um, You will see when we bring forward the draft housing element, our full, uh, AFFH analysis, uh, and how the, you know, our site's inventory supports AFFH as well as how our programs and policies, uh, supported as well, um, Matt, anything else to add or Ellen on this?

[02:59:18] Matt Cota: Yeah, that's correct. A major component, and it's a new component of the housing elements. This period is the AFH. Um, assessment of fair housing, section of the housing needs assessment. So there'll be a lot of data there to kind of set the background for that existing conditions, historic trends and so forth. And then, as Eric mentioned, will need to identify at least one program, to affirmatively further fair housing. In reality, there will be many, I think, that do that within the housing element. And then we also need to have this assessment of the housing sites inventory, specifically, through the lens of affirmatively furthering fair housing. So as the housing element, sites inventory is being developed, we're also starting to look at that question, and all of these pieces are going to come together miraculously towards the end of the month, and then we'll be reviewing with staff and getting that ready for a full public rollout.

[03:00:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I do not envy you. It's a lot of work. Um, any final questions from the council before we proceed to, um, the staff questions? I'm not seeing any hands. So, um, what we'll do now is we'll go to question one. Thank you very much, Steph, and uh, consultants for, for responding to our questions. 1st question is does the city council support the proposed draft sites inventory methodology? Um, I'll, I'll do my best to collect any, uh, recommendations for changes, and then once every member of the council, um, has spoken, will take a series of straw votes, um, and uh, see which. Additional ideas um are included in the direction to uh staff. And then once we finish question one, we'll proceed to question two. Any questions about process? Um it will be substantially similar to the legislative platform study session. I'm going to attempt to replicate that. Um, any, member of the council wishing to speak about the 1st question. Vice merits.

[03:01:54] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So I actually do have a couple ways that I would like to, um, at possibly, well, consider adding sites to the site inventory. And one would be, um, Staff. It's basically looking at some of the things listed in the back pocket. Uh, the back pocket list. So I'm thinking staff could evaluate all the shopping centers for redevelopment as mixed-use, complete communities, with, you know, housing, of course, also neighborhood not eliminating the neighborhood, serving retail that we have. Um, and other things you'd need in a complete community like enhanced sidewalks, bike paths, green space. Um, Blossom Valley is mentioned in the staff report, but that would be one such site. But I would evaluate all other shopping centers as well. Um, priority prioritizing shopping centers that are largely vacant, like the Moffatt Plaza shopping mall. And, you know, so that we make sure we get what we want out of that site, that it's an asset to the community. And also, uh, those that allow housing in our general plan should be a priority. So, again, we can, um, develop them in a way that meets our specific needs. Um, so that would be one thing I would change. Another would be, again, staff evaluating, um, sort of the El Camino hospital south drive area. Uh, this was something that was brought up by uh, Margaret Caprillis when she was on the EPC. Um, so El Camino has a lot of in the front surface parking, uh, that could be replaced with buildings and underground parking, and South Drive has lots of older one story offices with surface parking. I think there's the potential to um, keep the medical offices there, some critical offices while adding housing. Um, maybe senior housing and undergrounding and parking. When I talk to neighbors of that area, Um, they said that some of the medical offices are turning over as health providers retire. And also that, um, some of the buildings may be at the end of their life, um, and not very solidly built. So I'd like us to evaluate those and kind of get ahead of the game. I would like to, I would prefer that they don't redevelop, you know, into something that we would. I'd like them to redevelop into what we want them to redevelop as. So those are 2 changes that I would make.

[03:04:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Anything else, question?

[03:04:51] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: No, that's it for now.

[03:04:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member show Walter.

[03:04:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, well, generally I concur with what vice mayor Hicks said. Um, uh, but in addition, I, I was struck by the, the EPC had a comment about, um, looking at some of our church sites. And, um, you know, there are some of them have large, not, not very many, but a couple of them have quite large, um, parking lots, and they might be interested in, um, you know, doing a public service of having an affordable housing site, um, associated with their church. So that's something I would really like us to look into more carefully. Um, and um, I also really, uh, like the idea of the back pocket. Uh, is that this question or the next one? The next one.

[03:05:46] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Oh, okay, never mind. So that's that's me for this.

[03:05:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Leaper.

[03:05:55] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, I definitely concur with really taking a look at all of the shopping plazas. Uh, that that are out there. I mean, some, it's obvious that, you know, a very precursory look at them would indicate that they're newly built or, um, whatever, but I'd like to cast a wide net there. And this is all to the idea of moving more, um, sites from the back pocket into the, what we would be actively putting forward. And then, um, I also concur about the, uh, the churches that's something that has been invited. Um, from some of the churches themselves and that's a, A potential and a limited number of sites. And then, um, And I'd like to put the emphasis on, um, not historic churches. But, um, mid century or later. Um, I would like to see us do a, uh, preliminary evaluation of, uh, all of the non-historic, um, government sites, including, um, our own city sites and, um, Also, developing a little bit of a plan, um, on how we would approach some opportunities that, Um, Maybe it hasn't worked to have staff on staff communications. Um, but see if, if council can be helpful in elected to elected communications. Um, to try to break through that, that log jam. Um, And I think that, um, I'd like to see, um, portions of the, the property that would be involved in, uh, a new police and fire building, um, being used for housing. And uh, seeing if there's a way that we can possibly break through the log jam with the Caltrain board. Um, and then there are some of the more, uh, the sites that have been more challenging over time to make progress on, uh, like the federal sites.

[03:08:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Medicheck.

[03:08:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, I actually appreciate uh, staff's approach to the, um, inventory of sites. Um, you know, arena is really high and yet we can accommodate it. Um, with all of the property that, you know, we've recently rezoned via all the precise plans we've done. Um, so it's nice to see, I feel like we're at, we have been, um, proactive in, sort of planning for a number that we didn't know we were going to get. Um, and we can still accommodate it. Um, and what I appreciate a lot about that is we had an awful lot of public input, um, for the precise plans and the rezoning. And that is really important to me. And so, um, I'm good with the inventory that staff is put together. Um, I also feel like I want to be very mindful of our mix of land uses. And not become a city that is, um, more housing than, um, other uses, uh, and so it tips the balance in terms of, um, our economics and our vitality, um, and the quality of life for the people who live here. Um, Former council member McAllister was always saying, it'd be nice to have, uh, the optimal mix of land use, if we only knew what that was, what percent housing, what percent, you know, office, what percent, um, open space. This is a time when I feel like I could really use that. Um, and I know that's a hard ask. Um, but I feel good about the approach that staff is taken and, um, I don't necessarily mind looking at some of those, um, other parcels, but for the back pocket, not for the site inventory, and the back pocket is question too. So, I'm good with what staff put together. Thanks.

[03:10:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member, come in.

[03:10:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, so I, um, I just want to thank staff. Um, I know there's been quite a bit of comment, but I know our staff is working on so many different projects all at the same time. And so, um, and having to do the housing element on top of everything else. I just want to express my gratitude and thanks. Um, so for question number one, I do support the proposed draft site's inventory methodology. I think just kind of, um, expanding on some thoughts of colleagues, as as we go forward, I wonder for those sites that we look at, that have, um, private property owners, how we can make this a collaboration, more than just a notice from the city that their property has been rezoned. So, um, I think that that would be helpful in terms of, you know, whether it's outreach to, um, you know, religious organizations or, Um, those who have small, you know, own sites, um, and maybe some of our industrial areas that might be small businesses. How do we work with our face-based communities and small and business community on those parcels and maybe it can be, I think there was some discussion about, you know, mixed use, right? So perhaps retaining their retail while also building housing on top, retaining their faith-based operation while also providing housing. I really want to find more of a way to make it a collaboration, a collaborative spirit, than just, um, I know that conversation will be invited later. But how do we maybe kind of integrate into the processes because I know that sometimes people are not, um, are not as well versed in how all this works. So I just, I just wanted to add that in as a comment. Um, and in terms of the draft inventory methodology, I'd also, uh, propose looking at, um, our parking requirements. I think we consistently talk about parking as a city. Our model parking standard, I think, was last done a decade ago. And so as we're looking at the housing element and talking about, in many cases, upzoning or densification, Is it also a time where we need to be thinking about, as we're looking at, you know, sustainability goals and different transit solutions, an opportunity for us to revisit, um, part a parking minimum, or our, what is our parking standard model parking standard? Um, I'd also ask for that. So I don't, I don't know, maybe perhaps it'd be a small straw motion for later, but I wanted to include that too. Thank you.

[03:13:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member, I'll be Coba.

[03:13:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, um, and I would like to start also by echoing, um, uh, my gratitude, um, the gratitude of us, um, to staff for and our consultant for your hard work on this. This is quite a, um, process and this is my 3rd one that I've seen in some form. Um, and it's just, it's, you know, it takes a lot of effort and time and, on top of everything else that our department is doing, um, including trying to actually get housing projects through and approved and built. I, I, this is quite an effort. So thank you very much for that. Um, because of that. Um, and because I guess I've seen this process now a few times, um, I very much, um, trust what staff has come to come forward with. Um, so I am very comfortable with what staff is um, proposing. Um, and I, um, you know, I hear the comments about, well, we should put out more sites. And, um, my question, frankly, is why? Um, and I guess, you know, what I've maybe, what I've realized in, in having conversations with, um, folks is that there might be some mis, misunderstanding or misperceptions of what the housing element is. Um, you know, this is, uh, frankly for me, uh, a reporting exercise that we do to the state to, um, show that we are not hindering housing production. And I don't think we've done that in any form, at least as long as I've been on council. Um, and frankly, you know, every cycle we overproduce our overall numbers, um, and, um, you know, the challenge, as we know, is always affordable housing piece because that we that we just don't have the resources to build, but we're told we have to build. And I don't see this housing element, frankly, right now, the way it's going. It's gonna change that much. I actually worry that it's going to make it worse if, you know, they start to say, oh, your fees are too high, your inclusionary zoning is too high, you know, make it easier for, frankly, the market rate housing to be built because that's what gets built. Um, so I'm comfortable with this. I think the fifth I think it was a 52% buffer. is um quite adequate, I believe. Um, you know, I don't and again, I don't look at this as the tool to drive housing production. Um, that's really what the general plan is and the general plan update that we've done. Um, and, you know, I've heard comments about status quo. Well, you know, I look at it as, frankly, we were ahead of the ball, like, way ahead of the game on this. We did our general plan update 10 years ago. It's been 10 years. I think, yeah. And, um, you know, I do see, I will say, I do see other cities doing that now to comply with the new housing, um, the arena numbers and whatnot. But we actually did it before. So, I think it's actually okay to have some status quo, but, you know, we also have the back pocket items and I think that's showing that we're continuing to, you know, move forward. and try to continue to find more ways to, um, you know, allow for more housing. But, um, you know, I also want to remind folks that, you know, after cycle 6, there's a cycle 7 and this doesn't end. So, you know, I guess I guess I just don't really see the benefit of putting everything out there on, you know, right now because I don't know and and, you know, the housing element has changed. And I think that's part of it too, is that I don't know, right, frankly, yeah, how we're going to come out. I think we're going to come out okay. Like, I thought we were fine when we had rezoned for 15,000 units and now to be told, well, some of those, you know, parcels might not count. It's really kind of surprising and frustrating to me. And so I actually wanted to see how this um, this cycle. plays out before, um, you know, putting anything more out there. Um, I think there's some issues. you know, there's always issues with this whole process. I think we need to continue to work on on, you know, some changes. I'm not happy that, you know, we had 2 cities, neighboring us, Palo Alto and Cupertino, get a reduction in their numbers, based on parcels that they thought they could get, get more, um, office or business on, and, um, and we have, you know, similar issues, but we didn't get a reduction. So there's just a lot of flaws to this process. And it's not perfect in any way. So that's why I guess I really don't look at it as just, you know, our requirement. And it's really the general plan. Um, and frankly, you know, I mentioned it. It's been 10 years in the next, you know, a few years, we may have to look at revising the general plan again, and that's really what we should be doing, where we should be doing, these, you know, creating these, um, these, these other tools to, to enable more housing. Because as council member Mattachek mentioned, that's also where we get the community input and buy-in, which has been so valuable to our success in allowing housing. So I'm comfortable with what staff has presented, as is. Thank you.

[03:19:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Any other? Counsel, input. I have a quick question for staff, um, my apologies for getting, for forgetting to ask this, uh, if a site is not, uh, if a, if a property develops with housing that is not in the site inventory, that's good for us, because it still counts toward the arena, requirements, we get credit for that, right? Okay. Yes, that's great. That's helpful. Thank you, because I, I agree very strongly with, with, something that you said council member of the Koga, and that's, we have to be mindful about the 7th cycle as well, and we want to be careful not to put ourselves in a, at a disadvantage by prematurely identifying sites that may not develop the cycle, but instead, um, keep, keep them, especially if they have a likelihood of developing, uh, at a later date. Uh, council member, show alter, really quickly, and then I'm gonna get some comments.

[03:20:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Are you are you finished? um, mayor? I was just gonna say quickly that I, I, I, I, um, I appreciate what council member Abby Koga said, but the reason I'm interested in looking at some of these other sites as well is because I think as staff goes through this next step of the process and they start talking to owners. Um, and I also think the collaborative attitude is a really great framework for doing it. Thank you. Council member for bringing that up. Um, I think there may be quite a few that drop out. And so with that in mind. I, um, you know, I wanted to bring up some others that we might also consider, even though there's a big buffer. Um, I still think there may be, um, a number of owners, like, um, the one for the target site, who, who feel very strongly about it. And if, and if they do feel very strongly, but they don't want to be included. I don't think we should include them. Um, so, so that's why I think, you know, we want to, you know, asking, mentioning to staff at this point that they might look at some other sites as well is, um, you know, is prudent. Thank you.

[03:21:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm gonna, um, take a quick turn and then we'll go for a 2nd round and then, um, we'll we'll start taking some straw motions. Uh, so, uh, one of the requirements that I'm sensitive to that we really haven't spent a lot of time talking about is the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing, and I'm struggling with the draft site inventory because I think it's easy to make a claim that we're concentrating, especially the affordable housing, in areas that lack amenities or in some cases even schools. Um, and we have, uh, under supply of affordable housing in areas that are resource rich and that's high performing schools. And I think that's something that we should walk into wise wide open. I think there's a non-trivial chance that after around, um, of input from HCD, we may come back with a very different site inventory, because some of these sites don't pass muster, or because we're not sufficiently complying with a number of the, the requirements. So, I do think, um, it, we, there's some, something of a conflicting, um, issue, we're gonna have to contend with, one is finding sites that affirmatively further fair housing, but we also don't want to put in place sites that have no chance of redeveloping this cycle because then it makes it harder for us to include them, uh, in subsequent cycles, and I, I don't envy staff for having to balance those 2 concerns. Um, so high level, I, I support a lot of the recommendations that um, other members of the council have put forward. Uh, and I, I particularly appreciate the distinction for the shopping centers um, that already allow housing in the general plan. I think there's actually some urgency in dealing with that and at the very least uh creating uh conforming zoning district, which is one of our general plan action items anyway, because tomorrow, a very aggressive developer can submit an application that may not be what the community is is looking for because we don't have in place the development standards that implement the general plan um as envisioned. So I, I do think prioritizing those, um, and that has the, the advantage too of opening some opportunities south of El Camino, which I think do help us meet our affirmatively furthering fair housing goal. Um, so I I think that's that's actually a prudent thing to do. Um, and I, I also very strongly support council member Kame's recommendation to, um, work proactively with property owners. Maybe we'll be surprised and we'll uncover some sites that we didn't think were, were viable, um, and we might also discover that some sites that we were optimistic about are going to be, um, deemed inappropriate by HCD. I, I, um, I'm, I'm hopeful that we can support that recommendation as well. Uh. I did have a couple of clarifying questions for the recommendations, so, uh, council, uh, vice mayor Hicks, uh, for South Drive. Did you, are you recommending that as in the site inventory or as a back pocket area?

[03:24:54] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I guess we weren't talking about back pocket at this point, but it, you know, it could be back pocket. I would go for I would go for either one I was going for exploring it and seeing where it should be, which of those two. Um, because I don't want it to happen without us. I want us to make sure we're on top of it.

[03:25:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: That's helpful. Thank you. Um, and then Question for staff, I was thinking about asking this in the policy topics, topic section, but I think it, it's probably, Helpful to understand this now. Um, could we create something like an affordable housing overlay or churches or for government owned properties, um, to help us guarantee that we're likely to get affordable housing on those sites. The, the analogy that comes to mind is, the public quasi public designation in San Jose, which only allows permanent supportive housing. No other type of housing is allowed on PQP sites only permanent supportives. So is that something that we can consider um to help us meet our affordable housing goals?

[03:26:10] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Uh, mayor, we can certainly take back direction from council and we would probably have to confer with our consultants and as well as our, um, legal land use, um, folks to see, um, How can we create an affordable housing overlay? What what is the base? Units, what would this affordable housing overlay do? Because as you know, um, you have to acknowledge this in the general plan, if the general plan allows it. You can't create an overlay process to require rezoning to that. So we just need to work out the, the mechanics of what the council intends to do. And we can come back, um, with some suggestions.

[03:26:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Um, any other comments or questions before you go through recommendations for straw votes? Not seeing any so I'll just go ahead and and attempt to uh go through them. Roughly in order, so, 1st recommendation was to include, uh, or have staff evaluate all shopping centers, um, and prioritizing those that have a general plan designation that already allows housing. So that would be shifted from back pocket to the draft site inventory. Um so we'll go ahead and raise hands is their support for that idea. That's 1234 so 4 so that's that will be advanced as part of the direction. 4 to 3. And the next one was to have staff, valuate, the south drive area, so the medical offices adjust, adjacent to, we'll do this one and then I'll go to you council member okay, okay, um, so the south drive area adjacent to El Camino hospital. Um, and I don't think there's a strong recommendation for site inventory or back pocket, but it would simply be to have staff evaluate that area. Um is there support for including that direction. 12345. okay? that's that's 5 to do. Thank you. um before we proceed, council member, I'll be okay that you wanna, um.

[03:28:43] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. I wanted to ask staff, like, um, you know, there is a time limit. We have a deadline, and my concern is just time in light of our staffing, um, challenges right now. Like, is it really realistic to have you look at every shopping center and South Drive? You know, I want us to be realistic and not put undue burden on our staff. If what we have right now is, you know, frankly more than adequate with a large buffer. So, I support those being on the back pocket. That's why part of the reason why I support it as a back pocket item because, you know, we do have to get this in, right? By the end of this year, I believe. If not soon, I can't remember the deadline, but I just want to be, you know, mindful that we know what our staffing challenges are. So, um, yeah, let's be realistic, I guess, is when I know. I'm asking staff. how you feel about that.

[03:29:43] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Um, council member, I think if we focus on on where the general plan already allows housing. I think we're in a much better place than if we had to revise the general plan. So, where sites, I believe the self drive sites, we'd have to revise the general plan. Right? Um, and so that that's a much heavier lift. Um, once we get the list of sites. We are going to review them for ACD criteria. So some of these sites may pass muster, some of these won't, depending on what's on them. We're also going to probably connect with property owners, uh, to see if there's interest. So there'll be some very quick high level, um, uh, review and, um, you know, if if staff feels that it's not going to meet ACD criteria, we're not going to recommend moving forward with them.

[03:30:32] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. Um, I don't know if that changes anybody's, though, but, um, I thought that was important to ask staff. Thanks.

[03:30:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. so that's a good question. I have a follow-up question. So if, for instance, HCD comes back with, uh, fairly radical changes because many of the sites don't pass muster or there's some other issue, they disagree about, um, our timing with North Bay Shore and Middlefield Park, um, is it helpful for staff to have some sense of what viable alternatives. The council would support now, or when we come back in the final study session, after HCD has, that you have to come back with substantial modifications. Would you still have time then uh to receive input on? Locations for rezoning or any other consideration?

[03:31:32] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Well, I think the time is now. Definitely, because we are in the process of doing our sequel review. Um, We feel based on, we've been watching very carefully how HTD's been evaluating some of these housing elements, as Eric mentioned, um, in the in the 6 cycle, some of these in Southern California. Um, as well as having, you know, um, uh, you know, ATD guidance and feel, feel, again, we won't know until ATD is actually reviewed our sites, but feel fairly comfortable that there won't be wholesale changes. But certainly we would like any list to be considered as early as possible. Um, uh, rather than at the very end because that's much harder to accommodate.

[03:32:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Any other questions or comments in the council and then I'll go back to the recommendation. I'm not seeing any yet, but feel free to raise your hand if you have anything else. Um. Next, recommendation was to include, uh, non-historic church sites, so I think this would be, um, probably back pocket since most of them don't have the general plan designation, but, I guess we could leave that to staff for evaluation, but is there support for including non-historic church sites? Or having staff evaluate them. 1234? Okay, so 43 and I'll review all of these at the end. Um. Then the next one is. Council member command?

[03:33:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, is that different than what was already mentioned when EPC discussed it, looking at church sites? I don't, can you clarify? I don't understand the difference between what was already gonna be, what staff was already gonna be evaluating. related to churches.

[03:33:45] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, so the EPC recommended that the council direct staff to look at church sites. We weren't already going to do anything like that. We would need council direction to do that. Okay, so now the augmentation then from the EPC recommendation is to look at church sites that are non-historic.

[03:34:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I guess, I, you know, I, I didn't raise my hand because I don't necessarily know what non-historic means. Are we using like the state designation for historic? I don't know. I feel like I have a lot of questions on that one. But I, you know, I mean, I'm open to it. You know, I made the comment about collaborating with them. I just wasn't sure.

[03:34:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, I think it's a good question for staff, Steph, you have, um, any, um, initial thoughts on, designating, or distinguishing historic from non historic.

[03:34:40] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Well, we have a list of historic sites. We haven't yet embarked on a new citywide review, as you know, we'll be doing with our new historic ordinance update. But um, at least we can use our current inventory to make sure we're not including sites that are on our current list. Um, and we will certainly be meeting, um, or at least sending letters out to property owners and connecting with them. Um, to see if they're interested. So there'll be sort of a 2 part review.

[03:35:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. As a member to me, um, any other questions or?

[03:35:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: No, that's that's helpful. I mean, it got the majority, so we'll hear it and it'll come back. I just had. That's, I just wanted to explain why I didn't vote for it. I have all these other questions and I'm happy to follow up with staff on it later. I just felt like I wasn't sure if it was too in the weeds to ask, but that's where my head was. Thanks.

[03:35:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No problem. Thank you. Council member, I'll be okay.

[03:35:36] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So I had a question about the churches. Um, I had asked this, and I can't remember the answer, but, um, you know, the Buddhist temple redeveloped their backlot to 75 units of apartments, and I remember, I don't think that required a rezoning. It never came to council, I believe. So I guess I had this assumption that churches are able to develop if they want to. Is that not correct?

[03:36:05] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Most of the church sites in the city are zoned residential already. It's really a question of whether, um, council wants to allow higher densities than what's currently allowed. So, for example, um, there are many churches south of El Camino that are zoned R1. So does council want to direct staff to, uh, for those sites or for churches specifically, um, allow multifamily housing.

[03:36:34] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I guess it would depend on the size of the parcel and other factors, though, right? So, um, okay. I'm sorry, Mayor, are we on this as is this a back pocket item or is this on the site inventory?

[03:36:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, I, I, I feel like we're kind of alighting the 2 in some cases, so, uh, based on, um, assistant community, uh, sorry, assistant city manager, Travasva's input, um, it's easier if a site already has a residential designation in the general plan, and a lot harder if it doesn't, and so I, uh, unless the council feels very strongly about including them in the site inventory. Um, I think the direction would be, have staff evaluate these sites, and if it's appropriate, we can put it in the site inventory, if it requires too much work or if there's some other consideration, it might be a back pocket site.

[03:37:33] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so staff will just come back and let us know which one, which category it should be in. Okay.

[03:37:40] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: If I may explain the process, including them, then the sequel, would be helpful once we decide that he actually passed monster, because we can always move them into the inventory category, after ATD reviews them, you know, because it'd be harder to go back into sequel. Uh, later.

[03:37:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: But if you're saying they're already residential, then it would be requiring rezoning them to higher densities, isn't that?

[03:38:07] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Yes. So if for for affordable housing, they have to be a minimum of 30 units to the acre.

[03:38:12] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So, If it's a, I thought I heard you saying it's a rezoning, not in the general plan, it would take more time. Is right?

[03:38:21] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: It would take a little more time, but, you know, we'll do the assessment. You know, if there's very few sites, it's entirely likely, it could be incorporated. Um, again, if they're back pocket sites, they don't have to be revised right now, they could be revised later. So, There's some flexibility and we'll probably kind of do a review and and make sure we're including sites that are going to be successful in the long run with ACD.

[03:38:44] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you.

[03:38:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, then the next recommendation was, uh, to have staff evaluate non-historic government owned sites, um. So uh, staff, would it be helpful to provide some additional parameters or is that, that specific enough?

[03:39:13] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: I think a few more parameters. What we heard was, um, Again, is it city lots? Is it, um, is it, you know, federally owned lots? Those can be higher lifts, I think. Um, the, you know, it's very hard to get an answer from that property owner. If that's what we're looking for in the timeline. So, a little more direction would help, but we can certainly do a quick sweep and and give the council an assessment of how successful it's going to be.

[03:39:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member, Lieber, uh, is, is that sufficient or is there more direction you'd like to include in your recommendation?

[03:39:52] Councilmember Sally Lieber: No, that's very sufficient. I just want to make sure that we're, we're casting a wide net for staff to do that that quick sweep. Uh, quick evaluation of of things, um, that are possibilities.

[03:40:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Council member, I'll bake okay.

[03:40:10] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, I'd like a little more clarification of what these government properties are. Are you talking about even like city hall and the library? Or are you talking about the, you know, parking lots? I think, yeah, it would be helpful to have more clarity on what, is everything on the table? Yeah, I'd like, if you can clarify, that would be helpful.

[03:40:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member believer.

[03:40:40] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, I I think we can count on staff to apply a common sense filter to it. And to be, um, looking at parking lots. Um, you know, perhaps the Caltrain lots, perhaps the, the DMV truck facility on showers, um, those, those kinds of, um, underutilized, um, government, uh, government properties, but I, I think that we can, um, put our trust in staff to not come forward with, uh, City Hall, the Center for Performing Arts, et cetera. Those probably wouldn't pass muster with HCD anyway.

[03:41:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, so, uh, then the recommendation would be to have staff, uh, conduct uh, preliminary sweep of non-historic government sites. There's support for that recommendation. 123 or the 4th 3. Um. I do think it's important to, uh, provide explicit direction to staff on council member Camille's recommendation to have a collaborative process, um, and so that would, um, I, I don't want to speak for you, but as I understand it, that would be staff would proactively reach out to these property owners and have a cup of dialogue, is this something, are they serious about a housing development or is that something that they're not interested in? Um any other direction you wanted to include in that council member committee?

[03:42:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, sorry about that. I had a late had a late hand for that last one. I'm comfortable with that. So, sorry about that. I think you missed me. Um, and then, uh, for this one, you know, I know that the city had already had some initial conversations with faith-based um, organizations when we were trying to pursue the safe parking program. So I'm also hoping that it's not going to be that, that, have you ever lived for, for staff to, to, you know, reach back out to let them know about, um, that the housing element and that potential collaboration and opportunity. Um, so I would say, you know, with those existing relationships that we do have when we had tried to pursue that, um, with some of the, the base organizations before we could do again. Um, and then I know that we've been working on the small business, um, uh, resiliency um program. And so hopefully again, we have the existing relationships where these can just be like add-ons versus heavy lifts for staff. You know, I don't, I bring the suggestion of only because I think that there's conversation happening between our small business community and our faith-based community already, and this could just be another point where we could have collaboration. Um, yeah, versus a whole new different project.

[03:43:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Um, let's go ahead and and, uh, take a vote on that, so that would be to make, uh, does a collaborative process and have staff, do proactive outreach, not just rely on the postcard noticing, and then getting, um, the interest of the property owners in, in the housing development. If there's support for that approach. One to, uh, count, customer Mattachek.

[03:44:02] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So sorry, is that just for churches and businesses? Or is it all of the sites?

[03:44:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member committee? I understood to be all of the sites, but did you want to?

[03:44:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All of the sites? That I mean, that would be great. I, you know, I don't want to get in trouble with staff. Um, but yes, I would that would be wonderful if we could do it with all of the sites. Um, because I think a lot of the property owners are reaching out individually to council members anyway with their ideas. So hopefully this is another way where we can kind of have the umbrella and we can have all those conversations instead of in vacuums, but kind of more holistically.

[03:44:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, I think it's helpful also because if a property owner sends a letter to HCD saying, I have no interest in this, then that makes it a lot harder for us to credibly include the site in the, in the inventory, so I think applying it to all, all properties is, is helpful. So, sorry one more time, um, raise your hand if you're supportive of that approach. That's 123456 so that one is unanimous. Thank you. Um. And then, um, I'm not gonna go through all of these because I think that that direction actually probably will will result in a similar outcome. I did want to see if there was council support for excluding um the target property on showers based on the letter we've already received from the property owner. Um, so I think that would save staff a little bit of, uh, heartache, so is there support for removing the target? 123456 so that's 6 to one. Thank you. I think there are probably other properties that might fall off naturally, so I won't worry too much about those. Any other direction that we want to provide for question one. Okay, um so I'll just do a quick recap so, um, by majority support, we've directed staff to evaluate all shopping centers and prioritize those that already have a general plan designation that allows housing. Um. That will evaluate the south drive area. Nonhistoric church sites. and nonhistoric government sites, government owned properties. Um, and uh, will also proactively reach out to property owners and uh, gauge interest in housing development of their, of their properties. Because everyone. For with that direction, or at least the summary. Okay um so we'll now proceed to question two. I don't know if there's that much more discussion that we need to have. I think that probably uh was sufficient from question one but any council questions or comments about question 2 which is. Does the city council support the inclusion of any of the proposed back pocket rezoning areas in case the site's inventory is reduced. Council member Medachek.

[03:47:11] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I sort of have concerns about including um, the Moffatt area. And because we have talked about potentially doing a precise plan. I feel like including it, um, might set the wrong, Send the wrong message or set the wrong expectation. About that area. Um, and so, while I believe that it might provide, um, some capacity for housing, I don't feel like I am comfortable with what that capacity is without 1st doing the discussion about the precise plan for that area. So actually, I'd prefer to leave that one out for now. Thanks.

[03:47:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member show, Walter.

[03:48:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, I was just gonna say, when I read this, I thought this was a great idea. Um, I, uh, what this really does is, it just, it just sets the bookends of what's included in our stated project, which is the housing element. Um, so that we have essentially a built-in insurance um, system. So that if if, if some projects, some, some inventory sites fall out, then these other ones are available for us to use without doing additional sequel work. And um, I think that that's, you know, that's really smart. Um, in particular, because This, this is all in-fill development. It is um, categorically exempt from sequa, um, in many cases anyway, but not for this. We have, you know, it would have to be included for the housing element. That's part of the process here. So I think it's, it was a very wise um, methodology choice for, for uh, staff to propose. And I, I really do, um, uh, I, I, I really am very supportive of it. Um, I think that, um, it's always better with Sequa to, um, air on the larger project than the smaller project because you don't know quite what, how things might, um, you know, how, how they might evolve. You just, you know, we don't have a crystal ball. It works that well. So, um, So I, I would suggest that we include everything that in the back pocket that, um, is listed here. And the, and the thing I wanted to talk about was whether or not we should include the, um, the West Terabella site. And, um, The reason I, I, I wanted to bring that one up is because many of us have been approached by the, um, uh, you know, have been approached by the owner, and, and they've said, we do want to do mixed use development there. On the other hand, we know that, um, we might be able to get a much better plan and program for the community if we did a precise plan there first. So that's when I see as kind of a trade-off. But, um, now, I heartily, um, uh, support this and I, I congratulate, um, Congratulate staff for, for including it in the meth methodology.

[03:50:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member.

[03:50:47] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, yes, I'd really like to take a straw pull on all of the sites that have been included in the back pocket. Uh, as possibilities because uh, this is a 1st pass for staff. And I think to reduce the impact on staff, we need to just, um, include everything that's a potential. And then it's obvious that Things are gonna fall out through this collaborative process and et cetera. But I would rather not, uh, hamstring staff by, um, uh, taking particular areas out at this juncture. I rather just have a straw poll on on what has been presented to us.

[03:51:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other comments or thoughts? That's the number I'll be told.

[03:51:45] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. So I guess I'm trying to understand why, um, Moffatt is included, even though we are talking about a precise plan there. And but yet, you know, Wes Terabella isn't because we're talking about a precise plan there. So, I feel like it's either, we don't, we don't do either of them because we want, we want to do the precise plan 1st and frankly, that's okay with me because maybe we put it in cycle 7 then. Um, and I actually had some questions about the 100 unit number for Moffatt. I, um, you know, I, I guess I'd like to explore that more before we make any decisions there. So I actually would agree with council member Mattachek that maybe that one we should remove because we do have plans to do a precise plan. So I'm okay with the other ones, but that one I would remove.

[03:52:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Assistant city manager, do you want to respond?

[03:52:46] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: I did want to answer the question about why we included Moffatt and why not West Terabella? Moffatt is actually included as a change area in our general plan and is recognized, and a precise plan would then derived from the changes anticipated there. Um, West Terabella is not. And so it would have, you know, our preferences that we go through a process to identify it as a change area and we can create a precise plan around it. Um, you know, following the orderly process we've used um, in in our anti-history of land use.

[03:53:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So Council member of the Koga.

[03:53:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, appreciate that. Um, I, I guess, you know, there's been some changes to the Moffat area in terms of, I think, what we're looking at as the Moffat area too. So I guess given that, I think there's a more discussion that needs to be had for the Moffett area. So I would actually still think we should probably just take that off for now and save it for the next round.

[03:53:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: member.

[03:53:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I think one of the ways that we can have the further discussion is by having staff pursue a precursory look at it as has been included in the, um, the sites here. So I'd really like to. Um, move towards a, a straw poll on, on the inclusion of all the sites that have been put forward.

[03:54:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You, any other questions or thoughts? I guess is a, is a, um. A quick thought. The general plan already allows housing in the Moffat corridor. I'm looking, um even the shopping centers, and in including the shopping center that doesn't allow residential, with its zoning district, the commercial neighborhood, uh shopping center next to the uh mobile home park. That's still under the general plan allows housing. Um, and so, and and I, I think. I I don't want to step on me with toast, but my guess is that we've all heard from developers interested in looking at that site. So it, it, it is, I think, plausible that it could redevelop within the next, 8 years, um, and again, that, that's an area where, especially for the shopping center that doesn't have, um, a zoning that, allows residential, but a general plan designation that does. There might be, um, some urgency in putting in place some development standards that, um, ensures that the, the product is consistent with the, the community's vision for the area. Um, but we can, we, we can include that as a, as a straw motion. Um any other recommendations? Um, so there there aren't that many for this one. Um, there is a recommendation to remove the Moffat area from the back pocket, although, I think in the 1st set of motions that was, because it has a general plan designation that allows residential. Um maybe we should clarify this. I thought that was advanced to site inventory. Um, we'll we'll take a quick vote to confirm. So, um, is there interest in removing Moffett from consideration? Be the straw motion. So, uh 2 to 5 no council member can may.

[03:56:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: From back pocket?

[03:56:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, it would be removed from consideration entirely. It would not be included in the EIR.

[03:56:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh. But inventory. I see. Okay. Thank you.

[03:56:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No problem. Okay, so that um, that does not have support. Um, there was a recommendation to include West Terabella, which is currently not proposed for inclusion as a back pocket site. Um is there interested in in interested in including West Terabella in the EAR? I'm not seeing any interest, so the answer to that is no. And then for the balance of the sites in the back pocket, uh, so that would be, uh, most of these we've already touched on. I'm not sure we we explicitly need direction here but um is there support for the staff recommend staff recommended back bucket sites? 234 uh so that's 6 to one. Um so because I didn't do a good job. I'm gonna revisit the 1st question we looked at which was to prioritize general plan so shopping centers with a general plan designation that allows residential. Um, I was understanding that to mean include that in the site inventory. But I'm not sure everyone understood it that way, so I think it's important to clarify. Um, for shopping centers that are, that have a general plan designation that allows residential, is the council comfortable with including that in the site inventory. Three. Okay, so that's, um, so we'll, we'll, we'll confirm that at BM just so everyone's on the same page. The others were staff will evaluate them and provide recommendations. Uh council member Medicheck.

[03:58:44] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I'm sorry, I wanted to go back to the previous question that we voted on, which was about. Did you say, and maybe I didn't hear it correctly, the balance of the back pocket. So because you pulled out Moffatt, We were just voting on the balance, Is that what it was?

[03:59:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I, I, I'm not doing a good job being clear. So, um, it would be all of the staff recommended sites in the back pocket list. That's that was the vote. That included that was a recommended site.

[03:59:21] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[03:59:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No problem. Council member Abby Koga.

[03:59:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I guess I'm not clear because the back pocket list has the shopping centers there. So which which were we voting for?

[03:59:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So we've advanced the shopping centers that have a general plan designation that allows residential because you could already do a housing projects there, and we're keeping in the back pocket, all of the other shopping centers, and a staff says we think this shopping center should be promoted to the site inventory, and staff can advance that as a recommendation in the next study session.

[04:00:05] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Great, thank you.

[04:00:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No problem. Um, so, then for question two. Uh the council is supportive of the staff recommendation. Um, staff, any clarification you'd like to seek on questions one and 2 before we proceed to questions 3 and four?

[04:00:33] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: I would like to clarify the shopping center question, um, because we understood the 1st vote to be shopping centers that allow housing in the general plan. That was clarified right now to say, including the site inventory. But, is council also asking staff to look at all shopping centers, including those that don't have general plan designation? As residential, um, to evaluate them.

[04:01:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So staff would recommend whether to include as a back pocket site, to include it in the, right, or to not include it at all.

[04:01:10] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Okay, we'll we'll do a quick cursory look to see if it would meet ACD criteria. If it does, um, we'll look at the lift to see, you know, if it could be accommodated within the sequel timeline. Me, um, check with the property owners to see if there's any objection and then bring that back to you. Um,

[04:01:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: City manager McCarthy?

[04:01:36] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, thank you, mayor. Thank you, RT. So, I just want to provide some context into the timing of this coming back to council just so everyone's on the same page. So we are required to, as you all know, have this done by December. So we are planning to come back to council in June. So this gives staff about 2.5 months to, you know, do do the lift on this. So, I would just say that, um, We, it is not possible to do personal outreach to, you know, potentially up to 11,000 sites and the new sites that we're thinking about. So as RT said, I think staff's going to have to do their best to look at what would fall in HCD. Um, formula, and then, of course, as far as question one, look at council direction, but, um, it's just, we just don't have the time in 2.5 months to take just a super deep dive, um, especially to those sites that are outside of the general planet. It just requires a lot of analysis and work that I'm just not quite sure that we'll be able to do in 2.5 months. RT, I don't know if you can expand on that further, but I just wanted to make sure that, um, Everyone's just on the same page.

[04:02:54] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, and I did want to sort of head, um, we do have to come to the planning commission, even before that. So some of this work has to be done ahead of time. Um, our strategy was to send out letters and focus on the ones where we are hearing some questions or objections. Uh, mind you, these sites are already zoned for that use. So it's not like we are rezoning them. Many other cities are contacting property owners because they're changing the use of their property. If we do hear back from property owners where who say they're not interested, we'll certainly bring that back and say, you know, we probably shouldn't be including those. Um, so we'll we'll kind of use a strategically use a staff resources to get the best bang for um, the time we have. Um, uh, taking into consideration what council has asked us to do.

[04:03:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: comfortable with that uh feedback. I guess the the only uh additional consideration is this is all in in the context of each CD compliant sites, right? So if, if for instance, there is, um, you know, a, a church site that doesn't have the general plan designation, but would help us achieve affirmatively furthering fair housing objectives, maybe that site, merits some additional attention, compared to a church site that doesn't help us with that requirement. Um, like um, a church, you know, for instance, in, in North Bay Shore that doesn't have a residential designation. That's probably lower priority for us. Um so that I think that's that's helpful. Um so now we'll turn into question 3. Uh which is does the city council support the initial list of draft housing element goals and policies? Are there other policy topics that should be included? Uh, city manager McCarthy, you have your hand up?

[04:04:55] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Apologies, I didn't. I didn't put it down.

[04:04:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No worries. Um. Any member of the council like to provide input on question 3? I'm a member Mattachak.

[04:05:11] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sure. So, um, I know, um, at times I get very focused on individual words. And um, I've done it again tonight. Um, and um, you know, I'm glad we're not talking about the, um, example programming. Um, because I think for a lot of those we still have discussions and decisions to make. Um, but when it comes to the goals and the policies. Um, you know, I was a little bit concerned that, um, some of them are subject to interpretation. And I kind of feel like I want to be clear um, so that there isn't. Um, a variety of perspectives on what we're trying to accomplish here. And so I'll just go through a few of them really quick. Um, goal one and meets the needs. You know, I was trying to figure out, well, how do we define needs? I think different people are going to have different perspectives on that. So I'd like more clarity around how we're going to define that. Um. Let's see, policy one under goal two. Um, assist is, well, I won't read it, but I feel like we, we've said we're going to assist, um, with this and I thought, well, we haven't really defined how we're going to assist. And what if there are um, funding implications that we can't meet? So I thought, well, maybe it's more explore than assist or something that just says, absolutely, we're going to take a look at this, but I'm not sure I can commit to saying we're going to do it without knowing the implications of it. Um, the same thing on item 8 create. Um, you know, again, I feel like it should be maybe explore or, um, Something along those lines. Go 3 I would love to end homelessness, but I'm not sure. That is possible, especially if, um, It's just Mountain View working on trying to create uh, housing and programs to help those that are homeless. Um, To me, it's to address homelessness. And let's see. Um, under goal 3 Um, again, it says prevent homelessness. Mm, you know, I'd like to, I hope we could do that, but I'm not sure we can. So I soften that a little bit. And that's it. Thanks.

[04:08:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Madishek, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think you and I tend to agree on, on, one component of your 1st remark, and that's, um, at the end of the planning period, we should all be on the same page about whether we've succeeded or not. Um, so would it be fair to say as a recommendation that we would ask staff to develop, um, tangible metrics, so, we can all gauge at the conclusion and be on the same page, whether we've made progress or not, on, on each goal?

[04:08:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, um, that's why I sent in the question about, um, the definitions for goals and policies. Were those definitions that HCD came up with or were those ones we came up with so we could potentially adjust them? Because I would like to know, have we met it or not? at the end of the cycle. And that's it.

[04:09:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: you. I appreciate the clarification. Okay, um, Council member Lieber.

[04:09:25] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Uh, thank you, Mayor, um, I am comfortable with, um, Most of the content here. Um, I would like to see if we can, um, have included as a local goal, uh, housing for people with um, developmental and intellectual disabilities. Um, a local SP 330 type ordinance to prevent displacement. Um, A prioritization of, um, studio efficiencies. Um. A reduction in um, uh, the housing requirements for 100% affordable housing. And, um, Also to the extent that it fits in here, uh, retention and increasing of our safe parking.

[04:10:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, if I may repeat what I've heard, so it would be, um, prioritizing housing for individuals with um, with developmental disabilities and physical disabilities.

[04:10:59] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Uh developmental and intellectual disabilities.

[04:11:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, developmental and intellectual. Um, and then um, For a local SB 330 type ordinance, um which would be basically replacement requirements and a 1st rate of return. Um, reduced parking for affordable housing and uh, safe, safe parking, exploration of state parking. Did I did I miss hear something?

[04:11:32] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, the only other thing was um, prioritizing studio efficiencies. So that we have some some supply of studio efficiencies.

[04:11:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay.

[04:11:46] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Is this also the item that the, um, priority for subsidized housing, uh, to people who live or work in Mountain View would be under?

[04:11:59] Senior Planner Ellen Yau: Well, this would be a, yeah, as long as it falls within sort of the rubric of goals, policies and programs. This is the opportunity for that input.

[04:12:09] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yeah, I'd like to see if we can, um, retain that for, um, family and senior affordable housing, but, um, cast a wider net on workforce housing.

[04:12:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: That's the, um, live work preference. Okay. Okay, um anything else? Council member?

[04:12:39] Councilmember Sally Lieber: No, thank you. That it.

[04:12:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Council member, Che Walter.

[04:12:46] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, I, uh, I'm fairly happy with this list. I think staff has done a good job of, um, of, uh, kind of replicating the goals that they've heard us talking about for the last, well, really many years, but specifically the last 2 years. There, um, and I, I would kind of, uh, uh, when I read about the homelessness goals with, I was, in a sense, a little, um, concerned about ending homelessness. I would love for us to end homelessness. Um, I wouldn't be opposed if we talked about reducing homelessness. Um, I don't, I think address, I don't know what address means. I mean, you address a letter. I don't know. I don't know what address means with respect to homelessness, but reducing homelessness. I could see that as a um, an okay, uh, as an acceptable, you know, um, uh, language to put in. Um, But the one I was hoping we could beef up a little bit. Is under goal one. Um, Policy 8. Support environmentally sustainable practices in all aspects of residential development. Um, I would like to see, um, A little bit more, you know, staff add to some more language related to the efficiencies of, um, uh, water and energy that come with new development and multifamily home development. That's it for me. Thank you.

[04:14:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so that would be focusing on water and energy efficiency. Is that what you said for goal one policy 8? Okay, well, we will, um, Add that to the list then, by Snare Hicks. You're up next.

[04:14:47] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So I'm, I'm generally happy with the way, you know, the overall goals, the discussion, uh, we've been having. I'm not going to make any more changes on those. I had, uh, Maybe 3 additional policy topics. And one is um, exploring shifting fees from housing to office development. uh, in order, obviously, to incentivize housing over offices, maybe via a parkland dedication fee on offices. Uh, and or new nexus studies allowing office development fees. So that's one, another policy would be, uh, implementing a community opportunity to purchase, uh, or, so it's referred to sometimes as a COPA or a TOPA program. And a 3rd one is uh, exploring community owned housing like community land trust and limited equity co-ops. So those are the 3 that I would add. Thank you.

[04:16:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Assistant, city manager, did you want to?

[04:16:07] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Very quickly. I wanted to address a few of these issues. Um, I think with the, with the, uh, preference given to, People who live and work in Mountain View, there are some legal limitations to what the city can do. I did want to let you know. So we will do it to the extent that we're allowed to by law, but it probably won't go as far as some council members would want us to go. Uh, we've already had some conversations um, with ATD on this and HUD as well. Um, and some of the recommendations about Copas and community owned housing that's already on the list, to be studied by the housing division as part of council strategies. So, um, uh, you know, it it could either be included in the housing element or could be live separately as a strategy, um, uh, in the strategic work plan.

[04:17:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member, Abby Kogan.

[04:17:04] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mary. I guess it brought up the question. Um, what what is the purpose of having these goals and the housing element versus, you know, there could be affordable housing strategies or some of our council priorities, like, where do they really need to lie? Um, the one specifically too. I had a question about is safe parking. I thought I heard you earlier answer a question saying that. Like vehicles don't count as housing. So expanding safe park or saying we're going to expand safe parking in the housing element to me doesn't really seem to work or match, you know, um, so. Shouldn't we be looking at that issue elsewhere not in the housing element? But overall, I guess I, yeah, what's the purpose of having these goals and, like, do we have to capture everything that's in all of our documents or, I guess I just looked at this as just kind of general, you know, general goals to, to show the state that we're, you know, we have these efforts, but I don't think we have to list everything and I'm not sure if we even need want to do that, but would ask for staff's perspective.

[04:18:26] Senior Planner Ellen Yau: Oh, I could speak to that briefly and then maybe pass it off to our consultants. So I think for this particular question for goals and policies. I think some of the council members who are writing specific, um, programs is helpful because as part of the annual progress report, we do have to report on, um, the specific programs. We're not reporting on the goals or policies, but the programs themselves, because it's part of the programming, their timelines, funding sources, and specific departments who are required to manage those. Um, I think in particular for the safe parking. Uh, well, the goals, uh, policies and programs are uh, intricately tied to, um, uh, the arena and housing affordability. So some of those questions about how can we accommodate more moderate or other lower income housing if we aren't specifically identifying on sites. I think a lot of those programs can help assist in that. So, That's kind of where, uh, that would lie for the safe parking. I suppose it could be um, located somewhere else.

[04:19:31] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: But, uh, I would just want to add to this to say, um, if if these are, we, we are required to report back on, on all of these, and there's a, there's a pretty heavy reporting requirement. So some of these are exploratory or don't really add to the housing element requirements, our suggestion would be to have it live in the council strategic plans and goals, we have a housing, uh, pro, you know, housing division work program. Um, uh, because because that provides a little more flexibility to the city, in being able to, um, you know, explore new ideas, and um, in a timeline that that fits. Um, so that would be our general suggestion.

[04:20:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And something like, um, the community land trust, um, how much of that, and they involves the city versus, um, I know like San Jose's looking at it, but it seems like there's a, the other, you know, it, it, there's, we, we are kind of dependent on other entities to, to come to, to actually make that happen. So,

[04:20:38] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, we'll we'll provide information. I, you know, I guess there's always funding in some way or technical, but we really don't have the staffing to, to become that partner, to create, to create the actual entity, so to speak. So a lot of this will be maybe doing some initial resource work and maybe pointing people to the right resources. Um, but we'll know more about that because I know the housing division's working on that particular goal.

[04:21:12] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, so I'm actually fine with what we have here. Um, I do agree with canceling our matter checks um, the wording issue. Um, I actually was thinking address. I think, I know Council member, Shelter, US, what that means, but, um, yeah, especially with one meeting the needs, I think that is very subjective and, um, unless we can actually quantify that. Um, I think it, it, it, it's maybe a little too broad in, um, you know, not necessarily, I think, achievable in when arena cycle. So, um, I would probably look at changing that wording, but otherwise I'm fine with. that you have. Thank you.

[04:21:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Did you want to add anything? Archie, you have your hand up still. Okay. Okay, I was a member labor.

[04:22:05] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor. Well, I would say the, um, out of my 4 asks, uh, the one that's, uh, the highest priority for me, um, is to make some kind of an effort towards, um, housing for people with developmental intellectual disabilities, because, We just have so many families in, in the Bay Area in our community, um, who are, are really stranded for a complete lack of, of housing options. And, and so I would like to request a, a straw vote on, on that. I think the families deserve that at a minimum. Thank you.

[04:22:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: It's on the list. We'll do the strong votes for everything after we've collected all of the recommendations. Council member today.

[04:22:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. Um, so just wanted to add, uh, add my answer to question 3 So, you know, I support the initial list of the goals and policies. I think the one thing, and I was like trying to decide which goal it should go under, maybe under goal one is one of the things we've been talking about a lot, and I guess it's kind of alluded to was, but kind of how do we create different nodes throughout our city? How do we, you know, I think we've talked about that as, as we're doing our precise plans, but going beyond just the, what I think a lot of us consider the heart of the city as, as, um, you know, downtown, but also creating active notes in San Antonio, hopefully middle field, North Bay Shore. And so when we're talking about a supply of housing that meets the needs of the city. I think we've kind of, we're generally talking about it. I don't know if it needs to be called out a little bit more. We've talked a little bit. The word transit and transportation are in there, but we've heard a lot, especially in the pandemic about creating walkable bikable communities. And, um, I think because we're talking about addressing our housing needs, how do, I feel like those are really coupled together. Um, and so, you know, maybe that's under like, uh, Yeah, I think it most closely falls into goal one, I don't have any, uh, wordsmithing, um, suggestions or solutions, but I, that would just be my comment. I want to try to move towards that type of language, whether it be here as we go forward, um, about, you know, how we can create amenities and services all throughout our city.

[04:24:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, I've got, oh, my snare hicks.

[04:24:45] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, I was just gonna ask Steph, and since you're listing them, uh, the various uh, policy topics we've brought up. Um, the, 2 of the ones that I brought off, the Coper Topa program and the um, community land trust, whether staff, Thought that they would be better housed elsewhere. I felt like I, I'm not sure where we landed on that because I would withdraw them if staff generally felt they would be better housed elsewhere.

[04:25:18] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: I think we can take a look at that. Um, and so if the council wants us to, you know, um, review and and suggest something, we can certainly come back and suggest it live outside if we think it, that's where it's better. But we'd have to confer with the housing division too. And we can.

[04:25:38] Senior Planner Ellen Yau: And I also want to add that that's in one of the policies to generally pursue innovative housing options. So it's a, it's a policy, not specifically a program that we'd have to necessarily track, but a policy to explore some of those options.

[04:25:54] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, if we're trying to create some real metrics. I think we want to get more real with, what the previous housing element was a little, more aspirational, and what I'm sensing is the council wants some real metrics. So we want to be realistic about what can be achieved within the housing element. Period. And um, that actually addresses housing element issues.

[04:26:16] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Mm-hmm. So am I hearing you say we could vote on it and then staff could decide where it would best be housed.

[04:26:25] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Yes. Either way, it's something we're studying as part of council strategic work plan, but, you know, you can ask us to review it.

[04:26:34] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you.

[04:26:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, I've got a, a few, uh, the 1st one actually is, um, I think, perhaps related to council member Canay's suggestion. Um, most of our opportunity sites, our commercial areas, and if we proceed with redevelopment, there's a pretty good chance we're gonna be displacing a lot of small businesses, and so I, I don't know if it's appropriate to include this in the housing element, but, um, I think it would be good to give staff some direction early on, um, about whether we're interested in. Pursuing a a small business relocation or retention ordinance of some kind so that way we're not just displacing a lot of small businesses and if we get mixed use redevelopment. We're probably not going to have them come back. It'll most likely be James that fill those spaces. Um, so, uh, I'd like to suggest that as a, an idea, um, and then staff can, say that's something that's appropriate or not, and at least just give us some preliminary feedback and, um, and approach to, to address that concern. Um, another idea that, I thought was, was powerful is uh, exploring um a citywide housing portal. Um, to make it easier for individuals in the city to apply for existing affordable housing. Um, I've never done it myself, but I understand it's difficult because you have to go project by project and submit applications and sometimes there's, there are different parameters and and requirements, and so I think, um, I, I know some. Cities or jurisdictions already have a portal kind of like this and if we can take advantage of that technology great or if it's a little bit more challenging, at least that can do a preliminary assessment, but it's basically designed to be a one stop shop, so if I'm applying for an affordable, um, unit in mountain view, or maybe even inner jurisdictionally. I just go through the portal I put in my profile and it'll, you know, produce, uh, options that that I might be eligible for, so something along those lines. Um. I'm, uh, I think this is touched on a little bit, but we should probably make it more, um, explicit, uh, probably the biggest constraint, um, we're going to encounter when dealing with affordable housing is the financial constraint. We just don't have enough local or regional funding or state funding available. Um, and I think it might be worth having staff evaluate, uh, some kind of ongoing funding source, so this could be a ballot measure, for instance, modeled after measure E in San Jose, which was a real estate transfer tax imposed on commercial developments, um, or it might be some other funding source. Um, but I think it's important to think longer term. How do we actually want to fund all of the affordable housing in the pipeline? And if it's appropriate to include that and the housing element, great and it's not, I think it's already under consideration, somewhere else in the work plan. Um, I do think it's. Helpful to provide direction on exploring some kind of housing overlay, um that would make sure that we only get affordable housing in certain sites, so like the church sites, for instance, I'm not sure, there's a lot of interest in market rate housing there. I think we want to preserve those more for affordable opportunities and so. Giving staff an opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of some kind of overlay would be good. Um, I think that is already looking at this too, but um, where the general plan already allows, a maximum that they are, as long as you adhere to objective standards, um, allowing that development to proceed without counsel approval. Um, so like tier one, tier 2 in El Camino Real, there are already, uh, objective standards and the precise plan. There's already an allowance to go up to. I think it's 3.0 FAR and um I don't feel like there's a tremendous amount of value in having to counsel uh review code compliant projects. I think this is a concern we've had over the years. So it would be eliminating the need for a point of discretion for code compliant projects that are tier one or tier 2 in existing precise plans. And the last one is, um, uh, flooring a prohibition on short term rentals, and apartments. Um, this is something that we talked about before, and there wasn't council support for it then, but I figured it might be worth revisiting because every unit in an apartment complex that's rented short term, is a unit that's not being rented out too, um, a long term resident or family. Uh council member Abby Coca.

[04:31:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. Um, I guess I wanted to ask Steph some of, I, I think these are, you know, great ideas that we've discussed before, but I feel like we're getting into adding new work plan items, not, you know, I just, I don't look at the housing element again. I don't look at it as our way of trying to add more projects. Like that's, we have a process for doing that. So I was looking at this as, you know, what we already have in existence, maybe what we can explore, but I, you know, again, I want to be mindful of staff time that there is a time deadline to this too. Um, and also, um, I feel like these are just new projects that we should be discussing maybe, you know, in our next round of goals and work plan items. But I would appreciate staffs. Take on that. I will say in terms of the portal. Um, the Bay Area housing and finance authority that I am on, that's actually one of our 5 projects. So we're looking at doing something Bay Area wide already. Um, and and then in terms of funding mechanisms. Um, you know, I think we really have to be right mindful of what the state is wanting to do until I could support saying we can support, you know, state efforts for more affordable housing, but again, if we're looking at some kind of bond measure or parcel tax or whatever in the city, that's the whole, to me, a whole new project, we just took the TOT off and, you know, I would hesitate to try to add some some kind of tax measure or a bond measure on housing at this time. So I, I, I don't think we should be putting all this in the housing element. Um, right now. I think we need to, you know, kind of vet all this before we decide what we're going to do in terms of programs. But again, you know, and then I wanted to flag on page 14 of the staff report, there's items 7 that says encourage and support the maintenance preservation and development of subsidized housing that serves low income household, seniors, disabled individuals, the homeless, larger households, historically underserved communities and other special needs populations. So I think that covers council members, laborers, uh, concern, and that's just that's something more than that. So, but yeah, if staff could maybe give us a little bit guy of guidance on what we really should be looking at putting in this versus what our work plan items that we need to discuss down the road that would be great. Thank you.

[04:34:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: City manager, could you want to respond?

[04:34:26] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, yes, thank you, mayor and council member Abbe Koga. So some of the things that, uh, we have heard are actually, uh, in the works with some of our current work plan products. So for example, um, you all did approve, uh, having an economic vitality strategic plan. And we just released the RFP and we'll be hiring a consultant to help us with that. So for example, the small business, relocation, our retention ordinance. I see a potential nexus there. Um, the affordable housing measure, we are bringing an item back to council. in a few months, related to affordable housing efforts and potential funding strategies. So I do see, you know, some of these things as being more related to project work, some that are already underway, and others potentially that we could certainly discuss adding to the work plan as part of your priority of housing, not necessarily encompassed as part of the housing element itself. Um, but I would ask for RT to clarify, um, that that piece of it, but, you know, I certainly think these are projects that you all can consider. And some, as I mentioned, are underway, um, but just may not necessarily fit with the housing element, but RT, I'm not sure if you can maybe clarify that further with what we would include, um, to the state or not.

[04:35:55] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: I think, I think you're right. Um, uh, the city manager did highlight some of these issues. For example, the small business retention plan is something that will be part of the economic vitality strategy. Probably wouldn't be um, belong in the housing element. But we'll be very cognizant of that as we develop village center rezoning, you know, zoning policies, right? So we can look at, um, you know, incentivizing the retention of businesses. Um, you know, El Camino does this as a community benefit in a 2nd gear. So there's examples of how you can achieve it with zoning. But the actual effort would probably lie elsewhere. Um, so we can, we can sort of create that dichotomy um, as we move forward. Um, some of these, we believe, don't belong in the housing element because they don't really address all the housing element items, but they will certainly belong in the council strategic work plan for housing. Um, you know, I can't um, separate them specifically, but, Many of them will relate to. I think, I think the focus on the housing element will be looking at specifically what the housing element asks us to look at, right, which is making housing affordable to various incomes to people of all kinds, reducing barriers. Um, and there might be others that don't quite belong in the housing element, and we would recommend that they live outside. primarily to keep us focused on, on housing element items. Um, you know, where the housing home's concerned and to give us a flexibility to work on those other programs, separate, um, outside of the housing element. So when we come back in June, we will have some specific recommendations, once um, the council gives us direction on the 3rd question.

[04:37:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Abi Koca, did you have any other questions or?

[04:37:58] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you for your answers.

[04:38:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Council member meta check.

[04:38:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Yeah, so tonight we were really only talking about goals and policies, right? Not the programs anyway. And I do feel like a lot of what I heard was a pro were programs. Did I did I get that wrong? Are we talking about programs tonight too?

[04:38:24] Senior Planner Ellen Yao: Our question was on the goals.

[04:38:26] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah. Yeah, that's what I thought.

[04:38:29] Senior Planner Ellen Yao: Um, so, um, um, I just want to add one thing, the focus is on the goals and policies, but, um, sometimes it's easier to, um, formulate a program that can then inform what the policy is, and I think that's kind of why everyone is directed towards creating programs. So, yeah, our specific question is the goals and policies, but if there are programs that can feed into the golden policies, it kind of works both ways.

[04:38:55] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Yeah, I also think, um, council member labor's comment about including housing for, um, the disabled can also be folded into Policy 3 of goal one. Um, because it lists, um, that we want to have uh, range of housing, range of densities for, um, a diverse population, and then we list a whole bunch. I think it's easy to add another one to the list. Um, can I just clarify, um, council member labor? I thought you said, that you wanted to look at reducing the requirements for 100% affordable housing. I didn't hear you say parking. We already have reduced parking requirements for 100% affordable, don't we? But I thought you said, like requirements overall.

[04:39:51] Councilmember Sally Lieber: through the mayor, if I may. Um, I was indicating reduced parking for 100% affordable.

[04:39:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Sorry, I heard requirements in general. Okay, thanks.

[04:40:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other, uh, questions, comments, and then I'll go through the list and we'll see what has, uh, majority support. Um, so I I appreciate, um, uh. Yeah, your your comments about the, um, programs, policies and goals, and how they interrelate, because I, I think it is difficult to come in very, very high level with goals, and um, and not really have a good sense of what sort of the practical impact may be so early on, so I'm, I, I, I'm gonna go through the list, and I think it all comes in with a sense of. Broad latitude for staff to say is this appropriate to include in the housing element. You know, based on council's interest in a given program. Should we change a policy or goal to be more reflective of what we're trying to achieve? Um, and then, you know, for instance, some things, maybe important to have as both a work plan item and also housing on an item and some things, may not be. Um, so I think having staff, uh, input on on these ideas will be helpful for us as well, um, at the next study session. Council member, council member, Lieber. Did you you had your hand up? Is there anything you wanted to add?

[04:41:28] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Uh, no thank you, Mayor.

[04:41:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, no worries. Um, I'm not seeing any other hands up. so I'm gonna do my best to go through this. Uh this list. We'll start with um. Some text amendments. Actually, I'll start with the highest level um recommendation, which was to have staff evaluate some um, some metrics or to quantify the goals, so that way at the conclusion of the planning period, the council um, is on the same page about whether we've made progress or not. Um, so staff would be empowered to come back with, formants indicators or metrics for each goal, um, and then we will have an opportunity to weigh in at the next study session. Is there support for that recommendation? Uh, counselor, sorry, council member Mattachek.

[04:42:28] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I I would like to know if we've met our goals or not, but I also feel like if the goal itself needs to be tweaked in order to make it a measurable goal, I would be interested in that.

[04:42:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. So with that amendment, is there council support for modifying the goals to have metrics or some kind of measurement, 12 um, 3? Okay, so that does not have support, that's 34 uh uh RT, did you want to speak to that?

[04:43:04] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: I I just wanted to say sometimes goals can't be measurable, but the policies and programs might contain measurable items. For example, you know, strive to develop at least 50, you know, units for developmentally disabled during the period or find funding or, you know, there's, there's ways to, the goal itself may not include specific metrics. But, you know, you could direct us to look at creating metrics through, through the policy of the programs. Um, and some of these are already in our CDBG action plan. We can, we can sort of, you know, allude to some of those, um, to the extent that they relate to the housing element.

[04:43:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, thank you. helpful. Council member show Walter?

[04:43:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Now, I would be interested in having, um, some, uh, some metrics, uh, as, as staff thinks is appropriate put into the, the programs. But I'm, I am just, um, concerned that, uh, the development of metrics can be very time consuming, and we don't have too much time between them and now. So, so the type of thing that um, our, that uh, our team mentioned. I think is appropriate and it fits in and it's, and, you know, that, then that's fine. But I don't think we want staff to be spending an undue amount of time on this because I do think that really, the metric is, have we met them reading numbers? You know, the state gives us a metric. We don't necessarily have to, um, make it any more complicated than that. But, um, but there are certain, certain, things that we, we want, you know, it's, it's easier if you have a few numbers associated with them. So I, I, I would trust staff to, um, to incorporate them as, as is appropriate.

[04:44:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, so a quick, quick question for Steph, were you already planning to um, have quantifiable, um, elements or metrics for, for the programs and policies, if not the goals?

[04:45:13] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: We were not specifically looking at metrics, but if the council wants us to include, I think we, we want to make sure that, Some of these are aspirational. And what we don't want to do is, you know, we want to, we, we do want to reflect the fact that we want to strive to achieve some of these, but we also don't want to add metrics that are probably not achievable. So, um, I think we have to be really careful. Um, and I do want to remind the council. If they end up in our housing element, they become the priority over any other council goal. So, so we have to be careful about making sure that these will be the priority over other council goals. Um, you know, and and that we're only including those that will be a priority. Um, so I think we're going to have to look at what we already have in our existing documentation that, that, um, we can use. And see if we actually need new ones or not. So, um, I think we'll need to do a little bit of review mayor before we come back with general direction from the council.

[04:46:18] Eric Anderson: And I'll just add on to that. Um, the state law does require us to quantify our programs to the extent that they produce housing. So we need to say that for for the, every program that we have, how many housing units do we think it's going to produce? What type, what income level? We have to be very quantitative. in that, in that process. And this again goes back to the housing element requirements, right? So we're definitely going to meet those. Um, and our intent was to include that level of quantification.

[04:46:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's that's very helpful. Thank you. Um, So, it may be that we don't need, uh, council vote because the state already compels us to devise some, some number of, um, metrics anyway. Okay so then um moving on to the next set of recommendations. Um, there was a request to, uh, better define or clarify. Goal one, um, meets the needs, uh, so, uh, right now, the goal is uh, supply housing that meets the needs of the city, the council would be requesting that staff provide greater clarity or definition to that goal, is their support for that recommendation. 4 okay. That's, uh, 552. I'll say 52. Um. Uh for goal to policy one. Of which is. Assist extremely low through moderate income households and renting or purchasing a home in Mountain View. The request is to change the word assist to explore, um, or explore, assisting. Is there council support for that recommendation? Uh so that's not not for that one. Um, for goal to policy 8. Um, create housing solutions and resources for lower and moderate income residents displaced by development, et cetera. Uh, the recommendation is change, create to explore. Is there council support for that recommendation? Not majority support for that one. Um. And so there are 2 different ideas for this for goal 3 Uh, comprehensive suite of housing opportunities and services to prevent respond to and end homelessness, um, the 1st uh, recommendation was changed and homelessness to address homelessness. Uh, council member met a check. You want to speak to this?

[04:49:10] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah. I'm I'm fine tweaking the words. I don't feel like the words that I was using were the ones that I was necessarily recommending. I feel like I was leading it up to staff to come back to us, because I think we're going to revisit these with words that might be better, that are more clear. Um, I didn't pick words for these. And so I can see why I'm the only one saying, you know, I want to change some of these. I actually feel like, um, It's going to be hard for me to vote on all of the recommendations from my colleagues here tonight because I feel like we're mixing, um, policies and programs and, um, I, I don't feel like I can vote on programs that, I don't know really what they are and how much work they are, if they're feasible, how much they might cost. So I feel like, you know, all the direction we've given staff tonight, I would prefer that they just came back to us with a 2nd version of this, that we could then respond to because I feel like we've given a lot of input tonight. So I don't know, I feel like I'd take a different approach to what we're doing here tonight. On this section.

[04:50:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I, well, I'm, I, I think that's, that's fair, and I'm, I'm trying to figure out a way to, to gauge which recommendations have counsel, majority support, and which ones don't, uh, because we, we've also expressed concern with study sessions where we provide a lot of robust input, and we, we don't necessarily agree on what the conclusion of that discussion is. Um, this is a hard item. I think to have a study session on so we're doing the best we can. Uh council member Medicheck.

[04:51:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so I guess how are we going to evaluate programs? You know, like some of these in concept, I feel like, okay, but a lot of them, I really don't know, um, the level of effort or the level of funding that be would be required, which is why we talk about programs as part of the work plan that we develop. So staff has the opportunity to look at them and come back to us.

[04:51:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, so, I, I, to clarify, tonight, we're not necessarily same as the programs specifically, but for staff to evaluate, evaluate whether it's appropriate to include them in the housing limits, and some of them already are in the work plan. Um, so those especially, it might be helpful to include in in the housing element or not. Um, but I, I don't think right now we have enough information to say, you know, this one must be included or this one shouldn't be, but if it helps us achieve the goals that we're articulating then it's probably appropriate. Um, so, so we can, we can provide sort of high level direction to staff to evaluate whether it's appropriate in the 1st place to include some of these, um, without explicitly committing to including them tonight, because you're right, there isn't enough information for, for most of them. Council member reliever?

[04:52:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Oh, thank you, Mayor, for, for the ones that there is council support. I'm fine with staff coming back to say, hey, uh, we took a very brief look at this and we think it should live in the work plan instead of in the housing element. It's really not appropriate for there. So we're going to sweep it into the work plan, the next work plan discussion. But just in a very precursory way, but if the support isn't even there tonight to even look at it. Then let's just know that tonight. Let's move through these briskly and And things that don't have support, well, that died on the cutting room floor.

[04:53:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: And I think also, um, to an earlier point, I think it's an important one. Um, we may not necessarily have the the right language to commit to tonight. Um, and so I, I, would, I, I'll ask staff. So for, for instance, um, you know, we talked about meeting the needs or, meeting towards like assist or create or ending, um, well, staffs, based on this input, come back with modifications to the language that might be more appropriate, or more achievable, or more quantifiable. Do you do you need direction on that or do you retain the latitude based on the input to come back with changes to the language?

[04:53:45] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: I think the more specific direction is the better it is for us to understand what the council wants. Um, so, Um, At the very least, we would want to know which which ones you would want us to reward. Maybe you don't have the specific word, but Which one do you want us to reward and generally what you would want to achieve with that rewarding?

[04:54:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's helpful. So in some cases, it might be important for us to provide that explicit direction tonight. And then in other cases, you can probably refine based on other parameters that we're, we're providing direction on, uh, council member labor.

[04:54:26] Councilmember Sally Lieber: It, it seems like a general drift of what I'm interpreting from Council member Manachek is that, um, she would like to see, uh, less aspirational language, and, and more, um, maybe grounded language, um, around, you know, addressing homelessness versus ending homelessness. Um, because it's obvious that we live in a world of a lot of complex forces, few of which are within our control. And, um, So, so I'm okay with, you know, sort of across the board, um, kind of making those more realistic.

[04:55:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Council member of Mattachek.

[04:55:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I think that's a good way of describing my concerns with this, um, like meets the needs. I don't really know what that means. Um, so define needs. And, you know, there's some that are very aspirational and I don't want to set us up for failure and not being able to meet those. Thanks.

[04:55:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So maybe, um, then, as high level direction, we would say the staff, use less aspirational language, and um, instead use language that, um, might be achievable, given, the practical, considerations and constraints that we have over the next 8 years. Um, council member, would, would that be, um, fairly responsible?

[04:56:02] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay.

[04:56:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So so then let's let's take a vote on that so this would be general direction to staff to take out aspirational language and put in. I think to use your term council member labor more grounded language. Is there support for recommendation 123456. Okay uh so there is majority support. Um. Okay. Um so then I won't go through all of the specific words. Um. The number show Walter had recommended amending goal one policy 8 correct me if I'm wrong it was to include specifically water and energy efficiency as as a policy is that is that correct? Okay.

[04:56:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Is there a majority support for that recommendation? 123 okay majority support. I think that's 61. Um, there was a recommendation uh council member committees recommendation to um include as part of general, sorry, as goal one, this could be a policy or maybe in the goal itself. Um, uh, Consideration of creating uh, active nodes and um, ensuring that uh, we're creating walkable and blackable communities with amenities and services. Council member can make.

[04:57:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So I was reminded that the nodes was part of the general plan discussion. And I knew that I, uh, that it was somewhere. So if that suffices that, then that's, that's fine. Um, and I think staff will kind of similar to what Councilman Matachek was talking about earlier. Staff can just kind of include my comments wherever they see fit in terms of if we are able to include any walkable, bikeable kind of language that we've been hearing, then I'm fine with that. I don't think a formal motion is necessary. Thanks.

[04:58:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for for, um, for that suggestion. I think that's that's reasonable. Um, all right. So I've got few more. Um, there was uh, a recommendation and correct me if I if I didn't capture this um, accurately to prioritize um, or explore efficiency, units or studios, to serve as many people as possible. Um is there support for that? Recommendation. And to, uh, for council member show alters, is that a 4th vote?

[04:58:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes

[04:58:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: okay so that would be direction to staff to explore or prioritize efficiency studios. Um. And then, uh, a recommendation to, um, prioritize or, um, create housing for individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities, um, so that might be amending the existing, uh, policy that, I think it was council member, Abby Koga had identified. Maybe we could make that a little bit more explicit. Um, council member Robbie Koga?

[04:59:23] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, I guess I, I wanted to ask counselor reliever what more you would like to see. It, it felt like this. item that covered it, but I may be missing something.

[04:59:36] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I think there would be plenty sufficient if that specific wording about developmental and intellectual disabilities is added into that goal.

[04:59:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and that's um, goal 2 policy 7. Um, so that would be amended to explicitly include um, individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities. Is there majority support for that amendment 1234? Okay so that's unanimous. Um, was a recommendation to, um, explore, uh, amending the lift work preference to apply to. I think it was, um, families and seniors is that correct? Council member um did you want to speak to that?

[05:00:38] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, thank you, um, as we noted, I think this would be problematic. Um, and it's not recommended by staff to explicitly include this because you've been told repeatedly that this is a very hard policy to implement.

[05:00:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I remember labor.

[05:00:58] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, is it the case that we would either have to have No preference across the board. Or a preference across the board.

[05:01:10] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: I think I think it interferes with fair housing. Um, laws, and it's been very hard for the city to even implement it. And when we have, we have been, um, We have been questioned. So up, we would hesitate, including this as an explicit policy in the housing element.

[05:01:29] Eric Anderson: And I would echo that. It's also, there's restrictions on funding, sources and, um, they have different funding sources have different requirements. It's something that staff spent a lot of time looking at over the years to come up with a defensible preference. Um, policy. So

[05:01:50] Councilmember Sally Lieber: question mayor, through the mayor, if I may, um, So our current preference, For, uh, individuals who live or work in Mountain View is a problem.

[05:02:04] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, we don't implement it. I mean, we we do additional, um, we do additional outreach, but we can't actually apply a specific preference.

[05:02:14] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, that's, that's, uh, more than sufficient for me because, uh, I think that, People don't keep themselves siloed to one city. They look for housing wherever they can. So I'm very pleased with that.

[05:02:28] Eric Anderson: And I'll just add one thing. Um, we do implement a live work preference for our BMR units currently. Um, and for some of our, um, 100% affordable housing units, but not all of them for the, for the purposes that RT just explained. And we have been required to review our existing preferences. So they're currently under review. So I, We'll see what happens in the future.

[05:02:52] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Through the mayor, if I may, I'd be perfectly happy if they went away.

[05:02:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, uh, so it sounds like that's already under evaluation by staff, so a vote isn't necessary. Um, the next item is, um, consideration of a local SV 330 type ordinance, so this is already in the work plan, from what I understand, replacement requirements, um, 1st right of return, and I think the direction would be to have staff evaluate whether it's appropriate to include this in the housing element as well. Um, is there a majority support for having staff evaluate that? 123. Okay um it looks like. majority support. Um, uh, RT, you have your hand up? Did you wanna? Okay. Um, the next is to consider reduced parking for 100% affordable housing, that is their majority support for that. Okay, 43. And again, at the end of this, I'll go ahead and do a, a summary of, of the items um, that has majority support. Um, so this one, uh, is, uh, I think we, we could use a little bit more definition. There was a recommendation to include, um, I think it was an expansion of the safe parking program. Um, Baths that you have, so this would be to evaluate whether that's appropriate to include in the, the housing element, essentially. I think that's my understanding of the recommendation. Um, is there support to have staff evaluate whether it's appropriate to include safe parking and the housing element goals, policies and programs? Looks like there is not majority support for that. Um, okay. Uh, there was a recommendation to explore shifting fees from housing to office development, so that might include, for instance, the nexus study, um, to uh, allow the city to impose park fees on office space, which currently it does not happen. Um, I think we did actually provide, uh, some input on this when we talked about the parkland dedication ordinance a long time ago. Um, assistant community, I can't get it right. Um uh city manager.

[05:05:20] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Um, thank you. This is, I believe, a goal already, and if you had to ask us today, we would say, let's leave a little bit of flexibility to implement some of these and not have them be the top priority because council might want other goals and policies to be implemented. Because these will take top priority, and they will involve other departments and council goals will not be top priority. So we have to be very careful about things that will actually achieve our housing element goals and what council wants to be top priority because housing element items are state mandated.

[05:05:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, um, So, I, I'm, we can take a vote on it, uh, city manager? Did you want to speak to this?

[05:06:06] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, yes, thank you, mayor, just to kind of piggyback on what RT said. So, if you remember, this was last year, and so I know a lot's happened since then, we had a lot of discussions during the strategic roadmap process about the difference between the the work plan or the roadmap that you all were adopting, and then all the other special projects and work that is underway with all these other plans that we have. So the, you know, the general plan, the housing element. Um, the the race equity and inclusion action plan. So, essentially, I think what what RT's saying is, if you add these things into the housing element, then the other projects and priorities that are already in your strategic work plan would fall down on the list, and you all have already prioritized those items. So I think it's just being a little circumspect on what you're adding to what, what, uh, policy and and, whether you keep it in your work plan versus just adding all these things to the housing element. So just something for you all to think about. Um, you do have an ambitious work plan now that has most items in the intentional housing and development uh, council priority. So staff can take a look at what things might, we might be able to call out that are already there. But, um, yeah, just just know that if we add items to the housing element, they're going to take priority over all those other things that are in the other, um, strategic roadmap.

[05:07:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's that's helpful for us to keep in mind. I think one of the things that makes this recommendation compelling personally. We don't have the results yet. But the uh constraints analysis includes evaluation of the financial feasibility of residential development, and if we find that it is a significant constraint, and we have to come up with a solution to address it anyway, it might be good to have this, um, in our back pocket, so it might be, um, instead have staff evaluate whether it's appropriate to include, shifting fees from housing to office development. If the financial feasibility constraints require us to, um, is that, um, I think, uh, vice mayor hicks that was. Your recommendation is that are you okay with that modification?

[05:08:32] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Sure, you could change it to that. Yes.

[05:08:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. So then it would be, um, have staff evaluate, whether it's appropriate to include exploring shifting fees from housing to office, office development, if it is a, a helpful solution for us to address the, financial feasibility constraints. Their majority support for that recommendation. One, two, 3 okay, so there is not, um, that's 3 to 4. Um, the next one is um, for, um, a community opportunity to purchase, uh, program, which, uh, I can't remember, is that already something that staff is considering as part of our displacement strategy?

[05:09:24] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Yes.

[05:09:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. So then the request would be have stats evaluate whether it's appropriate to include this also in the housing element. Um is there support for that consideration? 123. Oh, so there was, oh, 4 so that 124 hands. Okay, so staff will evaluate whether that's appropriate to include in the housing element. Um, and then, um, very similarly, I think this is already in our, in our, uh, displacement strategy, uh, invest in, um, opportunities like community owned housing, uh, or CLTs, or limited equity co-ops, so, again, have staff evaluate whether it's appropriate to include that in the housing element. It's their majority support for that recommendation. That's 4 to 3. Okay. Almost there. Um. So, uh, staff already mentioned that the small business relocation consideration is being evaluated as part of the, I think it was the economic vitality strategy and the zoning, so, I don't think a vote, do you feel there would be value in having direction on that or definitely not.

[05:10:48] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: No,

[05:10:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: okay, so then we'll skip that, uh, council member Abi Koga had mentioned that with this already, um, I think in development some, uh, affordable housing portal. Um, is, uh, staff, is that one also where you feel there's no value in having a vote on that because it's already in development at a regional level?

[05:11:12] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, we believe so, and I do know that the, um, housing division is working with house keys, um, our, our, our new provider. To create a, a better portal. Um, while keeping in mind that each, each development has different requirements based on the funding. Um, so we are already working on it, so we don't believe it's, it's, it's necessary.

[05:11:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Great. So then we won't need a boat on that. Um, this is already part of the work plan, so again, this would be having staff evaluate whether it's appropriate to include in the housing element, but explore a revenue generating ballot measure to fund affordable housing, um, and related programs like the acquisition rehabilitation program we're considering, um, and that's not specifying a particular, um, source of revenue, but just the generation, uh, council member command.

[05:12:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. Um, I see the city manager has her hand, so it might be the same question as mine, but is this for the housing element or should we talk about this in goal setting? I just wasn't sure. Maybe maybe the city manager can let us know. I'm interested. I just not sure where it's appropriate.

[05:12:29] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, may or may I answer that?

[05:12:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay,

[05:12:32] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: mayor and council council member, uh, Kamei. So this is already on your work plan, the strategic roadmap, and staff is already planning to bring an item to council in the probably the August, September time frame to discuss affordable housing options, funding options. So, I would recommend that this not be part of the, um, housing element, but instead we come to council 1st to get your direction, and then go forward in that way. Um, and I would, I would also say we might need to spend the next, you know, couple months to evaluate some of these other items, um, in that same manner. And then once we return to council in June, we'll have to let you know, um, the analysis, it's been done with what, um, is appropriate to include and and where you all may need to weigh in just in separate council items.

[05:13:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's helpful. If the council does support pursuing it, and it does prove to be valuable to include in the housing element. We can include it down the road, though. Is that, is that true? Okay. Um, so we're not gonna vote on that one either. Um, explore creating a uh, housing overlay for affordable housing. Um, so this would apply perhaps to church sites or any sites that, um, I think be appropriate, um, to allow a pathway for 100% affordable housing. If there's support for that um, recommendation. 1234. Okay so that's 43. Um. I don't think there's gonna be support uh city manager McCarthy you have your hand up?

[05:14:31] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: No. Sorry, I forgot to put it down again.

[05:14:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, no worries. Um, I think Steph spoke to this already, but including this might be another one to include for um, the constraints solutions, but to um, eliminate council approval for code compliant tier one and tier 2 projects and precise plans, to support for that. Recommendation. Uh it looks like there is not um but I think staff is already looking at that so that's okay. Um, and then, uh, uh, a prohibition of short term rentals and apartment complexes, zoned R 3 or with uh, rent control. Is there support for that, 12, all right, 3 so there's not support for that. Um okay so uh here is the summary of the majority direction. So um, we are going to uh, clarify in goal one that meets the needs language and then, generally, um, stop using aspirational language and instead use language that is more grounded, um, more achievable over an 8 year time frame. Um, we will amend goal one policy 8 to include water and energy efficiency. We will, uh, exploration of uh, efficiency units or studios as a priority. Among the policies. Uh we will uh amend. I think it was go to uh. Policy 7 to explicitly include, individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities. Um, we will have staff evaluate, including, uh, in the housing element, uh, local SB 330 type ordinance, so again, that's replacement requirements and a 1st right, return. Um, and uh, have staff look at, uh, reducing parking for 100% affordable housing. And then also include, uh, direction to staff to evaluate, including the COPA concepts, immunity owned housing, like CLTs, and uh, the creation of the housing, overlay, in the housing elements, that would create a pathway for affordable housing for certain parcels. That's the summary, um, any other questions or anything I missed, council member mess check.

[05:17:22] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I'd also like staff to come back and let us know based upon this direction. What is the impact on the work plan that we already have in place? Um, what gets pushed out or um, dropped. I guess, to prioritize some of these items. Thanks.

[05:17:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No problem. Thank you. Um, and and for my benefit for, uh, question the staff, when we say prioritize, this is over an 8 year period, right? So it doesn't have to be done next year, the programs would be implemented over the course of the 6th cycle, is that right?

[05:18:04] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, but to achieve the goals within the 8 year period, um, you know, some of these might have to be implemented earlier, um, I did want to understand the question, though, about looking at the rest of the council strategic work plan, um, And and coming back with the staff report, I'm not sure we're gonna. Have the time to go and do an exhaustive search of what's going to happen, but we can certainly recommend what we feel should be absolutely included in the housing element. Um, for the purposes of the housing element and probably recommend that the other policies live outside. Of it. If that's okay. Because we have limited time and a lot of work to do.

[05:18:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Okay. Looks like there's thumbs up to that staff's feedback. Okay, majority support for that. Thank you. All right final question. Um. Is does the city council support staff recommendation study targeted updates to the non-conforming section of the zoning code to expand the ability to maintain and preserve the number of residential units on lots that do not conform? to allow to, uh, to allow densities. And that's applies something to R one and R 2 zoned parcels. Um, are there any questions or um, comments from council members? Um, I'll I'll go ahead and start us off then. So I, um, oh, council member coming.

[05:19:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I mean, I'll just be brief. Yes. You know, I appreciate. I don't really have any other comments and maybe that's why you're not seeing hands plus the hour. But I, you know, I appreciate that stuff is, um, you know, also using the housing element to kind of, kind of do a cleanup, right? Um, and I, and I see that this is, you know, part of that. So appreciate that they're trying to bring everything. Um, into into conformity. So that's it. think.

[05:20:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So it sounds like there might be support for the staff recommendation. I did have a different opinion and if there isn't support for this, this is fine. Um, I do have a concern about keeping these properties zoned, um, for something other than what they are, uh, and just having the nonconforming, um, regulations modified to allow redevelopment of existing densities, because I, I, I think. I guess the question I would have for staff is if somebody redevelops a property, um, with clearly nonconforming standards, what standards do you use?

[05:20:54] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Typically under non-conforming? They're allowed to build back, for example, the existing FAR, build back at the existing heights. Those are what you can build back, build back the existing buildings, rebuild the existing densities. That's what happens. Um, if we rezone, then we have to go back and. That's additional work, we have to go back and look at, um, what zone to fit it in. I know we're going through a revision with R3. Um, you know, so it's, it's, it's gonna be hard to. coincide that with the R3 process because as it stands, it's the current R3 zoning is going to be amended. Uh, which is why we thought this would be a little more elegant solution. It doesn't rezone the properties, but it gives protection to the existing. Um, you know, units that exist. Um, in, in a, in a manner that goes well beyond, um, what typical non-conforming ordinances do, you can actually build back the density. Um.

[05:21:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Yeah, Walter, I'm sorry, did you any anything else that you wanted to add? Okay. I'm sorry, uh council member Shelter.

[05:22:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, you know, I think this is an excellent idea. Um, I know that um, I've encountered this problem of what you can build back with um, in, uh, dealing with floods. You know, where um, people, um, People, If people are built. If more than 50% of their house has been destroyed, you know, uh, then they, they, um, They don't qualify for, uh, necessary to build back. There's problems with fire, all sorts of things. But anyway, I think basically it's really a good idea because, um, uh, there are instances where, um, for one reason or another, people have a house, um, that is larger, um, or a multifamily unit that is, there's probably not very many of them that, that is, you know, um, over the requirements. And we're in the business of making more housing, not making less housing. And so, um, I think, you know, as as, um, uh, our team mentioned that this is, this is protective. And we want to, this is part of preserve, protect, you know, the 3 Ps of, um, affordable, uh, uh, affordable housing and and that we should be doing this. So I think it's a great idea. So um, I vote yes.

[05:23:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm going to support the staff recommendation too. I do think it's a inappropriate interim measure, but down the road, I think it will be important to have actual development standards to um to apply, so whether that's part of the R 3 update or something for for the down the road, that's fine, but as an interim measure, that seems reasonable. Um any other thoughts or questions? Otherwise, we'll take a quick straw pull, um, everyone in support of the staff recommendation for question 4, 12345 so that has unanimous support. Thank you. Um, okay, we've covered all of the questions, um, staff, uh, anything you would like us to clarify or anything else that we should know?

[05:24:15] Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: No, I think we have the caveats that we provided, which is we have limited time, and we're going to do our best with the housing element sites, the collaboration. Um, and uh, we'll do a quick sweep of whether they meet ATD criteria before going any deeper. So you might see some very preliminary, um, eliminations. Uh, because they're not worth pursuing at least in the housing element. Um, uh, so I think I think we're okay with the with the direction so far.

[05:24:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you very much. We appreciate your work on this and um, look forward to uh, seeing what comes back to us in a few months. Um any final thoughts from the council? Okay, um, I'm gonna propose that we take a 10 minute break, but 1st um, I'm gonna move that we continue the meeting past 10 o'clock for a 2nd. We do have one other item that is somewhat time sensitive because it applies to the upcoming election cycle. 2nd

[05:25:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: from council member show Walter. Um. City clerk, can you do a roll call, so this is to continue the meeting past 10 o'clock.

[05:25:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Hey Ramirez.

[05:25:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[05:25:31] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member show alter?

[05:25:33] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[05:25:34] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abby Coca?

[05:25:36] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hey. Nay.

[05:25:39] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay. Uh, council member, can I?

[05:25:42] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[05:25:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member labor?

[05:25:45] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes.

[05:25:46] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Matachek?

[05:25:48] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No.

[05:25:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vicemeer Hicks.

[05:25:52] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:25:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries 52.

[05:25:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, thank you. So we'll do a 10 minute break and come back at 1135 and then we'll proceed to the final item.

[05:35:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Now 1135 so well, begin item 8.one, consideration of assembly bill, 571 contribution limits, for city council candidates and campaign finance ordinance amendments, city clerk, Heather Glaser, and senior assistant city attorney Nicole Wright will present the item.

[05:35:29] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Good evening, counsel. Um, the item before you. This evening will be considered in 2 separate pieces. Everything in the report is related in the sense that it's in the realm of campaign finance, but the matters at hand are separate discussions beyond that. Um, so for a little background, state law. requires reporting campaign contributions. There we go. Thank you, Nicole. Um, and expenditures as well as disclosures in campaign communications. Local agencies can enact its own campaign finance regulations so long as those regulations do not conflict with or prevent compliance with state law. The 2 pieces of campaign finance regulations that the council will consider this evening are Recent legislation, specifically assembly bill 571. That imposes limits on contributions to candidates in local elections. Unless the local agency has taken its own action, which I'll go over shortly. And the 2nd piece is campaign finance reporting and disclosure in advertisement requirements. So I'll start off with the AB 571 portion of the presentation will pause for any questions on this specific piece, and then I'll hand the rest of the presentation off to senior assistant city attorney Nicole Wright for her piece. AB 571 went into effect January 1st, 2021, and imposes the campaign contribution limit for state candidates on all counties and cities that had not already adopted its own ordinance. As you know, the city has a voluntary expenditure limit, but no contribution limit for candidates for city council. As of today, the city has essentially defaulted to the contribution limit imposed by the state, which is $4900 for the year 2022. That's per donor per election. This only applies to contributions to a candidate's committee for the office of city council, and does not apply to funds raised in opposition of a recall. A candidate's contributions to their own campaign, or a candidate's loan to their own campaign, which is capped at a balance of $100,000. So the 3 options before counsel for this particular piece are to continue to default to the state limit, which will be biennually increased for inflation, and for which the bare political practices commission is responsible for enforcing. Um, to direct staff to come back with an ordinance that sets a different limit for the city, which can be either higher or lower than the state limit. Or 3 direct staff to come back with an ordinance that declares there is no limit in the city, which is also an option. If the council chooses to go with either option 2 or 3. The ordinance would be inclusive of any other direction. You get to staff this evening on the campaign finance reporting and disclosure and advertisement piece. With that, assistant city attorney, Diana Fazili, and I are available for any questions about this particular piece of the report.

[05:39:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Any questions from the council? Council member really?

[05:39:08] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor. Um, would we be able to set uh, one limit? Uh. For candidates that accept the spending limit. And another for those who don't.

[05:39:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: I'm under the impression that that's possible, but I would leave that up to Diana to, um, to answer if she's available for that.

[05:39:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So Diana should be, uh, promoted to panelist now.

[05:39:54] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: Good evening, mayor and council members. Um, yes, it is possible to have different contribution limits based on the acceptance of a voluntary, um, expenditure limit.

[05:40:08] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And. So if I, if I may may or with follow-up question, um, if we, for example, set a limit of, uh, $500 for candidates who, uh, do not accept the limit and a 1000 for, Candidates that do, if, um, If a candidate violated the limit, Uh, could they be required to uh, turn back money to their contributors? Anna.

[05:40:48] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: Um. We would have to look into that specifically. Um, I apologize. I don't know the answer at this moment, but we can look into that and get back to you.

[05:41:02] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[05:41:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions from the council? Um, not seeing any, so uh, staff can proceed with the presentation.

[05:41:21] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Thank you, mayor, council members. I'll be presenting as, um, said it quickly as you mentioned on the remaining recommendations included in the staff report. And, Sorry. So, um, given the late hour as well. I'll do a brief overview of, um, of the presentation and I might skip over some of the content that's all been included in the staff report. I'd be happy there to address any questions that counsel might have on anything that I, that I do go over quickly at the end of the presentation. Um, so there's 2 additional pieces that were seeking uh, council direction on this evening. Um, the 1st are um, staff recommended amendments to the city's disclosure and advertisement ordinance. This ordinance requires disclosures on advertisements for the top 5 contributors contributing $2,500 or more. Um, And staff recommending for, um, amendments to our local ordinance, um, that were identified by staff during the most recent 2020 election cycle, and these are all listed on screen. In addition, uh, staff you can counsel direction on whether to include enhanced reporting and disclosure requirements. Um, during the 2020 election, there were advertisements that were distributed that did not include disclosures identifying the, um, individual responsible for the advertisement. Council had requested staff to identify as ways to improve transparency, um, in campaign literature, and staff has identified, um, a recommended approach to to do so for council consideration. So this, um, so as background state law, uh, establishes requirements for reporting uh, certain campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as disclosures that must be made on campaign communications, um, for disclosures. Uh, there's, it's dependent upon 2 things, the type of communication that's issued and who is doing the communicating. Whether disclosures are required on an advertisement depends on whether the individual or group of individuals. either a candidate or qualifies as a committee under state law. Um, State law defines a committee to include an individual or group of individuals receiving contributions, totaling $2000 or more, or making independent expenditures, totaling $1000 or more. And, um, a person or a group of persons that don't meet these threshold limits and don't meet these definitions would not qualify as a committee and therefore would not be subject to reporting and disclosure requirements. The city can enact additional measures to provide greater transparency than, um, than those required under state law. The city can enact additional reporting requirements, as well as additional disclosure requirements, and can lower the threshold amount, that would, um, qualify a committee, as a committee, and subject them to disclosure and reporting obligations. If counsel is interested in additional disclosure and advertisements and reporting requirements, staff is recommending a reduced threshold of $500 or more. That would, um, qualify, um, a committee and make them subject to disclosure in advertisement and reporting requirements, and that these would be applicable to, uh, local committees. And the recommended approach, um, that staff is presenting is to help ensure that the ordinance is enforceable and to ensure enforcement. If directed by council, staff will finalize an ordinance to address um, any or all of these items discussed and presented this evening. Um, staff would return mid-April with an ordinance for introduction. And that concludes staff's presentation, and I have the recommendations upon screen. Happy to address any questions counsel has on this. 2nd piece of the presentation this evening.

[05:45:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member I'll be COVID.

[05:45:56] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. Um, and uh, I guess my question, um, Using the scenario, my the experience from the last election, and I think you touched on it, the, um, the concern, I guess, or the question I had has to do with, um, I guess mass nailing. So, you know, I saw the same flyer at many, many, um, residences. Um, so if it's mass mailing by an individual, um, is, Or, if it, it, Totals 200 or more of the same flyer. Does that trigger any kind of um, disclosure? requirements.

[05:46:47] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Yeah, so, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[05:46:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: No, no, sorry.

[05:46:51] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Sorry, council member. Um, yeah, so there's 2 um, I'm gonna go back to the slide. So yeah, so for mass mailing requirements to apply, which is defined as 200 substantially similar pieces of mail, sent within a calendar year for that to apply. Um, it would either apply to a candidate or to a committee, right? And so in order for that to apply to an individual issuing them, that individual would have to meet the definition of a committee, meaning that um, they've met those threshold amounts. So an individual sending out, you know, mass mailing, 200 pieces of mail, but it costs, you know, $400 for them to issue it would not meet the threshold requirements to qualify as a committee and would not be subject to the mass mailing requirements. Does that, hopefully that addresses your question.

[05:47:41] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: individual could put out a flyer, the same flyer, as long as it's under, or as long as they haven't spent, let's say, whatever we decide, the, um, disclosure requirement, I think you recommend $500. So if they're under $500, they can put out as many flyers as they want without disclosing who they are. Is that is that?

[05:48:04] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Correct. Yeah.

[05:48:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And but then for candidates, they have to disclose.

[05:48:13] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Sorry. Correct. Yep.

[05:48:16] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you.

[05:48:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Leaper.

[05:48:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you mayor. Um, in terms of the, the over 200 pieces, um, and requiring identification. So those are on mailings. So if, if an individual wanted to, Produce their own flyers and go all over town leaving them as handbills, then they would be free to do that.

[05:48:55] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: They would. Um, so that's where the advertisement, um, disclosure requirements could apply. Again, it would be dependent upon, um, whether the individual creating the flyers and distributing them would constitute a committee. So whether the dollar thresholds again are met. Um, if those dollar thresholds are. So we're proposing $500. So if an individual spent $600 making signs and flyers and distributing them, um, then they would qualify as a committee and be subject to disclosure requirements.

[05:49:30] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And, um, so we used to have an individual in town, who, um, really specialized in that, and, um, So, how would, um, How would you identify who, who a flyer came from? Um, and uh, How how would they be directed to, you know, we've found you now in in your, you're a committee. Um, and so now we're going to take action, but how does that happen?

[05:50:14] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Yeah, so I think, um, I think there's a couple pieces to that. So, you know, if they comply with the requirements, it would mean that then they would have to submit, um, can't file campaign statements with the city. Um, to form their committee as well as the, um, the period reporting that's required in educate cluster election reporting there, um, any contributions in over a 100 and expenditures. Um, and I think what, is a little trickier as if someone is not complying by, you know, submitting those campaign statements and also issuing, um, advertisements without disclosures. Um... becomes a little more difficult to do. Um, if somebody wants to subvert compliance with, with the law. I think the idea that we're proposing is, um, assumes I get some level of compliance or or, um, or trying to comply.

[05:51:12] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And what about, um, Uh, non-candidate controlled committees. So picks, et cetera. That, that are formed. And they do not do the required disclosures. Um, in terms of they don't, they don't file reports. Uh, they don't file late expenditures. They don't file. But they are a pack, and they are active.

[05:51:49] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Um. So just to clarify, meaning that they have formed the committee, but they are delinquent or not complying with their reporting obligations and their disclosures. Um, I think and we'd have to consider what the enforcement mechanisms would be, especially if we have information to know, you know, who is violating, just like any of our other ordinances, we'd have some enforcement measures, um, and we'd have to consider how we would, how we would propose enforcement of that.

[05:52:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[05:52:24] Interim City Attorney Jannie L. Quinn: And if I could just add, there are, the FPPC does some enforcement, and then this is enforcement of the city regulations. And so we've structured the ordinance so that it, It is, Like, It's like the state law and so that it goes out for committees because that is a way that we can prove it. So we use the reporting requirements to enforce the disclosure requirements. And we also, in drafting these regulations, had to consider the fact that there is some First Amendment rights to have anonymous speech. And, um, and so we, we try to do a balancing act about, um, targeting what is the real problem that we're trying to solve and also making that an a workable enforcement mechanism.

[05:53:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council members show Walter.

[05:53:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I think in a sense, I was going to ask the same question that Sally was getting to, um, and that's basically, if somebody wants to, um, make, uh, flyers on their home printer, Um, basically, it's the cost of the paper. And I guess you could attribute some ink to it. But I mean, you can make a lot of, you can make a lot of flyers. Um, and if you're not mailing them, then they don't really qualify this way. If they're just being distributed, you know, door to door. They't qualify, right? Um, So, Is that correct?

[05:54:08] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Yeah. Yeah, that that's correct, if they're not meeting the dollar threshold, then it wouldn't constitute a committee requiring the disclosure. So yes.

[05:54:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And we don't attribute any, um, amount of money to, uh, volunteer hours or, um, that kind of thing at all, right? There's no formula for that.

[05:54:26] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: It's, Not that I'm aware of. Um, that's something that I haven't seen, no.

[05:54:33] Councilmember Pat Showalter: All right, thank you.

[05:54:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member, Robbie Koga.

[05:54:40] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Where, um, I guess I wanted to follow up on council member leapers line of questioning. So, um, yeah, how would we be able to track down someone who might be putting out, you know, flyers, nailers, signs, um, If to know if they're violating or not or following, I guess, the, um, the ordinances and and the, the policy. Um, I understand, and I guess that's my my question. I understand there's a free speech, right to free speech, but, um, you know, I'm really interested in transparency. I think it's fine for anyone to say whatever they want to, but, you know, I think it's important for folks to know who those folks are, and then, yeah, how do we, how do we measure whether they're following the rules.

[05:55:41] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Yeah, no. Under, under our, oh, under our current disclosure, um, ordinance, and it's also similar under state law, which as, um, interim city attorney Quinn mentioned, which is based upon the frame, the current framework for state law, the notion is there's a requirement for filing campaign statements, right, that include expenditures being made, right, and costs going out related to the production of advertisements. And then if there are advertisements, um, that we become aware of, that don't have disclosures, or in the instance of our local ordinance for not having top contributors included, we utilize those campaign statements to determine whether or not they're in compliance. Um, so I think it would similarly apply here. Um, where if if they're filing campaign statements, we can do that check to see if they're appropriately disclosing. But, um, But the issue is, well, what if they're not filing anything and we think that it could be a committee, right? How do you enforce that?

[05:56:47] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And not knowing who they are.

[05:56:51] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Yeah, I guess that's the challenge, right? If you don't know who it is, you don't know if that person or is an individual or a committee. Um, there's just absolutely no way to, um, figure that out.

[05:57:06] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, if there's no requirement, I guess, to register and at some point, um, other than the $500 limit. Is that, or is there, like, can the city require some kind of registration or something so that we at least can, you know, that we can track who's doing what?

[05:57:29] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Well, and that's what, that's what staff is proposing that we would require that, um, that the threshold of $500. anybody meeting that threshold in expenditures or receipt of contributions? Would form a committee and file that required paperwork with the city clerk and would file campaign statements. Um, And assuming that they comply with that, then we would be able, it would help us with enforcement, right? Um, I understood the question to be if, you know, if they're actually expending $600, but they're not filing anything, how do we enforce? And I think, you know, If we don't have anything or knowledge of who they are, that's where it becomes a little bit more difficult for enforcement purposes.

[05:58:11] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: There's no way of addressing that, it sounds like.

[05:58:17] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: I mean, not that I can. Think of offhand. I mean, I think, um, I think we can go back and take a look at what the FPPC does at the state level for if there's a committee that, you know, should be formed, but isn't, um, you know, because they're expending $1100 in independent expenditures. Um, what the enforcement mechanism is there or what, you know, how would they address complaints, but, um, offhand. And from kind of my working with our disclosure and advertisement and ordinance, you know, I'm, I'm not I'm not sure how that would be accomplished necessarily.

[05:58:56] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you

[05:59:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member labor.

[05:59:02] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Wondering if the the city attorney can talk a little bit more about, um, the the right to free speech and and the right to, um, not register with the government. Um, it seems like in, uh, you know, other countries, Russia or wherever you, you have to, um, register with the government to, to speak out or to, um, put out Thomas Payne style pamphlets on the street or something like that. Um, but we don't seem to have that for individuals who, um, where it's not saying, Vote for Fred Smith. For council. It's saying, whatever more diffuse message.

[06:00:01] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: It's a it's always a balancing test when you when you get involved with constitutional rights. And it's, we looked at where the FPPC draws a line. They draw the line at $100 is when you have to disclose a contribution. So, whether they, they chose that dollar amount for out of constitutional concerns or practical realities of enforcement. Um, that was one thing we looked at. Then we looked at other cities and what, what dollar amounts that they included in their ordinances for these additional reporting and disclosure requirements. And then there's also the very practical effect of the amount of time that goes into enforcement and staffing levels. And so, um, you know, to date, we had really focused on, um, you know, having to disclose at a certain level, and we were looking at reducing that dollar amount, which is going to increase the potential of workload for the city attorney's office in the city clerk's office. Now, we do investigate on a complaint basis. But the lower you make that dollar limit. So we find somebody has 10 flyers. Um, you know, is that the level of enforcement, that, that we should, That that resources should be dedicated to that level of enforcement. Um, So that was really kind of our thinking when we structured the recommendation this way.

[06:01:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Any other questions? Not seen any, uh, so I will, um, turn to the public for. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item. If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. The timer will be displayed on the screen. Um, let's allocate uh, 2 minutes. Uh the 1st speaker is Emily and Ramos.

[06:02:10] Emily Ramos: Hi, can you hear me?

[06:02:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[06:02:14] Emily Ramos: Awesome. So, uh, there was a question from council member, leave her to staff about what happens when, uh, if there's a separate contribution limit based on acceptance of the voluntary expenditure limit. So the cities that you want to look at are the city of Downey has an example of that, our county has an example of that. Um, the city of Hayward has that as an example of that. And the city of Newark has an example of that. For the city of Newark, what it actually has, um, a lot of, um, What they have is if a candidate accepts the, the, a contribution, and then finds themselves in violation of the voluntary expenditure limit. Eventually, they have 14 days to return the excess of the contribution. Um. With these various things, there's really wide ranging levels of how much the contribution limit would actually be, like the city of Downing has like in 1000s comparatively difference. The city of Hayward has the, if you don't accept the voluntary expenditure limit, your contribution limit is like $350 But if you, um, But if you do accept it, it's a $1000 so like there's, the, the actual, uh, the actual amount, um, changes with the county, if a, if someone, uh, goes past the voluntary expenditure limit and had accepted contributions of the beyond the contribution limit that they were originally attached to, um, it is a complaint driven process. And then based on the judgment of the FDPC will determine the outcome of that. Um, and I have not seen someone actually do that, but granted, the voluntary expenditure limit for the counties, $250,000, and my God, if you can't win an election with that much money, then. Good luck with you on that.

[06:04:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Katie Zoglin.

[06:04:24] Katie Zoglin: Good evening, I'm Mayor Lucas and City Council members. I'm, um, Katie Zaglin. I am a long-term resident of Mountain View, and I'm speaking on behalf of the League of Women voters, the Los Altos Mountain View area chapter. Um, as you may know, the League of Women voters supports campaign finance practices that increase transparency in funding sources in political campaigns so that voters can be more informed when making their decisions. And the league also supports the effective monitoring enforcement of campaign finance laws. The league would support, uh, the city council enacting some kind of contribution limit for candidates. For city council races, as well as the disclosure requirements for committee contributions. We may provide more specific recommendations in the future. But 1st wanted to hear the rest of tonight's discussion. And also, I want to thank the city clerk's office and city attorney's office for their, um, their memo, and I want to, we, a league would like to thank you all for taking up this important issue.

[06:05:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next is Tim McKenzie.

[06:05:36] Tim McKenzie: Greetings, all? real barn burner tonight. Uh, one of the worst uh, things that was, that has happened in my lifetime in terms of uh, judicial decisions was, Citizens United, where speech was decided to be money, um, that the huge infusion of money in politics is really a something that we need to fight back against. It would be great to have some sort of uh, contribution limits and disclosure things at the local level so that we can do what we can. Um, So hope to see something like that. Thank you.

[06:06:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: The next speaker is Celine DiMerci.

[06:06:30] Celine DiMerci: Hi, yeah, sorry. I just want to briefly ditto the written comment from Kevin Ma, and the oral comment from Emily Aunt Ramos, who, by the way, 2 days ago, won the 2022 Woman of the Year award in California Senate District 13. Okay.

[06:06:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Kevin Ma.

[06:06:57] Kevin Ma: Morning, council. Um, so yes, I'm going to echo basically the points I made in my letter, sent her, sent yesterday now. Um, basically, inherently, rules are only as effective as they are, if they can be enforced with punishments that are felt. I've seen FPPC violations that. Took it 4 years to investigate, which is inherently, Not that great of a punishment or deterrent for most people. So I would like to see some kind of process. So that the system can be done, can be better suited to find these kind of violations proactively rather than necessarily always based on a complaint-based model. I mean, obviously, of the staffing, but fundamentally, I like to see perhaps better. In terms of like timelines of investigations. Thank you.

[06:07:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[06:07:56] Alex Brown: Hey, I'd like to concur with the previous speakers. I am also very much in support of limits. Uh, I would also say limit any sort of loan. Uh, I think that, you know, taking on debt to yourself that then can be reconciled outside of the campaign cycle is shady, uh, to the least. But yeah, enforcement is very important. I think that anything here needs to be something that matters if we're going to actually try to have clean, fair elections where the voters know who they're voting for and why. I am also very much in favor of transparency. I would focus more on money and interests who are investing in candidates that can provide them with favorable legislation instead of active community groups who are just distributing flyers. Thanks.

[06:08:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Christine Keller.

[06:08:51] Christine Keller: Hi, counsel, um, I just wanted to add in here, um, I would love to see limits on this and, um, would, um, love to see less flyers in the mail. Thank you so much.

[06:09:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Being no other members of the public, we will return to the council. Uh for deliberation and action. Emotion is in order. It's not a study session, so uh, we will need a formal notion to provide direction to staff, and uh, when appropriate, staff, if you wouldn't mind, um, showing that the screen with the recommendations that might be helpful, council member lever.

[06:09:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, you're you're you're still muted.

[06:09:43] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you.

[06:09:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Those are the top words of the year. you're you're muted.

[06:09:48] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I am very interested in a differential for candidates that accept limits. The spending limits versus those who don't. And I'd like to suggest a $500 contribution, uh, limit on candidates that, uh, do not accept the voluntary spending limit, and a $1000 contribution limit for those who do. And I, I'd like to, um, include, uh, request that staff bring back an ordinance that, um, uh, provides for, um, packs and, um, non-candidate controlled committees that do not file to, Uh, be turned over to the FPPC, And whatever is the appropriate time frame 30 days. Um, because I think the, the process of waiting for the FPPC to find them, um, is not working. Thank you.

[06:11:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You did not make a motion? Are you just...

[06:11:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: You can make that as a motion.

[06:11:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so that would be for the staff recommendation, um, with the modifications that you you've made. So that's the reporting mechanism and then the, uh, the split limit, $500 for candidates who do not accept the expenditure limit and a 1000 for candidates who do accept the expenditure limit.

[06:11:45] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes.

[06:11:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Um. Is there a 2nd for the motion?

[06:11:55] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I'll go ahead and 2nd it.

[06:11:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: or council member I'll be cooking.

[06:12:00] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I would, in a 2nd of it. I just wanted to make clarify, is the, um, the 3 points are included. Is that right? So the the 3rd one with the $500 um expenditure is included in this motion? Is that right?

[06:12:16] Councilmember Sally Lieber: That's one.

[06:12:18] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Then I'm happy to 2nd it. Okay, I'm happy to give you the 2nd.

[06:12:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, Council member, Madachek.

[06:12:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So if we have limits that are different from the states. Um, Can you? You, you couldn't turn those over to the FPPC because they have a different limit. Is that right? Or can you turn them over?

[06:12:51] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Because the FPPC, um, monitors and enforces state regulations, our city staff monitors and enforces local regulations.

[06:13:02] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I guess I'm confused about what did you say would be turned over to the FPPC?

[06:13:07] Councilmember Sally Lieber: True, if I may. Um, what I'm saying would be turned over to the FPPC are, uh, the non-candidate committees who do not file. And that comes under the FPPC, because they are required by the FPPC to file with the local filing officer, who in our case would be the city clerk. And so if they do not do that, I don't want to wait for the FPPC to go through 1000s and 1000s of committees. And find that that was never done. I'd rather have us proactively. Turn them in for enforcement. And and I think that by making it packs, rather than, um, candidate controlled committees, we would not be catching up, you know, a hapless 1st time candidate who has a treasure who's never done that before, and, um, and and is someone that we could give warnings to and would get compliance. But I think if, if a pack is organized enough to, to have a pack, say the Silicon Valley organization or, uh, what have you, then, uh, they're organized to do their legally required filings.

[06:14:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm a member of Matachek. You still off the floor? Do you have any other questions or comments?

[06:14:48] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I guess I, um. If somebody is, if a pack is not required to file at the state level until they hit $2000. Is that the case?

[06:15:02] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: But I'm sorry, Matt, I don't know. If I can trip in, I can't figure out how to raise my hand. I apologize. Um, if I can address council member Mattachek's question.

[06:15:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Of course. Thank you.

[06:15:16] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Um, so yeah, I think that's right. I think that if, um, if we're reducing the threshold for what would qualify as a committee to $500, it would be the city to enforce if a committee that either makes those expenditures or receives contributions of that amount. We're not filing required, um, committee formation paper, you know, documents or campaign statements with the city clerk. Um, if, If the request is that, you know, if we become aware of committees that are meeting the state thresholds that we facilitate that to the FPC for their review and investigation, that would be, um, pursuant to the state requirements of those state limits. So if we're gonna, if we're gonna enact, um, lower threshold amounts, than it would be for the city to enforce if a committee is not, um, complying with those lower dollar thresholds.

[06:16:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Like, Council member Medicheck, or sorry, um, interim city attorney. Do you want speak to this?

[06:16:24] Interim City Attorney Quinn: I just had a question for Heather as what is our practice when we find that they're not. Complying with the state. State law because I know on occasion. We try for voluntary compliance and if we don't get voluntary compliance. Um, What steps do we take?

[06:16:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Right. Um, I can't speak to what clerks have done before me. But my practice is, um, to try to get voluntary compliance to try and contact that committee in a variety of different ways and document, at least, you know, 3 attempts to, get their attention and tell them, you know, how serious it is and then, um, and then I report them. And they know that. They're being they're being warned.

[06:17:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: A dramatic check. Did you have any questions?

[06:17:34] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Also, can I just get clarification on what council member of labor's, um, motion is on that last point. Is it to just say we're turning in committees to the FPPC, but leaving the, uh, threshold for when you have to form a committee at the state level because we're turning them into the FPPC. So we're not reducing it to 5000. We're leaving it. I'm sorry, 500. We're leaving it at 2000.

[06:18:03] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Right, same thing. Committees that are formed that are not candidate controlled.

[06:18:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Does that clarify? the motion?

[06:18:22] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so we're not, um, what's not included is the lowering of the threshold for which you have to form a committee.

[06:18:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: And just to clarify that the 2nd of the motion is that also your understanding?

[06:18:40] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: No, that was actually what I had asked. I wanted to make sure that item 3 was included, and I was, I was told, I believe I was, it was a yes. So if you're changing that and taking 3 out, then I can't 2nd the motion. Or I might try to, I guess, make another motion.

[06:19:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So are you, is it including 3 or not including 3 council believer?

[06:19:13] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Through the mirror, if I may, my understanding of staff's recommendation, uh, number 3 is that what staff is saying is that if anyone, um, makes expenditures in excess of $500 that they would need to, form a committee.

[06:19:41] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Yeah. Yeah.

[06:19:46] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And that applies just to local committees.

[06:19:52] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Yes,

[06:19:52] Councilmember Sally Lieber: so I'm, I am including it in my motion. And then I'd like to memorialize what it sounds like the city clerks process that she's used before. Um, will be.

[06:20:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, yeah, and, um, So is that sufficient for council member Rabbi Koga?

[06:20:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I, I, I think, uh, it counselor Manachek might have been asking is what is the enforcement or mechanism or, or, if you violate five, the 3rd point, if you, File at $500, but because that's our cities, requirement, not the states, the state wouldn't, I don't think necessarily can enforce that. So is there, I guess we'd have to talk about what an enforcement mechanism or what the, um, consequences are, um, at the city level, if you don't do three. Is that right, Councilman?

[06:21:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, yeah, so, um, I think we just have to come and, you know, I could, I'm open to just us asking staff to come back with some options on how we could, um, enforce the 3rd point at the city level. if council member leave where you're comfortable with that.

[06:21:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I have no problem with it through the chair, if I may. Um, I think they're separate points. Um, Because what I'm talking about is, is, formed committees. that are are non-candidate controlled committees that have already been formed and then don't, don't file in the midst of an election.

[06:21:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: City clerk, I saw your hand up. Did you want to speak to this?

[06:21:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, no, I just wanted to clarify quickly with um, interim city attorney and um, the senior assistant city attorney whether or not .5 was .3 was meant to also apply to candidate controlled or if we're just um, considering um, every other local, um, committee that's not candidate controlled.

[06:22:24] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Uh, yes, and I can, I can answer that. It's to non-candidate controlled committee, so every other local committee.

[06:22:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: for that clarification. Council member Metachek. Thank you. Um,

[06:22:45] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: so I just want to clarify then, have their, uh, our city clerk glazer. Uh, the process you would use if a non-candidate committee. Or maybe this is council member of Behogus point, a non-candidate committee spends a $1000 so they're not required to file anything with the state. So you would be monitoring, um, compliance, and then staff would come back to us with how we might enforce that. Compliance. But they're only filing at the local level.

[06:23:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yeah, I mean, going back kind of to what, um, senior assistant, city attorney, Wright mentioned before, you know, if someone isn't filing, um, at that lower threshold. And we don't know about it, you don't know what you don't know. So, um, you know, if I had knowledge of something, then that would be one thing if I don't have any knowledge of, of, who should be filing at that lower threshold. Um, that's gonna make enforcement, regardless of what enforcement it is, that's gonna make enforcement difficult.

[06:24:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, I think for everybody's benefit, it might be good to clarify the motion. Uh, council member lever. Would you mind reiterating the motion that you've made?

[06:24:20] Councilmember Sally Lieber: So my, my motion would be to, um, Establish, limits of, uh, $500 contributions for candidates that do not accept the voluntary spending limit. And $1000 contribution limits for candidates who do accept the voluntary spending limit. And then, 2nd that we, uh, direct staff to return with an ordinance that includes the recommended campaign disclosure, in advertisements, ordinance amendments. Uh, 3rd that, uh, we direct staff to, uh, return with, uh, additional reporting and disclosure requirements for local committees that receive contributions or make expenditures in excess of $500. And then 4th that, We, um, direct staff to return with a process, uh, for, um, reporting non-candidate controlled committees. Uh, that, that, Do not do their reporting uh, to the FPPC.

[06:25:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: That would be empowered return with some options based on.

[06:26:01] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes.

[06:26:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Whatever. Investigate. Okay. Thank you. and council member Abi Koga. You're comfortable with that motion as restated.

[06:26:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[06:26:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great, thank you. Sorry. I couldn't find you on the, um. Uh the gallery. Uh, okay, so that's the motion, um, council member show Walter.

[06:26:30] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I just, um, it seems like what we're trying to do is, um, obviously get this lower level committee, um, uh, to be more transparent, that's a great thing. But if we're trying to be more transparent at the high end, I wonder if, having, um, a contribution limit is kind of counterproductive to that, because, um, It seems to me in our, uh, disclosure ordinance, if you have, you, you need to, um, Disclose that it's, it's your committee and who are the top donors of your committee. So, if you have somebody that's given over, you know, the highest amount, given over $1000, that person comes up. So that, or that, or that group comes up. So that adds transparency to everything, whereas if you have limits, um, I don't think you're going to differentiate the donors as well. So I'm wondering if the, if the limits for the, um, you know, the, for the candidates who do accept the, uh, the voluntary limit are, are, are going to accomplish what we're, we're um, interested in. I, I, I think it would be better if we, if we just went with the state limit. But, um,

[06:27:55] Senior Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: I'm sorry, uh, it's important to clarify that the campaign disclosure and advertise, advertisements ordinance does not apply to candidate controlled committees, and the contribution limits only apply, candidate controlled committee, so, so there are different regulations for, for different campaign committees.

[06:28:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Uh, Council member, who may?

[06:28:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So, um, I just, um, I just wanted to say, so I'm not gonna, as I understand it, and there's been a lot of discussion and it's late. As I understand it, I'm, I'm not gonna be supporting the motion. I agree with council member show Walter. Um, I think defaulting to, um, the state limit, as stated in assembly bill, 571 is work is fine with me. It sounds like too, with how the compliance works. It would, it sounds like it wouldn't be, um, so heavily taxing on the city clerk's office. That's that's what I'm hearing. I don't know if that's, that's correct, but I'm comfortable with the state. Um, the state, uh, contribution limit, and I'm I'm comfortable with it because the city of Mountain View already has a voluntary expenditure limit. And to me, biting by the voluntary expenditure limit kind of gets to, I think, what people's concerns are, which is, um, the amount of money that can go into a campaign to, if there's already a limit set on how much you can spend. And we're going to be adhering to the state contribution limit, you know, I would say in a city that's nearly 90,000 people, um, I, I may, I just feel comfortable with it. Um, So, uh, I'll be stating that I am supportive of the additional item that was added about, um, um, independent, uh, campaign committee, sorry, like, it's a little too late for me. Um, but I was um, supportive of item number four. But as the motion stands, um, uh, I would be supportive of the state limit, not what we're, what's in front of us right now. Thanks.

[06:30:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Mattachek.

[06:30:23] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I also am in support of the state limits, um, per assembly bill, 571, um, because the exact same reasons, councilman McMay just stated. Um, so I um, would not be supporting lower contribution limits. Thanks.

[06:30:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I'll take a quick turn. I'm happy to support the motion. I do think, um, the default contribution limits are a little high, uh, San Jose and the county have contribution limits that that are lower than ma- what Mountain View would have if we adopted the default limits and I, it's hard. I mean, I, I think the, you know, valid perspectives, but I think in this case a, a $1000 limit in, in Mountain View for those who adhere to the voluntary expenditure limit. Um, seems reasonable, and what I. About the split approach is that encourages people to participate in the voluntary expenditure limit because uh if you don't then you have a lower contribution limit so it's it's a bit of a penalty for those who decide not to participate. Um any other comments? Clarifying thoughts uh council member for me?

[06:31:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I mean, I don't know if we have the history for this mayor, but my understanding is that at least in recent memory, memory, all candidates have, um, adhere to the voluntary expenditure limit. At least the last, I want to say 2 decades is my understanding of what I can remember. So, you know, I think, again, my, my point being less about the actual contribution limit than the actual spending within the campaign, which to me is of greater concern when you see council races that are, uh, you know, into the, the 100s of 1000s. Um, and mountain view being our new limit is 27,000. Um, you know, to me, that limit is more important. Um, and my understanding is that every candidate adheres to that. Thanks.

[06:32:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, any other questions, um, Final comments. If not, then I'll ask the city clerk uh to commence the roll call.

[06:32:51] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member labor?

[06:32:52] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes.

[06:32:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abby Koga?

[06:32:55] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[06:32:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member, can I?

[06:32:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: No.

[06:33:01] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek?

[06:33:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Now.

[06:33:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Counselor Walter?

[06:33:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No.

[06:33:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[06:33:11] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[06:33:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Amirez?

[06:33:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[06:33:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries 43.

[06:33:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Uh, then, uh, we'll move now to item 9 uh, council staff committee report.

[06:33:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I actually had one, I question, um, related to the, the earlier item. Um, I know like before elections, we usually have like, um, a review of all of our campaign, um, rules and whatnot, and I wanted to ask the interim city attorney if there were some other items that, um, will be returning to us, um, one thing I can think of is like the, the sign, the public lots where the signs have gone. Um, you know, we've done that inventory of sites in the past, but we'll, all, all of those items be coming back to us before, um, election time starts.

[06:34:13] Interim City Attorney Jennifer Quinn: Um, We had it planned to bring the inventory back to you and obviously it's not an item on the agenda tonight. Um, but, Um, It would actually be my recommendation for the council, to majority of the council, to direct me to bring the political, signed ordinance back as a part of these campaign, um, ordinance amendments, um, to repeal it. As a result of some recent case law about the inforcibility of that ordinance.

[06:34:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, I, I, yeah, if there's some changes that would necessitate us to have to, um, repeal the, the, our ordinance, I think we definitely should look at that. So I would, um, recommend that we, we do ask that in terms of the training to bring that back.

[06:35:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Yeah, and there is a clear majority, um, to provide that direction. Um, any other uh, council uh, or committee reports? member met a check.

[06:35:23] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, I'll just report that um, I participated in another airport land use commission meeting. And we had a council of finance committee meeting where we talked about the, um, contract with our auditor. Like, I think that comes to council, right? After the CF Saver. Okay. Thanks.

[06:35:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member, I'll be okay.

[06:35:52] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. The county's uh, hate crimes test force met last week. Um, I probably have heard that uh, they have their final report out. Happy to send that to everyone if you haven't seen it yet. Um, I hope that we will have a chance to go over it perhaps through our, um, ad hoc committee on, uh, race equity and inclusion. Um, and then I also wanted to request, um, that counsel, pass a resolution or take up a resolution. Um, uh, speaking out against, um, anti-Semitic activity and sentiment, um, as you may have read in the newspaper, our neighboring city had, um, neighborhoods fired with anti-Semitic hate, um, leaflets, and it's, it's not, um, it's going around quite a, in a, of quite a few communities around us. Um, we've done, you know, a resolution against, uh, anti-Asian hate and, um, also did a Black Lives Matter resolution. And so I would like to ask if we could do one denouncing anti-Semitic activity and sentiment.

[06:37:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'll turn to the city clerk. I believe we have one in the works, but I don't remember which month.

[06:37:21] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No. In May.

[06:37:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. So, uh, it's, uh, it's, um, in the in the queue, but, um, is, is that, is that okay?

[06:37:31] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I would, if it's possible, and I have language, I'm happy to, um, you know, forward, if that would help to, I'd like to do it sooner than later, since this is happening now, I think waiting until May might just, it just, you know, is a little late for me. So I'm happy to help. Yeah, draft the language if that would help move it along more quickly.

[06:37:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, um, uh, staff, would you like direction or um, could, could you, um, without an explicit vote? Uh try and bring it a little bit sooner.

[06:38:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yeah, we can look at bringing it sooner is there date that you were targeting? That would be helpful.

[06:38:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I was hoping we could do it at our next meeting. Um, and again, yeah, I have some draft language if that would help to make it go work quickly.

[06:38:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay, well, um, work to get that on the next agenda.

[06:38:34] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay,

[06:38:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I think we also had an intended recipient. That might be a proclamation. Um, uh, so, uh, council member, if you, feel free to send the language to the city clerk and we'll, we'll, we'll try and make that happen as quickly as possible. Um, thank you for the, the suggestion. Any other uh comments or reports? If not, then we'll proceed to item 10 uh interim city attorney Quinn. Do you have a closed session report?

[06:39:07] Interim City Attorney Jennifer Quinn: On further reflection? I do have a closed session report this evening. In accordance with California government code section 54957.one. Approval was given to legal counsel to refrain from seeking appellate review of the order issued by the judge on the motion for judgment as a matter of law in Fugal versus the city of Mountain View. It all case. It's 517 CV 03249BLF and the ninth circuit case number is 21 dash 162276. This is a federal civil rights case involving the issue of consent. And that concludes my closed session report.

[06:39:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for joining the council meeting. The next meeting will be held on March 22, 2022. The meeting is adjourned at 1240 AM. Thank you everyone have a good morning.

• ← Previous
• Next →